Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/30/2026Ryan L. Butler Clerk of Circuit Court & Comptroller Clerk to the Board and Value Adjustment Board 1801 27t" Street Vero Beach, FL 32960 �* t fttXtit>4- Telephone: (772) 226-1432 Fax: (772) 978-1857 E-mail: Axia(aindianriverclerk.com Web address: http://indianriverclerk.com AGENDA VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD (VAB) ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING "A" A2-511 THURSDAY, JULY 30, 2026 @ 11:30 A.M. BOARD MEMBERS Joseph E. Flescher, Commissioner, Chairman Joseph H. Earman, Commissioner, Vice Chairman Jacqueline Rosario, School Board Member Dr. Peggy Jones, Alternate School Board Member Angie Schepers, Business Citizen Member Rick Wykoff, Homesteaded Citizen Member, 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. INVOCATION — Commissioner Joseph H. Earman 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE — Commissioner Joseph E. Flescher 4. BOARD MEMBERS LIST AND VAS CONTACT INFORMATION A. Introduction of Board Members/Board Clerk B. Board Members list and designated Board Clerk's contact information ..............1 5. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES A. VAS Final Meeting Minutes of April 30, 2026...........................................................2-5 2026 VAB Organizational Meeting Agenda Page 1 July 30, 2026 6. APPROVE A RESOLUTION SETTING THE FILING FEE TO THE AMOUNT DETERMINED BY THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD, NOT TO EXCEED $50 PER PARCEL FOR THE 2026 PETITION FILING PERIOD, PURSUANT TO F.S. 194.013. A. Draft VAS Resolution 2026-1......................................................................................6-7 7. APPOINT ATTORNEY APPLICANTS TO SERVE AS A SPECIAL MAGISTRATE FOR EXEMPTION/CLASSIFICATION/TAX DEFERRAL HEARINGS, PURSUANT TO F.S. 194.035 A. Richard M. Carnell, Jr . .............................................................................................. 8-22 B. James Haynes Davis..................................................................................................23-41 8. REVIEW, DISCUSS, AND SET THE RATE OF PAY FOR THE ATTORNEY SPECIAL MAGISTRATES (The current rate of pay for Atlorney Special Magistrates is $125.00 per hour) A. Attorney Special Magistrate Rate of Pay Memorandum...........................................42 B. VAB Rate Survey......................................................................................................43-49 9. DISCUSSION AND APPOINTMENT OF APPRAISER APPLICANTS TO SERVE AS SPECIAL MAGISTRATES FOR REAL PROPERTY VALUATION, PURSUANT TO F.S. 194.035. A. Maxim Antonov........................................................................................................50-69 B. Stephen Boyle.............................................................................................................70-81 C. Robert Busier.............................................................................................................82-89 D. Douglas Lawson.......................................................................................................90-100 E. Terrie Peltier..........................................................................................................101-111 F. Scott Sehr...............................................................................................................112-122 10. REVIEW, DISCUSS, AND SET THE RATE OF PAY FOR APPRAISER SPECIAL MAGISTRATES (The current rate ofpayfor Appraiser Special Magistrates is $125.00per hour) A. Special Magistrate Appraiser Rate of Pay Memorandum ......................................123 2026 VAB Organizational Meeting Agenda Page 2 July 30, 2026 11. APPOINT TANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY (TPP) APPRAISER APPLICANT TO SERVE AS A SPECIAL MAGISTRATE FOR TPP HEARINGS, PURSUANT TO F.S. 194.35. A. Pamela Andrea......................................................................................................124-138 12. DESIGNATE THE VAB ATTORNEYS 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 (11)(D), 12D-9.019(5), and 12D-9.021(6), and (7). 13. DESIGNATE THE VAS ATTORNEYS TO REVIEW ALL SPECIAL MAGISTRATES' RECOMMENDATIONS FOR LEGAL SUFFICIENCY. 14. DESIGNATE THE VAB ATTORNEYS TO PROVIDE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE ORIENTATION ON HEARING GUIDELINES, EVIDENCE EXCHANGE, A REVIEW OF THE FLORIDA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE, AND CURRENT PRACTICES AND PROCEDURES. 15. APPROVE THE VAS CHAIRMAN TO REVIEW AND AUTHORIZE PAYMENT OF 2026-2027 VAS INVOICES ON BEHALF OF THE FULL BOARD. 16. OTHER BUSINESS 17. PUBLIC INPUT 18. ADJOURNMENT Anyone who needs a special accommodation for this meeting may contact the County's Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Coordinator at (772) 226-1223 at least 48 hours in advance of the meeting. Anyone who needs special accommodation with a hearing aid for this meeting may contact the Board of County Commission Office at 772-226-1490 at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting. 2026 VAB Organizational Meeting Agenda Page 3 July 30, 2026 Item 4.13. INDIAN RIVER COUNTY VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD (VAB) MEMBERS Commissioner Joseph E. Flescher — District 2 (Chairman) Commissioner Joseph H. Earman — District 3 (Vice Chairman) Citizen Business Member — Angie Schepers Citizen Homesteaded Property Owner Member — Rick Wykoff School Board Member — Jacqueline Rosario, District 2 School Board Member (Alternate) - Dr. Peggy Jones, District 3 VAB Attorneys — Michelle Napier, Esq. and Nicholas Bykowsky, Esq. ONLINE SERVICES ONLINE PETITION FILING: https://VAB.indian-river.or EMAIL: axiagindianriverclerk.com VAB FORMS, RULES, & ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: http://dor.myflorida.com/dor/property/vab FLORIDA STATUTES CHAPTER 194.011: http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/ CONTACT INFORMATION Terri Collins -Lister, Supervisor Clerk to the Board and VAB County Administration Building "A" 1801 271' Street Vero Beach, FL 32960 (772) 226-1432 Email: tlister@indianriverclerk.com - 1 - Ryan L. Butler Clerk of Circuit Court & Comptroller Clerk to the Board and Value Adjustment Board 1801 27th Street Vero Beach, FL 32960 2. U 4. Item 5.A. �ORIOy' Telephone: (772) 226-1916 Fax: (772) 978-1857 E-mail: Axia@indianriverclerk.com Web address: http://indianriverclerk.com VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD (VAB) FINAL MEETING MINUTES The Value Adjustment Board (VAB) of Indian River County, Florida, met on Thursday, April 30, 2026, at 11:30 a.m., in the County Administration Building, 180127" Street, Building "A", Room A2-511, Vero Beach, Florida. Board Members Chairman Joseph E. Flescher, Vice Chairman Joseph H. Farman, School Board Member Jacqueline Rosario, and Citizen Member Angie Schepers were present. Also present were VAB Attorney Nicholas Bykowsky; Ryan Butler, Clerk of the Circuit Court & Comptroller; and VAB Clerks Terri Collins -Lister, Jacqui Rizzo, and Randi Wardlow. Present from the Tax Collector's Office were Joseph Semprevivo, Director of Taxes and Licenses, and Kim Sinotte, Assistant Director of Taxes and Licenses. Present from the Property Appraiser's Office (PAO) were Billy Auton, Austin Boller, and Robert Taylor. Also present were Eve Pierpont and Rudy Muller, for Petition 2025-004. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Joseph E. Flescher called the meeting to order. INVOCATION — Vice Chairman Joseph H. Earman Vice Chairman Joseph H. Earman delivered the Invocation. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE — Chairman Joseph E. Flescher Chairman Joseph E. Flescher led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. INTRODUCTION Individual introductions were made by all present. -2- 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. VAB Organizational Meeting of July 29, 2025 ON MOTION by Vice Chairman Earman, SECONDED by School Board Member Rosario, the Board, by a 4-0 vote (Wykoff absent), approved the Value Adjustment Board Organizational Meeting Minutes of July 29, 2025, as presented. B. VAB Special Call Organizational Meeting of November 5, 2025 ON MOTION by Vice Chairman Earman, SECONDED by School Board Member Rosario, the Board, by a 4-0 vote (Wykoff absent), approved the Value Adjustment Board Special Call Organizational Meeting Minutes of November 5, 2025, as presented. C. VAB Special Call Organizational Meeting of February 3, 2026 ON MOTION by Vice Chairman Earman, SECONDED by School Board Member Rosario, the Board, by a 4-0 vote (Wykoff absent), approved the Value Adjustment Board Special Call Organizational Meeting Minutes of February 3, 2026, as presented. 6. 2025 VAB Recap VAB Clerk Terri Collins -Lister provided a recap of the 2025 VAB Tax Year, noted the filing fee increase to $50, highlighted that there were zero no-shows, and clarified that refund requests could not be granted by statute. 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. 2025 Special Magistrates' Recommendations 1. Special Magistrates' Recommendations Worksheets The Clerk presented all Special Magistrate recommendations. Petition 2025-004 was contested by Rudy Muller on behalf of Eve Pierpont, who raised concerns about fairness, the tone of the hearing, and the introduction of a timing issue. Mr. Muller requested that the Board grant him a new hearing before a different magistrate. In response to School Board Member Rosario's question on whether the VAB could grant another hearing with a different Special Magistrate, VAB Attorney Nicholas Bykowsky provided extensive legal review and confirmed the magistrate acted within all statutory requirements and that due process was provided. He stated that Value Adjustment Board Final Meeting Minutes — 2025 Tax Year Page 2 April 30, 2026 -3- the VAB lacked authority to order a new hearing, and the petitioner's remedy was to pursue the matter in Circuit Court. VAB Attorney Bykowsky stated that prior to the Final Hearing, he had reviewed both parties' evidence and the hearing audio. He stated that he reviewed the Petitioner's April 28, 2026, request for reconsideration and determined all four of the Petitioner's objections were lacking in merit. In addition, the VAB Attorney observed the Attorney Special Magistrate was well-qualified, the "timing issue" was raised by thee Petitioner and addressed by the Special Magistrate at the hearing, and the VAB Attorney identified all of the pertinent administrative rules for the VAB that are required to be applied in connection with the review and determination of the issues reflected in in the Recommended Decision of the Attorney Special Magistrate Davis. The Property Appraiser's Office representative, Billy Auton, explained that timing was always the central issue as the petitioner did not hold legal title until December 2022. He reiterated that eligibility for homestead was dependent on legal title and that the timing of ownership transfer prevented the petitioner from qualifying for homestead eligibility until 2023. He added that although the circumstances were sympathetic, statutory guidelines were properly followed. A lengthy discussion followed regarding the role of the Board, the tone of the hearing, and the Petitioner's view that they were not given an opportunity to further research the Florida Statutes as they related to the timing issue for Petition 2025- 004. School Board Member Rosario asked that Petition 2025-004 be bifurcated from the Special Magistrate Recommendations for a separate vote. ON MOTION by School Board Member Rosario, SECONDED by Citizen Member Schepers, the Board, by a 2-2 vote (Wykoff absent), failed to bifurcate Petition 2025- 004 from the Special Magistrate Recommendations so that it could be voted on separately. Chairman Flescher and Vice Chairman Earman were opposed. Mr. Muller, for the record, felt it was not fair that the Board would not bifurcate Petition 2025-004 and vote on it separately. Chairman Flescher reiterated that the Petitioner's remedy was to pursue the matter in Circuit Court. ON MOTION by School Board Member Rosario, SECONDED by Chairman Flescher, the Board, by a 3-1 vote (Wykoff absent), adopted the Special Magistrate Recommendations for the 2025 Tax Year. School Board Member Rosario was opposed. 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 2025 Value Adjustment Board Final Meeting Minutes — 2025 Tax Year Page 3 April 30, 2026 -4- ON MOTION by Citizen Member Schepers, SECONDED by Vice Chairman Earman, the Board, by a 4-0 vote (Wykoff absent), approved and authorized the Chairman to execute the Tax Impact Notice Form DR -529 for Tax Year 2025 for publication. B. Certification Form DR -488 Real Property ON MOTION by Vice Chairman Earman, SECONDED by Citizen Member Schepers, the Board, by a 4-0 vote (Wykoff absent), approved and authorized the Chairman to execute the Certification Form DR -488 for Real Property. C. Certification Form DR -488 Tangible Personal Property ON MOTION by Vice Chairman Earman, SECONDED by Citizen Member Schepers, the Board, by a 4-0 vote (Wykoff absent), approved and authorized the Chairman to execute the Certification Form DR -488 for Tangible Personal Property. 9. AUTHORIZE THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD CLERK TO SOLICIT FOR SPECIAL MAGISTRATES IN THE CAPACITY OF ATTORNEY, TANGIBLE, AND APPRAISER FOR THE 2026 VAB HEARINGS. ON MOTION by School Board Member Rosario, SECONDED by Citizen Member Schepers, the Board, by a 4-0 vote (Wykoff absent), authorized the Value Adjustment Board Clerk to solicit Attorney, Tangible, and Appraiser Special Magistrates for the 2026 Tax Year Hearings. 10. PUBLIC COMMENT There was none. 11. OTHER BUSINESS VAB Clerk announced that the VAB Organizational Meeting would be held sometime in July 2026, and that the Truth in Millage Notices (TRIM) would be mailed out on August 10, 2026. 12. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 12:46 p.m. Value Adjustment Board Final Meeting Minutes — 2025 Tax Year Page 4 April 30, 2026 -5- Item 6.A. INDIAN RIVER COUNTY VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD s # FLORIOy' RESOLUTION 2026 —1 WHEREAS, Chapter 194, Florida Statutes, Section 194.013, allows the Value Adjustment Board, hereafter "VAB", to adopt a Resolution imposing a filing fee not to exceed $50 for each separate parcel of property, real or personal, covered by a petition and subject to appeal. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE 2026 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD THAT: 1. There is hereby authorized, established, and imposed a filing fee upon each separate parcel of property covered by petitions filed pursuant to Section 194.011, Florida Statutes. 2. The filing fee shall be $50 for each separate, non-contiguous parcel of property, real or personal, covered by a petition filed pursuant to Section 194.011, Florida Statutes, and subject to appeal. An owner of contiguous, undeveloped parcels may file with the VAB, a single joint petition if the Property Appraiser determines such parcels are substantially similar in nature. A condominium association, cooperative association, or any homeowners' association as defined in Section 723.075, Florida Statutes, with approval of its board of administration or directors, may file with the VAB, a single joint petition on behalf of any association members who own parcels of property which the Property Appraiser determines are substantially similar with respect to location, proximity to amenities, number of rooms, living area and condition. For single joint petitions, a filing fee of $50 for the petition, plus a cost of $5.00 for each parcel included in the petition, will be imposed. 3. All filing fees shall be paid to the Clerk of the VAB at the time of filing. Any petition not accompanied by the required filing fee will be deemed incomplete. The Clerk shall notify the petitioner and allow the petitioner to complete the petition within 10 calendar days. If the petitioner does not satisfy the payment requirement at the time, the petition will be deemed incomplete and will not be scheduled for a hearing. 4. Upon the acceptance and filing of a petition by the VAB Clerk, the accompanying filing fee shall be non-refundable, except when an excessive filing fee has been collected due to an error by the VAB Clerk or through the electronic filing system. Overpayments in excess of Ten and No/100 ($10.00) due to miscalculation on the part of the petitioner or the petitioner's agent shall be refunded. The VAB Clerk shall develop and utilize a standard procedure for issuing required refunds. 5. Any petition filed after the statutory deadline for petition filing, as set forth in Section 194.011(3), Florida Statutes, may be reviewed to determine whether the petitioner has demonstrated a good cause justifying the late filing. Fee payments filed with late -filed petitions are non-refundable. -6- Item 6.A. INDIAN RIVER COUNTY VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD �ZORI04` 6. No filing fee will be required by a taxpayer who demonstrates at the time of filing: a. they are receiving assistance under Chapter 414, Florida Statutes b. disapproval of a timely filed application for homestead exemption under Section 196.151, Florida Statutes c. disapproval of homestead tax deferral under Section 197.2425, Florida Statutes DONE AND RESOLVED by the Value Adjustment Board of Indian River County, Florida in regular session this 30th day of July 2026. ATTEST: Ryan L. Butler, Clerk of Circuit Court and Comptroller Deputy Clerk Joseph E. Flescher, Chairman Indian River Value Adjustment Board Approved: July 30, 2026 -7- vo`y� SPECIAL MAGISTRATE APPLICATION INDIAN RIVER COUNTY VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD (APPLICANTS MUST MEET QUALIFICATIONS OUTLINED IN FLA. STAT. 4 194.0351 Please type or print. If more space is needed, attach additional sheets. Applicants may supplement their application with a resume. However. a resume cannot be used in lieu ojon application. Appication fur: ® Attorney Special Magistrate ❑ Appraiserecial Magistrate for... S13 Real Property and/or ❑ Tangible Personal Property If appointed, how much time would you he avail�hle to conduct hearings and complete your recommendations? Q to 8 hours per week; [3 9 to 26 hours per week: ❑ 21 to 30 hours per week: ❑ 31 to 40 hours per wee{. %PPLICANT INFORMATION Name: Richard M. Carrel) Jr. Home Address: 1911 Club Dr., Vero Beach FL 32963 Mailing Address: Same Dusincss Namc: l3crnard Egan & Company Business Address: 1900 Old Dixie Hwy., Fort Pierce, FL. 34946 Phone: Home' N/A Business/ 772-499-7175 Cell/ 772-360-7251 Fax: N'A E -Mail: _ mc6 (ftrcton.me • Copy of license referenced below. • Documentation to support rncrubership in professional organizations listed below under Organizations. • A wr_ting sample. which may consist of an opinion letter or other business-related documentation that contains one or more written pages of original material. If you have served as a special magistrate previously, please submit a recommended decision as your sample. Do not submit a copy of an appraisal as a writing sample. • Prior to conducting hearings, all applicants are required under Fla Stat. § 194.035 to certify completion of the current year training provided by the Department of Revenue. To obtain the training, go online to the Department's website at http://dor.myflorida.com/dorbropertylvab/training.html. Return your completion certificate to the VAB clerk. Attorney Magistrate Applicant: Bar Number: 615773 Date of Admission: 1986 How many years of experience do you have in the area of ad valorem taxation: 0 Appraiser Magistrate Applicant: Kesidential Appraiser License #: Valid Througi:: General Appraiser License #1: Valid Through.: Provide number of years of experience you have in the area of rear property valuation: NIA Describe experience, and number of years you have in the area of tangible property valuation: NiA Page 1 v01/13/2015 -8- Item 7.A. ash SPECIAL MAGISTRATE APPLICATION INDIAN RIVER COUNT' VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD (.APPLICANTS MUST MEET QUALIFICATIONS OUTLINED IN FLA. STAT. § 194.035) 1. Educational Background Undergraduate: University of Notre Dates B.A.. 1982 Graduate: F.S.U. College of Law, J.D., 1996 2. List ary experience and/or specialty for the following propery types: I PROPERTY TYPE I EXPERIENCE/SPECIALTY I Commercial Real ProDem' I See attached. Other 3. If you currently or previously have served as a special magistrate, please provide the municipality or county and dates served. St. Lu::ie County - 1992 through 2010 Manin County - 2003 through 2010 4. Have you ever been dismissed, terminated or denied appointment as a special magistrate fcr poor or improper performance? K] NE, Yes (please explain) 5. List any additional information which makes you qualified to scrvc as a special magistrate. Also provide name and contact information of at least two individ tals who can attest to your years of experience in ad valorem taxation, tangible personal property or real property appraisals. See attached. 6. Are you %%iIIing to accept the Value Adjustment Board established schedule of fees? ® Yes ❑ No If no, please indicate your schedule of fees to be charged the board on a one-hour basis. 7. Explain your level of knowledge and experience w:th computers and list the applications you are familiar with, inci.tding Axia. Microsoft Outlook, Word, X-1. No experience with Axia. 1. List each organization, recognized by tae real estate appraisal industry or the professionals in that field, in which you are currently or have previously peen a designated member: ORGANIZATION DESIGNATION DATE MEMBER # N/A 2. Of those organizations describe any possible conflict of interest that could occur or the appearance of a conflict of interest that may prevent you from fairly conducting a hearing: N/A Page 2 01/13/2,315 -9- SPECIAL MAGISTRATE APPLICATION INDIAN RIVER COUNTY VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD (APPLICANTS MUST MEET QUALIh1CA flUNS (XJ I LINED IN tLA. S 1 A I. 5 194.035) 3, Have you ever been disbarred, suspended or received any other disciplinary actior from any organized association, or from the State of Florida.) ®No ❑Yes (please explain) 4. List any personal or business relationship you have ever had with any officer or employee of the office of the property appraiser, office of the clerk of the circuit court, office of the county attorney or the value adjustment board of any of the counties to which you are applying: I know Wesley Davis and over the years have had business relationships with the office of the County Attorney. 5. List any clubs, organizations, associations, or otlrcr entities to whic.I you belong yr participate in and in which a possible conflict of interest could occur or the appearance of a conflict of interest might arise that would prevent you from fairly conducting the hearing between the property appraiser and the property owner and taxpayer. None. Pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 194.035, a person cannot serve as a special magistrate if he/she is as elected or appointed official of a county, a taxing jurisdiction, or the state; is an employee of a county, a taxing jurisdiction, or the state; or in the same tax year that he/she services the Board as a spe.-ial magistrate, represents a party before the Board in any administrative review of property taxes. Are you an elected or appointed official or employee of a county, a taxing jurisdiction, or the state? ❑ Yes ® No If yes, please provide details: The undersigned certifies, under periulty of disqualification from consideration, that each Item contained to this application, or at y other document fttrrished by or an behalf of the applicant is tnte and complete as of the date it beam. The undersigned at.,thorizes the Value.4djustmert Board to obtain information from other source., to verify each item contained herein. The undersigned acknowledges that, if selectee!, he/she evil► follow all requirements and mandates of law in fr f Iling the duties of special magistrate. Date: 6 t�to 5na f Applicant -77. Printcd Name of Applicant -10- Page 3 v01113/2015 tw Munbil Sm. 10'15/1 SSG Richard MacMillan Darnell Jr. 0615773 -11- WORK EXPERIENCE Bernard Egan & Company Fort Pierce, Florida I am currently employed as the General Counsel -for Bernard Egan & Company and have been in this position since March, 1998. Bernard Egan & Company is in the business of growing, packing, and selling fresh citrus fruit. Bernard Egan & Company's real estate holdings throughout St. Lucie County and Indian River County total more than 22,000 acres. As General Counsel, my job duties and responsibilities include handling all legal matters for the company and its more than 25 subsidiaries with over 200 employees. These matters involve general business, personnel, litigation, employment, worker's compensation and real estate transactions. From 1992 through 2010,1 served as VAB Special Magistrate in St. Lucie County. From 2003 through 2010, I served as VAB Special Magistrate in Martin County. During these time frames, i provided recommendations concerning agricultural classifications, homestead, and late files/extenuating circumstances, among others. -12- SAMPLE EXHIBIT "A" RECOMMENDED DECISION OF SPECIAL MAGISTRATE AD -6 Kings Highway Development Section 3 Reasons for Recommendation I. Proposed Finding of Fact: A Property Appraiser Exhibits: SununacySl-eet Photos of the Property Ag (classification inspection Sheet Email from Richard Camell to Jerry Bittle and Qnthia Angelos dated December 7, 2009 Email from Karen Hampson to Athena Adams and email response from Athena Adams to Karcn Hampson dated December 9, 2009 Email from Came Lavargna dated November 6, 2009 Letter from Travis Walker, Esquire to Athena Adams dated November 6, 2009 Letter from Travis Walker, Esquire to Athena Adams dated November 19, 2009 To Whom It May Concern letter from Edward Sasso dated November 6, 2009 Email from Athena Adams to Travis Walker dated November 6, 2009 St. Lucie County Property Appraisers Evidence Exchange Form B. Petitioner Exhibits: Petition to Value Adjustment Board Notice of Hearing dated November 2, 2009 Notice of Denial of Application for Classification of Agricultural Lands Application and Return for Agricultural Classification of Lands Cattle Lease dated January 1, 2009 Evidence LLst Witness List Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate for Petition Number AD - 27 executed on February 13, 2009 Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate for Petition Number AD - 31 executed on February 24, 2009 Photographs of Property Motion to Exclude Evidence dated January 22, 2010 Motion to Reschedule Hearing dated July 13, 2009 -13- SAMPLE EXHIBIT "A" Merrrorandum from Cynthia Angelos to Richard Carrell dated January 15, 2010 with attachments Bystmm t. Union Land Investments, Inc:, 477 So. 2d 585 (Fla. 3,d DCA 19 8:5) II. Summary of Evidence Presented: The parties stipulated to the following facts: 1. The property is 43.0 acres in size. 2. The property was purchased in 2005 for $3,498,000. 3. Cattle have been observed on the property since the date of purchase. 4. The property is fcnccd with watcr. 5. A cattle lease has been in place since 2008. A. Property Appraiser: Swam testimony from the Property Appraiser's Specialist that the Property Appraiser considered the statutory criteria set forth in Florida Statutes $193.461. This property is a 42.99 -acre parcel north of Okeechobee Road on the wrest side of Kings ITighway, south of Pruitt Research Center Road. The parcel is an L-shaped parcel. The property was purchased in 2C05 and has been utilized as a grazing pasture. The agricultural classification was last applied to the property in 2003. The purchase price paid for the property was $3,498,000 or $81,367 per acre creating a presumption that the highest and best use of the land may not be a bona fide commercial agricultural use. There is a lease on the property. The property is stocked with cattle. The size of the property is acceptable for cattle grazing. The property is zoned R-4 coded as vacant residential in the City of Fort Pierce. The property is fenced and has water. A for sale sign is on the property. The Property Appraiser's office inspected this property on March 12, 2009, and photos were taken. B. Petitioner: Cynthia Angelos, Esquire and Bill Berger, Esquire appeared to present the testimony of the Petitioner. Appearing to testify on behalf of Petitioner was John Donaldson, Clayton Charles, Coy Ward, Chris Heine, Gary Smigiel and Don Anderson. Clayton Charles testified that he is a local cattleman in Fort Pierce. He and his partner, Thea Bullard, lease the property for the purpose of gracing cattle. He spends 70% of his time grazing cattle. Cattle were grazing on the property on January 1, 2009. Cattle have continuously grazed on the parcel since 2008. Coy Ward cleared the property, and pushed, piled and burned the pepper trees. The property was cleared in November 2008. 2 -14- SAMPLE EXHIBIT "A" Mr. Charles rotates his cows among a number of pastures. Mr. Charles testified that he has approximately 500 head of cattle on 2C properties. He puts bulls in some pastures and cows in others. He had 12 cattle and a bull on the property in January 2009. Petitioncr's Exhibit "C is an outline of the property. The property is cross - fenced. The property does not have any access from Kings Highway. The property is accessed from Pruitt Research Center Road. The road is approximate 30 feet wide. He leases approximately 2,500 acres. Mr. Charles sells the cattle at the market or to individuals. Calves sell for between S.64 and $.80 a pound. Beef cows sell for between $.20 and $50 a pound. He supplements the cattle on occasion with a molasses and cattle feed He purchases his hay from Mark Pye and Gator Fccd. He buys his barbed wire from Home Depot. I le does not have sales tickets from cattle sales. Ana Torres cross-examined Mr. Charles. I& Charles does business as Midnight Cattle Company. He files a profit and loss statement but does not have any copies. There were 20 cows on the property on January 1, 2009. He raises beef cattle, long horns and crossbred cattle. He guesstimates earnings at $45,000 to S50,000 in 2009. Cuy Ward testified for Petitioner. He was a contractor. He sold his business in 1999. He is semi -retired but he was brought back into the business to help operate Ward Brothers H. Petitioner's Exhibit "D" are tickets representing work performed on the property. Petitioner's Exhibit "E" is receipts for bushing and burning bnuh. Gary Smigiel, managing partner of Kings Highway Development, testified that his background is in agriculture and ownership of agricultural land for the last 23 years. He is related to the Mecca family in Palm Beach. His stepfather is Peter Mecca. Mr. Smigiel is the General Counsel of Mecca Farms. He has been in the cattle business for approximately 15 years. He has been involved as President of a company in Cresta Rica that owns an 800 acre cattle ranch. Mr. Smigiel has also managed and developed 500 residential units and commercial property through the late 1980s. Since the 1980s the Mecca family has sold former agricultural property for development. There must be a use for the land to keep the property from being overrun by pepper trees and trespassers. Fencing the property and grazing cattle is a viable use. This property is not worth more than $10,000 per acre. The property was purchased at the height of the real estate market. The property is for sale. There is a sign on the property. The property is not able to be feasibly developed. There is no present intention to develop the property for commercial use or residential use. There is no current viable use of the property other than agriculture. 'There is no other use of the property right now for other than grazing cattle. Mr. Smigiel walked the entire property last week As of January 1, 2009, the property was cleared and used for grazing. -15- SAMPLE EXHIBIT "A" Anna Torres cross-examined Mr. Smigiel. Mr. Smigiel has no firsthand knowledge of the purchase of the property. He doesn't know how much is being asked for the sale of the property. The property has not been platted. There is no application for a plat pending. He has been involved with property for approximately 2 years. Don Anderson is a managing member of Kings Highway Development. The property was purchased for future development. They have never filed a land use amendment or application. Anna Tones cross-examined Mr. Anderson. The property is actively listed. The sales price being asked for the property is $4.9 million. The property is zoned Rt; -4 residential which allows development of up to nine units per acre. Surrunarby C-nthia Angelos The property was originally purchased on April 7, 2005, for land development and speculation. The property has been used continuously for agricultural purposes since late 2007. There are no present plans for development. Any future development is speculation. No development of the property has occurred. S unmiaryyby Ana. Torres The burden of proof lies on the Petitioner. The agricultural classification is a benefit bestowed on landowners in bona fide agricultural production. The intention of the Greenbelt law is to encourage long-term agricultural use. The primary use of the property must be for agriculture. This property was purchased for development. The property is for sale. The City of Fort Pierce has no agricultural zoning category. The property was not used for agricultural purposes in 2005, 2006, 2007 or 2008. Agriculture is clearly an incidental use. III. Proposed Conclusion of Law Florida law requires that any assessment for tax purposes which is less than the just value of the property shall be considered a classified use assessment and reported accordingly. See, Fla. Stat. 5193.441. Florida Statutes stric.-tiy prescribes the method and manner in which properties may receive the agricultural classification and an assessment for tax purposes which is less than the just value of the property. Florida Statutes §193.461 states in pertinent part: 193.461 Agricultural lands; classification and assessment; mandated eradication or quarantine program.— (1) 'lhe property appraiser shall, on an annual basis, classify for assessment purposes all lands within the county as either agricultural or nonagricultural. 4 -16- SAMPLE EXHIBIT "A" (3)(a) No lands shall be classified as agricultural lands unless a return is filed on or before March 1 of each year. The property appraiser, before so classifying such lands, may require the taxpayer or the taxpayer's representative to furnish the property appraiser such information as may reasonably be required to establish that such lands were actually used for a bona fide agricultural purpose. (b) Subject to the restrictions set out in this section, only lands which are used primarily for bona fide agricultural purposes shall be classified agricultural. "Bona fide agricultural purposes" means good faith m comercial agricultural use of the land.... (lapter 12D-5.001 of the Florida Adiinuristrative Code defines "good faith commercial agricultural use" of property as "the pursuit of an agricultural activity for a reasonable profit or at least upon a reasonable expectation of meeting investment cost and realizing a reasonable profit. The profit or reasonable expectation thereof must be viewed from the standpoint of the fee owner and measured in light of his investment." Id The favorable tax treatment provided by the statute "is predicated on land use, that is, physical activity conducted on the land." Hwtswar, u. Krrdkin, 268 So. 2d 407, 409 (Fla. 4tr DCA 1972). "[IN the land is physically used for agricultural purposes, it must be accorded agricultural zoning, provided the use is `primarily for bona fide agricultural purposes'. The term `primarily' simply signifies that the agricultural use must be the most significant activity on the land when the land supports diverse activities. Sec, Wald>n P. Borden Courjraiy, 235 So. 2d 30C (Ila. 1970); Giandiu u. markh n., 564 So. 2d 1131, 1133 (Fla. 4,1- DCA); review denied, 569 So. 2d 1279 (Fla. 1990). The terms bona fide as used in the statute imposes the requirement that the agricultural use be real, actual, and of a genuine nature -as opposed to a sham or deception. Id. at 409. "[tl)se is still the guidepost in classifying land, although other specifically enumerated factors relative to use may also be considered. Agricultural use is now and has always been the test." See, Roden P. K&K Land Alanagemenr, Inc:, 368 So. 2d 588 (Fla. 1978), quoting Straughn r. Tuck, 354 So. 2d 368 (Fla. 1977). See also, Withers a Metm. Dade Corrrty, 290 So. 2d 573 (Fla. 3,d DCA 1974) (although property was subject to fanning lease, lack of cultivation, planting, or row crops supported denial of agricultural classification); SchookPy a4 Wetstone, 258 So. 2d 483 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1972) (argument that primary use of land was for speculative purpose is of no consequence if the actual use is for a bona fide commercial agricultural purpose); Chapman a Cajjadj; 278 So. 2d 665 (Fla. 2-,6 DCA 1973) (for sale signs on property that is actually being used for citrus grove does not require removal of agricultural classification). Agricultural use may rebut the presumption created by sale of the property for an amount in excess of three times the -17- SAMPLE EXHIBIT "A" agricultural assessment. See, Roden c. K&K Land lllunagement, Im.. 368 So. 2d 588 (Fla 1978). The property appraiser cannot consider the owner's future intended use of the property but, instead, must focus on a use of the properly as of January 1. RI Resorts, L'd r: Donegan, 881 So. 2d 1152 (Fla. 5d� DCA. 2004); Bystrom a Union Land Inv. Ine., 477 So. 2d 585 (Fla 31d DCA 1985); review denied, 488 So. 2d 69 (Fla. 1986). The requirement applies irrespective of the contemplated future use. Neither an owner's future intent to develop nor the owner's future intent to use the land for agricultural purposes is relevant to the agricultural classification status as of January 1. Compare Roden ,. Estech, Inc., 508 So. 2d 728, 729 (Fla. 2^4 DCA 1987) COnce the court finds a bona fide good faith agricukural use, the future use of the land is irrelevant.") with Bystnm (clearing and preparation of land for agricultural use is insufficient to support classification). Cf. ?Tackle Co. v. Metmpolitan Dade County, 220 So. 2d 422 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1969) (where 160 acres of 320 acre row crop land were being prepared from row cropping via scarifying, plowing with a bulldozer, discing, and installing an access rock road; property was not used for agricultural purposes on January 1; particularly where lessee's testimony was that it would not have planted crops that year). Whether land is being wed for bona fide agricubxul purposes and is therefore entitled to the agricultural classification is generally a factual determination. Lore PGI Partner., LP P. S.buk, 706 So. 2d 887 (Fla. 5thDCA 1998), approved bySebultl v. Love PGI Partners, LA 731 So. 2d 1270 (Fla 1999). No single factor is controlling. Love PGI Partners, LP r. Scbult ;, 706 So. 2d 887 (Fla 5th DCA 1998); approved, 731 So. 2d 1270 (Fla. 1999). Any determination regarding agricultural classification "must be arrived at upon consideration of all practices and indicia existing in each case, and on a case-by-case basis. It would be impossible and unwise task for this Court, or any appellate court, to attempt to establish an inflexible, definite criteria to be arbitrAy applied on a state-wide or even area basis." Seliu/1, P. Love PGI Partners, LR 731 So. 2d 1270, 1271-72 (Fla. 1999) (4-3 decision); Greenwood P. Oates, 251 So. 2d 665, 667-68 (Fla. 1971). Florida Statutes Section 193.461(3)(b) enumerates six specific factors along with a catch all "other factors" provision to be taken into consideration when detemuning whether the we of the land for agriculn" purl"es is bona fide. These factors include length of time the property has been agricultural, whether use has been continuous, size of the property, care of the property, and whether there is a reasonable expectation of profit in relation to the investmcnt cost acid zoning. Florida Adninistrative CAxie 12D-5.004 enuurerates other facwrs which rrray be considered such as opinions of experts, business of owner, zoning, use of adjacent properties, and proximity to a metropolitan area Further, the zoning of the property is not determinative and cannot be the basis for denial of an agricultural classification. See, Love PGI Partners, LP v. Sebult, 706 So. 2d 887 (Fla 5th DCA 1998) approved bySchult c. Love PGI Partners, I .P, 731 So. 2d 1270 (Fla. 1999). Zoning is but one factor that may be considered. Id See, Smith a Ring, 250 So. 2d 913 (Fla. 151 DCA 1971) — Eighty -acre parcel leased to legitimate cattle operator who ran cattle and followed acceptable agricultural practices of -18- SAMPLE EXHIBIT "A" mowing and fertilizing the pasture was entitled to agricultural classification notwithstanding the fact that land may have been purchased for speculative purposes. Florida law generally requires that the petitioning taxpayer is responsible for proving by a preponderance of evidence that the Property Appraisers determination is incorrect and that the property qualifies under all applicable statutory criteria for the classification or exemption. See, Fla. Admin. Code 12D-9.027. "The burden is on the claimant to show clearly any entitlement to tax exemption." Volusia County v. Da, ona Beach Racing & Recreational Facilities Dist•, 341 So. 2d 498, 502 (Fla 1976); See, Parrish v. Pier Cub Apartments, Tnc., 900 So. 2d 683 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). "The standard of proof ... is called `preponderance of the evidence', which means `greater M eight of evidence'." Fla. Admin. Code 12D-9.027(6). Statutes involving tax exemptions are strictly construed against the taxpayer. See, DeQuervain V. Desquin, 927 So. 2d 232, 236 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (citing Capita Country Club, Inc. v. Tucker, 613 So. 2d 448, 452 (Fla. 1993)). In this case, Petitioner provided sufficient evidence to meet its burden for overcoming the Properly Appraiser's determination. SPECIAL MAGISTRATE'S RECOMMENDATION TO THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD Petition should be: Denied x Granted Special Magistrate St. Lucie County Value Adjustment Board -19- Date SAMPLE EXHIBIT "A" RECOMMENDED DECISION OF SPECIAL MAGISTRATE P-89 Paul A. Weidner Section 3 Reasons for Recommendation I. Proposed Finding of Fact: A. Property Appraiser Exhibits: Application for Ad Valorem Tax Exemption Address Printout Form B. Petitioner Exhibits: Petition to Value Adjustment Board Memorandum in Support of Paul Weidner's Petition for Appeal of Denial of Homestead exemption Warranty Deed dated May 27, 2008 Notice of Designation of Homestead Real Property by Owner Affidavit of Gordon Weidner Deed to property dated February 7, 2002 Affidavit of Gordon Weidner re: Deed of 2002 Deed to property dated May 27, 2008 Arrest Affidavit dated June 16, 1997 Consent to Scarch Home form dated June 16, 1997 Notice of Hearing with hoine address dated March 3, 1998 Notice of Hearing with home address dazed April 30, 1998 Telephone bill assigned to 495 Abeto Lane, Pon St. Lucie, Florida Page from telephone book Letter from Jeff Furst dated October 4, 2006 Letter to Jeff Furst dated June 28, 2007,providing date of occupancy in home Letter to Jeff Furst/Susan Rowe dated September 16, 2008 II. Summary of Evidence Presented: A Property Appraiser: Sworn testimony from the Property Appraiser's Specialist that the property was transferred to Paul Weidner on May 27, 2008, by Warranty Deed dated May 27, 2008, Nunc Pro Tunc February 7, 2002. The Deed notes that it is a corrective deed to establish the transfer which occurred February 7, 2002; however the deed was lost. The 2009 Application for Homestead Exemption/$500.00 Disability Exemption -20- SAMPLE Application was filed by mail on September 16, 2008. Mr. Weidner is currently incarcerated in the Martin County Correctional Institution. I Ie has been incarcerated since July 30, 1998, with a currently release date of March 22, 2013. The Property Appraiser has determined that W. Weidner has not established permanent residency in this home since he became the owner of record on May 27, 2008. According to the Property Appraiser, the unique facts of this case create a "establishment" of homestead exemption case, not an "abandonment" case. Florida Statutes §196.015 provides that the Property Appraiser makes a factional determination, in the first instance, concerning the intention by a homeowner to establish a permanent residence in the state. Florida Statutes §196.C12(18) provides that a "permanent residence" means that place "where a person has his or her true, fixed, and permanent home and Principal establishment" to which he or she has the intention of returning. Once a permanent residence is established, it is presumed to continue until the person shows a change has occurred. In this case, Mr. Weidner occupied the home at a time when he had record title to the property as provided by Florida Statutes §196.031 in order to establish permanent residences. B. Petitioner: Attorney Greg jean -Denis appeared to present argument on behalf of the Petitioner. The property was purchased in 1985 and put in Mr. Weidner's father's name. Mr. Weidner lived in the residence from 1985 to 1998. He took a deed in 1987 but the deed was lost or stolen. A second deed was created in 2002 and recorded in 2008. All of Mr. Weidner's fumiture and clothing is located in the house. He has been the owner of record of this property as of January 1, 2009. He has every intention to return to the home and make it his permanent residence. III. Proposed Conclusion of Law Florida Statutes §196.001(1) provides "[u]nless expressly exempted" all real property in the state is subject to taxation. Florida Statutes §196.031(1) states that "[e]very person who, on January 1, has the legal title or beneficial title in equity to real property in this state and who resides thereon and in good faith makes the same his or her permanent residence, or the permanent residence of another ... is entitled to an exemption from all taxation ... " Florida Statutes §196.015 provides that the intention to permanently reside is a factual determination. Factors to be considered when determining residency are such things are driver's licenses, voter's registration cards, location of employment, and automobile registration. Florida law generally requires that the petitioning taxpayer is responsible for proving by a preponderance of evidence that the Property Appraiser's determination is incorrect and that the property qualifies under all applicable statutory criteria for the classification or exemption. See, Fla Admin. Code 12D-9.027. "The burden is on the claimant to show clearly any entitlement to tax exemption." Volusia County v. Daytona Beach Racing &Recreational Facilities Dist., 341 So. 2d 498.502 (Fla 1976); See, amish -21- SAMPLE v. Pier Cub Apartments. Inc., 900 So. 2d 683 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). "The standard of proof ... is called `preponderance of the evidence', which means `greater weight of evidence'." Fla Admin. Code 12D-9.027(6). Petitioner did not own (have title) to the residence with the intention to permanently reside in the residence and could not establish "permanent residence". Therefore, he did not meet his burden for overcoming the presumption of correctness afforded to the Property Appraisers determination. SPECIAL MAGISTRATE'S RECOMMENDATION TO THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD Petition should be: x Denied Granted Special Magistrate Date St. Lucie County Value Adjustment Board -22- SPECIAL MAGISTRATE APPLICATION INDIAN RIVER COUNTY VALUE "KSTMEN-T BOARD Item 7.11. tAPPLICAKI'SMUST Ma-aQUALIFICAlIONS OUTLINEDIN I -A S';'AT. ¢ (9a.Q3S) Plcase type or print If more glace is needed, attach additional sheets. Appllcanis may supplement their application Kith o resume flowerer: o resume canna be used In lieu of an application Application fan: ® Attorney Special Magistrate ❑ Appraiser S sial Magistrate for... [JReal Ptvpaty and/or ❑ Tangible Personal Property If appointed, how much time would you be available to conduct hearings and complete your recommendations? ❑ I to 8 hours per week; ❑ 9 to 20 hours per week; ❑ 21 to 3U hours per week; ® 31 to 40 hours per week. MIN 0 Narte: JOSEPH HAYNES DAVIS, ESQUIRE Home Address: 0421 SHADY GLEN DRIVE:ORLANDO FLORID-AU42819 Mailing Address: 2750 T %YLOK AVE #8207 OR AN FLORIDA 32&06 Business Name: LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH HAY AVIS PA Business Address: 2750 TAYLOR AVE #8207 ORLANDO FLORIDA 32806 Phone: Home/ Businessl40' 839 3725 CeIV447 616 6961 Fax: E -Mail: i2scoh.davh6-Zihd1aa com • Copy of license referenced below. • Documentation to support membership in professiunal organizations listed below under Organizations. • A %,-;ting sample, which may consist of an opinion letter or other business-related documentation that contains one or more written pages of original material. If you have served as special magistrate previously. Please subm it a recommended decision as your simple. Do not submit o copy of an appraisal as a writing sample. • Prior to conducting hearings, all applicants are required under f la. Stat § 194.035 to certify completion of the currcru ym training provided by the Department of Revenue. To obtain the training, go amine to the Mpartment's website at htip:-ldor.idyllsarida.com/dor!p aagay� ab'traWira�html. Return your completion certificate to the VAD clerk. Attorney Magistrate Applicant: Har Number. U$$QS,,�,� Date of Admission: 1/23/2001 How many years of experience do you have in the area of ad valorem taxation: 25 Appraiser Magistrate Applicant: Residential Appraiser License ti: Valid Through: General Appraiser License #: Valid Through: Provide number of years of experience you have in the area of real property valuation: Wa De-�cn'be. experience, and number o f years you have in the area of tangible property valuation: Na Page I vp f /I 32015 SPECIAL MAGISTRATE APPLICATION ' INDIAN RIVER COUNTY VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD (APPLICAN'TS MUSI' MEET QUALIFICA1IONS UUT'LMI D IN L LA. S P�1. t 193.(330 1. I.Aucational Background _ ILLINOIS STATS UIVtVERSI f YY_ CITY OF PENNSYLVANIA, M,SW• RUTGER5 LAW - CA I)EN, Jp. 2. List any expericncx and'or specialty for the following property types; 3. If you currently or previously have served as a special magistrate, please provide the municipality or county and dates served. SEE ATTACHED d. Have you ever been dismissed, terininatod or denied appointment as a special magistrate for poor or improper performance? ® No ❑ Ycs (please explain) S. List any additional information which makes you qualified to serve as a special magistrate. Also provide natm and contact information of at least two individuals who can attest to your years of experience in ad valorem taxation, tangible personal property or real property appraisals. SEF ATTACHED 6. Are you willing to accept the Value Adjustment Board established schedule of fees? ® Yes ❑ No If no, please indicate yew schedule of fees to be charged the board on a one-hour basis. 7. Explain your level of knowledge and experience with computers and list the applications you are familiar with, Including Axia. __AX JA SINCE 2006 BEGINNING INQRAt4QE WITH TIM VAB- SEE AITACNED I. List each organization, recognized by the real estate appraisal industry or the professionals in that field, in which you are currently or have previously been a designated member: ORGANIZATION DESIGNATION ©ATI: MEMBER # N/A 2. Of those organizations describe any po%iblc conflict of interest that could occur or the anoearance of a conflict of interest that may prevent you from fairly conducting a hearing: Cage 2 .01:13'2015 SPECIAL MAGISTRATE APPLICATION INDIAN RIVER COUNTY VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD (APPLICANTS MUST i%tf4til' QU. LIFICAI'IONS OLJT'I.INED tN I'I-A. 551 A 1 h 1 v-.1135) 3. Have you ever been disbarred, suspended or received any oher disciplinary action from any organized association, or from the State of Florida? ® No Q Yes (please explain) 4. List any personal or business relationship you have ever had with any otlicer or employee of the office of the property appraiser, office of the clerk of the circuit court, office of the county attomey or the value adjustment board of any of the counties to which you are applying: 5. List any clubs, organizations, associations, or other entities to which you helong or participate in and in which a possible conflict of interest could occur or the appearance of a conflict of interest might arise that mould prevent you from fairly conducting the hearing between the property appraiser and the property owner and taxpayer. NONE r _ Pursuant to Fla. Stagy. $ 194.035, a persun c atuM serve as a special uragistrate if he/slie is an elected or appointed official ora county, a taxing jurisdiction, or the state; is an employee of a county, a taxing jurisdiction, or the state; or in the same tax year that he/she services the Board as a special magistrate, represents a party before the Board in any administrative review of property taxes. Are you an elected or appointed official or employee of a county, a taxing jurisdiction, or the state? ❑ Ycs ® No If yes, please provide details: The undersirtnrd cert ft"► under penalty of d4,q"iricution from comideration, that each item contained in this application, or any other document furnished by or Grt behalf of the applicant is true and complete as of the dare it bears. The undersigned authorizes the Value Adjustment Board to obtain b formation from urhw sources to verify each item ntaine erein. The undersigned acknowledges tha4 j selected helshe will follow all reyuiremenu and mandate of law tofu rlltrtg rhe &ties of specta! magistrate. Date: 6117/2026 Printed Name of Applicant Page 3 vO W 12015 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD EXEMPTION, CLASSIFICATION, ASSFSSMENT DIFFERENCE TRANSFER, CHANGE OF OWNERSHIP OR CONTROL, OR QUALIFYING IMPROVFMFNT PET IF ION FLORIDA DR-485XC R.1 U23 Rule 12D-16.002 FA.C. Eff 11128 the actions below were taken on your petition in Escambia County. ❑✓ These actions are a remmmendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB. It you are not satisfied after you ate notified of the final decision of the VAt3, you have the right to file a lawsuit in c: i wi t ccwrt to further contest your assessment (See sw:tms 193.155,8)(1),194036.194.171(2),194.161,1q.151, a a W.2425, Fbdd'a stdGl�s. Petition # 2025-00007 Parcel ID 032400000 Petitioner name COLLEGE 1 RACF APARTMENTS LP Property 813 BLOODWORTH LN The petitioner is: W1 taxpayer of record ❑ representative address ❑ other, explain: enlity PetolhetEXQlain FL .................. cision Summary ❑ Denied v Lines 1 and 4 must be completed 1. Just value, required 2. Assessed or classified use aualicable Z Granted you Value fromIM TRNotice 8,413,956.00 8,413,956.00 3. Exempt value,` enter "0" If none 0.00 4. Taxable value," required 8,413,956.00 "All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing aul Reason for Petition F-1Totallyand permanently disabled veteran ❑Use classification, specify ❑Use exemption, specify ❑Qualifying improvement 'other specify *Wt to 196.1978 r21(a) AFFORDABLE Fill in fields will expand, a add pages as needed. retlp tion ❑ Granted youi etition in art Value before Board Action Valuc atter V2ue presaged by pmpert apprai Board Action Ride 12D-9:C25(1Cj, FA C. 8,413,W6.00 8,413,16.00 8,413,956.00 8,413,066.00 0.00 8,330,071.00 - 8,413,W,00 74,885.00 values may differ_ (Section 196,031(7), F.S.) El Hanestead ElWidowler [ ] Blind ❑ Low-income senior El Disabled [71Lfisabled veteran ❑ Parent/grandparent assessment reduction ❑ Deployed military ❑Transfer of homestead assessment difference EJ -Change of ownership or control Reasons for Decision Findings of Fz (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) - -._._ ❑i Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate The finding and conclusions above are e+acOttvttersdOO s .Inrtanh-Davin Joseph.Davis 12j092025 signature, speuai m Print name Pam Childers Pam Childers Signature, VAB Berk or special representative Prinl rune Date If this is a reccxrtmended decision, the board will consider fife recommended deasion on al [ j AM ❑ f'M- Address If the line above is; Dank, please call (85{1 B85-3920 or visit our website at ht s:iid .escambiaclerk.comlAxiaLiyi LU Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Print name nature, VAB Berk or representative Print name ate mailed to 2025-00007 -26- Page I of 4 Findings of Fact. PETITION 2025-00007 PETITIONER: College Trace Apartments. Attorney Msithew Bryant, Esq. ATTORNEY SPECIAL MAGISTRATE: Joseph Haynes Davis, Esq. ESCAMBIA COUNTY VAB BOARD COUNSEL WAS PRESENT: Suzanne Whibbs, Esq. ESCAMBiA COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER: Sydney Elisabeth Rodkey, Esq., Bubba Peters, Renee Brown AM parties were sworn. All county property values were mead into the record by thepm ►arty ism's office: ro Pperty Appraiser's evidence packet was admitted with no obaectcor etitioners' evidence #2 was admitted with no objection. 196.1978 Affordable housing_ property exemption.— l(1)(s) Pr�enty used to provide affordable housing to eligible persons as defined by s. 159.603 and natural persons or families meeting the extremely -low-income, very -low-income, low-income, or moderate -income limits specified in s. 420.0004, which is owned entirely by a npnprofit entity that is a corporation not for profit, qualified as charitable under s. 501(cX3) of the Internal Revenue Code and in compliance win Rev. Piot. 96-32,1996-1 0.13.717, is muddered property awned by an exempt entity and used for a charitable purpose, and those portions of fhe affordable housing property that provide housing to natural persons or families classified as extremely low income, very low income, low income, or moderate income under s. 420.0004 are exempt from ad valorem taxation to the extent authorized under s. 196.196. All property identified in this subsection must comelyy with the criteria provided under s. 196.195 for determiin�ng exempt status and applied by property appraisers an an aamral basis. Tho I.egrslature intends that any property owned by a limited liability company which is as an entity for federal income tax purposea pursuant to Treasury Regulation 301.7701-3(6)(1}(irk be treated a8 owned by its sole Parevacm4mtandunfts , If the sots member of the limited liabu7ity company that owns die prop rs also a limited liability company that is disregarded as an y far federalincometaxose301.7701(b}(i)(n), tba Legislature inter►ds chat the property be daownedby soloberthat owns tho limited liability company that owns the property. Units that that are occupied by natural persons or families wbose inc*me no longer mods the income limits of this subsection, but whose income met those income limits at the time they became tenants, shall be treated as portions of the affordable housing property exempt under this subsection if a recorded land use restriction agreement in favor of the Florida Hawing Finance Corpomiu m or an other governmental or quasi -governmental jurisdiction esquires that all residential units within the property be used in a manner t quali Hes for the exemption under this subsection and if the units aro being offered for rent. (b) Land that is owned entirely by a nonprofit entity flint is a corporation not for profit, qualiSed as charitablc under s. 501(cx3) of the kdomal Revenue Code and in compliance with Rev. Proc. 96-32, 1996-1 C.H. 717, and is leased for a minimum of 99 years for the purpose of, and is predominantly used for, providing housing to natural persons or faculties meeting the extremely -law -income, very -low-income, low-income, or modcxate-income limits specified in s. 42 .0004 is exempt from ad valorem taxation. For purposes of this earagraA land is predominantly used for qualifying purposes if the square footage of the improvements on the hand used to provide qualifying housing is greater than 50 percent of the square footage of all improvements on the land. This paragFaph first applies to the 2024 tax roll and is repealed December 31, 2059. (2Xa) Notwithstanding ss.196.195 and 196.196, property in a muldfamily project that meets the requirements of this subsection is considered property used for a charitable purpose and is exempt from ad valorem tax beginning with the January 1 assessment alter the 15th completed year from the earliest of - 1. f1. The effective date of the rcconded agreement on those portions of the affordable housing property that provide housing to natural pr.rwasi or families mooting the extremely -low-income, very -low-income, or low-income limits specified in s. 420.0004; 2. The first day of the first taxable year in which the pavperty was placed in service as an a$vrdablo houAiing arty that provides housing to natu ral persons or families meeting the extremely -low -inhume, very -low-income, ur low-income limits specified in S. 420.0004; or 3. The date the property received a certificate of occupancy or a certificate of substantial completic A as applicable, allowing the properly to be used as an affordable housing property that provides housing to mutual pcnwna or families meeting the extrcmcly-low-income, very -low- income, or law income limits specified in s. 420.0004. (b) The multifamily project must: 1. Contain more than 70 units that we used to provide affordable housing to natural persons or families meeting the extremely-low-inwmc, very -low-income, or low-income limits specified in s. 420.0004; and 2. Be subject to an agreement with the Florida Housing Finance Corporation recorded in the official records of the county, in which the property is located to provide affordable housing to natural persons or families meeting the extremely -low-income, very -low-income, or low- moome limits specified in s. 420.0004. FINDINGS OF FACT`. THE PROPERTYAPPRAIS:ER PMSILN17ED The Escambia County Property Appraiser presented by and through the testimony of Escambia County Property Appraiser Icgal counsel Sydney Elizabeth Rodkey, Esq. Testified that the Petitioner in the instant man has not provided evidence that the property has been in an -vice and providing affordable housing as required by the Florida Statue 196.1978 (2) (a) for the required 15 -year time period where affordable housing must be provided.. Tas6fied that the Petitioner was also missing a recorded agreement with the Florida Housing Finance Agency having been in effect the full amount of time as per the statute. Testified that the agreement that the Pctitioaea has is from 1983 with the Florida Housing Finance Agency and lasted for 20 years, from 1983 to 2003 and then there was a lapse in time, thereafter. Ibstificd that there was no other agreement until 2022 winch was with the Escambia County Housing Authority Finance Authority. Testified that the problem for the Property Appr-aisa Office is the 19 -year lapse. Testified that additionally, there is a problem with the placed in-service date which is the date that the property was place into service for providing the affordable holmmrmg service to the public, Testified that the Petitioner has not provided a sufficient date that the property was placed into service to provide affordabla housing. Notified that the Petitioner purchased the property in 2021 and did not have a recorded agreement with the Florida Housing Finance Agency and did not enter into that agregiment until 2022. Testified that there was not affordable housing statute until 1999. Teatified that the lcgialarive intent should be considered and once should look past the plain language of the statute. FOR THE PROPERTY APPRAISER: Renee Brawn testified dual the Application, for the exemption relief that the Petitioner seeks in the instant matter was filed on 1/15/2025 and was timely because of the grace period $om 1/1/2025 to 3/1/2025 as set forth from Florida Statute 9150 �111'11MJ -27- Page 2 of 4 196.011. Testified that the 1983 agreement with the Florida Housing Finance Agency filed by the Petitioner was from a previous owner and that agreement expired in 2003 with the new agreement executed in 2022 which was with the Escambia County Housing Authority Finance Authority. The Property Appraiser's evidence is relevant, credible and admissible. PBT1110NER: College Trace Apartments. Attorney Matthew Bryant, Esq. Testified that the Petitioner disagrees with the Property Appraiser's interpretation of the plain a of Florida Statute 196.1978 (2) (a). Testified that "placed in service" docs not require a written agreemenL Florida Statute 196.1978 (2} a) (2) only gar that there must be evidence that the property was placed in service as affordable housing for a 15 -year period. Testified that there is no requirement for a recorded document. Testified that subsection (2) (a) I of Find& Statrtte 196.1978 says that the effective date of the recorded agreement or evidence being placed in service. Testified that there is not a requirement to have a recorded agreement placed in service. Testified that the Petitioner had records going back to 1983 that show 1983 bad a contract to provide affordable housing under subsection (a) and that the Petitioner has done an continuously: Testified that there were HUD inspections recently because the property was eligible and as a rmulk the Petitioner has sho mm that the Petitioner has provided affordable housing since 1983. Testified that the Petitioner is not nRuired to have a recorded agreement to that effect under section 2 (a) under Florida Statute 196.1978. Testified to the subsection 2 (b) requirements: that Petitioner has the 70 units required and has an agreement with the Florida Housmo Finance Corporation. Testified that you only have to have an agreement in place with the Florida Housing Finance Corporation when you make youff application which the Petitioner has and that the Petitioner did so when making the application Testified that both standards have been met and that the lapse that the PropertyAppraisar makes not of i s irrelevant as per the statute. Testified that the secviceor ded by the Petitioner were continuous whether there was a written agreement or not. Testified that the Petitioner has been provie& ffordable housing for the whole length of time and doing w when the exemption relief that the Petitioner sorts was not available. Testifted that in the instant matter the requirement to have a 15 -year written agreement in place is no longer the case. Testified that the Petitioner assumed the property a couple of years ago and that the written agreement is now not needed to show 15 years of service. Testified that the plain language of the statute says what it says and is clear. The Petitioner's evidence is relevant, credible and admissible. C6001151oss o[Luw: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW As to PETTITON: 2025-00007 said petition is recommended to be GRANTED. The undersigned Special Magistrate finds that the following below is controlling and or persuasive in the recommendation: 1%. 1978 Affordable housing property exenTdm— I (1)(a) Property used to provide affordable housing to eligible persons as defined by s. 159.603 and natural persons or families meeting the extremely -low-income, vety-low-income, low-income, or modetate-income limits specified in a. 420.0004, which is owned entirely by a nonprofit entity that is a corporation not for profit, qualified as charitable under s. 50I(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code and In com fiance with Rev. Piro. 96-32, 1996-1 C.H. 717, is considered property owned by an exempt entity and used for a charitable purpose, and those portions of the affordable lousing property that provide housing to natural persons or families classified as extremely low income, vWy low income, low income, or modeaeta income under s. 420.0004 are exempt from ad valorem taxation to the extent authorized under s. 196.196. All property identified in this subsection muustec m�ly with the eriteda provided under e. 196.195 for determining exempt status and applied by property appri iscrb on an annual basis. The Legis lahirc intends that any property owned by a limited liability company which is as an entity for federal income tax Purwses pursuant to Tt:casuay Regulation 301.7701-3(bXlxii) be treated as owned by its sole If the sole member of the limited liability company that owns the property is also a limited liability oompany that is disnprdcd as an entity for federal income tax purposes pursuant to Tyeasnty Regulation 301.7701-3(b)(lxii), the Legislature intends that the property be treated m owned by the sole member of the limited liability companythat owns the limited liability company that owns the property. Units that persons vacant and units that are occupied by natural p^ns or familis whose income no longer moetn the income limits of this subsection, but whose incaume met those income limits at the time they became tenants, shall be treated as portions of the affordable housing property czempt under this subsection if a recorded land use restriction agreement in favor of the Florida Housing Finance Corporation or any other goveniroental or -,*-governmental jurisdiction requires that all residential units within the properly be used in a manner that qualifies for the exemption under thin subsection and if the units erre being offered for rent. (b) Land that is owned entirely by a nonprofit entity that is a ccxporation not for profit, qualified as charitable under s. 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code and in compliance with Rev. Proo. 96-32, 1996-1 C.B. 717, and is teased for a minimum of 99 years for the purpose of, and is predominantly used for, provi housing to natural persons or thmilics meeting the extramaly-low-income, very -lose -income, low-income, or moderate -income limits specified in s. 420.0004 is exempt from ad valorem taxation. For purposes of this paragraph, land is prvdaminantly used for qualifying purposes if the square footage of the improvements on the land used to provide qualifyinhousing is greai:er than 50 t of the square footage of all improvements on the land. This paragraph first applies to the 2024 tax roll and is repealed December 31, 59. (2)(a) Notwithstanding as. 196.195 and 196.196, property in a multifamily project that meets the requirements of this subsection is considered property used far a charitable purpose and is c xcn* from ani valorem tax beginning with the January 1 assessment after the 15th completed year from the earliest of 1. The effective date of the recorded agreement on those portions of the affordable housing property that provide housing to natural penons or families meeting the extremely -low-income, very -low-income, or low-income limits specified in s. 420.0004; 2. The first day of the first taxable year in which the property was placed in service as an affordable housing ped city that Provides housing to nattaal persons or families meeting the extremely -low-income, very -low-income, or low-income limits specifiin s. 420.0004; or 3. The date the property received a certiScate of occupancy nr a certificate of substantial completion, as applicable, allowing the property to be used as an affordable housing property that provides housing to natural persons or families meeting the extremely -law -income, very -low- income, or low-income limits specified in a. 420.0004. (b) The multifamily project must. 1. Contain more than 70 units that are used to provide affordable housing to natural persons or families meeting the extremely -low-income, 2025-000{37 Page 3 of 4 -28- very -low-income, or low-income limits specified in s. 420.0004; and 2. lit subject to an agreement with the Florida Housing Finance Corporation recorded in the, official records of the county in which the property is located to provide af%rdabl a housing to natural persons or famines meeting the extremely -low-income, very -lour -income, or low- income limits specified in s. 420.0004.A preponderance of the evidence sbaws that las NOT demonstrated that the instant exemption and relief that the Petitioner scala should be granted, A preponderance of the evidence shows that: The property qualifies for the exemption under Florida Statutes Section 196.1979(2). Florida Statute 196.1978(2) provides that (e) Property in a multifamily project that meets fac requirements of this subsection is considered property used for a charitable purpose and is exempt from ad valorem tax beginning wifh the January 1 assessment ager the 15th completed. year from the earliest of: 1. The effective date of the recorded afire ernent on those portions of the affordable housing ptti�perty That provide housing tcs natural persons err families meeting the extremely -low-income, very-low-mcc►rne, or low-income limier specified in s. 420.0004; 2. The Srst day of the fust taxable year in whish the property was placed in service as an a�indable housing property that provides housing in natural persons or families meeting the e�rttemely-low-income, very-low-cneama, law-ixscame limits specified in s. 420.0004; or 3. The date ffie pmpenty received a cergficaate of occupancy or a certificate of substantial cn-mpletian, as applicable, allowing the property to be used as an affordable housing property that provides housing to natural persons or families meeting ffie ex. ely-law-income, very -late income, or low-income limits specified in s. 420.0004. (b) The multifamily pm�ext mutat 1. Contain more than ?0 units that are used to provide affordable housing to natural per ms or families meeting the extremely low-income;, very -low-income, or low-income limits specified in s. 420.0004; and 2. He subject to an agwment with the Florida Housin Finance Corporation recorded in the official records of the county in which the properly is located to provide affordable housing to natural persons or families meeting the extremely -low-income, very -low -Income, or low-income limits specified in 8.420.0004. This exemption terminates if the property no lunger serves extremely -low-income, very -low-income, or low- tnecmne persons pursuant to the recorded agreement. A preponderance of the evidence shows that the Petitioner in the instant matter has provided sufficient evidence to show that the property has ft requisite number of units and is sub jcct to a rwordod agreement with the Florida Housing Finance C poration, and that requirement is not in dispute in the instant matter However, testimony by the Properly Appraiser office by and through their counsel, tcsditd that the Petit iom lacks sufficient proof to satisfy the "15 -year requirement" found in (2)(a). A preponderance of the evidence, however, shows that this recorded agreement allows the Petitioner to qualify for an caemption under 196.1978(2) and is a basis for the exemption relief being granted in the instant matter. A preponderance of the evidence shows that the 15 -year requirement is Hatt in the instant matter because the property was `placed 1n service" as an affordable housing propecty in 1983 thus satisfying the requirement that the property must have been affordable for at least 15 years as set faith by the plain language in Section 196.1978(2)(ax2). A pr pondaunce of the evidence shows that Property Placed in Service as Affordable Housing Under the HUD Contract Starts the 15 -Year Clock and a preponderance of the cvidenec shows that "placed -in-service" is defined as the date the property is ready for occupancy, and in the instant matter, as per 196.1978(2Xa)(2), as affordable housing. A prepondm ce of the evidence shows that the Florida Housing Finance Agency (which the evidence ahaws was a precursor to Florida Hausimg Finance Corporation) and the Potitionces prior owner, entered into a Huasing Assistance Payments Contract (the" Chiginal HAP Contuse(') with an effective date of February 10, 1983 and that a prepandcrance of the evidence shows that "plsccd in service" does not require a writer agreement. Florida Statute 196.1978 (2) (a) (2) only says that there must be evidence that the property was placed in service as affordable housing for a 15 -year period. A preponeierance of the evllence ahows that is no requirement for a recorded document. A preponderaace of the evidence shows that Petitioner in PETITION: 2025-00007 has demoustratod that the instant a waq)tion and relief that the Petitioner seeks should be granted. This Special Ma '',trate recommends the instant petition should be granted and the relief sought by Petitioner should be granted. Aa to PETITION: 2025-00407 said petition is recommended to be GRANTED. 2025-OM7 -29- Page 4 of 4 Joseph Haynes Davis, E Law Offices of Joseph Ilaynes Davis, P.A. 2750 Taylor Avenue Suite 11207. Orlando, l (407) 839-3725 • Cell (407) 616-6961• Emaili "-,-.e WdavisF�Idla�v.ccm • Website www.jbdlaw.com 32806 Summary of Qualificafions • Diligent and hard-working attorney in small firm handling all facets of Real Estate Law and Commercial and Residential Real Property Closings, Mortgage Law, Title Insurance, Probate and Guardianship, Business Formation and Consulting, Creditor Collections, Bankruptcy and all phases of Civil and Criminal Litigation. Highly organized, widt demonstrated strengths in successfully managing diverse caseload. • Excellent interpersonal skills with demonstrated ability to motivate lead and interact effectively with diverse groups of people. • Experienced and skillful negotiator with consistent ability to resolve cases favorably through alternative dispute resolution • Results oriented with strong work ethic, high level of integrity, reliability and commitment bo excellence in all matters wtdertaken. Court appointed in the area of Criminal, Probate, Guardianship and Mental Health for Orange County and the 9th Judicial Circuit since March, 2002, and for Guardianship in Osceola County in 2012. • Court appointed in the area of Criminal, Probate, Guardianship and Mental Health for Sarasota County and the 12* judicial Circuit March, 2008 and Nlay, 2013. In 2008, 2009, 2011, 2016 and 2017 appointed to serve as an exemption/classification Value Adjustment Board special magistrate by Orange County, Florida. In 2010, and 2011 appointed to serve as an exemption/classification Value Adjustment Board special magistrate by Manatee County, Florida. In 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017 and 2019 appointed to serve as an exemption/classification Value Adjustment Board Special Magistrate by Hillsborough County, Florida. • In 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015 appointed to serve as an exemption/classification Value Adjustment Board special magistrate by Flagler County, Florida. In 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019 appointed to serve as an exemption/classification Value Adjustment Board Special Magistrate by Sumter County, Florida • In 2012, and 2016 appointed to serve as an exemption/classification Value Adjustment Board special magistrate by Seminole County, Florida. In 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019 appointed to serve as an exemption/classification Value Adjustment Board Special Magistrate by Brevard County, Florida • In 2013 appointed to serve as an exemptiorticlassification Value Adjustment Board special magistrate by Indian River County, Florida. In 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019 appointed to serve as an exemption/classification Value Adjustment Board Special Magistrate. by Volusia County, Florida + In 2013 and 2019 appointed to serve as an exemption/classification Value Adjustment Board Special Magistrate by Citrus County, Florida • In 2013, 2015, 2017, 2018, 2019 appointed to serve as an exemption/classification Value Adjustment Board special magistrate by Marion County, Florida. In 2014 and 2015 appointed to serve as an exempiion/classification Value Adjustment Board special magistrate by Bay County, Florida. -30- • In 2014, 2015, 2016, 2018, and 2019 appointed to serve as an exemption/classification Value Adjustment Board Special Magistrate by Lee County, Florida. • In 2014 appointed to serve as an exemptioglclassification Value Adjustment Board special magistrate by Nassau County, Florida. • In 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017 appointed to serve as an exemption/classification Value Adjustment Board special magistrate by Leon County, Florida. • In 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019 appointed to serve as an exemption/classification Value Adj ustment Board Special Magistrate by Leon County, Florida. • In 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019 appointed to serve as an exemption/classification Value Adjustment Board Special Magistrate by Polk County, Florida. • In 2017, 2018 and 2019 appointed to serve as an exemption/classification Value Adjustment Board special magistrate by Osceola County, Florida. • In 2018 and 2019 appointed to serve as an exemption/dassification Value Adjustment Board Special Magistrate by Pinellas County, Florida. • In 2018 and 2019 appointed to serve as an exemption/dassification Value Adjustment Board Special Magistrate by Alachua Courtly, Florida. • Local counsel to Shapiro and Fishman, LLP Tampa, Florida for foreclosure appearances in Orange County Florida and Seminole County Florida, August 2008 to lire present. • Florida counsel to Bass Law Group, LLC Woodstock, Georgia for civil debt collection matters January 2009 to 201& • Appointed as the Sumter County Florida Value Adjustment Board legal counsel on April 11, 2023. Areas of Expertise Business Civil & Personal Real Estate Transactions Criminal Injury Estate Planning Legal Experience Sports & Family Entertainment Law Law Offices of Joseph Haynes Davis, P.A., Orlando, FL 2001 to Present Small Law Firm, representing wide range of clients in Commercial and Residential Real Property Closings, Mortgage Law, 'title Insurance, Probate and Guardianship, Business Formation and Consulting Civil and Criminal Litigation, Real Estate, Personal Injury, Estate Planning Probate, Bankruptcy, Family and Sports & Entertainment Law. • Business Formation Transactions and Consulting: Advise and assist business and corporate clients on wide range of matters induding business formation and incorporation. Draft and review articles of incorporation, bylaws, shareholder agreements, buy/sell agreeme rtts, compensation agreements, various contracts and represent and advise dients in all phases of business transactions. • Civil & Criminal Litigation: Handle all phases of Civil and Criminal litigation from pre-trial practice through trial. Responsibilities include conducting extensive legal research, drafting pleadings, motions, discovery, trialbriefs, taking and defending depcsifions, witness preparaduA conductingvoir dire and representing clients at hearings, trials and mediation. • Personal Injury: Routinely handle all aspects of wide range orf plaintiff's personal injury cases from client interview through settlement or trial • Famr*: Represent clients in all aspects of family law including divorce, paternity, annulment, custody, support, modifications as well as mediation and informal settlement conferences. Regularly negotiate and draft property settlement agreements. 2 -31- • Estate Planning Routinely aiulyze and daft wills and living trusts, and handle all aspects of Probate and Guardianship proceedings. • Real Estate: I:eview residential nal estate contracts and closing documents for buyers, issue title insurance for residential and commercial dosings and counsel clients on various matters including actions for ejectment, actions for partition and foreclosures. • Sports & Entertainment Law: Negotiate a variety of contract deals for vocal singer -performers, professional basketball adrletes and radio broadcast air talents. • Title Insurance Amit: Former title insurance agent for Attorney's Title Fund (2005-2� and Land America (2006-2009). Issued title insurance through the Law Offices of Joseph Haynes Davis, PA and owner of Sivad Title Services, Incorporated. PREVIOUS EXT'ERIEN CF includes highly successf ul 30 -year career as radio broadcaster and broadcast manager for a variety of stations in Florida, Texas, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Missouri, Louisiana mid Georgia Nominated in 1999 and 2000 by the Billboard R&B Monitor radio trade publication as Assistant Program Director/Music Director of the Year (winner 2M). Youngest brother to the late trlunpeter and music icon, Miles Davis. Education and Professional Development J.D. Rutgers Law School, C.:amden, NJ, 1996 Dean's List, Spring 1996 M.S.W. University of Pennsylvania, School of Social Work, Philadelphia, PA, 1992 B.S. (Conununications/Journalisrn) Illinois State University, Normal, IL,1991 Recipient, Outstanding Graduate in Communications, 1998 Regularly attend continuing education (CLE) courses and professional seminars. Bar Admissions • State of Florida, 2001; U.S. Middle District of Florida 2001; U.S. Southern District of Florida 2012 Professional Affiliations • Orange County Bar Association • Central Florida Real Estate Investors • Business Opportunities Group Incorporated (B(-XA) • Rutgers Law Sdiool Alunuti Association • Sanford Housing Authority, Board Clhairman (04/01 to 02/02) Computer Skills • Westlaw • Lexis -Nexis • WordPerfect -32- Microsoft Word • Internet • L xnail • Axia (Value Adjustment Board, Florida program) -33- t0 D -34- W l IPAO The Florida Bar 651 Fast Jefferson Street Tal abassee, FI.32399-2300 Joshua E. Doyle 850,15,61-5600 Executive Director �v�v��.rl,t7RTD \BAR.org State of Florida i County of Leon } In Re: 0458058 Joseph Haynes Davis Law Offices of Joseph Haynes Davis, P.A. 2750 Taylor Ave Ste B207 Orlando, FL 32806-4474 1 CERTIFY THE FOLLOWING: I am the custodian of membership records of The Florida Bar. Membership records of The Florida Bar indicate that The Florida Bar member listed above was admitted to practice law in the state of Florida on January 23, 2001. The Florida Bar member above is an active member in good standing of The Florida Bar who is eligible to practice law in the state of Florida. Dated this 26th day of May, 2026. Cynthia B. Jackson, CFO Administration Division The Florida Bar PG:R10 CTM -413464 -3.5- W-9 Request for Taxpayer Give form to the rtxc 1 ttoe.h"r�t20=47 Identification Number and Certification requester. Do nut nc�^.trtn-.ant of the Treasury tiered to the IRS. I n+emal iv'Ymm, Soviu t3otoetrvrwJrs you/fOrmW9 for Instructionsand the latest Information. Before you tetlin. For guidance related to the_puroose of Form W-9, see Purpose of Form. below. 1 Nair a Y "ty/Irldividua. An ertry s required (Fen a bole praprieto, r- r ismWrded on", . Amor thA nw w a Rama on line 1, and enter the buslnstalcksregared eriny's nernean Ine2.) LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH HAYNES DAVIS PA 2 Swinses remolderogorded cntrty r>axco, if ddfcrcnt horn abom 3a Ghoul tim opwo;Awn ti..Ix for fedwal tax dasalt ertlon or the entityhr tOvidual whose name Is entered on hno 1. GW4 only n e cf Styr Idlowing seven boss. [] Ineivicual'sole p!c><xtetcr ❑ L corporation U S orpcxauon Lf Partnership E] Trust'(Wate LLC:. Enter the tax Usasfication (C - G coW,at on, 5 = S corporator, P = Pfrtnmship; . . . Nota: Check the -11.0" box above and, In the entry space, enter the approxiate code (u, S. or P) for tin tax clacaltcaton or tha LLC unew h is a disntge dad entity. A d srege ded er tyahould l,-4 t dm;k tl)ear4nopriute box for the tae classification of Its owrw. Other [see instructions) 3b If on Fro 3a you ehoeaed'Padnastup" tx 'TrwVtate.r,' tx dn%*tPd'LLC' end erntered 'P' as to tax dassfficatlon, anti ytsl are rrn4eiin0 ttk torn to a rarfrnwship tn:st, or estate in which you have an owrwiihrp fntw"t, chock this box if you have my brbpn partners, aunnera, or beneaclales. See rust—lions F-1 S Addre%s (rxanber, %treat, and apt o� w its no) Sco instructions. 2750 TAYLOR AVENUE #8207 a Qty, data, and 2121 coda ORLANDO FLORIDA 32M 7 Ust account rtxnber(s)hare (oplong 4 Exemptions bees 4Ppiy orgy to terrain Wilks, not and Mduatt; ww tnstrucho's on page 3) Exempt peyee code Of any) Exemption f'en Foreigvn Ax:wnt Tax C:umnriswncw Acs (FATCA) nip«tirtg code f a•,y; (Appties to atcomts mairla'ned o cilsidt the Unwed Stdtei.) Roq.toetor't nano and addroo toptiand) Taxpayer identification Number IN _ Enter your TIN in the appropriate box. The TIN prodded must match tie name given on line 1 to avoid trrodd a"'_� number backup whhhNd ng For indKiduals, this is generally your socia[ se.urity number (SSM. However, for a resident at en, scle proprietor, or disregarded entity, see the Instructions for Part I, later. For other W entities, h Is your ernproyer Identification number (ON). If you do not have a number, see How to get a or TIN, later. Etlgttollio Idbartillosticia nurrAw —� Note: If the account isn more than one name, see the Instructions for line 1. See also What Name and �i - Fs Fe M96 '-m Number To Gave the Requester far guldelines on whose number to enter. !4 9 � 2 I9 I9 Under penalties of Penury, I codify that. 1. The hurnL4% b1hown on this form is my correct taxpayer Identlication number (or I a•n waiting '0! a nuriba to be issued to me;; and 2. 1 tarn tut uWjea to backup wMhhold ng because (a) I am exempt from backup withhold ng. u, (L4 I have not been notifed by the In:ema' 4etenie Service PRG) that I am eubjoct to bookup withholdirncl as a rosu4 of a feilure to repel dl interest or div dends. or (c; the IRS has notified me that I nen no longer r>il l to oackup withholding; and 3 1 am a U.S. citizen or other U,S. person (defined below); and 4 The FATCA code(3) entered on thio form (rf any) [ndicetitg that I am exempt from rATCA reporting is correct. Corti icaUon Instructions. You rrusi cirmw out ittin 2 above if you have been rottfled by the IR5 list you are currently slbjeet to backup withholding because ycu have fa led to report all interest and dividends on you tat return. For res estate transaotons, hum P dote not eopty. for mortgage interest paid, arr11 ititiun or ahanionmerr of eaAt Prr , cancellation of debt, contrbution; to or individual retirement arrangement IRA), and, gensrally, payments whey than interest and divide ds. you am nolreauired 10 sign the certification, but you frust provice your correct TIN. See the' tnructlorts fry Part 1, later Sign signature of �j Here UA person Date L Z (C' Genera! Instrtitctio Se, -ion refarences ere t Internal Revenue Code unless otherwise noted. Future devolopmonto. Foy tho latoot irformation about dovdopmonta related to Form W-9 and its irstructions, such as legislation enacted after they were published, go to ww v.Irs.gav&brrnW9. What's New New line 3b has been aeo this form, Aflaw-through entity Is required to complete this 1 d t e to indicate tha: [t has direct or indirect fulttiyn pur(nertr, owners, er beneficiaries when it provides the Form W-9 to another flow-through entity in which it nas an ownership Interest. This change Is Intended to provide a flow-through entity with inforrrtatirn regarding the status of its inicirect fonegn partners, owners, or beneficiaries, so that it can satisfy any applicable reporting iequitttrnrtrilb Fur oxanry)ie, a pwirwrafiip that has any Indirect foreign parlinem may be required to complete Schedules K 2 and K 3. See the partnership Instructions for Schedules K-2 and K-3 (Form 10651. Line 3a has been mode ed to clanty how a disregarded entity eompieters this tine. At LLC tha: is a disrrgardtmi tr ntity a nuu'd check the Purpose of Form appropriate box for the tax classification of its owner. Otherwise, it should check he "LL(;" bcx and enter Is apFropnate lax crassifica:ion. An Individual or entity(Form W-8 requester) who is required to tele an information return with the IRS Is giving you this form becau so they Cat. No. 10231X Form W-9 (Rev. 3-2C24) -36- Computer E Pericucc VAB 2026 JOSEPH HAYNES DAVIS, ESQUIRE • Westlaw 30 years • Lexis Nexis 30 years • WordPerfect 32 years • Microsoft Word 32 plus years • Internet 32 plus years • E-mail 27 plus years • Axia 20 plus years • FindLaw 20 plus years -37- INDIAN RIVER COUNTY VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD ATTORNEY SPECIAL MAGISTRATE APPLICATION 2026: NAME AND CONTACT OF INDIVIDUALS WHO CAN ATTEST TO THE YEARS OF EXPERIENCE IN AD VALOREM TAXATION JOSEPH HAYNES DAVIS, ESQ. 1. Karen Wonseder, Esq. The Law Office of Karen Wonseder, P.A. 860 North Orange Avenue, Suite 135 Orlando, FL 32801 'Telephone (407)770-0846 Fax (407)770-0843 karenwonsedeE& ahoo.com. 2. Holly E. Cosby Law Office of Holly E. Cosby, P.A. 602 Center Road Fort Myers, Florida 33907 (239) 931-0006 Office. (239) 418-0006 (fax) Lglly@�eosb��law.com 3. Aaron Thalwitzer, Esq. 257 N. Orlando Ave. Cocoa Beach, FL 32931; (321) 799-4777; Aaron@,BrevardLeaal.com 4. Cassie McDonald Reed Attorney Cotton & Gates 3 Plew Avenue Shalimar, FL 32579 Telephone: (850) 651-9900 Facsimile: (850) 651-2522 E -Mail: cassie0cottonptcs-COM 5. Jon Moyle jm9j4eQmmooyle18w.com Moyle Law Firm, P.A. The Perkins House 118 N. Gadsden St. Tallahassee, FL 32301850-681-3828 (Voice) 850-217-2783 (Cell) 850-681- 8788 (Fax) 6. Suzanne N. Whibbs WHIBBS STONE BARNETT TURNER, P.A. 801 W. Romana Street, Unit C Pensacola, FL 32502 P: 850.432.4357 F: 850.469.0043 whibbsaadstone.com -38- JOSEPH HAYNES DAVIS, ESQUIRE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY FLORIDA VAS SPECIAL MAGISTRATE APPLICATION 2026 EXPERIENCE IN AD VALOREM TAXATION ISSU ES ADDITIONAL INFORMATION THAT QUALIFIES ME TO SERVE I respectfully submit the detailed experience below as representing a microcosm of my experience as per my resume as a Value Adjustment Board Special Magistrate Attorney since 2008 as more evidence of my preparedness for this instant opportunity. Additionally, I have been a licensed attorney in the state of Florida since January, 2001. The instances listed below are not exhaustive of the matters before me over the past as a Special Attorney Magistrate. However, they should represent to the reader the diversity of the matters were before me and evidence the requisite experience needed to perform the tasks as Value Adjustment Board Special Magistrate. 1. While serving in Manatee County: Pursuant to Section 193.461 (3) (b) Bo6dik Statutes, as a Special Magistrate a "Greenbelt" properties matter came before me. With a "Greenbelt" agricultural classification, properties are bona fide agricultural operations taxed accordingto the "use" value of those operations, rather than the development value. For property to qualify for agricultural classification, land must be used in good faith for commercial agricultural purposes. 2. In another matter while serving in Manatee County, was the late filing of an application for homestead exemption based on extenuating circumstances pursuant to Section 196.011(8) Florida Statutes and whether or not the Petitioner personally and exclusively owned by operation of the trust language the beneficial interest in the property at issue in the matter for 2011 tax period based upon the trust instrument language provided by Petitioner. 3. In another matter while serving in Manatee County, an appeal seeking the late filing of an application for Veterans total disability exemption based on extenuating circumstances pursuant to Section 196.011(8) Florida Statutes (2010) and Section 196.081 Florida Statutes (2010.) The issue in that matter was whether the Petitioner demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence extenuating circumstances judged by the Special Magistrate to warrant the granting of the Veterans Total Disability exemption for the current year. 4. While serving in Manatee County, there was an appeal seeking the late filing of an application for homestead exemption based on extenuating circumstances pursuant to Section 196.011(8) Florida Statutes and the rules regardingportabilityset forth in Florid Statute 193.155(8) The issue(s) in that matter: whether the Petitioners had demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence extenuating circumstances to warrant the granting of the homestead exemption for that year as a result of the late filing and, whether or not Petitioners could "port" their Save Our Homes tax benefits to their new home as per in Florida Statute 193.155(8). 5. While serving in Manatee County an appeal seeking the late filing of an application for homestead exemption based on extenuating circumstances pursuant to Section 196.011(8) Florida Statutes (2011) The issue(s) in the instant matter: whether the Petitioners demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence extenuating circumstances to warrant the granting of the homestead exemption for that year as a result of the We filing. The petition was a request for a hearing as a result of the ending of the Homestead -39- on said property as a result of an apparent scrivener error or input error on the deed evidencing the address of their new homestead after a closing. 6. While serving in Flagler County, there was an issue before me of an appeal of a denial of historically commercial or nonprofit exemption of two real property parcels. 7. While serving in Flagler County, an appeal of a petition on a Homestead denial with the issue as to whether or not the Petitioner is a permanent resident of the property at issue. The issue was a permanent resident issue and whether or not has the Petitioner demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that he is indeed a permanent resident of the property. 8. While serving in Flagler County, there was an appeal of a petition on a Homestead denial with the issue as to whether or not the Petitioner had abandoned the property by way of a rental of the property, and whether or not rental of a homestead constitutes the abandonment of the property, with that abandonment being the rental of an entire dwelling previously claimed to be a homestead for tax purposes. Did that rental constitute the abandonment of homestead tax designation? 9. While serving in Indian River County. Pursuant to Section 193.461 (3) (b) Florida Statutes, as a Special Magistrate a "Greenbelt" properties matter came before me. With a "Greenbelt" agricultural classification, properties are bona fide agricultural operations taxed according to the "use" value of those operations, rather than the development value. For property to qualify for agricultural classification, land must be used in good faith for commercial agricultural purposes. 10. While serving in Marion County: An appeal of the denial by the Marion County Property Appraiser of Petitioner's application for non-profitfeharitable ad valorem exemption status as to the use of property/properties at issue. There were 35 parcels at issue before me as the Special Magistrate. APPLICABLE STATUTES: Florida Statutes 196.26, Florida Statute 193.501 Florida Statute 196.196, as admitted as evidence via testimony and documents and submitted by the Property Appraiser and Petitioner respectively. H. While serving in Citrus County: An appeal for a denial of Homestead Denial. RELEVANT STATUTE: Section 6 (b) Florida Constitution and Florida Statute 196.015. 12. Appointed as the Sumter County Florida Value Adjustment Board legal counsel on April 11, 2023. If selected by the Value Adjustment Board, the objectives and goals that I would take to ensure timely return of the associated worksheets would be as I have done over the years in my capacity as a VAB special magistrate in the counties that I have served are very simple: to get the work done immediately after receiving the files from the VAB clerk whether it would be the physical files through the U.S. Postal Mail or electronically by and through ARIA or the particular system designed for the particular county. Should I need a question answered, then I ask not only electronically to either the clerk or VAB counsel, but I also follow up with a telephonic conversation to make sure the written electronic communication comports with the overall understanding of the substance of the intent of the communication. To put it even more simply, when the work comes to me, I get the job done quickly, without delay, and efficiently. I believe that I am the most qualified to serve the taxpayers of Indian River County as a Value Adjustment Board Special Magistrate because of the combination of my prior experience as a VAB 2 -40- Special Magistrate in the counties listed in this application and on my resume, and because of my zeal and affinity for this kind of work. I am always honored and humbled by the opportunity to serve the citizens and taxpayers of the great State of Florida and the surrounding counties in the capacity as a Special Attorney Magistrate. And, l thank you for considering me for this 2026 tax year with this application. /s/Joseph Haynes Davis JOSEPH HAYNES DAVIS Florida Bar No. 0458058 Law Offices of Joseph Haynes Davis, P.A. 2750 TAYLOR AVENUE #8207 Orlando, Florida 32806 Telephone: (407) 839-3725 Facsimile: (407) 839-4708 Joseph.davis@jhdlaw.com 3 -41- Item 8.A. VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD MEMORANDUM To: Members of the Value Adjustment Board Date: July 23, 2026 Subject: Review and Discussion on Hourly Compensation for Special Magistrate Attorneys From: Terri Collins -Lister, Supervisor Clerk to the Board and VAB The purpose of this memorandum is to request that the Value Adjustment Board review and discuss the hourly compensation rate for Special Magistrate Attorneys. The current hourly rate of $125.00 has remained unchanged since 2015. During this time, it has become increasingly difficult to attract and retain qualified Special Magistrate Attorneys. For the Board's consideration, I have attached a survey detailing the compensation rates for Special Magistrate Attorneys across various Florida counties. This survey indicates that many counties have adjusted their compensation rates over the past several years. The Board is asked to: - Review the attached survey of Special Magistrate Attorney compensation rates. - Discuss whether the current hourly rate of $125.00 is still appropriate. - Consider the necessity of adjusting the hourly rate for future appointments. - Provide direction to the VAB Clerk regarding any recommended changes. The goal of this discussion is to ensure that the Board's compensation remains reasonable, competitive, and consistent with other Florida counties, while also supporting the recruitment and retention of experienced legal professionals to serve as Special Magistrates. -42- 2026 VAB SURVEY Item 8.13. ----- VAB Legal �- ---------- Real Estate Ta' r '- Counsel Appraiser pr $175-$200/hr. Attorney Magistrate $125 hr. Alachua County 903 Petitions/Just $278- $288.75/hr. $200/hr. $150-$200/hr. Appraised 2 to 4 hr. minimum 2 to 4 hr. minimum 4 hr. minimum *Tangible $800 per day plus Bay County $300/hr. $250/hr. $800 per day $175/hr. reimbursable not to exceed $500. TPP - 126 Petitions/Axia $500 - max reimbursement for expenses Bradford County $175/hr. NA NA NA Only have a VAB Attorney All mileage paid is in accordance with Brevard County $175/hr. $138.55/hr. $138.55/hr. $144.32/hr. the current County policy & tied to the 1,336 Petitions/Axia annual IRS mileage *Two hour minimum for hearings are 2.0 hrs. Broward County $175/hr./$200,00 $125/hr.* $125/hr.* $125/hr.* A full day 8.0 hrs. Anything over that the 26,907 Petitions/Axia max No travel or mileage No travel or mileage No travel of mileage Magistrate must contact the County for authorization. Pay for work/completion outside County hearings. Calhoun County Charlotte County $200/hr. $175/hr.; No $175/hr.; No $175/hr.; No travel **Minimum 4 hrs. 431 Petitions/Axia Mileage** Mileage** time** $240/hr. Open Bid Process for Citrus County Minimum 3 hrs. $175/hr. 2026.2027 Will $175/hr. per meeting No minimum Discontinue Bid Minimum 4 hrs. Process Clay County 2,118 Petitions/In $225/hr. $195/hr. $150/hr. $200/hr. House Program for Special Magistrates $225/hr. No travel**Mileage $150/hr.** $150/hr.** $155/hr.** f Collier County paid at standard Collier County or mileage Ioutside RS rate 690 Petitions/Axia Updated: 7/23/26 VAB Legal I Real Estate Tangible Property Attorney Appraiser ' Counsel Appraiser Appraiser { Duval County $225 hr. not to $125/hr. $125/hr. $125/hr. * County Attorney has VAB responsibility built into his annual salary/Recommendations 5,500-7,000 exceed $60,000 Petitions/Axia Salary per year* No travel or mileage No travel of mileage No travel or mileage have a limit; 3 hours res./4 hours commercial/no limit on Attorney or TPP 5 hour for Appraiser & Tangible/4-hour Escambia County $250/hr. $250/hr. $250/hr. $200/hr. Attorney. *Reimburse mileage per diem at GSA rates Flagler County $200 Minimum $140/hr. ** $140/hr. ** $140/hr. ** **Minimum 4 hrs. 128 Petitions/ 4 hrs. per meeting/ Plus travel Plus travel Plus travel No minimum for cancellations Benchmark Plus travel Mendry County $250/hr. plus $150/hr. & mileage $150/hr. & mileage $150/hr. & mileage ' mileage Hernando County $250/hr. plus $175/hr.; $175/hr. $175/hr. **Minimum 2 hrs. If cancellations are mileage No travel or No travel or No travel or less than 24 hrs. reimbursement miles e* * miles e* * miles e* Hillsborough VAB Attorney $200/hr.** $200/hr.** **Three hour minimum for anything County $275/hr. Legal No travel or No travel or $200/hr.** cancelled within 48 hours of hearing 4,506 Petitions/Just Services, $375/hr. mileage mileage No travel or mileage date. Appraised for Litigation. Highlands County $200/hr.* $150/hr.* $150/hr.** $175/hr.* *Minimum 4 hours/No travel or mileage Indian River **Minimum 4 hrs. County $225/hr. $125/hr.** $125/hr.** $125/hr. ** No Minimum for cancellations Updated: 7/23/26 Updated: 7/23/26 t'Notes VAB Legal Real EstateTangible Properri a y a, $375/hr. litigation Pinellas County plus reasonable expenses (photo $200/hr. $200/hr. $200/hr.; Less than 48 hours' notice 2 hr. copying, etc.) No mileage No mileage No mileage minimum/maximum 2 hours $150/hr. for hearings $250/hr.; No travel; 4 No travel; 4 hr. hrs. Minimum when Lake County $130/$135 per hr.; minimum/ $250 hr. cancelled w/in 24 hrs. *per diem travel rate per roundtrip Email returned $250/hr./$50* No travel for associate duties $250 hr. for associated preparing duties preparing recommend decisions recommend decisions *Mileage 0.655 current GSA rate not to be less than 10 miles or greater than 250 Lee County $50,000 Annually $175/hr.* $175/hr.* $175/hr.* miles 3,000 Petitions/Axia 2-hour minimum present. If w/d or rescheduled prior to 5pm previous day no minimum given ' We offer remote hearings if approved Leon Countyby $185/hr. $175/hr. $175/hr.* $175/hr. the VAB. *per diem travel rate per roundtrip if in- 4,606 Petitions/Axia person meeting Levy County Madison County $200/hr. 5 Petitions/no software $200/hr. $200/hr. $200/hr. $200/hr. 4 hr. minimum for magistrates. Manatee County No travel No travel No travel No travel Cancellation within 72 hrs. will be paid for four hours Updated: 7/23/26 Updated: 7/23/26 VAB Legal Real Estate Tangible Property Counse AppraAppraiser r aiser - $195/$200/hr.*$150.00/hr.** *2 hr. minimum for each scheduled day Marion County $325.00/hr. Travel/mileage & Travel expenses, $175.00 /hr. **Cancellation fee of $500 for hotel * * mileage &hotel No travel cancellation within 72 hrs. of hearing date **$75 hr. for any administrative/paralegal Martin County $200/hr** . $125/hr. . $125/hr. $125/hr. type services, and $.05 per page for No travel or No travel or No travel or No travel or mileage photocopying. If a session cancelled due to mileage mileage mileage non-appearance, Magistrate is paid for 2 hrs. Magistrates-4 hr. min. for no shows Miami-Dade $275.00/hr.* County Max number of $110/hr.* $110/hr.* $110/hr.* *No travel or mileage hours 900 *Daily minimum $225; travel expenses Monroe County$2,500.00 based on zones $150-$300, meals, hotels 398 Petitions/Exc monthly $150/hr.* $150/hr.* $150/hr.* and parking additionally **Travel outside Monroe County Spreadsheet/VAB No travel or expenses would be paid for "approved ctions done manually mileage** travelers" of the Monroe County Code Nassau County 265 Petitions/Inhouse $240/hr. $125/hr.* $125/hr.* $140/hr.* *4 hour minimum program Okaloosa County $225/hr. $200/hr. $200/hr. $200/hr. Billed for 8 hour day only 2 times calendar year Okeechobee $225/hr. No Magistrates No Magistrates No Magistrates Countv $155 hr.; Minimum $155 hr.; Minimum $155 hr..; Minimum Orange County $225/hr.; No of 2 hrs. Local; 4 of 2 hrs. Local; 4 of 2 hrs. Local; 4 hrs. No minimum is given for hearings less travel or mileage hrs. Not Local. for hrs. Not Local. for Not Local. for no than 2 hours no shows or w/d no shows or w/d shows or w/d Updated: 7/23/26 Updated: 7/23/26 VAB Legal Real Estate Tangible Property _ Counsel Appraiser: riser Apprai 4 hour minimum for hearings; same Osceola County $300 hr./$350 for $180/hr.; $180/hr.; $180/hr.; hourly rate during orientations; no 1,400 Petitions/Axis litigation 4 hr. minimum; 4 hr. minimum; 4 hr. minimum; travel pay Mileage Mileage Mileage Palm Beach $150/hr. $150/hr. $150/hr. County $200/hr. No travel** No travel** No travel** **4 hr. minimum **For Special Magistrates — Guaranteed 4 hr. minimum on hearing days and guaranteed 4 hr. minimum if hearings $275/hr. non- cancelled within 48 hours of scheduled Pasco County litigation; $375/hr.hearing. litigation; No 185/hr.** 185/hr.** 185/hr.** travel Special Magistrates are compensated for compensation. actual time in attendance for attending the mandatory Special Magistrate Orientation (the 4 hr. minimum shall not apply). $125/hr. $125/hr. *Special Magistrate compensated at the Polk County $200/hr. $125/hr. $0.45 per mile for $0.45 per mile for rate of $500 per half day (4 hrs. & $1000 1,341 Petitions/Axia No travel * travel * travel * per full day (8 hrs.);e more than either the half or full day will be paid $125/hr. St. Johns County $275/hr. not to $125/hr. $125/hr. $140/hr. No travel time; 4 hr. minimum 2,232 Petitions/Axia exceed $60,000 St. Lucie County $100/hr.; Minimum $100/hr.; Minimum $125/hr.; Minimum 2 Special Magistrate not paid more than $175/hr. 2 hrs. Unless 2 hrs. Unless hrs. Unless cancelled 5 hours on any matter without cancelled within 24 cancelled within 24 within 24 hrs. hrs. hrs. consent. Updated: 7/23/26 Updated: 7/23/26 VAB Legal Real Estate Counsel Appraiser Tangible Property Appraiser —r Attorney Appraiser Notes Santa Rosa 8 hour minimum; per diem, rental car, County $200/hr. $250/hr. $250/hr. lodging, partial day 5 hour minimum Sarasota County $200/hr. $200/hr. $200/hr. 2 hr. minimum for no-shows or last 1,100-1,200 $400/hr. No travel or No travel or No travel or mileage minute cancellation Petitions/Axia mileage mileage Seminole County $225/hr. 4 hr. minimum for a Special $150/hr. $150/hr. $150/hr. Magistrates who travels 2 hours to a 1,200 Petitions/Axia (407) 665-7663 location *Reasonable out-of-pocket expenses with supported documentation. Less Sumter County $300/hr. * $125/hr.; $125/hr.; $125/hr.; than $100 itemized and details as to L No travel or mileage No travel or mileage No travel or mileage the amount. Mileage paid in accordance with Chapter 112 Volusia County 1,100-1,700 $230 hr./Mileage $175/hr. $175/hr. $175/hr. Petitions/Axia *Reimbursement for travel (airfare & car Walton County $225/hr. $200/hr.* $250/hr.* $200/hr. ** rental), lodging and food per diem not to 276 Petitions/Excel No travel or 2 day (16 hrs.) No mileage include travel time mileage No mileage **Reimbursement for travel (airfare & car rental, lodging and food per diem Updated: 7/23/26 unty VAB Legal Counsel — Real Estate Appraiser -- -- - -r Tangible Property Appraiser — — - -T Attorney Appraiser Notes *Organizational meeting one hour $175 (Includes travel fee of $50) **First hour of hearing $200 + Travel fee Washington $200/hr.*/ Only use VAB Only use VAB Only use VAB $50. Second hour $150/ Each additional County ** Legal Counsel Legal Counsel Legal Counsel hour $50.00 per hour. Additional time for review hearing reports or minutes billed in increments of .1 (6 minutes) at $175.00 per hour Updated: 7/23/26 SPECIAL MAGISTRATE APPLICATION INDIAN RIVER COUNTY VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD APPLICANTS MUST MEET QLALtFICAnoss oLrrLINED IN Ft A. STAT. 6 194-035) Please type or print. If more space is needed, attach additional sheets. ,4pplirams may supplement their application with a resume. However a resume cannot be used in lieu of an application. Application for: O Attorney Special Magistrate ® Appraiser Special Magistrate for... ® Real Property and/or ❑ Tangible Personal Property If appointed, how much time would you be available to conduct hearings and complete your recommendations? ❑ 1 to 8 hours per week; ❑ 9 to 20 hours per week; ❑ 21 to 30 hours per week; ® 31 to 40 hours per week. Name: Maxim Antonov home Address: 8975 Sonoma Lake Blvd Boca Raton FL 33434 Mailing Address: 8975 Sonoma Lake Blvd Boca Raton FL 33434 Business Name: IMA Real Estate Business Address: 997's Sonoma Lake Blvd Roca Raton FL 33434 Phone: Home/ Business/ Cell/(954) 871-0304 Fax: E -Mail: MaxAIj2raiserQgmaiI.com • Copy of license referenced below. • Documentation to support membership in professional organizations listed below under Organizations. • A writing sample, which may consist of an opinion letter or other business-related documentation that contains one or more written pages of original material. If you have served as a special magistrate previously, please submit a recommended decision as your sample. Do not submit a copy of an appraisal as a writing sample. • Prior to conducting hearings, all applicants are required under Fla. Stat. § 194.035 to certify completion of the current year training provided by the Department of Revenue. To obtain the training, go online to the Department's website at ]gln:ilr_rnyftnrida.con�ldnr' rc crty/vab'trainin8.htm1. Return your completion certificate to the VAB clerk. Attorney Magistrate Applicant: Bar Number: Date of Admission: How many years of experience do you have in the area of ad valorem taxation: Appraiser Magistrate Applicant: Residential Appraiser License #: Valid Through: General Appraiser License #: RZ4608 Valid Through: 11/3&2026 Provide number of years of experience you have in the area of real property valuation: $. Describe experience, and number of years you have in the area of tangible property valuation: Limited tangible nersonal property valuation experience. Page t v0I /13/2015 -50- Item 9.A. SPECIAL MAGISTRATE APPLICATION ' INDIAN RIVER COUNTY VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD (APPLICANTS MUST MEET QUALIFICATIONS ourLINPD IN F- +_ STAT S IW MS) Page 2 v01/13/2015 -51- ' V,D—Al SPECIAL MAGISTRATE APPLICATION INDIAN RIVER COUNTY VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD (APPUt:AWS MUST MF.F.T OUALWATIONS OUTLINED iN Fi A- SLti. ti 194.035) I. Educational Background State Certified General Real Estate Appraiser - License 874608. valid through 11/30/2026. Master's degree. Member of the American Guild of Apprnisers - AGA - since 5/2019. FL l3nR VAR Special Magistrate Training and Exam completed annually 2021-2025. 2026 training scheduled 2. List any experience and/or specialty for the following property types: PROPERTY TYPE EXPERIENCE/SPECIALTY Residential Real Property Single-family homes, condominiums, co-ops, and multi -family properties far lending. litigation. tate planning, and tax appeals. Commercial Real Property Retail office, mixed-use, and income-producing, rorties. Tangible Property N/A Other (please specih,) VAB Special Magistrate - 13 FL counties; expert witness tcstimon .; tax -appeal consulting. 3. If you currently or previously have served as a special magistrate, please provide the municipality or county and dates served. Broward 2021 -Present, Collier, Miami -Dade. lee, Martin Osceola Pinellas 2023 -Present - St. Lucie 2024 -Present: Alachua. Citnis. Hernando. Hillsboroueh, Pasco 2025 -Present. 4. Have you ever been dismissed, terminated or denied appointment as a special magistrate for poor or improper performance? ® No ❑ Yes (please explain) 5. List any additional information which makes you qualified to serve as a special magistrate. Also provide name and contact information of at least two individuals who can attest to your years of experience in ad valorem taxation, tangible personal property or real property appraisals. Eight vears of professional exDerience in real orovertv valuation. expert witness testimony, and real estate consulting• member in etwd standing of the American Quild of A r�crsw nrofrcicnt in AXiA. CIS. MI.S. and online evidence portal~ used in Florida VAB hearings References •Ms. Philicia Lloyd - 917-804-3007 Yan Petliar - 646-915.4644 _- 6. Are you willing to accept the Value Adjustment Board established schedule of fees? ® Yes 13 No If no, please indicate your schedule of fees to be charged the board on a one-hour basis. 7. Explain your level of knowledge and experience with computers and list the applications you are familiar with, including Axia. Advanced computer skills with extensive experience in appraisal software and digital tools. Proficient in Microsoft Office. Adobe Acrobat and Excel -batted mWeling Regularly use ARIA for VAB resort writing and form compliance Familiar.%ith CIS obtfonn. SILS wsterns and online evidence portals used in Florida VAB hearings. 1. List each organization, recognized by the real estate appraisal industry or the professionals in that field, in which you are currently or have previously been a designated member: Page 3 ,,01113/2015 -52- SPECIAL MAGISTRATE APPLICATION INDIAN RIVER COUNTY VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD (APPLICANTS MIST MEET QIAI 1W ATIONS OITI.MPT) IN STAT_ 6 144.035) ORGANIZATION DESIGNA"[ION DATE MEMBERII American Guild of Member 512019 N/A Appraisers 2. Of those organizations describe any possible conflict of interest that could occur or the appearance of a conflict of interest that may prevent you from fairly conducting a hearing: None. 3. Have you ever been disbarred, suspended or received any other disciplinary action from any organized association, or from the State of Florida? X No O Yes (please explain) 4. List any personal or business relationship you have ever had with any officer or employee of the office of the property appraiser, office of the clerk of the circuit court, office of the county attorney or the value adjustment board of any of the counties to which you are applying: None_ S. List any clubs, organizations, associations, or other entities to which you belong or participate in and in which a possible conflict of interest could occur or the appearance of a conflict of interest might arise that would prevent you from fairly conducting the hearing between the property appraiser and the property owner and taxpayer. NOM. Pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 194.035, a person cannot serve as a special magistrate if helshe is an elected or appointed official of a county, a taxing jurisdiction, or the state; is an employee of a county, a taxing jurisdiction, or the state; or in the same tax year that he/she services the Board as a special magistrate, represents a party before the Board in any administrative review of property taxes. Are you an elected or appointed official or employee of a county, a taxing jurisdiction, or the state? ❑ Yes 3 No if yes, please provide details: The undersigned certifies. under penalty of disqualification ftom consideration, that each item contained in this application, or any other document furnished by or on behalf of the applicant is true and complete as of rhe date it bears. 71te undersigned auth9rizes the Y djuctnrent. Darr! to obtain information from other sources to verify each item contained herein hymen ► d ac - ges that, if selected, he/she will follow all requirements and mandates of law in fulfill g f1�e� ec of a'Weiat fiagistrate. Printed Name of Applicant Date: 04,,19,'2026 -53- Page 4 v01/13nols MAXIM ANTONOV Stote-Certified General Real Estate Appraiser I Florida VAB Special Magistrate 8975 Sonoma Lake Blvd, Boca Raton, FL 33434 • (646) 330-2637 • Maxappraiser@gmail.com PROFESSIONAL SUMMARY State -certified General Real Estate Appraiser and court-appointed Florida Value Adjustment Board (VAB) Special Magistrate with 10+ years of real property valuation experience and 5+ years presiding over ad valorem tax appeal hearings. Extensive expertise conducting impartial quasi-judicial hearings, evaluating taxpayer and property appraiser evidence under the "competent substantial evidence" and statutory "presumption of correctness" standards (F.S. 194.301), and issuing well -reasoned written Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in accordance with F.S. Chapter 194, Florida Administrative Code Chapter 12D-9, and Florida Department of Revenue Uniform Policies and Procedures. Re -qualified annually through DOR VAB training since 2021. Experienced with residential, commercial, condominium, cooperative, and high-value unique properties across Broward, Miami -Dade, Palm Beach, and Lee counties. STATUTORY QUALIFICATIONS (F.S. 194.035) • State -Certified General Real Estate Appraiser (FL, NY, NJ) — exceeds 5 -year real property valuation experience requirement under F.S. 194.035(1) • Florida Department of Revenue VAB Special Magistrate Training — completed and re -qualified annually since 2021 • Independent and impartial — not an elected or appointed official or employee of any Florida taxing jurisdiction or the State • USPAP-compliant valuation practice; no representation of any party before the Board during service year CORE COMPETENCIES • Impartial Quasi-judicial Hearings • AXIA Worksheets & DR -485 Recommended Decisions ■ Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law (FOF/CUL) ■ DR -486 Petition Review (Real Property, Portability, Exemptions, Classifications) • Presumption of Correctness (F.S. 194.301) • Save Our Homes & Portability Calculations • Competent Substantial Evidence Standard • TRIM Notice / Assessment Roll Cross -Verification • Ad Valorem Taxation (F.S. Ch. 193, 194, 196) • Florida Sunshine Law & Public Records Compliance • Just / Assessed / Taxable Value Analysis • Expert Witness Testimony • Three Approaches to Value (Sales, Cost, Income) ■ USPAP / IAAO Standards / FHA / HUD • Highest and Best Use Analysis • Argus, Costar, MLS, County GIS, Income Modeling PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE Appraiser Special Magistrate — Value Adjustment BoardApril 2021- Present Broward, Miami -Dade, Lee, and Palm Beach Counties — State of Florida • Preside over 300+ ad valorem tax appeal hearings Involving residential, commercial, condominium, cooperative, vacant -land, and high value unique properties; individual petition values range from $1M to $13M. • Conduct impartial quasi-judicial hearings in strict accordance with F.S. Chapter 194, Florida Administrative Code Chapter 12D-9, and the Department of Revenue Uniform Policies and Procedures Manual. • Review and weigh evidence submitted by petitioners, tax agents, and the Property Appraiser's Office; apply the F.S. 194.301 presumption of correctness and the competent -substantial -evidence standard. • Author detailed written Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for each petition; complete ARIA worksheets and DR -485 recommended decisions for timely delivery to VAB counsel and the Board. • Cross -verify evidence using MLS, CoSta , county GIS, TRIM notices, certified assessment rolls, deed records, and DR -486 petition exhibits to establish credible just value. • Handle complex valuation issues including highest and best use, income-producing multifamily, waterfront and historic homes, portability, Save Our Homes, homestead, agricultural classification, and change -of -ownership determinations. • Maintain strict neutrality and full compliance with Florida Sunshine Law, public -records requirements, and disclosure obligations; no representation of any party before the Board during service year. • Re qualified annually through Florida Department of Revenue VAB Special Magistrate training (2021, 2022, 2023, 2024, 2025). -54- Certified General Real Estate Appraiser / Certified Home InspectorAugust 2015 — Present Cordoba Global Corp — New York, NY/ Boca Raton, FL • Appraise residential and commercial real estate for asset valuation, litigation support, estate planning, tax appeals, and acquisition due diligence. • Deliver narrative and Fannie Mae -compliant form reports for institutional clients including 1P Morgan Chase, Wells Fargo, and Citibank, as well as attorneys, CPAs, estate planners, and private investors. • Appraise high-value and unique properties (over $5M) in Manhattan, rural New Jersey, and South Florida markets. • Produce approximately 55 reports per month representing —519M in aggregate value; reduced report error rate 11% quarter -over -quarter through quality -control process improvements. • Inspect properties for USPAP, FHA, and NY/NJ building department compliance. Senior Review AppraiserSeptember 2021— July 2023 Homepoint Financial Corporation — formerly 3rd largest wholesale lender in America • Managed the Collateral Risk Review team covering complex, historic, and commercial valuation reviews. • Authored Fannie Mae repurchase -challenge response memos and provided collateral support to the risk team. • Supported underwriting by analyzing government guidelines and identifying scope -of -work issues across mortgage financing, insurance replacement cost, estate valuation, tax appeals, equitable distribution, and relocation assignments. EDUCATION & CONTINUING EDUCATION Georgetown University — Online Master of Professional Studies in Real Estate — GPA 3.92024 — Present Yale University — Financial Markets Certified Program2025 Cornell University — Commercial Real Estate Certificate Program202O — 2021 Moscow State University — Master's Degree, International Relations and Economics2011 Florida Department of Revenue — VAB Special Magistrate Training (annual re-qualification)2021— Present International Association of Certified Home Inspectors — Residential Standards2018 UC Irvine — Merage School of Business — Initiating and Planning Real Estate Projects2017 Columbia University — Construction Project Management2017 University of Virginia — Fundamentals of Project Planning and Management2017 LICENSES & CERTIFICATIONS • State -Certified General Real Estate Appraiser —Florida, New York, New Jersey • Licensed Real Estate Broker — Florida • Licensed Real Estate Salesperson — New York • Certified Home Inspector PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS • American Guild of Appraisers (AGA) • Columbia Society of Real Estate Appraisers, New York — Member since September 2016 • Home Inspector Association of South Florida — Member since 2021 • McKissock Learning Center LANGUAGES English (fluent), Russian (native) -55- S.: Ron DeSantis, Governor STATE OF FLORIDA Melanie S. Griffin, Secretary DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION FLORIDA REAL ESTATE:AP..PRAISAL BD THE CERTIFIED GE PROVISI a ' 4 � arr Pr`.+ ..fin•--' • .. + i + r r • • • lk Always verify licenses online at MyFloridaLicense.com ISSUED: 02/06/2025 Do not alter this document in any form. This is your license. It is unlawful for anyone other than the licensee to use this document. mi 11 0-l" !�N �!� The American Guild of Appraisers The voice of the professional appraiser, protecting the public interest Home Join About Us Contact AGA Terms of Use Calendar National Leadership Benefits Welcome to the Members Area! Retwn to Website Help Finail contact Americar Guild of Aq r i _.� My Membership Information... (Maxim Antonov) Antonov, Maxim 8975 Sonoma Lake Blvd Boca Raton, FL 33434 Home Phone: 646-491-1949 Work Phone: 646-491-1949 maxa ppra iserOgma I I . com Members Area Features... Events Event-cgistration Register and pay fees for upcoming events (e avail.) Communication LjNewsletters View :urrent aril past issues 'i Meswge N. and5 Join cngoing discussions I Engagement Member Information Change Contact/Profile In Change UcernamelPassword Billing Info Ely Memtrershi12 Dues5ees My Events jjy„ LUAAtions Other Info Membershig CeglfiCatg PQE (7a1endaEof-Eyentc 1 �'ie.v upcoming �verttt community Posts suten8 a story to the newsletterSend 0 MLIL4Rs?i1 a general mulopost to Miner aril/or Facebook -57- Erviectsfcommittees ry YE Elections �- Sinn -up toparticipate In projects/committees (3) participate in online surveys x+r Vote in current electXw& i i Resources --- _ - -- -- , File Archive rjassified Ads View documents for our members view Items services for sale Multimedia a oto oide View ourr photo aalbumWttd1 a Video Alva C10 ♦.,..k, . wan r,....r.nr �: �%' ., �-,::::.� �..+-... American Guild of Appraisers • P.O. Box 553 a Speicervil e, MD 20868 n Phone 3301-377-0099 webmat:terV 112P aisermulAMIll Alebsite designed by Vieth Consulting —58— Q DR -485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11123 VALUE PETITION Rule 1213-16042 r A C Err 11123 111111111,1♦I M ail tin County FLORIDA The actions below were taken on your petition [✓] 1 hese actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAR 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)(q, 194.036,194-171(2), 194.181,196151. and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) _ Petition # 2025-053 Parcel ID 373841007005016607 Petitioner name RYAN FLORIDA CRE The petitioner is: n taxpayer of record Z taxpayer's representative ❑ other Decision Summary Denied your petition Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed 1 Just value, required 2. Assessed or classified use value,' if applicable Property 3700 SE DIXIE KWY address STUART, FL 34994 ❑ Granted your petition n Granted your petition in part Value from Before Board Action After Board TRIM Notice Ve jepresented by Drope'j appraser Action Rue12D-90 10 FAC 2,297,560.00 2,297,560.00 2,297,560.00 2,140,233.00 2,140,233.00 2,140,233.00 3. Exempt value,' enter'0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,' required 2,140,233.00 2,140,233,00 21140,233,00 'All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ (Secom 196.031(7), Reasons for Decision I till ire held- 4vr11 F p:uicf, of a dl pHgr ' a rr�:c.rlfttt. Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) ❑✓ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Maxim Antonov Maxim Antonov 04,10312026 Signature, special m agist ate Print name tite Layla PondeisLayla Ponders; 04/10/2026 — Dale Signature, VAti B _ erk or special representative Print name It tins is a recommended decision, the board will ccxisider the recommended decision on __- at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, lime, acid place when the recommended decision will be considered To find the information, please call 772 288-5593 or visit out website at https:Nyab.marlinderk.corn/a LJ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signairrre, rhair, va-ie adjustment board - .._._print name Date of decision Srgiature, VAf3 deck or represenlabve Print name Date mailed to orifice 2025-053 -59- Page 1 o,174 Findings of Fiat for Petition 2025-053: PETITION NO. 2025-053 PARCEL/ACCOUNT: 37-38-41-007-005-01660-7 /Account No. 33489 OWNER: DIXIE TRIO LLC PETITION TYPE: Real Property Value DOR USE CODE: $41 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 3700 SE Dixie Highway, Stuart, Martin County, Florida 2025 JUSTiMARKET VALUE: x21297,560 2025 ASSESSED VALUE: $2,140,233 2025 TAXABLE VALUE: 52,140,233 Procedural posture and appearance. A hearing was held on the record on February 11, 2026, at 9:00 a.m. before the undersigned Special Magistrate. The Property Appraiser's Office appeared through Jarrett Hovda, who was sworn before presenting testimony. The petitioner appeared through Jeffrey J. Smith, who had previously been sworn for the tearing session and presented the petitioner's position. The Special Magistrale stated on the record that the hearing then proceeding concerned Petition No. 2025-053 only. The Property Appraiser presented its valuation evidence first, the petitiorker then presented its evidence and argument, the Property Appraiser offered rebuttal, the petitioner briefly responded, and the hearing was concluded with the decision deferred for later written recommendation. Property description and assessment at issue. The subject is a multi -tenant flex warehouse property located at 3100 SE nixie Highway in Stuart, Florida. The Property Appraiser identified the parcel as containing approximately 36,002 square feet of land, or about 0.83 acres, improved with a one story flex warehouse building containing 23,910 square feet of gross twilding area. the testimony described the building as originally built in 1972, with an effective year built of 2000, and of average overall quality consistent with a Class C flex warehouse structure. The subject lies along the west side of SE Dixie Highway in the south Stuart area, with direct frontage and access from two curb cuts on Dixie Highway. Thee site is rectangular in shape. The property is part of a group of parcels acquired by the current owner in 2016 for a reported purchase price of 53,450,000. No more recent sale or listing of the subject itself was identified by the Property Appraiser. For the 2025 tax year, the Property Appraiser placed a justvalue of 52,297,560 on die subject, with an assessed value and taxable value of 52,140,233 after application of the non -homestead assessment cap. The issue before the Board is whether die petitioner established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the 2025 just value exceeds market value as of January 1, 2025, or whether the Property Appraiser failed to properly apply professionally accepted appraisal methods and the applicable statutory criteria Summary of the Property Appraiser's case. The Property Appraiserpresented both an income approach and a sales comparison approach, each of which indicated a value materially above the 2025 jusivalue on the tax roll. The evidence and testimorri made clear that the assessed value at issue was not the top end of the office's supported range, but rather a conservative figure subztautially below both approach indications. the Property Appraiser first described the physical property, its location, site sine, building size, and general character, The aerials and photographs showed a visible highway -oriented industrial/flex property in the south Stuart market. The Property Appraiser explained that this was one of two petitioned parcels within a broader 2016 acquisition, but that the subject under this petition had to be valued as its own distinct asset That distinction later became important in rebuttal because the petitioner had chosen to combine evidence for two separate. parcels. The Property Appraiser then turned to rental rate support. Based on an analysis of 24 lease3 from the south Stuart area during 2024, the office concluded to an average asking rent of $17.18 per square foot and an average starting rent of $16.80 per square foot Particularly persuasive was the testimony drat three of the rental comparables were actual leases from the subject property itself in 2024, signed at $16.00. $18.96, and $15.60 per square foot. That evidence directly tied the office's market rent conclusion to the subject's own recent leasing activity, and it strongly supported the reasonableness of the off'ice's adopted market rent of $16.00 per square foot Using that rent, the Property Appraiser's income approach calculated potential gross income of $382,560 from the subject's 23,910 square feet. the office applied a 3% vacancy rate, producing effective gross income of $371,083. Operating expenses were developed from a market- based expense analysis and totaled 28% overall, including real estate taxes, management, and reserves. After removal of taxes from the upper portion of the pro forma and tax loading through the capitalization process, the resulting net operating income was S301,786. The Property Appraiser then applied a base capitalization rate of 6.5%, and after tax loading under the Department of Revenue's Method 1. the loaded capitalization rate became 7.8436. This produced an indicated value of $3,848,255 before coil of sale. After deducting 15% for cost of sale, the resulting value indication was $3,271,016, or approximately $137 per square foot the Property Appraiser's testimony also supported each of those inputs with broader market data. For the wider Martin County industrial market. Costar -reported leases from 2024 showed 53 comparables with an average of 516.85 per square foot and a median of $16.60 per square foot. The submarket report reflected an average asking rent of $17.49 per square foot and a low vacancy rete of 2.91/6. Expense support came from analysis of industrial flex properties in Martin County from 2022 through 2024, with a median expense ratio of 27.73'6, supporting the office's 28% assumption. Cap rate support came from research spanning Martin, St Lucie, Indian Riven, and B rrvard Counties, showing an overall average cap rate of 6.8% aril median of 6.51/9, with Martin County comparables ranging from 5% to 8% and averaging 6.37%. Additional market reports, including regional investor survey:. and South Florida industrial market publications, were cited in testimufry as consistent with the office's adopted rent, vacancy, and cap rate conclusions. Importantly, the office's chosen 6.5%base rate was supported as being in line with the Martin County market and not aggressive. The Property Appraiser also developed a sales comparison approach based on six similar industrial properties located in Martin County: These sales occurred between April 2022 and December 2024. The comparable properties ranged in size from 10.096 square feet to 26,701 square feel and sold at prices ran&ing from $158 to $250 per square foot, with an average of approximately x186 per square foot the office testified that greatest weight wasp aced on comparable sale number two because it was in close proximity to the valuation date, comparable in size, and located immediately next door to the subject. The office also described this sake as the most conservative among the set After deducting 15%for cost of sale, the sales comparison approach yielded an indicated value of 53,211,113, or about $134 per square foot In short, both approaches indicated a value far above the 2025 market value currently on the roll. 2025-053 Page 2 of 4 -60- the Property Appraiser then reconciled the two approaches. rhe income approach indicated 53,271,016, the sales comparison approach indicated $3,211,113, yet the 2025 just value placed on the subject was only V2,297,560. The off'ice's testimony repeatedly emphasized that the current value was therefore conservative and already below both supported indications. Summary of the petitioner's case. The petitioner's presentationw•as comparatively narrow. Jeffrey J. Smith stated that one figure in the pChtioner's packet had not been corrected and that the actual conclusionbeing advanced for the two properties together was based on $68 per square foot after cost of sale, which he translated into a value of $3,333,360. His testimony, however, also made clear that the same evidence package had been prepared for both Petition No. 2025-053 and the following Petition No. 2025-054, and that the petitioner intended to rely on the same set of sales for both. The petitioner did not present an income approach for the subject, despite the fact that this is an income producing flex warehouse property. Nor did the petitioner clearly isolate a separate supported value for Petition No. 2025-053 alone during the hearing. Instead, the petitioner relied almost entirely on a sales comparison theory using lower-priced sales that were said to be similar in construction. 1 he petitioner asserted that its sales comparison analysis, beginning in its evidence packet, supported approximately S68 per scgtatr foot after cost of sale. The petitioner testified that some of the sales were located up and down the coast, including in Indian River County and Fort Pierce, and that while they may not have been in the sarne location as the subject, they were said to be similar in terms of the nature of the construction. The- petitioner specifically discussed one three -parcel sale in Fort Pierce and stated that after aggregating the allocation among the components, he concluded to about $72 per square foot The petitioner emphasized that these sales represented what he considered more comparable construction to the subject than the Property Appraiser's newer Martin County sales. However, the petitioner did not provide a separate, subject -specific pro forma income analysis, vacancy analysis, expense study, or cap -rate analysis forPetition No. 2025-053. Nor did the petitioner refute the subject's own 2024 lease evidence identified by the Properly Appraiser The petitioner's position was essentially that the office's sales were superior and newer, whereas his sales were older, lower-priced, and in some cases outside Martin County but purportedly more similar in physical character. Property Appraiser rebuttal. The Property Appraiser's rebuttal was direct, persuasive, and ultimately decisive. The off ice first pointed out that the petitioner had combined Petition Nos. 2025-053 and 2025-054 in one package even though these are two distinct assets with different physical characteristics. Petition No. 2025-053 concerns a multi -tenant flex building, whereas Petition No. 2025-054 concems a larger single tenant warehouse. The office specifically noted that the petitioner failed to clarify what precise value was being allocated to each petition. That point is material because the Board must decide each parcel on its own evidence, not on an undifferentiated combined theory. The Property Appraiser next stressed that the petitioner chose not to submit an income approach, even though this is an income-producing property ana the office had demonstrated an income approach it considered more probative than sales alone. That omission weakened the petitioner's case because it left unrebutted the office's conclusion that the subject's own recent lease activity and the broader Martin County market strongly supported a much higher value than the assessment The office then attacked the petitioner's sales evidence in a specific and crediblA manner. It stated that none of the petitioner's nine sales was truly comparable to the subject or to the related parcel under the next petition. The petitioner had ignored the Martin County market entirely and instead selected the lowest sales from outside the county. Only one of the petitioner's sales was similar in size to the subject, and thiat comparable—identified in rebuttal as comparable sale number sir—was a dated sale at $95 per square foot, outside Martin County, and a single -tenant building rather than a multi -tenant flex warehouse. The Property Appraiser further testified that this same property resold in September 2025 for $163 per square foot, or roughly $68 per square foot higher than the earlier transaction cited by the petitioner: I'hat testimony undercut not only the reliability of the petitioner's chosen sale, but also the stability of the petitioner's asserted $68 per square foot conclusion The office also referred back to its own sales approach and emphasized that Martin County market evidence was materially stronger and more relevant than the petitioner's outside -county data. Most significantly, the office testified that over the last two years there had been 24 industrial flex sales in Martin County and none of them had sold below $100 per square foot. The average was described as pushing $200 per square foot. That rebuttal directly undermined the petitioner's $68 per square foot valuation premise. The office further reminded the Special Magistiate that one of its best comparables was immediately next door to the subject, was not a superior new warehouse, was built in 1984, and therefore was not some unusually modern or superior asset In closing rebuttal. the office maintained that the petitioner's out -of -county and mostly much smaller sales did not credibly establish market value for a 23,910 -square foot multi -tenant flex building on SE Dixie highway in Stuart, particularly where local rent evidence, the subject's own leases, a local income approach and Martin County sales all indicated a substantially higher value. Analysis and findings. Based on the hearing record, I find Orat the Property Appraiser established the presumption of correctness. The office considered Ibe. a livable statutory factors and employed professionally accepted appraisal methods by analyZing the subject under both the income approach and the sales comparison approach. The subject is an income-producing multi tenantflex warehouse, and the office's income approach was supported by both local market data and the subject's own 2024 leases, The. office's sales comparison approach relied on Martin County sales, including a property next door to the subject, and those sales strongly indicated that the current assessment is conservative. The office's evidence was detailed, internally consistent, and supported by competent substantial evidence. I further find that the petitioner did not meet the burden of overcoming that presumption. The petitioner's valuation presentation suffered from several material deficiencies. First the petitioner combined two different petitions and two different properties in one package and did not clearly isolate a supported value conclusion for Petition No. 2025-053 standing alone. Second, the petitioner failed to present an income approach for an income-producing multi -tenant flex warehouse, leaving the Property Appraiser's income approach essentially unrebutted Third, the petitioner's sales evidence relied heavily on properties outside Martin County, on much smaller buildings, and on at least one dated ,ale drat the Property Appraiser credibly showed had later resold at a for higher price. Fourth, the petitioner's S68 per square footpremise was directly contradicted by the Property Appraiser's unrebutted testimony that no industrial flex sales in Martin County over the prior two years hadsold below $I00 per square foot Fifth, the petitioner did not adequately overcome the evidentiary force of the subject's own recent leases at $16.00, 518.96, and S15.60 per square foot, all of which supported the Property Appraiser's rent conclusion and, by extension, the office's '025-053 Page 3 of 4 -61- higher income -based indication of value. the rebuttal from the Property Appraiser is especially persuasive here because it was not merely argumentative; it identified concrete weaknesses in the petitioner's valuation evidence. It dernorstrated that the petitioner selected the lowest out -of -county sales rather than the most relevant market evidence, relied on dissimilar size and tenancy characteristics, and ignored superior local evidence, It also derrronstrated that the petitioner's own combined presentation created ambiguity as to which value applied to which parcel. Those defectsgo to sufficiency, not merely weight, and they materially prevent the petitioner from proving that the 2025 value on this parcel exceeds just value. Accordingly, I find that the Property Appraiser's evidence is credible, relevant, admissible. and sufficient to retain the presumption of correctness, and that the petitioner's evidence, while admissible and considered, is insufficient to overcome tint presumption Concluiions of law. The Property Appraiser established by competent substantial evidence that the 2025 just value of $2,297,560 for the subject property was derived through professionally accepted appraisal practices and is supported by both the income and sales comparison approaches. The petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the subject's just value is lower than the assessment on the roll. The petitioner likewise failed to prove that the Property Appraiser's methodology was improperly applied. Relief is therefore not warranted Recommended decision. Petition No. 2025-053 should be denied. The 2025 market value should remain $4297,560. 1 -lie 202-5 assessed value should remain $2,140,233. The 2025 taxable value should remain $2,140,233. No change. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2025-053: 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 preponderenre of the evidence that the Property Appraiser'sjust 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 juit 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 establishedpresurnption of corrrctness because the admitted evidence fails to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that: (a) the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent�ust 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 he upheld. 2025-053 -62- Page 4 cif 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR -485V 12. t 1r.)3 VALUE PETITION Rule t2D-i6oC21 Ac Eff 11.73 Martin County FLORIDA The actions below were taken on your petition. © These actions area 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 arcuit court to further contest your assessment (Ser* sections 193.155(8)0, 194.036,194-171(2), 194.181,196151, and 197.2425, Florida Slatules.) _ Petition # 2025-011 Parcel ID 523841000000000309 Petitioner name MARINER GAY PROPERTY OWNERS ASS Property 4221 SE CENTERBOARD LN The petitioner is: [ taxpayer of record d U taxpayer's address STUART, FL 34997 representative ❑ other, explain. Decision Summary ❑ Denied your petition 9 Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice ValueDresentedbyprqxrryappr�iqy Action 1 Just value, required 2,241,600.00 , 2,241,600.00 2,129,520.00 1 2 Assessed or classified use value,' if applicable 2,241,600.00 2,241,600.00 ; 2,129,520.00 3 Exempt value.' enter "0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4 Taxable value,' required 2,241,600.00 2,241,600.00 2,129 520.00 - -- 'AN valises rnirred should be cwnty taxable values. Scholl and other taxing authority values may differ (Sec Uan 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) (v Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate - _ Maxim Antonov Signature, special magistrate I ill in tichis wilt t xl�.ri+t, ori ��,I�l p�irlc�� ori. nv cd --A Finding and conclusions above are recommendations Maxim Antonov 04/03/2026 Print name Date Layla Ponders Layla Ponders 04/10/2026 Signature, VAB derk or special representative Print name Date II this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on -._ at Address_ It the fine 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 772288-5593 or visit our website at https:Itvab.marfinderk.comra (_] Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board value adjustment board Signalum, VAB clerk rx Iepresentative 2025-011 -63- Print name Print name mailed to Paget Of 7 Findings of Fad for Petition 2025-011: VALUE ADJUSTNIEhT BOARD — SPECIAL MAGISTRATE RECOMMENDED DECISION PETITION NO. 2025-0111 PARCELIACCOUlff: 52-38-41-000-000-00030-9/415'101 DOR USE CODE. 720 OWN, ER: MARINER CAY PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. I PETITION TYPE: Real Property Value SUBJECT PROPERTY: 4221 SE Centerboard Lane, Stuart, Martin County, Florida 2025 PAO JUST/MARKET VALUE. AT ISSUE: 52,241,600 Procedural Posture and Appearance A remote hearing was held on the record on February 17, 2026, beginning at approximately 9:00 a.m. The hearing was administered through the Martin County Value Adjustment Board with the clerk present At the outset, the clerk addressed the recording status of the proceeding, confirmed that the hearing was open to the public, and discussed whether the parties preferred audio only or audiovisual participation. The petitioner preferred that the hearing proceed with video if possible, and the hearing therefore continued in that format The Special Magistrate then convened the case and identified the matter as Petition No. 202:5-011. I he Property Appraiser's Office appeared through Michael Cooper and Robert Webster Counsel for the Property Appraiser, Loren Levy, also appeared and later addressed the legal argument raised by the petrhonec On behalf of the petitioner, Mariner Cay Property Owners Association, Inc., attorney Jane Cornett appeared, and Stephen Neill testified as the petitioner's expert witness. the Special Magistrate administered the oath to the factual witnesses and pave the customary opening statement explaining that the Special Magistrate is independent, impartial, and not employed by or influenced by either the PropertyAppraiser or the Tax Collector, that only evidence presented on the record or admitted by agreement could be considered, and that the relevance and credibility of the evidence would be evaluated in reaching a recommendation. The parties were advised drat die Property Appraiser would present first, afterwhich the petitioner would present its evidence, followed by rebuttal and questions as appropriate. No objection was raised to that order of proof. The hearing then proceeded in an orderly manner, with the Property Appraiser first confirming for the record that both the market value anti assessed value placed on the subject property for 2025 were $2,241,600. 1. Properly Description and Assessment at Issue This petition concerns a marina property known in the record as Mariner Cray Marina, located at 4221 SE Centerboard Lane in Stuart, Florida, within [lie Manatee Pocket area of Martin County. The Property Appraiser's evidence described the site as approximately 64,251 square feet of land, improved with marina -related site improvements and several support structures, including a dockmaster office, restroom facilities, shower and laundry -related structures, decking, bulkheads, paved Parking, pavers, and a switurnutg pool area. The evidence also reflected the presence of marina docks and wet -slip facilities extending over submerged lands leased from the State of Florida. 'The recorded effective year built for the improvement; was 1995, with original improvements dating to 1977. The property was classified under a marina related land use and DOR use code 720. The PAO's salient -facts page identified the property as "Manner Cay Marina" and showed a 2025 just value and assessed value of $2,241,600. The same evidence also reflected that the clubhouse and die land underlying that clubhouse wen excluded from the PAO appraisal because that component was not available for use by marina tenants. I he evidence and testimony further established that this is not an ordinary stand-alone commercial marina held by a cumentiowl investor or developer. Rather, tide is held by a property owners association the petitioner's position throughout the hearing was that the ownership structure and governance requirements materially impair the marketability of the real estate because any sale would require substantial collective approval by the many members of the association. The Property Appraiser disagreed maintaining that the manna is an operating income-producing marina competing in the Manatee Pocket market, that it generates a meaningful benefit to the surrounding community through reduced HOA carrying costs, and that ownership by an association does not change die market value of the real estate. Accordingly, the sole question before the Board is whether the 2025 assessment of 52,241,600 exceeds just value as of January 1, 2025, after consideration of all competent and substantial evidence presented at headn&. More specifically, the dispute narrowed to whether the record supports some reduction for marketability impairment arising from the marina's ownership within an HOA structure and the practical difficulty of conveying the asset, even though the property otherwise remains a functioning marina with commercial utility. 11. Evidence Received and Admitted The record reflects that exchanged evidence had been provided in advance, and theparties referred to specific pages during the hearing. The materials received and considered consisted of the Property Appraiser's 50 age evidence package, the petitioner's written pre -hearing comments and attached publication excerpts concerning marketability and diminution concepts, and the rebuttal materials submitted by tla• PAO and used during the rebuttal phase of the hearing. The PAO evidence included the subject's salient facts sheet; aerial and map exhibits locating the marina in the Manatee Pocket area; photographs of the site, docks, pool, and support structures; a marina layout exhibit; an income approach; land sale swpport used within the cost approach; a cost approach; reconciliation pages; and the subject property record card. Particularly notable was the PAO's explicit exclusion of the clubhouse and the land beneath it from the appraisal on the ground that the clubhouse was for use by neighborhood residents and not marina tenants. I he PAO also included meeting notes reflecting discussions with the IIOA representatives and counsel regarding why the property had been placed back on the tax roll and how the valuation had been developed. The petitioner did not provide a traditional full appraisal of the subject property. Instead, before die hearing counsel advised the PAO in writing that the petitioner's witness would testify regarding whether an appropriate discount had been applied for lack of marketability caused by the creed for approval from over 100 property owners who are members of the POA that owns the property. Counsel further indicated that attached professional publication excerpts were being supplied as part of due witness's basis for opinion. Those materials were broad concephial materials involving conservation easements, restrictive encumbrances, and minority -interest or lack -of -marketability concepts. '1025-011 Page 2 of 7 -64- The rebuttal packet used by the Property Appraiser included materials criticizing the petitioner's conceptual comparisons and emphasizing that many of the marinas or other properties referenced by the petitioner were superior, were not directly comparable, or involved fundamentally different conditions such as hotels, restaurants, dry -stack facilities, redevelopment components, or additional uplands. The rebuttal exhibits also pointed to market rates for marina capitalization and included examples of other marina properties with materially different characteristics. No party objected at hearing that the exchanged materials should be excluded in their entirety, and the hearing proceeded on the understanding that the Special Magistrate would evaluate the relevance, credibility, and weight of the various materials and live testimony. I therefore treat the exchan;ed materials actually discussed and relied upon at hearing as admitted and considered, subject to the limits inherent in their content and probative value. III. Applicable Legal Framework Just Value must be determined as of January 1, 2025. The relevant standards teuire die Special Magistrate to evaluate whether the Property Appraiser properly considered the statutory factors applicable to the property type and employed professionally accepted appraisal practices. If the Property Appraiser establishes the presumption of correctness, the burden shifts to the petitioner to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the assessment exceeds just value or that the valuation methodology was not properly applied. Ihat framework is especially important here because the Property Appraiser did not merely offer a conclusory number. Instead, the PAC) presented a developed cost approach, an income approach, land sale support, explanatory testimony about the exclusion of the clubhouse and its underlying land, and testimony that the property had recently been placed back on the tax roll because it was determined to be taxable as a marina open to public slip rental rather than a pure common -arra amenity. That presentation was sufficient to establish the presumption of correctness. The more difficult question is whether the petitioner's showing, though limited and unconventional, nevertheless established some partial overvaluation. The petitioner's challenge did not focus on slip rents, direct operating expenses, replacement cost, or the bulkhead and dock measurements used by the PAO. Rather, the petitioner focused almost exclusively on the proposition that market value for this particular asset cannot be measured as though it were freely marketable in the same way as a typical marina held by an ordinary private owner: According to the petitioner, the association ownership structure substantially impairs alienability and therefore requires some discount. The Property Appraises s counsel argued in response that Florida values the property, not the owne4 and that ownership by a homeowners association is not, in itself, a lawful basis for a lower assessment That is an important legal point, and it is one I agree with to a significant degree. This decision does not conclude that a property automatically receives a discount merely because an IIOA owns it. Nor does this decision adopt the petitioner's much more expansive contention that a lack -of marketability discount of 45% to 80% is warranted Those extreme figures are not supported by this record. However, the inquiry cannot end there. Aproperty's marketability as of the lien date is part of the overall bundle of market realities a willing buyer and willing seller would consider. If the record demonstrates a real, objective, property -specific impediment to a transfer or a realistic reduction in the pool of prospective purchasers, the Special Magistrate may consider that evidence—not because the owner is being favored, but because the market would recognize the impediment The task, therefore, is to separate the petitioner's overstated analogies front tine narrower and more credible point that this marina, because of its ownership and governance structure, is not as freely transferable as a standard investor-owned marina. IV. Summary of the PAO's Presentation The PAO's presentation was detailed, organized, and largely persuasive. _Michael Cooper testified at length concerning the physical makeup of the marina and the methodology used to develop the assessment Ile began by walking through the aerial and ground photographs. He explained the location within the Manatee Pocket area, the proximity to the St Lucie Inlet and Atlantic access, the extstenee of two dock systerns, the support buildings, the pool and deck, the paved areas, and the dockmaster office. Ile clarified an important point that the I.Mhouse and its underlying land were not included in the appraisal because the clubhouse was not available to marina tenants and was reserved for residents. That testimony was consistent with the visual exhibits and with tie written PAO materials. 1 he page in the PAO evidence expressly stating that the clubhouse and underlying land were not included in the appraisal strongly corroborates that the valuation already omitted some value component that might otherwise have been taxed had it been part of the marine operation. Cooper also explained the taxability issue. According to his testimony, the marina had been missed for tax purposes for years because it was owned by the HOA and HOA property is often assumed to be nontaxable common area, with value flowing to the individual residences. However, because anyone from the public could rent slips in this marina, the property was determined to be taxable and had been returned to the tax roll. The PAO meeting notes admitted into evidence support that the office reviewed the operations, dockage agreements, rules and regulations, submerged land lease, and relevant Florida statutes before concluding that the property was taxable and should be valued in the same manner used for other Martin County marinas. The PAO then emphasized its cost approach. 1 hat approach was presented as the cleanest and most direct method for valuing a marina without introducing going -concern elements. The cost approach consisted of three components: land, buildings, and special featureslyard items. The land portion, after the office's internal treatment excluding or discounting for the clubhouse area, was valued at $1,850,430, equating to 528.80 per square foot The building value, excluding the clubhouse, was only $51,560. The special features and yard items—which included treated - wood docks, concrete bulkhead, bumper system, apron, wood deck, asphalt paying, pool, and pavers totaled 5339,610 after de reciation. Those three components reconciled to the existing assessed amount of $2,241.600. The cost table itself is clear and detailed, and it reflects that the major economic driver in the PAO's assessment is the waterfront land component rather than the support structures. The PAO also supported die lancl component through six marine -related land sales. The sales ranged from approximately $30.96 to 573.82 per square foot, with a mean of &47.21 and a concluded rate of $45.00 before a 15% cost -of -sale deduction, producing 538.25 per square foot. The 2025-011 Page 3 of 7 -65- PAU then observed that its own land value used in the subject assessment was only $28.80 per square foot, meaning materially below the market supported rate derived from those sales. in the PAO's view, this showed that the land portion was already conservatively assessed That point has force. Even allowing for differences among marina land transaction:; and the need to adjust for submerged lands or redevelopment potential, the PAO's valuation was not aggressive when compared with the sale derived data it presented. fhe PAU also described an income approach based on wet -slip rents and market rent surveys. Although the full numerical detail was not the center of the dispute as ultimately framed, the PAO's packet reflects that it developed an income approach and that the reconciled value from that approach was higher than the current assessment_ The reconciliation page in the PAO materials shows an income approach of 52,931,422, a cost approach of $2,241,600, and a reconciled value at the lower, more conservative cost -approach ltgure of 54241,600. That internal reconciliation is significant because it demonstrates that the PAO did not simply choose the highest possible indication Rather, it adopted the most conservative of its supported approaches. In sum, the PAO's case established several important point%. First, the subject is a real marina operation, not merely a treighbothood decorative amenity. Second, the valuation already excludes the clubhouse and associated land because those are not marina -use components. Third, the land component is below the market -supported land -sale level found by the office's own sales analysis Fourth, die cast approach was selected as the conservative method, even though the income approach indicated a higher figure. I'hose points are. more than sufficient to establish the presumption of correctness. V. Summary of the Petitioner's Presentation I he petitioner's case was narrower, but it was not without merit. Jane Cornets, counsel for the petitioner, made clear from die outset that the theory of relief was not that the subject should be compared to inferior marinas on rent or cost alone. Rather, she argued that the subject's ownership structure creates a feat obstacle to sale that would affect marketability and therefore value. She explained that Mariner Cay is a property owners association and a not-for-profit entity, not an ordinary commercial operator holding the asset in a typical saleable ownership form. In herview, the sale of this property would require approval from a very large number of individual homeowners tied to the association, nrakin die property functionally difficult to market and sell. Slit expressly stated that die property should not be treated in the same way as a not commercial marina that can simply be listed and conveyed by a single investor or closely held ownership group. This was consistent with tier written pre hearing communication to the PAO, where she identified the issue as whether the office had appropriately considered a required discount for the lack of marketability due to the need for 100% approval for any sale by over 100 property owners who are members of the POA that owns the property. Stephen Neill then testified as the petitioner's expert. His presentation did not consist of a direct appraisal of the subject Instead, he relied on conceptual analogies drawn from conservation -easement diminution studies, easement value matrices, and minority interest or lack of marketability case references. He described various ranges of diminution in value from those materials and stated that where a property is burdened by strong constraints on alienability, failure to apply a marketability discount would overstate value and would effectively assume a hypothetical condition that the property could be sold in an ordinary fashion lie testified that the process of obtaining sufficient HOA approval to sell a commonly owned property can be exceptionally difficult, even describing personal experience in his own HOA in trying unsuccessfully to obtain votes for an easement transaction. He candidly did not claim that the proper discount was zero or one hundred percent; radia, lie believed some discount was in order, although the ranges he discussed were very large. As evidence of the petitioner's position, the written pre -hearing comments and attachments were also part of the record. Those materials do not contain a subject -specific valuation analysis. Instead, they identify the marketability issue arid attach pages from professional publications and studies concerning diminution ureter restrictive conditions. Those materials have only limited direct comparability to the subject because they involve property types and encumbrance contexts that are materially different from an operating marina. Nonetheless, they do tend to support one narrow concept: that substantial restrictions on alienability or control can, in some circumstances, reduce value even where a property still retains utility. The petitioner's presentation therefore had both strengths and weaknesses. its strength was not quantitative precision; rather, it was that it put a legitimate property -specific marketability issue squarely before the tribunal. Its weakness was that it did not provide a clean subject appraisal, governing association documents definitively establishing the exact vote threshold, or directly comparable sales of other marina properties encumbered by similar governance restrictions. The petitioner's proof therefore did not support anything approaching the very large diminution percentages discussed by Mr. Neill. But it did raise a real valuation concern that the PAU's conventional marina appraisal methods did not directly address. Vl. Rebuttal and Legal Argument In rebuttal, the PAO forcefully challenged the petitioner's theory. Michael Cooper testified that the subject has no conservation easement, remains art operating marine, competes with other marinas in the Manatee Pocket for slip tenants, and produces a significant profit each year. According to Cooper, those profits are usedby the HOA to offset the cost of maintaining common -area properties, but that financial benefit to the homeowners does not alter the real estate value of the marina iuelf: He emphasized that the PAO's cost approach already values only the uplands, the matina-support improvements, and the depreciated cost of the docks and dockmaster office, without valuing submerged land and without including the clubhouse. In his view, the petitioner was essentially asking fora reduction based on a generalized appraisal technique or governance frustration that was unsupported by market documentation tied to this actual property. Counsel for the PAO, Loren Levy, then addressed the legal dimension. She argued that Florida values property, not people, and that value docs not change simply because property is held by one owner, many owners, a corporation, or an LLC. She also argued that there had been no documentary proof that a 100% vote. was actually required under the association's governing documents. In herview, absent actual governing documents proving such a requirement, the case for a special ownership -based discount was not established. She. further distinguished true legal restrictions on property rights—such as conservation easements or similar enforceable land -use constraints --from the petitioner's argument, which she characterized as nothing more than an internal ownership management problem not recognized by valuation statutes as part of highest and best use. She submitted that the petitioner's theory improperly departed from the hypothetical willing!-buyeewilling-seller 2025-011 Pkge 4 of 7 -66- standard by focusing on whether this particular seller might be unwilling or cumbersome to organize rather than focusing on the market value of the underlying,, real estate. The petitioner's expert did not meaningfully refute the legal authorities cited by counsel for the PAO, nor did die petitioner produce bylaws or declarations in the record establishing the precise voting threshold That evidentiary absence is important and materially limits the size of am, discount that can be supported. Yet the rebuttal does not completely eliminate the valuation issue. Even if one rejects the petitioner's most aggressive legal framing, the heating still left unrebutted the practical reality that this is not a freely marketable stand-alone investor-owned marina_ It is owned by an association, and the record supports the common-sense conclusion that any sale would require some unusual collective action not present in an ordinary commercial sale. VIT. Findings on Admissibility, Credibility, Relevance, and Sufficiency I find that the PAO's evidence was admissible, credible, relevant, and sufficient to establish the presumption of correctness The PAO presented coherent lestirnony, market -supported land data, a detailed cost approach, a developed income approach, and a conservative reconciliation. The otlive also credibly explained why the clubhouse and underiying land were excluded from value and why the marina had been resumed to the tax roll There was nothingg arbitrary or methodologically unsound about that presentation. To die contrary, it was professionally developed and consistent with how the office values other marina properties. I also find that the petitioner's evidence was admissible and relevant, though much of it was only partially persuasive. The written communication from counsel identifying the claimed marketability problem was properly exchanged and directly relevant The expert testimony from Stephen Neill was admissible and relevant to the conceptual issue of diminished marketability. However, the conservation - easement tables, restrictive easement matrices, and minority -interest references were only indirectly relevant and are entitled to limited weight because they do not involve the same property type, the same rights burden, or the same ownership context as die subject They are useful as conceptual background, not as a direct measure of the subject's discount Even so, the petitioner's case is not devoid of substance. The testimony of counsel and die expert, taken together, established that this marina is owned through an association structure involving a large number of interested owners and that a sale would not be as simple as a sale of a typical marina. The PAO's rebuttal largely attacked the magnitude and legal framing of the discount, and did so persuasively, but it did not fully prove that the marina is just as marketable as an ordinary investor-owned marina. Thus, while the petitioner did not prove the sweeping discount it argued for, it did prove a narrower point: that some modest marketability impairment exists and is not directly captured in the PAO's ordinary cost and income analysis. VIII. Analysis and Reconciliation This petition turns on reconciliation rather than wholesale acceptance of either side's theory. The PAO's valuation of S ;241,600 is not excessive on its face. Indeed, when tested against the PAO's own evidence, it appears conservative. The cost approach excludes the clubhouse and its land the land rate used is materially below the market -supported land -sale conclusion, and the income approach would have indicated a higher value than the one ultimately assessed If one were comparing this marina only to conventional marinas with conventiowl ownership, the PAO's conclusion would likely be retained without change. At the same time, the record demonstrates that this property is not typical in one important respect It is owned by a property owners association Counsel for the petitioner expressly stated that a transfer would require approval of a very large number of mvnem, and tlhe petitioner's expert opined that this circumstance creates a real marketability problem. The exact threshold of approval was not proven with governing documents, and I therefore do not accept the petitioner's assertion of a 100% requirement as an established tact Nor do 1 accept the expert's broad suggestion that diminution anywhere in the 450% to 80% range would be appropriate. Those percentages are not supported by the evidence for this subject. The analogies to conservation easements and highly restrictive encumbrances are too remote and too severe. But complete rejection of the marketability issue is also not warranted. Fair market value presumes a willing buyer and a willing sellar, and a hypothetical buyer of this marina would reasonably consider whether the seller side of the transaction is institutionally cumbersome. That consideration does not depend on synipadry for the owner; it depends on whether the marketplace would perceive that acquiring this asset is more difficult, slower, less certain, or more transactionally risky than acquiring an otherwise similar marina from a comTritional ownership structure. On this record, die answer is yes. The proper adjustment therefore lies not in the petitioner's large conceptual ranges, but in a modest downward recognition of transaction friction and reduced liquidity. The lack of precise;ovemin; documents proving the exactvote requirement materially restrains the amount of discount that can be applied The fact that the marina remains fully operational, profit -generating, and phyticalty competitive in the Manatee Pocket market also materially restrains die amount of discount The fact that the PAO already excluded the clubhouse and land underneath it, thereby preventing over -taxation of tion -marina amenities, further supports keeping the adjustment modest These factors all lead away from the large discount urged by the petitioner. In my judgment, a 551G marketability discount is the most supportable result on this record. That adjustment recognizes that the ownership and governance structure likely reduces the pool of readily actionable buyers and increases transactional friction. At the same time, it respects the PAO's otherwise persuasive analysis and avoids converting generalized governance inconvenience into a sweeping value impairment Put differently, the record supports a real but limited reduction. This 5% conclusion is also consistent with reasoned appraisal judgment utxler a reconciliation framework. It is not a compromise for its mvn sake. It reflects the strengths and weaknesses of the admitted evidence. I he PAO's cost approach is strong as to tangible real estate components and as to the exclusion of non -marina amenities. The petitioner's proof is weak as to magnitude but credible as to the existence of some marketability issue. A modest adjustment gives proper weight to both realities. the arithmetic is straightforward. Applying a 5% marketability discount to the current 2025 just value of 52,241,600 yields �Or5-011 -67- Page 5 of 7 $2,241,600 , 0.95 = 52,129,520. Rounder] to (lie nmrest $10, die result remain, $2,129,520. Because the assessed value for 2025 tracked the market value for this parcel, the assessed value should likewise be reduced to $' ,129,520. Exempt value remains zero. Taxable value should therefore also be reduced to 52,129,520. iX. Findings of Fact Based on the testimony and the admitted documentary record I find as follows: The subject is an operating marina property located at 422.1 SE Centerboard Lane in Stuart, Florida, within the Manatee Pocket area. The property consist of approximately 64,251 square feet of land and marina -related improv tine nt, including docks, a dockmaster office, restrooms or showerlaundry-related support improvements, paving, pavers, a bulkhead, andpool-related improvements. The clubhouse and the land underlying the clubhouse were not included in the PAO appraisal bemuse those components were reserved for neighborhood resident use and not for marina tenants. For 2025, the PAO placed a just value and assessed value of $2,241,600 on the subject. The PAO developed a detailed cost approach and supporting land -sales analysis and also developed an income approach, with the cost approach representing the most conservative conclusion. The petitioner did not present a full independent appraisal of the subject property but did present testimony and written comments asserting that marketability is impaired because the property is held by a property owners association and a sale would require broad collective approval among many interested owners. The petitioner's expert offered conceptual supportfor a marketability discount by analogy to various restrictive, -property contexts, but the large discount ranges Ire discussed are not directly supported for this subject property. The heariq record nevertheless supports die conclusion that the subject property is somewhat less marketable than a conventional investor- owned manna due to its ownership and governance structure. the record does not support the very large diminution percentages urged by the petitioner, but it does support a modest marketability discount A 5% reduction from the 2025 assessed just value is supported by the record and results in a 2025 just value, assessed value, and taxable value of $2,129,520. X. Conclusions of Law The PAO established the presumption of correctness through competent substantial evidence and professionally developed valuation analysis. The petitioner did not prove entitlement to the extreme discount argued by its expert and did not prove by competent documentary evidence that a 100%vote was definitively required for a sale. However, the petitioner did prove by a preponderance of the evidence that some modest reduction is warrantedbecause the property's ownership thmu;h a property owners association creates a real marketability impairment not fully captured in the PAO's ordinary marina valuation analysis. That reduction is not based merely on the identity of the owner. Rather, it is based on the marketplace effect of the property's demonstrated ownership and governance structure as reflected in the hearing record. The petitioner therefore met its burden in part, but not in full. XI. Recommended Decision and Values For the masons stated above, I recommend that Petition No. 2025-011 be GRANTED IN PARI-. Recommended 2025 Just,.MarketValue: $2,129,520 Recommended 2025 Assessed Value: $2,129,520 Recommended 2025 Taxable Value: $2,129,520 Exempt Value: 50 Conclusions of Law for Petition 2025-011: 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 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 and 2025-011 Page 6 of 7 -68- 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. 2025-011 -69- Page 7 of 7 Item 9.11. v� SPECIAL MAGISTRATE APPLICATION ' INDIAN RIVER COUNTY VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD (APPLICANTS MUST MEV.7' Qi1Al IFICATIONS OUTLINUD IN FLA, tit A"1. � ih1.035) Please type or print. If more space is needed, attach additional sheets. Applicants may supplement their application with a resume. However, a resume cannot he used in lieu of an application: Application for: ❑ Attorney Special Magistrate ® Appraiser Special Magistrate for... ® Real Property andjor ❑ Tangible Personal Property If appointed, how much time would you he available to conduct hearings and complete your recommendations? ❑ 1 to S hours per wct', ; ® 9 to 20 hours per week; ❑ 21 to 30 hours per week; ❑ 31 to 40 hours per week. APPLICANT INFORiMATION Name: Stephen L Boyle MAI — Home Address: 2257 W Ocean Oaks circle Vero Beach FL 32963 Mailing Address: Same Business Name: Boyle Appraisal Service _ _.. Business Address: 2257 W Ocean Oaks Circle Vero Beach Fl 32963 Phone: Home/ 13usiness'772 5t8-1303 CeIV772-538-1303 Fax: &Mail: StenhenABoyledrake com • Copy of license referenced below. • Documentation to support membership in professional organizations listed below under Organizations, • A writing sample, which may consist of an opinion letter or other business-related documentation that contains one or more written pages of original material. If you have served as a special magistrate previously, please submit a recommended decision as your sample, Do not submit a copy of an appraisal as a writing sample. • Prior to conducting hearings, all applicants are required under Fla. Stat. § 194.035 to certify completion of the current year training provided by the Department of Revenue. To obtain the training, go online to the Department's website at http:,',,dorxiy lnrida com/dotlproperty/vabltraining ht►nl. Return your completion certificate to the VAB clerk. Attorney Magistrate Applicant: Bar Number: _. _— Date of Admission: How many years of experience do you have in the area of ad valorem taxation: Appraiser Magistrate Applicant: Residential Appraiser license 4: Valid Through: General Appraiser License M RL 699 Valid Through: 11130126 Provide number of years of experience you have in the area of real property valuation: 42+ years Describe experience, and number of years you have in the area of tangible property valuation: None Page 1 Vol/1312015 -70- SPECIAL MAGISTRATE APPLICATION INDIAN RIVER COUNTY VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD (AI 'PKAT I'S h41 '�Mf:f'1' (7llAl.l l CCATICINS Ot1'Tl .tNl 1� iN I'I.A. ti lA1', 19A _C►35) QUA LIFICATIONSIEXPFRIENC L 1. Educational background BS in Business Administration and financeAl designation from the Appraisal In, 1i� l 2. List any experience and+'or specialty for the following property types: PROPERTY TYPE.EXPERIENCE/SPECIALTY Residential Real Property _ 42+ years for typical and high end residential xo em' Commercial Real Property 42+ years All types of commercial Property Tangible Property None Other !case specify) Industrial A ricultural, Marinas Subdivision Develo Ment 3. If you currently or previously have served as a special magistrate, please provide the municipality or county and dates served. Brevard County 2020-2025 Palm Beach 2022&2023 Martin St I ucie and Indian River Counties 2022-2025 4. Have you ever been dismissed, terminated or denied appointment as a special magistrate for poor or improper performance? ® No ❑ Yes (please explain) 5. List any additional information which makes you qualified to serve as a special magistrate. Also provide name and contact information of at least two individuals who can attest to your years of experience in ad valorem taxation, tangible personal property or real property appraisals. I served as a special magistrate in Brevard County over the past 6;ears Most of my cases were complex commercial properties I have also testified in numerous tax appeals in Martin St. Lucie and Indian River counties over the recent past Please contact Mike Umphrey 772-226-1478 at the Indian River County PA's office and Nicole Summers Depujy Clerk Value Adjustment Rpard Brevard County 321-637-2001 6. Are you willing to accept the Value Adjustment Board established schedule of fees? ® Yes ❑ No If no, please indicate your schedule of fees to be charged the board on a one-hour basis. 7. Explain your level of knowledge and experience Nvith computers and list the applications you are familiar with, including Axia. I have used Axia !Nord Excel and 'Loom for several years 1. List each organization, recognized by the real estate appraisal industry or the professionals in that field, in which you are currently or have previously been a designated member: ORGANIZATION DESIGNATION DATE MEMBER #t Appraisal Institute MAI 1011993 32473 —� 2. Of those organizations describe any possible contuct of interest that cou Kl Occur or ulc iipjylui a. -c va Z-- — Pagea vn..— Page 2 v0I!1312015 -71- SPECIAL MAGISTRATE APPLICATION ' INDIAN RIVER COUNTY VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD (APPLICANTS MUST WET QUALIFICATIONS OUTLINED IN FLA. STAT. $ 194.035) of interest that may prevent you from fairly conducting a hearing: 3. Have you ever been disbarred, suspended or received any other disciplinary action from any organized association, or from the State of Florida? ® No ❑ Yes (please explain) 4. List any personal or business relationship you have ever had with any officer or employee of the office of the property appraiser, office of the clerk of the circuit court, office of the county attorney or the value adjustment board of any of the counties to which you are applyutg: 5. List any clubs, organizations, associations, or other entities to which you belong or participate in and in which a possible conflict of interest could occur or the appearance of a conflict of interest might arise that would prevent you from fairly conducting the hearing between the property appraiser and the property owner and taxpayer. Quail Valley, however. it would not create a conflict In addition if I personally know the petitioner. I would withdraw from the hearing. _. Pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 194.035, a person cannot serve as a special magistrate if he/she is an elected or appointed official of a county, a taxing jurisdiction, or the state; is an employee of a county, a taxing jurisdiction, or the state; or in the same tax year that he/she services the Board as a special magistrate, represents a party before the Board in any administrative review of property taxes. Are you an elected or appointed official or employee of a county, a taxing jurisdiction, or the state? ❑ Yes ® No If yes, please provide details: The undersigned cerliftes, under penalty of disqualflicaNun frim considerafion, that each item contained in this application, or any other document furnished by or on behalf of the applicant is true and complete us of the date it bears. The undersigned aulhorke-N the Value Adjustment Board to obtain information from other :sources to verf, each item contained herein. The undersigned acknowledges that, if selected, heIshe Kill follow all requirements and mandates Qf lain in fttJfilling the duties ofspecial magistrate _(1yet..,,/1%- tr.. Y Signature of Applicant Stephen J. Boyle, MAI Printed Name of Applicant -72- Date: 5122/2026 Page 3 v0l/13f2015 Ron DeSantis, Governor STATE OF FLORIDA Melanie S. Griffin, Secretary d�pr rnAD'rKACK1"r OF BUSINESS AND 00ril: C,.C,1r1MAI REGULATION U FLORIDA REAL ESTATE APPRAISAL BD THE CERTIFIED GENERAL APPRAISER HEREIN IS CERTIFIED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 475, FLORIDA STATUTES BOYLE, STEPHEN J A 525 21ST STREET SUITE 200 VE RO BEACH FL 32960 LICENSE NUMBER: RZ699 EXPIRATION DATE: NOVEMBER 30, 2026 Always verify licenses online at MyFloridaLicense.com ISSUED: 09/24/2024 Do not alter this document in any form. This is your license. It is unlawful for anyone other than the licensee to use this document. -- ..._ OWN MAI Member entitU- to sOl the tighro� and rri€il aln='InlY' t' ,tihjn't iatl r lti�hr ►ifn�tnr,� trat�titArtr x! jtrttlr ftm low to hint It lad irr llrt � And Kegulaikms of ti~,- AMO i,41 tn-aita O ttr 14itrtcs Wh nq; tiu' fi�wr�t r ! titrt �Ca� c ih. Ap�,rl�st to.,t�utr hrs authmized this rertifi Ate to 1 4- w ;tnnf Iff it, h l%ut(!1t fix f `►t irnt. art t t1,r Cbrt+;rrate !;6t>' t: h f ,nlrs rifixrJ art t%i; to Maur>( 4m 10 APPRAISAL INSIffum -74- CEJ Finding of fact for petition slumber 2025-020 List of Property Appraiser's witnesses and exhihits: fit IIv Auton, representingthe Property Appraiser's Office, appeared in person. The Property Appraiser (PA) submitted 2 evidence packages that consisted of 27 pages and 22 pages. The evidence packages included a summary of the testimony, information regarding the 8 Criteria considered by the Property Appraiser per Florida Statute 193.011, the property record cards (PRC) for the subject, 2 comparable sales of auto dealerships summarized in a chart along with the subject, a chart with photographs and information regarding the 2 comparable sales and the subject, a chart with 3 vacant land sales, a map showing the location of the subject and 3 comparable land sales, PRC information sheets from IRC on the 3 comparable land sales, a Marshall Valuation Service Cost Analysis, the support pages from MVS for the cost new and the refinements to the cost new, the Commercial Market Insights Report, January 2025, by the National Association of Realtors and an income analysis. There was an additional property record card in Axia with building permit information. The above evidence was submitted in to Axia and was admitted in to the record at the hearing. List of Petitioner's witnesses and exhibits: Jake Polich, with Pivotal Tax Solutions, representing the property owner, appeared by phone. The petitioner submitted an evidence package consisting of 14 pages. The evidence package included a Value Summary, a Property Summary, a location map, 2 aerials and 4 ground photos of the subject property, a Cost Analysis, several pages from Marshall Valuation Service including Automotive Buildings, Auto Service Centers costs, Showrooms costs, Service (Repair) Garages costs, Warehouse Storage costs, pages showing Life Expectancy Guidelines, Current Cost Multipliers and Local Multipliers, and a Package Summary showing the requested value. The above evidence was submitted in to Axia and was admitted in to the record at the hearing. -75- Overview of the Subject Property: The subject property is considered an Average Quality, Class C and Class S Auto Dealership. The following infonnation is from Property Record Cards. The facility includes 4 buildings. There is a 16,434 SF Class C Auto Showroom building with showroom, office and storage areas and also included 2,595 SF of canopy area. This building was built in 1973. The second building is a 11,250 SF Class S Service Center building with service areas. This building was built in 2 phased with 2,250 SF building 1973 and 9,000 SF built in 2019. The third building is a 9,660 SF Class C Auto Service Repair Garage. This building was built in 1973. The 40' building is characterized as a Class S Warehouse Storage building. This building contains 450 SF of storage area and 1,800 SF of canopy area. This building was built in 2006. The total size of the auto dealership facility is 37,794 SF of enclosed area and 4,395 SF of canopy area. The parcel size is 179,902 SF (4.13 acre). Per the PRC, approximately 126,225 SF of the site are paved. The property is located at 1000 US Highway 1 in Vero Beach. Summary of evidence presented by the property appraiser: The PA stated that the property has an Assessed (Just) Value of $3,211,870 or $84.98 SF (of enclosed area) at the beginning of the hearing. The PA presented 2 comparable sales of auto dealership buildings in Vero Beach, that sold between February 2024 and October 2024. The comparables ranged in size from 12,124 SF to 12,848 SF. The comparables sold in the range of $249.98 SF to $630.98 SF. (There were no adjustments applied to comparable sales. There was no discussion presented in the written evidence. There was no conclusion of a preliminary value.) The chart indicated that the mean of the 2 comparable sales was $440.02 SF. A 15% cost of sale was deducted and indicated a mean sale price of $374.02 SF. This supported the assessed value of $84.98 SF. A second chart was provided that gave some additional information about the sale. This chart only indicated that the mean sale price, after a cost of sale deduction, was $4,611,250. (The only information gleaned from the second chart was that, comparable 1, that sold for $631 SF of GBA, had a land to building ratio of 16.6 to 1. This was substantially greater than the subject's land to building ratio of 4.76 to l . Comparable 2, that sold for $249 SF of GBA, had a land to building ratio of 5.02 to 1. It is also noted that comparable 2 was built 10 years prior to the subject and z -76- had an older effect age. Based on the information presented for the 2 comparable sales, concluding to a value for the subject would be very subjective.) The PA presented a cost analysis (approach) that cited Marshall Valuation Service. The PA used a cost new of $125 SF, based on an Average Quality Class C Complete Auto Dealership. The cost new was adjusted for wet sprinklers at $3.78 SF for a total cost of $128.78 SF. The costs were refined for the Perimeter factor of 0.9829 the Height factor at 1.086, the current cost multiplier of 1.03, a local cost multiplier of 94 and a depreciation factor of .63 (37% depreciated) for an adjusted price of $83.77 SF. This was applied to the 37,794 SF and resulted in a depreciated building value of $3,166,053. The 4,395 SF of canopy area was added at $33.51 SF for a total cost of $147,270. impact fee of $123,945 plus the depreciated value of the site improvements at $105,259 were added along with land value of $1,146,875. This indicated a Total Value (preliminary value) of $4,689,402. (There was no COS deduction.) There was support information provided from Marshall Valuation Service for the cost new and the refinements. (The depreciated value of the site improvements and the land value were taken from the PRC. It appears that both values included a 15% COS deduction. The land value on the PRC is shown at $10.00 SF or $1,799,020. A 0.75 adjustment factor was applied along with a 0.85 factor (COS adjustment) for a just land value of $1,146,875 ($6.37 SF). This site improvements show a .15 adjustment factor on each line item. Apply a cost of sale deduction of 15% to the RCNLD of the building, canopy area and impact fees ($3,437,268) or $515,590 to the PA's "Total Value By Cost Approach" of $4,689,402 results in a just value by the cost approach of $4,173,812 or $110.44 SF. This supports the current assessment.) The PA presented a sales chart with 3 commercial land sales from within the subject's immediate neighborhood. The land sales sold between January 2022 and June 2023. The sales range from $550,000 to $1,000,000. The sites ranged in size 0.38 acres to 1.5 acres and sold from $15.30 SF to $36.25 SF and averaged $24.76 SF or $21.05 SF after a 15% cost of sale. This supported the PA's use of $6.37 SF, after a cost of sale adjustment. An aerial snap showing the location of the subject and the three comparable sales, along with PRCs were provided. The PA presented an income approach. The PA use a market rental rate of $14.00 SF NNN and applied to the 37,794 SF of GBA. This resulted in a PGI of $529,116. From the PGI, a 5% vacancy and collection loss was deducted and resulted in an EGI of $502,660. Expenses of 5% or $25,133 and 20.0% for Other expenses or $100,532, for total expenses of 25% or $125,665 ($3.33 SF) were deducted from 3 -77- the EGl and resulted in a NO] of $376,995. A capitalization rate of 7.0% was used, with no tax load, due to the net lease structure. This resulted in a market (preliminary) value of $5,385,645 or $5,300,000 (r). A 15% cost of sale deduction was shown and resulted in an assessed (just) value of $4,522,359. The assessed (just) value estimate supported the current assessment. The PA presented the Commercial Real Estate Market Insight report for January 2025 from the National Association of Realtors. The information indicated a national average capitalization rate of 7% for retail properties and 7.5% for industrial properties. (No other support was provided for the income analysis.) Summary of evidence presented by the petitioner: The petitioner initially requested a Just Value of $2,845,650 and modified the requested value to $3,000,000 or $75.77 SF at the end of the hearing. The petitioner presented on page 3 of the evidence, that the auto dealership was in average condition. The petitioner valued the subject property with a cost approach only. The petitioner utilized Average Quality Class C and Class S costs in Marshall Valuation Service for the various building components on the subject property. The petitioner broke down the building components into four separate categories. The buildings were broken down into an Automotive Showroom Class C (16,434 SF), an Automotive Service Center Class S (11,250 SF), Automotive Service Repair Garages Class C (9,660 SF) and Warehouse/Storage Class S (2,250 SF). (Per the PRC, the Warehouse/Storage Class S building, contains 450 SF of building area and 1,800 SF of canopy area.) For the Automobile Showroom Class C (16,434 SF), the petitioner utilized a cost new of $140 SF. A Current Cost Multiplier of 1.03 was applied along with a local cost multiplier of 0.94. This resulted in a cost new of $2,231,737. Depreciation of 49% was applied and indicated a replacement cost new less depreciation (RCNLD) of $1,138,186. For the Automobile Service Center Class S (11,250 SF), the petitioner utilized a cost new of $68.00 SF. A Current Cost Multiplier of 1.03 was applied along with a local cost multiplier of 0.97. This resulted in a cost new of $765,000. Depreciation of 80% was applied and indicated a RCNLD of $153,000. For the Automobile Service Repair Garage Class C (9,660 SF), the petitioner utilized a cost new of $79.50 SF. A Current Cost Multiplier of 1.03 was applied 2 -78- along with a local cost multiplier of 0.94. This resulted in a cost new of $744,931. Depreciation of 80% was applied and indicated a RCNLD of $148,986. For the Warehouse/Storage Class S area (2,250 SF), the petitioner utilized a cost new of $55.50 SF. A Current Cost Multiplier of 1.03 was applied along with a local cost multiplier of 0.97. This resulted in a cost new of $124,875. Depreciation of 28% was applied and indicated a RCNLD of $89,910. The RCNLD of the 4 building components would equate to $1,530,082. The petitioner added $250,000 for paving (with no support being provided and no impact fees were added). Entrepreneurial Profit at 10% or $420,861 was added, for a total RCNI.D of $2,200,943. Land value of $1,143,875 ($6.37 SF) was added and indicated a (preliminary) value of $3,347,818. A 15% cost of sale was deducted and resulted in (just) value of $2,845,645. The petitioner used the land value off of the PRC. The petitioner realized that the land value already had the 15% cost of sale deducted. The petitioner modified the cost of sale deduction, applying it to the total RCNLD of $2,200,943 for a COS deduction of $330,141. This resulted in a revised just value of $3,017,676. The requested value was revised to $3,00,000. Rebuttal Testimony: The PA testified that the petitioner's land comps are inferior to the subject. (This was a reference to the prior hearing 2025-019. The petitioner used the land assessment from the PRC.) The PA testified that they utilized two comparable dealership sales that sold in 2024. The PA testified that the land value on the PRC was already adjusted for the cost of sale. The PA testified that they also applied a 25% reduction to the land value due to the size of the parcel. The petitioner testified that the land sales didn't have adjustments, are not market transactions and that the PA did not break down the buildings for the various components in the cost approach. Special magistrate's analysts and finding of facts: The PA provided a sales comparison approach with 2 comparable sales that both supported the assessed value of the subject even though the sales were not considered good comparables for comparison to the subject. Both facilities were substantially smaller and both had higher land to building ratios, resulting in a higher sale price per square foot for both facilities. The PA's income approach also supported the assessed value of the subject property. However, no support was 5 -79- provided for the rental rate or the expenses used and limited support was provided for the cap rate. The PA presented a cost approach. The cost new utilized a Complete Auto Dealership which includes the difTerent components of the building. The PA utilized an Average Class C cost new of $125 SF. Part of the issue with the cost approach is that only 26,094 SF of the 37,794 SF is Class C construction. This represents 69% of the building area. Class S construction for a Complete Auto Dealership has a cost new of $118 SF. Applying $118 SF to the 31 % of the building that is Class S and $125 SF to the 69% of the building that is Class C results in a weighted average of $122.83 SI . The second issue with the PA's cost approach is the average depreciation of 37% would indicate an average effective age of the buildings of just under 15 years old, based on a 40 -year economic life. The buildings were constructed between 1973 and 2019 with the majority of the construction from 1973 to 2006. Remodeling the PA's cost approach, using a blended cost of $122 SF and an average depreciation of 55% results in a just value of $3,360,134 (See below). This supports the current assessment. The petitioner only presented a cost approach to value the subject property. The issue with the petition cost approach is primarily the estimate of depreciation. The petitioner broke down the buildings into different segments which is an acceptable methodology. However, the 80% depreciation apply to the 11,250 SF Auto Service Center appears excessive considering that 9000 SF was built in 2019. The 80% depreciation applied to the 9,660 SF Auto Service Repair Garage also appears excessive considering this building is Class C construction. Applying a 55% depreciation factor to these two buildings and using all the rest of the petitioner's inputs results in a just value indication of $3,338,537. This supports the current assessment 6 -80- 2025-020 Cost Approach Remodeled Completed Auto Dealership Blended Cost New of $122 SF & 55% Depreciation SF 37,794 $ 122.00 Wet Sprinklers $ 3.78 Heating & Cooling Perimeter Factor Height Factor CCM LCM Cost New SF Cost New Depreciation RCNLD of Buildings Canopy Area Impact Fees Site Improvements Entrepreneurial Profit Total RCNLD Land Value Indicated Value Less COS $ 125.78 0.98 (Just) Value via Cost Approach 1.09 1.03 0.94 129.87 $ 4,908,410 $ 129.87 55% $ (2,699,626) $ 2,208,785 4,395 $ 147,270 $ 123,945 $ 105,259 0% $ - $ 2,585,259 J 1.146.875 $ 3,732,134 15% $ (372,000) $ 3,360,134 The presumption of correctness was established because the PA provided by the preponderance of the evidence that the PA's just value methodology complied with the eight criteria of Section 193.011 of the Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. The petitioner's evidence did not overcome the presumption of correctness. Conclusions of law for petition 2025-020 The admitted evidence was determined sufficiently relevant and credible to reach the preponderance of the evidence standard of proof, Rule 1213-9.025 and 12D- 9.027. The admitted evidence provides by a preponderance of the evidence that the property appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with section 193.011, F.S. and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Therefore, the petition is denied. 7 -81- Item 9-C. SPECIAL MAGISTRATE APPLICATION ' INDIAN RIVER COUNTY VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD (APPI .IC'A\TS MUST MEET QUAtJFICATTONS OUTLMED TN FLA. STAT. S 194.035) I'leasc type or print. If more space is needed, attach additional sheets. Applicants may supplement their application with a resume. However. a resume cannot be used in lieu of an application. Application for: ❑ Attorney Special Magistrate [� Appraiser Special Magistrate for... © Real Property an&or ❑ Tangible Personal Property If appointed, how much time would you be available to conduct hearings and complete your recommendations? 0 1 to S hours per week; ❑ 9 to 20 hours per week; ❑ 21 to 30 hours per week; ❑ 31 to 40 hours per week. APPLICANT INFORMATION Name: Robert Busler Home Address: _ 2711 Old Donald Foss Rd. Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 Mailing Address: Business Name: RA -Bus Corp _ Business Address: Phone: Home,' Business! 561-310-2449 Cell( Fax: F. -Mail: RaBusCorp@gmail.com • Copy of license referenced below. • Documentation to support membership in professional organizations listed below under Organizations. • A writing sample, which may consist of an opinion letter or other business-related documentation that contains one or more written pages of original material. If you have served as a special magistrate previously, please submit a recommended decision as your sample. Do not submit a copy of an appraisal as a writing sample. • Prior to conducting hearings, all applicants are required under Fla. Stat. § 194.035 to certify completion of the current year training provided by the Department of Revenue. To obtain the training, go online to the Department's website at hiti):I/dor.mvtlorida.coraldor/pronerty,'vab/u-aininiz.titml. Return your completion certificate to the VAD clerk. Attorney Magistrate Applicant: Bar Number: Date of Admission: How many years of experience do you have in the area of ad valorem taxation: Appraiser Magistrate Applicant: Residential Appraiser License #!: RD7712 Valid Through: 11/30!26 General Appraiser License 4: Valid Through: Provide number of years of experience you have in the area of real property valuation: 22 Describe experience, and number of years you have in the area of tangible property valuation: Page 1 v0111312015 -82- SPECIAL MAGISTRATE APPLICATION INDIAN RIFER COUNTY VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD (APPLICANTS MUST MEET QUALIFICATIONS OUTLINED IN1_i_� IION SIE:XPERIENCE 1. Educational Background See attached qualifications page 2. List any experience antilor specialty for the following property types: PROPERTY TYPE EXPERIENCEISPECIALTY Residential Real Property All types Commercial Real Property Tangible Property Other Icase spec if -) 3. If you currently or previously have served as a special magistrate, please provide the municipality or county and dates served, 2020- Present Broward, Palm Beach, Brevard, Orange, Seminole 4. Have you ever been dismissed, terminated or denied appointment as a special magistrate for poor or improper performance? ® No ❑ Yes (please explain) 5. List any additional information which makes you qualified to serve as a special magistrate. Also provide name and contact information of at least two individuals who can attest to your years of experience in ad valorem taxation, tangible personal property or real property appraisals. Mark Homes - 561-758-9695 Fred Locke - 561-512-7904 E. Are you willing to accept the Value Adjustment Board established schedule of fees? © Yes ❑ No If no, please indicate your schedule of fees to be charged the board on a one-hour basis. 7. Explain your level of knowledge and experience with computers and list the applications you are familiar with, including Axia. Word, Excel, Axia 1. List each organization, recognized by the real estate appraisal industry or the professionals in that field, in which you are currently or have previously been a designated member: ORGANIZATION DESIGNATION DATE MEMUFR if 2. Of those organizations describe anv possible conflict of interest that could occur or the appearance of a conflict of interest that may prevent you from fairly conducting a hearing: NIA Page 2 v0111312015 -83- OF SPECIAL MAGISTRATE APPLICATION INDIAN RIVER COUNTY VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD (APPLICANTS MUST MEET QUALIFICATIO\-S OUTLINED to FLA. STAT. J 144.035) 3. Have you ever been disbarred, suspended or received any other disciplinary action from any organized association, or from the State of Florida? U No ❑ Yes (plcaac explain) 4. List any personal or business relationship you have ever had with any officer or employee of the office of the property appraiser, office of the clerk of the circuit court, office of the county attorney or the value adjustment board of any of the counties to which you are applying: None 5. List any clubs, organizations, associations, or other entities to which you belong or participate in and in which a possible conflict of interest could occur or the appearance of a conflict of interest might arise that would prevent you from fairly conducting the hearing between the property appraiser and the property owner and taxpayer. None Pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 194.035, a person cannot serve as a special magistrate if helshe is an elected or appointed official of county, a taxing jurisdiction, or the state; is an employee of a county, a taxing jurisdiction, or the state; or in the same tax year that helshe services the Board as a special magistrate, represents a party before the Board in any administrative review of property taxes. Are you an elected or appointed official or employee of a county, a taxing jurisdiction, or the state? [] Yes ® No if yes, please provide details: The undersigned certifies, tinder penalty of disqualification from consideration, that each item contained in this application, or any other &mmmeni furnished by or on behalf of the applicant is true and complete as of the date it Bears. The undersigned authorizes the Value Adjustment Board to obtain information from other sources to verify each item contained Herein. The undersigned acknowledges that, if •selected, he/she x711 follow all requirements and mandates of law in fulfilling the ditties of special magistrate. Signature of Applicant Robert A. Busler Printed Name of Applicant Date: 5114/26 -84- Page 3 vOlt13/2015 Qualifications of Robert A. Busler Business Address RA -Bus Corp 2711 Old Donald Ross Rd. Palin Beach Gardens, Florida 33410 Phone: 561-310-2449 Email: RaHusCorpC.gmail.com Tax IDI+ 45-5429381 Education Florida Atlantic University — College of Business Bachelor of Science Degree Marketing/Management Real Estatc Education 30 -Hour Continuting Education (2022) 7-1 lour National USPAP Update (2020-2021) 3-1 lour Florida Appraic.31 Law Update— 2020 5 -Hour Appraisal Regulatory Process - 2020 4 -Hour 71ie Inspection - 2020 4-USPAP Compliant Appraisal Reviews - 2020 7 -Hour Small Residential Income Property - 2020 L&R - Appraisal Laws and Rules — 2018 NIUSPAP - USPAP UPDATE — 2018 APPRAISER VS FORM FILLER - 2018 NEIGHBORHOOD MARKET ANALYSIS — 2018 BACK 2 BASICS — 2018 FHA PROPERTY ANALYSIS - 2016 BETTER SAFE THAN SORRY — 2016 LAW AND STANDARDS - 2016 -85- Qualifications of Robert A. Busler (Continued) Real Estate Education (Continued) 7 HOUR USPAP UPDATE - 2016 L&R - Appraisal Laws and Rules Appraisal Review of Residential Properties Green in Residences and Appraisals Methodology and Application of Sales Comparison USPAP 7 Hour Updates Florida Real Estate Appraisal Laws and Rules Even Odder: More Oddball Appraisals Dirty Dozen Florida Appraisal Laws and Regulations FHA Today The Nuts and Holts of Green Building for Appraisers Supervisorfl'rainee Roles & Relationships National USPAP Update Mustering Unique & Complex Appraisals Florida Appraisal Law Update LAAO 101 - Fundamentals of Real Property Apprais:i1 LAAO 102 - Income Approach to Valuation LAAO 300 - Fundamentals of Mass Appraisal IAAO 601 - Cadastral Mapping Methods and Applications -86- Qualifications of Robert A. Busier (Continued) Processional Experience August 2017 — Present Mueller Reports - RA -Bus Corp — EXP Realty, LLC Palm Beach Gardens, Florida Staff Appraiser Mueller Reports! Presideal. RA -Bus Corp — Associate., Consultant, EXP Realty, LLC June 2012 — August 2017 Property Tax Professionals - Landmark Really Professionals Palm [leach Gardens, Florida Associate / Consultant 2008 — June 2012 Palm Beach County Property Appraiser — Commercial Department West Palm Beach, Florida Appraiser 11 2004— 2008 Palm Beach County Property Appraiser — Condominium Department West Palm Beach, Florida Appraiser I -87- Qualifications of Robert A. Buster (Confintted) Licenses Licensed Real Estate Sales Associate license No. 3269790 - Florida State -Certified Residential Real Estate Appraiser License No. RD7712 Florida Ron DeWik. Gwermr MMuiN S. C/Nfin, Swrewy STATE OF FLORIDA dc)pr DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION FLORIDA REAL EST TE APPRAISAL BD THE CERTIFIED RESIDENTIAL APPRA Nfi ' RTIFIED UNDER THE PROVISI Sp 5, FTUTES BUSIER, ROBERT A �. 3.005 W INDIANTOW N RD STE 202 ;;`J )UPITFR FL 33458 ,s.I',kuj j LICENSENUMHER: R07712 ®) EXPIRATION DATE: -NOVEMBER 30, 2026 Always verify licenses online at MyFlorklaU4;vn-,vxum ISSUED- 11/04/2024 Do not atter this document in any form. This is your license. It is unlawful for anyone other than the licensee to use this document. -88- 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 four improved sales closed between January 2021 and September 2021. The subject is a unit located at 1440 HOLLYWOOD BLVD, within HOLLYWOOD. The subject has 3314 SF of gross living area (GLA) and originally constructed in 1997. The sales utilized ranged in price from $880,000 to $1,000,000 (rounded to nearest $1,000). The subject is located on a 9679 SF lot. The comparable sales are located on lots between 6053 SF and 12,130 SF. The size of the sales ranged from 2679 SF to 3316 SF (GLA). After consideration of adjustments, the range of value was between $1,101,000 to $1,235,000 (rounded to nearest $1,000). A time adjustment of 2.1%/month was utilized by the PAO for all sales occurring prior to the date of valuation. The just value determination by the PAO of $850,480 appears generally supported by the evidence submitted. All of the written evidence and testimony provided by the PAO was reviewed, considered and appropriately weighted by the magistrate in determining the conclusion of law. The petitioner (PET) submitted written evidence consisting of a Comparative Market Analysis consisting of three sales of improved units from the same general area; the sales closed between April 2021 and January 2022. The sales ranged in price from $680,000 to $1,165,000 (rounded to nearest $1,000). The comparable sales are located on lots between 10,246 SF and 19,843 SF. The living square foot range of these comparables was stated to be between 2516 SF (GLA) to 4895 SF (GLA). The estimate of value based on PET evidence was the average of their sales less a deduction of 15% for the 1st and 8th factors to arrive at a just value of $825,000. Equal weight was applied to PAO median sale and PET median sale (the subject sale). As a result, the petition is denied and remains unchanged from the PAO just value of $850,480. Petitioner failed to overcome the presumption of correctness established at the hearing by the property appraiser's evidence. Petitioner's evidence did not prove 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 Hroward County. -89- a ° SPECIAL MAGISTRATE APPLICATION ' INDIAN RIVER COUNTY VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD (A1'I'LIC:ANTS MUST MEET QUALIFICATIONS OUTLINLD IN I- I.A. STAT, t; 194.0351 Plcasc.type or print. If more space is needed; attach additional sheets. applicants may supplement their application with a resume. However, a resume cannot be used in lieu of an application Application for: ❑ Attorney Special Magistrate Appraiser Special Magistrate for... R1 Real Property and/or ❑ Tangible Personal Property If appointed, how much time would you be available to conduct hearings and complete your recommendations? ❑ 1 to 8 hours per week; Q 9 to 20 hours per week; ❑ 21 to 30 hours per week; ❑ 31 to 40 hours per week. Name: Douglas B. Lawson Home Address: 7500 SE Waxberry Circle, Hobe Sound, FL 33455 Mailing Address: 7500 SE Waxberry Circle, Hobe Sound, FL 33455 Business Name: Lawson Appraisal Service, LLC Business Address: 500 SE WaxberryCircle, Hobe Sound. FL 33455 Phone: Home/ Business/ 561-329-1205 Cell/ 561-329-1205 Fax: l: -Mail: dlawsonmaiftmail.com • Copy of license referenced below. • Documentation to support membership in professional organizations listed below under Organizations. • A writing sample, which may consist of an opinion letter or other business-related documentation that contains one or more written pages of original material, If you have served as a spLc:ial magistrate previously, please submit a recommended decision as your sample. Do not submit a copy of an appraisal as a writing sample. • Prior to conducting hearings, all applicants are required under Fla. Stat. § 194.035 to certify completion of the current year training provided by the Department of Revenue. To obtain the training, go online to the Department's website at http:/ldor.myflorida.com/dor/itronerty/vab/trainintr.html. Return ,your completion certificate to the VAB clerk. Attorney Magistrate.Applicant: Bar Number: Date of Admission: Mow many years of experience do you have in the arca. of ad valorem taxation: Appraiser Magistrate Applicant: Residential Appraiser License 4: Valid Through: General Appraiser License b: t2Z170 Valid Through: 11130126 Provide number of years of experience you have in the area of real property valuation: 47 Describe experience, and number of years you have in the area of tangible property valuation: Page I v01/1312015 -90- Item 9.1). SPECIAL MAGISTRATE APPLICATION INDIAN RIVER COUNTY VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD (APPLICANTS h4UST MEET' QUALTICATIONS OUTLINED IN FLA. STAT. S 194.035) 1. Educational Background Bachelor of Science In Business Administration. majoring in Real Estate from University of Florida, 1878 Palm Beach Community College 2. List any experience and/or specialty for the following property types: PROPERTY TYPE EXPERIENCE/SPECIALTY Residential Real Property App alsed and Reviewed whte vadely of Residential properiy.- 47 year; Commercial Real property Appraised and ReAewed wide variety of Resldentlal property -47 years Tangible Property Other (please secif) CMSS Appraisal Revlewerfor 7 yearn 3. if you currently or previously have served as a special magistrate, please provide the municipality or county and dates served. Palm Beach County: 21 of the past 39 years, last year served 2025. Martin County: 2013-2017.2023-=25 Broward County: 2014-2017, 2024-2025, Miami/Dade County 2013-2017, Brevard County: 2023-2025, St. Lucie County 2024-2025 4. Have you ever been dismissed, terminated or denicd appointment as a special magistrate for poor or improper performance? Q No ❑ Yes (please explain) 5. List any additional information which makes you qualified to serve as a special magistrate. Also provide name and contact information of at least two individuals who can attest to your years of experience in ad valorem taxation, tangible personal property or real property appraisals. Glenn Lazarus, MAI, CUM glennlazarus@situsamc.00m 561-314-2873 John McDonald john@lowpropertytax.00m 561-627-6551 6. Are you willing to accept the Value Adjustment Board established schedule of fees? It Yes LINO If no, please indicate your schedule of fees to be charged the board on a one-hour basis. 7. Explain your level of knowledge and experience with computers and list the applications you are familiar with, including Axia. Proficient in all related software products and experienced in Aria. 1. List each organization, recognized by the real estate appraisal industry or the professionals in that field, in which you are currently or have previously been a designated member: ORGANIZATION DESIGNATION DATE MEMBER # Appraisal Institute MN 1987-2026 7581 2. Of those organizations describe any possible conflict of interest that could occur or the appearance of a conflict of interest that may prevent you from fairly conducting a hearing: Page 2 v0l/13/2015 -91- SPECIAL MAGISTRATE APPLICATION INDIAN RIVER COUNTY VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD (APNLIO. NTS MUST MEET Q11ALMCATTOWS OUTLINED IN FLA. STAT, � 194.0.35) 3. Have you ever been disbarred, suspended er received any other disciplinary action from any organized association, or from the Stale of Florida? [?] No ❑ Yes (please explain) 4. List any personal or business relationship you have ever had with any officer or employee of the office of the property appraiser, office of the clerk of the circuit court, office of the county attorney or the value adjustment board of any of the counties to which you are applying: Nona 5. List any clubs, organizations, associations, or other entities to which you belong or participate in and in which a possible conflict of interest could occur or the appearance of a conflict of interest might arise that would prevent you from fairly conducting the hearing between the property appraiser and the property owner and taxpayer. Pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 194.035, a person cannot serve as a special magistrate if he/she is an elected or appointed official of a county, a taxing jurisdiction, or the state; is an employee of a county, a taxing jurisdiction, or the state; or in the same tax year that he/she services the Board as a special magistrate, represents a party before the Board in any adm inistrativc review of property taxes. Are you an elected or appointed official or employee of a county, a taxing jurisdiction, or the state? ❑ Yes 0 No If yes, please provide details: The undersigned certifies, under penalty of disqualification firoin consideration, that each item contained in this applicatioit or any other document furnished by or on beim f of the applicant is true and complete as of the date it bears_ The undersigned authorizes the Value Adjustment Board to obtain information from other sources to verify each ;tens vueauitird hr -vin. The undersigned ackiimWedges thar, ffselecred, he/she wtlt follow all requirements and mandates of law in :lling th ities of special magistrate. p 5125/26 Sig App icant Douglas B. Lawson printed Name of Applicant -92- Page 3 v01/1312015 DOUGLAS B. LAWSON, MAI QUALIFICATIONS Works as a real estate appraiser and consultant. Mr. Lawson has been actively engaged in various phases of real estate valuation since 1977. He has prepared appraisals encompassing most of the major categories of land and buildings. IMe has also been actively involved in the review process of appraisals and serves as a Special Magistrate for several Florida counties. Mr. Lawson has been a resident of Palm Beach and'Martin County, Florida, since 1955, currently residing in Hobe Sound. Ile received his secondary education from the University of Florida, where he graduated in 1978 with a Bachelor of Science degree in Business Administration. PROFESSIONAL AF'FILIAT'IONS Member of the Appraisal Institute -- MAI Certification No. 7581 Qualified as an expert witness in Circuit Courts of Palm Beach and Martin Counties, as well as in .Federal Bankruptcy Court Licensed as a Broker with Florida Real Estate Commission -- License BK3001120 State -Certified General. Real Estate Appraiser, .License RZ170, State of Florida, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Real Estate Appraisal Board through November 30, 2024 Mr. Lawson has appraisal experience in 45 states and is currently licensed as a real estate appraiser in Florida, Georgia, Washington, West Virginia, Nebraska, Illinois and Indiana. APPRAISAL EDUCATION BSBA University of Florida, 1978, majoring in Real Estate and Urban Land Development Appraisal institute: Comprehensive Examination -- Challenged and Passed, 1987 Completed several hundred hours of a coursework and Continuing Education including: Standards and Ethics for Professionals Florida Appraisal Laws and Regulation Business Practices and Ethics Appraising high Value and Historic Homes -93- RECENT APPRAISAL EXPERIENCE Principal, Lawson Appraisal Service, LLC, Real Estate Appraisal and Consulting Firm; Palm Beach Gardens, Florida -- 2009 -2018..2023 -present Review Appraiser, SitusAMC, national appraisal management company, Houston, New York; West Des Moines and Boca Raton, Florida -- 2018 -present Special Magistrate Service: Palm Beach County Value Adjustment Board: 1987-1992, 2000, 2002 and 2003 through 2008, 2012 through 2014, 201.7, 2023-2025 Martin County Value Adjustment Hoard: 2012-2017,2023-2025 Broward County Value Adjustment Board: 2014-2017, 2024 Brevard County Value Adjustment Board: 2023-2025 Indian River County Value Adiustment Board: 2023-2025 Miami -Dade County Value Adjustment Board: 2013-2017 Orange County Value Adjustment Board: 2025 Osceola County Value Adjustment Board: 2025 TYPES OF PROPERTY APPRAISED All primary residential types of property (single family homes, historic homes, high- value homes, duplexes, multi -family projects, subdivisions, condominium units and projects etc.) for individuals, corporations, banks, attorneys, governmental agencies, insurance companies and mortgage companies. hktL1e5 GAIJ. 1-m €b r STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION THE CE AIwWvel kwm ad'met Mian DER THE IN t5SLOW. i1.11M 4 Po nae *her tMs donor"" in.d Sm,a MIS MrlkwL R144N Whd Eorenywootharthon the 6caweotp We tris dxunwa -94- Appraisal institute Current Membership Status tA�atk»,: 1 ,,.4�:: kC,C2 $Oiled, ft 3965 PhA,sC: t=,st�sxs-�x� A Dougiaa e. t.avrson, MAI, Vice FresWent, Appraisal & LiHgatk ftric "0": :Lccauxit p: fSGt3349-'1.U5 SGtf><3 �rt1aN: Compae,y: diaavaavnafp9a'+aif.cont ilwsAMC 7500 % Waxber, y Of Hobe Suun !, f1, 33ASS Giiok Here to Update Your Persona[ Account Information UNVIIEDSTOES f h$,: us sere ycu Wtu, P,45se urfte yx Dr -'song cccous: tntowrzNce le7sp C:,rnat,t Mmombership Category & Status prem*-iN DP.Siphtfd Member Change Member Status South ftoritia Cilacta: Cfronga My Chapter My Designations r»ergrattaRa twgrAtw.1w* rtrCECycle ftNtO4ft A1CffCpV*Epdt1*tA sfatm Nf,Ai 0c,J01Ji987 0110012024 WSW2028 11 pragrels -95- Recut Continuing Education worse title me Spon sttritgOrt±anixation Routs New Ctrnstructionfssentiais:lurruryKarnes 2137%2€12.2 mcl{eislck 3 USPAP Update 2022-2023 2117/2022 Appraisal €nsraute 7 Supportliq Your Adjustrtients 3127/21122 mme3 kk 3 Commercial landYaluatioo 4/712022 McKessick 4 Appraise) of industrial & Flex OWSs 4/18/2022 McKessick 7 Fiartda[aw 6fs5/2072 Appraisal Institute. 3 Wast uiri inia Appraisal Law 712212022 Mcloessit* 3 Understandfrig €.r;xur y € ame Features 3/20/2023 rAcKessick 7 Valuation of Residential GreL-n eu!Wirg5 tC only V2812o23 fAcKesslck 4 Appraisal of Fast gaud FatjjWtex 413/2€123 mcKewck 7 VafuationofReridenthlGreen@uiidinp extol SIx9Am McKessick 4 Divorce and Estate Appy" s 5/21/2023 McKessick 4 sextw ttarassr-.lent tt 9/22/2023 McKessick Z Real Estate Broker -Course !/%Sr/2024 MtKessick 7 USPAP Upstate 2424-2025 9/3/2024 McKessick 7 Complex Property Valuation 9126/2024 McKessick 7 Florida Appraisal tacos and R*904tions Update 11118/2024 McKessick 3 Saul Harassment It 6/1b/2025 MLKessirk 1 Uncoveint/VaiumngC:urrestturraryHorneTrends 011612025 Wltessick 2 CtlmrnercialReal "ate AppralsalReview 5117/2025 McKess€€A } West Virginia Appraisal Cate 9115/2025 iYd cKe.;5iEk 3 Apprake-1 of rndastrta? & Flex bldg: 9118/2025 McKessick 7 TOW -96- lot DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD a,. VALUE PETITION 6roward County DR -485V R. 01117 Rule t -M-16.002 F.A.C. Eff.01117 The actions below were taken on your petition. E 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 thefinal decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit ' In circuit court to further contest your assessment. (Seesections 193.155(8)(1),194.035,194.171(2),196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes. Petition # 2024-02950 Parcel ID 494218160300 Petitioner name FLANAGAN BILTON Property 3520 NW 56 ST The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record 0 taxpayer's agent ; address FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33309 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary E Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented bypropettyappaser Rule 121)4025 10), F.A.C. Action 1. Just value; required 8520370 8520370 8520370 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 8520370 8520370 8520370 3. Exempt value,* enter `0" if none 0 0 0 I 4. Taxable value,* required 8520370 652037C 8520370 *Ai values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing a; orl vaiues_tFtaydiffer. SSeytian 196.031(7), F.S.) Reason for Decision Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed Findings of Fact (See Attached) Contusions of Law (See Attached) Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are reoommendatlons. LAWSON, DOUGLAS LAWSON, DOUGLAS 05/08/2025 Signature, species magistrate Print name Date VAB Clerk VAB Clerk 05/12/2025 Signature, VAB clerk or special representa ve Prrt name Date If thle Is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the fine above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will he considered. To find the information, please call 954 357-7205 or visit our web site at haps:I/bevab.broward.orglAxiaWel ❑ 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 rnalled to parties 202402950 -97- Page I of Findings of Fact for Petition 2024-029.50: Axia includes the Petition, Agent Authorization and Hearing Notice. List of Property Appraiser's witnesses and Exhibits: Joseph Richardson represented the Property Appraiser's Office (PA) and provided testimony via telephone. Their evidence; packages include: the property card, photographs, aerial photos, applicable valuation, Dept. of Revenue Form DR -493 relating to Cost of Sale adjustments, tax hill and hearinG infn, Florida Statutes relating ro Just Valuation, Appraiser Mass Appraisal and the Presumption of Correctness Tax Year 2024, memos and documents on Assessments from Florida DeTartment of Revenue. The market value of the property is $8,520,370. List of Petitioner's witnesses and Exhibits: Ryan Malik of Flanagan Bilton represented the petitimer via phone. He discussed the 115 -page Florida supporting evidence and valuation document. Various administrative documents and memoranda are included in the evidence, along with property card, property info, aerial photo, rent comparables, cap rate support. Overview of the Subject Property: The subject property (Palm Crossing North) has three lipt-industrial warehouses containing 56,299 SgFt. The address is 3520 NW 56th St. Ft. Lauderdale. The masonry building was constructed in 1986 and features 7 dock height truck doors and 18' clear height. The land area is 180,148 which indicates a land to building ratio of 3.21:1.0. The assessed value equals $151.34 psf. Costar indice.tes it is a rated a Class B, 3 -Star property with 19,218 SF Industrial and 13,344 SF uffice. Sumruary of Evidence presented by the Property Appraiser: The property appraiser has submitted a 55 -page evidence package in addition to Florida Statute document packages, which contain Dept. of Revenue Form DR -493, Florida Statutes relating to Just Valuation, Appraiser Mass Appraisal and the Presumption of Corructness Tax Year 2024. The PA evidence includes the property summary sheet, photographs and the building card ler the parcel. PA reviews the recorded sale of the property which was disqualified as it was an allocation of a bulk purchase. Costar indicates a market rent of $16-20 psf. The Pro Forma income analysis is presented on page 13 of the evidence. The property appraiser has estimated a market rent of $14.00 psf on a NNN basis, then deducted 5% for a stabilized vacancy and collection loss. Expenses were estimated at 80,'o of effective gross income. PA estimates a base capitalization rate of 6.5%. The cost of sales figure of 10% is deducted to indicate a Just Value of $9,538,268 or $169.42 psf. Lease comparable info begins on page 15. A lease comps survey from Costar includes 9 deals on similar industrial properties in the area. The rent comps are offered between $14.00 and $20.50 psf NNN with starting rents at $14.50- $19.50.1he unit sizes range from 1,871 to 15,000 square feet. The average asking rent is $18.12 psf with an average starting rent at $17.65. The property appraiser briefly reviews the comps. Numerous tables and charts from a wide variety of recognized surveys are presented for cap rate and vacancy support. The Avison Young First Qtr 2024 survey shows an average vacancy rate of .5.2% for the NL Broward market and an average asking rens: of $14.88 psf on a triple net lease basis. It shows the Doerfield Beach Warehouse Distribution market at $19.39 psf with 0.8% vacancy. Costar Group surveys the NE Broward market at 5.5% vacancy and average gross rent of $19.37 psf. CBRE surveys market vacancy of 3.53% and $15.43 psf NNN rent. Cushman and. Wakefield surveys the North Broward market at 4.69% vacancy and $16.54 psf rent and the Pompano Beach market with 4.0% vacancy end 514.10 psf NNN. Cap rates indicate around 6.5% for the Miami -Metro submarket in the Newmark survey. Costar indicates a cap rate of 7.5% (for Logistics Properties) with asking rates at 6.3%. C 3RE surveys the Miami - Metro submarket with a Class A cap rate of 5.0o/o to 5.50,10 and Class D at 5.5`%a to 6.0%. Cushman and Wakefield indicate a range of 4.5%-6.25% (average of 5.49%) for Class A and 5.5% to 7.5% (average of 6.28%). The evidence also includes a Costar group survey of the NF. Broward County Industrial Flex :Market indicating an. average sale price of $276 pst: All industrial sales avarage $229 psf in the NE Broward industrial market. The property appraiser included six comparable sales in a sales comparison analysis on. page 25. The sold in 2023 through early 2024 and indicate a sale price range of $I83 to $293 psf. The buildings are between 10,910 and 36,106 SF. All are older buildings and smaller than the subject. Details are provided for the comps. He states the sales indicate around S 188 to $190 psf and they support the Assessed Value. Summary of Evidence presented by the Petitioner: Nlr. Malek for the petitioner refers to his 115 -page evidence and valuation document. Tie reviews property info then. 2024-02950 -98- Page 2 o E 4 refers to the section titled. Negative Factors and incorporates his prior testimony from Petitions 02998 & 02999 for discussion on this and an RERC Investment. conditions survey for industrial properties and a section or the document discussing negative factors in the national market. On page 28, the Petitioner has estimated a market rent of $15.00 psf on a gross basis, then deducted 6% for a stabilized vacancy and collection loss. Expenses were estimated at 26% of effective gross income and Petitioner also deducted reserves for replacement. The Petitioner estimates a base capitalization rate of 6.25% and loaded it at 8.10%. The cost of sales figure of 10% is deducted to indicate a Just Value of $6,985,103 or $124.07 psf. The Petitioner then refers to page 30, which includes rental rates, cap rates, and operatuzg expenses. The Rental rates from costar indicate $14.38 to S15.60 psf for Central Droward in years 2022 through 2023. IRR indicates $9.00 psi' for Patin Beach-Rmward markets. The Cap Rate summary indicates 6.4% for NE Broward and 6.8% for Central Broward and iRR shines 6.5% for Broward. Lease comparable info begins on page 32. A lease comps survey from Costar includes 12 deals on similar industrial properties in the submarket. The rent comps are offered between $1.4.00 and $17.00 psf modified gross with starting rents at $13.50 to $15.00. The twit sizes range from 2,432 to 32,650 square feet. The average asking rent is S15.60 psf with an average starting rent at $14.38. The Petitioner briefly reviews the comps. Beginning on page 37 is detailed surveys data frow a variety of recognized sources. Ile refers to national vacancy rates and operating expense data from other areas of the state. The RERC survey for Fort Lauderdale First Tier Investment Properties indicates 6.9% cap rate fin- }Flex. Other Regional and national data is included. Realtylkates.com surveys the Florida Industrial market at 8.9%. The Petitioner emphasizes band of investment method surveys from RealtyRates.com and illustrates the impact of increasing interest rates in the national market. The Petitioner's example on page 62 indicates a 2.10/c, nominal decrease in flex industrial value from 1!1;23 to 1/1!24. A sales comparison approach was also included on page 75. The four sales from the Pornparw submarket range from $81.54 to $138.75 psf after COS. Most of the buildings are iuuclt smaller than the subject and all but two closed in 2022, l to 2 years prior to the analysis date. He aoi.nts out Sale 1 & 4 are the most sLnitar in size. He then takes the average indication of $116.62 and applies that to the subject for a value of $6,565,690. Building cards are provided with no photographs. Rebuttal Testimony: hi Rebuttal for the property appraiser, Mr. Richardson refers to the lease comps used by the Petitioner are smaller and a distance from the Subject. He feels the sales used by PA are closer to the subject are more applicable. Most of the sWes are from 2022 and there are newer sales, as the Rk used 8 from 2023. The petitioner says USPAOP allows appraisers to go batik three years. ll.e says all his are near the subject. Two of the PA sales are in 2024. Sales 1-5 were 100% leased at time of sale. All the PA sales are smaller than the subicet. Comp is a sale leaseback. PA lease comps biclude two in early 2024. Comp 2 has higher clear height and comp i is a flex building. Ile compares rents to other 2022 dated leases, which indicates an increase in rent. Special Magistrate's analysis and Finding of Facts: The PAO presented evidence to support the market value. The Property Apppraiser has included a proforma income analysis with substantial and reasonable support for the assessed value. Tlais approach to value would be given primary emphasis for this type of property. Comparable sales were not included in the evidence. Property appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment at the hearing. The petitioner included property information, comparable data and a Pro Forma income approach. The petitioner estimated market rent at $15.00 psf on a gross basis compared to the property appraiser estimating S14.00 on a net basis. The special magistrate has reviewed the rental data and comments provided by both sides. After reviewing all the duta, the Magistrate substantially agrees with the PA's me'Jtodology and considers a slightly lower market rent of 51.3.00 psf. The value indication of $8,857,000 after COS still exceeds the assessed value. The sales data included it_ various survey data tables and the sale comps provided by the PA also supports the value. The sale comps provided by the Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence for physical comparison, and aIl but 2 arc 1.-2 years prior to the date of value. The 2024 AV for these sale properties is much greater than the 2022 sale prices. 2024-02950 -99- Page 3 of 4 A reduction to the assessed value is not supported by the evidence. The Petitioner failed to overcome the Property Appraiser's established presumption of correctness. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2024-02450: Florida Law allows the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness. For the Property Appiaiser to establish a presumpti nn of correctness for the amessstinent, the admitted irlcnce most prove 1w .9 preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 143.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. In the instant matter, the Property Appraiser establisbed a presumption of correctness for the assessment because the admitted evidence proves by a preponderauec 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 Properly 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 dff- urenl from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. Therefore, the appraisal should be upheld. 2024-02950 -100- Page 4 of4 TERRIE PELTIER STATE -CERTIFIED RESIDENTIAL REAL ESTATE APPRAISER RD #6210 6800 SW 40 Street #644 MIAMI, FL. 33155 TERRIE201@BELLSOUTH.NET 305•-772-6062 June 3, 2026 Terri Collins -Lister, Supervisor Clerk? of the Board and VAB 1801 271h Street, Bldg. A. Vero Beach, Fl. 32960 AXIA@clerkz.indian-river.org Dear Ms. Collins -Lister: I would lite to be considered for the position of Appraiser Special Magistrate. have over 33 years of residential appraising experience and 22 years of real estate investing experience in Florida. I have also served as Special Magistrate for 13 Counties in Florida. Due to my many years of Special Magistrate experience and Real Estate experience, I feel that 1 would makze a great Appraiser Special Magistrate again for Indian River County. Attached please find the Special Magistrate Application, Resume, License, Writing Sample (Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate) and 2025 VAB Training Certificate. Your consideration of my application is greatly appreciated. Sincerely, Terrie Peltier _101- Item 9.E. y SPECIAL MAGISTRATE APPLICATION INDIAN RIVER COUNTY VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD (APPLICANTS MUSTMFRT QUALIFICATIONS OUTLINED W FLA. STAT. § 194.035) Please type or print. If more space is needed, attach additional sheets. Applicants may supplement their application with a resume. However, a resume cannot be used in lieu of an application. Application for: ❑ Attorney Special Magistrate ® Appraiser Special Magistrate for... ® Real Property and/or ❑ 'tangible Personal Property If appointed, how much time would you be available to conduct hearings and complete your recommendations`/ ❑ 1 to 8 hours per week; [:19 to 20 hours per week; ❑ 21 to 30 hours per week; ® 31 to 40 hours per week. Name: Terrie Peltier Home Address: 27I40 SW 145 Ayenue.Road, Homestead. Fl. 33032 Mailing Address: 6800 SW 40 Street. #644. Miami Fl 33155 Business Name: Peltier Appraisals, LLC Business Address: 6800 SW 40 Street #644 Miami Fl. 33155 Phone: Home/305-772-6062 Business/305-772-6062 Cell/305-772-6062 Fax: N/A E -Mail: 'rerrie20l@_bellsouth.net • Copy of license referenced below. • Documentation to support membership in professional organizations listed below under Organizations. • A writing sample, which may consist of an opinion letter or other business-related documentation that contains one or more written pages of original material. If you have served as a special magistrate previously, please submit a recommended decision as your sample. Do not submit a copy of an appraisal as a writing sample. • Prior to conducting hearings, all applicants are required under Fla. Stat. § 194.035 to certify completion of the current year training provided by the Department of Revenue. To obtain the training, go online to the Department's website at http://dor.myflorida com/dori'yMperty/vab/training html. Return your completion certificate to the VAB clerk. Attorney Magistrate Applicant: Bar Number: Date of Admission: How many years of experience do you have in the area of ad valorem taxation: Appraiser Magistrate Applicant: Residential Appraiser License #: ED62I0 Valid Through: 11/30/26 General Appraiser License #.: Valid Through: Provide number ofyears of experience you have in the area of real property valuation: 33+ Years Describe experience, and number of years you have in the area of tangible property valuation: None Page 1 01/13/2015 -102- 4. SPECIAL MAGISTRATE APPLICATION s INDIAN RIVER COUNTY VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD (APPLICANT'S MUST NfEET QUALIFICATIONS OUTLINED 1N FLA. STAT. § 194.035) L Educational Background See Attached Resume 2. List any experience and/or specialty for the following property types: PROPERTY TYPE EXPERIENCE/SPECIALTY Residential Real Property Single family, 24 Family, Condominium, Vacant Land and -Co- On Commercial Rcal Property Tangible Property Other (please sci 3. If you currently or previously have served as a special magistrate, please provide the municipality or county and dates served. See Attached Resume 4. Have you ever been dismissed, terminated or denied appointment as a special magistrate for poor or improper performance? ® No ❑ Yes (please explain) 5. List any additional information which makes you qualified to serve as a special magistrate. Also provide name and contact information of at least two individuals who can attest to your years of experience in ad valorem taxation, tangible personal property or real property appraisals. I have over 33 years of appraising experience in Florida and ].have performed appraisals for the largest lending Institutions. I have served as Special Magistrate in 13 counties in Florida over the past 12 years Robert Blecha 305-274-9415 and Karen Muni 305-298-3980. 6. Are you willing to accept the Value Adjustment Board established schedule of fees? ® Yes ❑ No If no, please indicate your schedule of fees to be charged the board on a one-hour basis. 7. Explain your level of knowledge and experience with including Axia computers and list the applications you are familiar with, I have experience with Microso8 Word A lamode a raisal software and Axia. I have been using the computer since 1988. 1. List each organization, recognized by the real estate appraisal industry or the professionals in that field, in which YOU are currently or have previously been a designated member: VKIiAINIGATION DESIGNATION DATE MEMBER# None Page 2 -103- v01;13/2015 SPECIAL MAGISTRATE APPLICATION 4 ` INDIAN RIVFR COUNTY VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD (APPLICAN 1'S MUST MEET QUALIFICATIONS OUMINF.D IN FLA. SIAT. § 194.035) 2. Of those organizations describe any possible contlict of interest that could occur or the appearance of a conflict of interest that may prevent you from fairly conducting a hearing: 3. Have you ever been disbarred, suspended or received any other disciplinary action from any organized association, or from the State of Florida? ® No ❑ Yes (please explain) 4. List any personal or business relationship you have ever had with any officer or employee of the office of the Property appraiser, office of the clerk of the circuit court, office of the county attorney or the value adjustment board of any of the counties to which you are applying: 5. List any clubs, organizations, associations, or other entities to which you belong or participate in and in which a possible conflict of interest could occur or the appearance of a conflict of interest might arise that would prevent you from fairly conducting the hearing between the property appraiser and the property owner and taxpayer. Al....o Pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 194.035, a person cannot serve as a special magistrate if he/she is an elected or appointed official of a county, a taxing jurisdiction, or the state; is an employee of a county, a taxing, jurisdiction, or the state; or in the same tax year that he/she services the Board as a special magistrate, represents a party before the Board in any administrative review of property taxes. Are you an elected or appointed official or employee of a county, a taxing jurisdiction, or the state? ❑ Yes ® No If yes, please provide details: The undersigned certifies, under penalty of disqualification from consideration, that each item contained in this application, or arty other document furnished by or on behalf of the applicant is true and complete as of the date it bears. The undersigned authorizes the Value Adjustment Board to obtain information from other sources to verb each item contained herein. The undersigned acknowledges that, if selected, he/she will follow all requirements and mandates of law in fulfilling the duties of special magistrate. 7 ���-15�3/2026 Signatur Terrie Peltier Printed Name of Applicant Page 3 -104- v01/.13/2015 TERRIE PELTIER 6800 SW 40 STREET #644 MIAMI, FL. 33155 305-772-6062 TERRIE201C)13ELLSOUTH.NET SUMMARY OF QUALIFICATIONS • Appraised Residential Real Estate for 33 years in Miami -Dade, Broward and Palm Beach Counties. • Specializing in Single Family, Condo, 2-4 Family, Co -Op and Vacant Land • Special Magistrate -- Martin, Broward, Hillsborough, Orange, Osceola, Pasco, Lee, Polk, St. Lucie, Sarasota, Indian River, Volusia and Brevard Counties • Real Estate Investor with 22 years of experience as a buyer, seller, landlord, property manager and renovation specialist EXPERIENCE Nova University--- Paralegal Certificate 2018 -Present Peltier Appraisals, LLC 2025-2026 Appraiser Special Magistrate for Broward, Hillsborough, Orange, Brevard, PROFESSIONAL TECHNfCAL COURSES Indian River and Martin Counties 2023-2025 Appraiser Special Magistrate for Broward, Hillsborough, Orange, Brevard, Gold Coast Schools - Mastering RE Appraisal Pre-Lic Course Indian River and Volusia Counties 2022-2023 Appraiser Special Magistrate for Broward, Hillsborough, Orange, Sarasota Miami -Dade Community College --- Certified Appraiser Course (AB -2 & AB -26) Brevard and Indian River Counties 2021-2022 Appraiser Special Magistrate for Broward, Martin, Hillsborough, Orange, Century 21- Principles & Practices of Real Estate Sarasota, Brevard, Osceola and Indian River Counties 2020-2021 Appraiser Special Magistrate for Broward, Martin, Hillsborough, Orange, St. 1994-2024 Lucie, Sarasota, Brevard and Osceola Counties 2019-2020 Appraiser Special Magistrate for Broward, Martin, Hillsborough, Orange 2009 Pasco, St. Lucie, Sarasota and Brevard Counties 2017-2019 Appraiser Special Magistrate for Broward, Martin, Hillsborough, Orange, Pasco, St. Lucie and Brevard Counties 2016-2017 Appraiser Special Magistrate for Broward, Martin, Hillsborough, Orange, Osceola, Pasco, Lee, and Palk Counties 2015-2016 Appraiser Special Magistrate for Broward, Martin and Hillsborough County 2014-2015 Appraiser Special Magistrate for Martin County 2009-2018 Terrie Peltier (Appraiser) 2008-2025 Amerifirst Consulting, LLC (Real Estate Investor) 1993-2009 Investors Appraisal Service 1984-1993 Myron W. Peltier, Inc. (Appraiser Retired) LICENSURE 2007 Mortgage Broker's License 2006 State -Certified Residential Real Estate Appraiser 1993 State -Registered Real Estate Appraiser EDUCATION 1989-1990 Nova University--- Paralegal Certificate 1988-1990 Nova University— 9 Credits away from B.A. degree in Business Administration 1986-1988 Briarcliffe College --- A.A. Degree in Business Administration PROFESSIONAL TECHNfCAL COURSES 2007 Gold Coast Schools -- Mortgage Brokers Pre -License Course 2006 Gold Coast Schools - Mastering RE Appraisal Pre-Lic Course 2006 Gold Coast Schools ---15 Hr. National USPAP Pre-Lic Course 2000-01 Miami -Dade Community College --- Certified Appraiser Course (AB -2 & AB -26) 1993 Miami -Dade Community College --- Registered Appraiser Course 1(AB-1) 1986 Century 21- Principles & Practices of Real Estate SEMINARS, CONFERENCES, CONTINUING EDUCATION 2014-2025 Department of Revenue Value Adjustment Board Yearly Training 1994-2024 30 Hr. Continuing Education/USPAP (Every 2 Years) 2010 Defaulted Mortgage Note Training 2009 14 Hr. Mtg Broker Continuing Education -105- Ron DeSantis, Governor Melanie S. Griffin, Secretary Flodda STATE OF FLORIDA pr. . DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION FLORIDA REAL ESTATE APPRAISAL BD THE CERTIFIED RESIDENTIAL APPRAISER HEREIN IS CERTIFIED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 475, FLORIDA STATUTES PELTIER, TERRIE 8830 SW 123 CTI 308 MIAMI FL 33186 LICENSE NUMBER RD6210 �I EXPIRATION DATE: NOVEMBER 30,2026' Always verify licenses online at MyFloridaLicense.com ISSUED: 11/14/2024 Do not alter this document in any form. This is your license. It is unlawful wful for anyone other than the licensee to use this document. In EVA I DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR -485V t R. 01/ 17 VALUE PETITION Rule 1213-16.002 F.A.C. FLORIDA Broward County Eff. 01117 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 # 2024 Parcel ID Petitioner name Properly The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's agent address HOLLYWOOD, FL 33019 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary ❑ Denied your petition Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed I. Just value, required 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 4. Taxable value,' required t © Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part ITRI lue from Before Board Action After Board M Notice Valae presented by property appraiser Rule 1213-9.02510 F A . Action All values entered should be conn taxable values. School and other Reasons for Decision rrnaings or t -act (See Attached) t.vnciusions of Law (See Attached) 621980 621980 579180 571500 571500 571500 0 0 571500 571500 571500 taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196 031(7), F S ) Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. 2 Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. PELTIER, TERRIE PELTIER, TERRIE 03/19/2025 Signature, special magistrate Print name VAB Clerk Date VAB Clerk 03/21/2025 Signature, VAB clerk or special representative Print name ` If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on Date Address at 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 954 357-7205 or visit our web site at haps.//bcvab.broward_orn/AYiauval U lanai Decision of the Value Adjustment Board chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of to 2024 -107- Page 107 - Page 1 of 4 Findings of Fact for Petition 2024- The Petitioner's Agent, with attended the hearing via telephone. Valentina and Michelle were present at the hearing representing the Property Appraisers office. As per testimony, the evidence exchange complied with statutory time frame requirements. No objections by either Party were made related to data submittal. The subject is located in a highrise condo building in The Summit Condo. The subject is located in the north building. The subject has 2 bedrooms and 2 bathrooms. The subject is an interior unit on the 18th floor and has an unobstructed northerly view of the intracoastal/city/ocean view. The subject has 1,570 adjusted building square footage and was built in 1982. The subject's project has 2 buildings. There is a north building and a south building. The subject is located in the north building. The Property Appraiser provided the Broward county property appraiser's certification of evidence, Subject`s property record card, Aerial views of subject, Subjects location map, Exterior photos of subject, North tower and south tower unit building layouts, FloorpIans for "C" units and "D" units Subject and comparable unit locator, Summary of 4 comparable sales, Summary of 2 comparable sales, Department of Revenue's Broward county time trend, DR -493, Florida Statutes and mist. inforination. The Property Appraiser provided as rebuttal evidence a Summary of 5 comparable sales with the Property Appraiser's sales and the Petitioner's unit 4105 sale added. The Property Appraiser utilized 4 comparable sales in the subject's project. The Property Appraiser's comparables are the same model as the subject. Comparable #1 is located in the same building as the subject, but is on a much lower floor than the subject and is not the best sale to indicate the subject's value. Comparable #2 is located in the subject's building on the 10th floor and has a north view like the subject and is a good indicator of value. Comparable #3 is located in the south building and is on a much lower floor than the subject and is not the best sale to indicate the subject's value. Comparable #4 is located in the south building on the 19th floor, has a similar view as the subject and is a good indicator of value. Out of the 4 comparables sales that the Property Appraiser's provided, comparables #2 and #4 should be utilized to determine the subject's value as they are the most similar to the subject. The Property Appraiser stated the floor height adjustment also included a view adjustment, The Petitioner provided as evidence the Ownwell cover page, Property surnmary, Property photos, Evaluation summary, 7 Sales comparables, 7 Adjusted sales comparables and Comparable map. The Petitioner provided 7 comparable sales in the subject's project. The Petitioner's comparables #1, #2, #3, #4 and #6 arc the same model as the subject. Comparables #I and #3 have obstructed views and are not the best sales to indicate the subject's value. Comparable #2 is located on the 20th floor in the subject's building, has a similar northern view as the subject and is a good indicator of value. Comparable #4 is located on a much lower floor than the subject and is not the best sale to indicate the subject's value. Comparable #5 is a corner unit with a direct intraeoastal/city/ocean view and is larger in adjusted building square feet than the subject and is not the best sale to indicate the subject's value. Comparable #6 is shared with the Property Appraiser. Comparable #6 is located on the 19th floor in the south building and has a similar view as the subject and is a good indicator of value. Comparable #7 is a corner unit with a direct intracoastaVcity/ocean view and is larger in adjusted building square feet than the subject and is not the best sale to indicate the subject's value. Out of the 7 comparables sales that the Petitioner provided comparables #2 and #6 should be utilized to determine the subject's value as they are the most similar to the subject. The Property Appraiser's comparable sales #2 and #4 and the Petitioner's comparables #2 and #6 are the best overall sales to deternune the subject's value as they are the same model as the subject, most similar in floor height and have a similar view as the subject. The Property Appraiser did not adjust the comparable sales in the market grid for cost of sale. The Property Appraiser did apply the cost of sale in their evidence and testimony at the hearing. The Property Appraiser took into consideration the 10% for cost of sale in the summary of comparable sales. The subject's cost of sale of 10% for the subject's use code was found on the DR -493 form provided as evidence by the Property Appraiser. 2024 -108- Page, 2 of 4 The Petitioner adjusted the comparable sales 10% in his market grid for the cost of sale The Property Appraiser made a time adjustment based on the Department of Revenue's 2023 time trend analysis. The Property Appraiser provided a 1 year time trend analysis. The DOR's time trend is for the entire county of Broward and not for the subject's market area. The time adjustment does appear to be appropriate for the subjects market area. The Petitioner stated his time adjustment was from Zillow and was for all of Broward County and not for the subject's market area. The Petitioner's time adjustment does not appear to be appropriate for the subjects market area. The Property Appraiser's comparables #2 and #4 and the Petitioner's comparables #2 and #6 are the best sales to indicate the subject's value as they were overall the most similar to the subject. The comparables should be adjusted appropriately for floor height as below. The Property Appraiser's comparables #2 and #4 and the Petitioner's comparables #2 and #6 should be adjusted as follows: 1201 S. Ocean Drive #1008N -- Sold for 5690,000, -0- Time Adjustment, +35,000 Inferior Floor Height = $725,000 Adjusted Purchase Price. 1201 S. Ocean Drive #1906S -- Sold for $655,000, -0- Time Adjustment, -5,000 Superior Floor Height = $650,000 Adjusted Purchase Price. 1201 S. Ocean Drive #2004N -- Sold for $565,600, -0- Time Adjustment Adjusted Purchase Price. , -10,000 Superior Floor Height = $555,600 The 3 comparable adjusted sales prices form a range between $555,600 to $725,000. By utilizing the mean, the Preliminary value/present cash value for the subject is $643,533. In conclusion, the Special Magistrate recommends the Market/Just Value be changed to $643,533 (Preliminary Value/ Present Cash. Value) less 10% (Cost of Sale) $64,353 for a Market/A Value of $579,180. This change is recommended to comply with the 1st and 3rd criteria. The Petitioner overcame the Property Appraiser's established presumption of correctness because the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value. The Property Appraiser did not take into consideration F.S. 193.011 (1), which is the present cash value of thero erfy which is the amount a willing purchaser would pay a willine seller.exclusive of reasonal lc fees and cysts of clhme,� in cash or the immediate equivalent thereof in a transaction at arms length. The Property Appraiser did not take into consideration F.S. 193.011(3), which is the location of said property. Therefore, the Special Magistrate recommends the Just/Market value be changed to $579,180 and the Petition be Granted. Granted by Special Magistrate at Hearing & after Tax Roll. Conclusions of Lav for Petition 2024 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 roves b a rhe preponderance Property A P y p ponderancc of the evidence that the p rty 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 proves 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 properly within the same county. In the instant 2024- -109- Page 3 of 4 matter, the Petitioner overcame the Property Appraiser's established presumption of correctness because the admitted evidence proves 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. 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. 2024- -110- 024- -110- Page 4 of 4 Florida Department of Revenue Certificate of Training Terrie Peltier has received 2025 Real Property Appraiser Special Magistrates VAB Training on 9/16/25 VIM I s FLORIDA Item 9.F. SPECIAL MAGISTRATE APPLICATION 1W INDIAN RIVER COUNTY VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD (APPLICANTS MUST MEET QUALIFICATIONS OUTLINED IN fLA. STAT. t; 194.035) Please type or print. If more space is needed, attach additional sheets. Applicants ma}, supplement their application with a resume. However, a resume cannot he used in lieu of an application. Application for: ❑ Attorney Special Magistrate ® AppraiserS eciai Magistrate for... Real Property andW ❑ Tangible Personal Property If appointed, how much time would you be available to conduct hearings and complete your recommendations? ❑ I to 8 hours per week; ® 9 to 20 hours per week; ❑ 21 to 30 hours per week; [:131 to 40 hours per week. APPLICANT INFORMATION Name: Scott Sehr Ilome Address: 6609 NW Omega Rd, Port St Lucie, FL 34983 Mailing Address: 6609 NW Omega Rd, Port St Lucie, FL 34983 Business Name: Scott Sehr Inc Business Address: 1440 Coral Ridge Dr #124, Coral Springs, Fl. 33071 Phone: Home/ Business! 954-254-6740 Cell; 954-254-6740 Fax: E-Mail:ssincfl@gmail.com • Copy of license referenced below. • Documentation to support membership in professional organizations listed below under Organizations. • A writing sample, which may consist of an opinion letter or other business-related documentation that contains one or more written pages of original material. If you have served as a special magistrate previously, please submit a recommended decision as your sample. Do not submit a copy of an appraisal as a writing sample. • Prior to conducting hearings, all applicants are required under Fla. Stat. § 194.035 to certify completion of the current year training provided by the Department of Revenue. To obtain the training, go online to the Department's website at http://dor.myflorida.com/dor,proMMLvab!training.htmi Return your completion certificate to the VAB clerk. Attorney Magistrate Applicant: Bar Number: Date of Admission: How many years of experience do you have in the area of ad valorem taxation: Appraiser Magistrate Applicant: Residential Appraiser License #: RD5072 Valid Through: 11=12026 General Appraiser License #: Valid Through: 20+ years Provide number of years of experience you have in the area of real property valuation: Describe experience, and number of years you have in the area of tangible property valuation: _ Pagc 1 vOl/13/2015 -112- SPECIAL MAGISTRATE APPLICATION INDIAN RIVER COUNTY VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD (APPLICANTS MUST P.' .f -T QI IAI.IFICATIONS OIiTLI\1:D N FLA. S 1 A-1 6 194,035) 1 ' 1. Educational Background 2. List any experience and/or specialty for the following property n7>L PROPERTY TYPE EXPERIENCEISPECIAI.TY Residential Real Property 20+ years construction, 20+ yeam appraising Commercial Real Property Tangible Property Other leases if 3. If you currently or previously have served as a special magistrate, please provide the municipality or county and dates served. Broward County 2010 to present, Martin County 2014, 2015, 2016, 2024, 2025 Indian River County 2023, 2024, 2025 4. Have you ever been dismissed, terminated or denied appointment as a special magistrate for poor or improper performance? ® No ❑ Yes (please explain) 5. List any additional information which makes you qualified to serve as a special magistrate. Also provide name and contact information of at least two individuals who can attest to your years of experience in ad valorem taxation, tangible personal property or real property appraisals. Independent, impartial unbiased with various types of valuation experience (traditional fee appraiser, review appraiser, prior expert witness and Special Magistrate experience). Bromyard VAB 954-357-7205 Tina Canals, Martin VAB Layla Ponders 772-288-5593 6. Are you willing to accept the Value Adjustment Board established schedule of fees? ® Yes ❑ To If no, please indicate your schedule of fees to be charged the board on a one-hour basis. 7. Explain your level of knowledge and experience with computers and list the applications you are familiar with, WAb",�fM51te, web browsers, Zoom/Teams, Axia I. List each organization, recognized by the real estate appraisal industry or the professionals in that field, in which you are currently or have previously been a designated member: ORGANIZATION DESIGNATION DATE MEMBER# 2. Of those omanizations describe anv possible conflict of interest that could occur or the appearance of a con f1icl of interest that may prevent you from fairly conducting a hearing: WA Page 2 YO 111312015 -113- SPECIAL MAGISTRATE APPLICATION ' INDIAN RIVER COUNTY VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD (APPLICANTS MUSK MI•UPT QUALIFICATIONS OUTI,tNF.D IN EI.A. STAT. 1 194.035) Have you ever been disbarred, suspended or received any other disciplinary action from any organized association, or from the State of Florida? ® No ❑ Yes (please explain) 4. List any personal or business relationship you have ever had with any officer or employee of the office of the property appraiser, office of the clerk of the circuit court, office of the county attorney or the value adjustment board of any of the counties to which you are applying: None 5. List any clubs, organizations, associations, or other entities to which you belong or participate in and in which a possible conflict of interest could occur or the appearance of a conflict of interest might arise that would prevent you from fairly conducting the hearing between the property appraiser and the property owner and taxpayer. None 1 Pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 194.035, a person cannot serve as a special magistrate if he/she is an elected or appointed official of a county, a taxing jurisdiction, or the state; is an employee of a county, a taxing jurisdiction, or the state; or in the same tax year that he/she services the Board as a special magistrate, represents a party before the Board in any administrative review of property taxes. Are you an elected or appointed official or employee of a county, a taxing jurisdiction, or the state? ❑ Yes ® No If yes, please provide details: The undersigned certifies, under penalty of disqualification frau consideration, that each item contained in this application, or any other document furnished by or on behalf of the applicant is true and complete as of the date it bears. The undersigned authorizes the Value Adjustment Board to obtain in from other sources to ver f, each item contained herein. The undersigned acknowledges that, if selected, he/she will follow all requirements and mandates oflaw in fitlfrlling the dutier ofspecial magistrate. Date: 05/12/2026 Signature of Applicant Scott Sehr Printed Name of Applicant - 114 - Page 3 v4111312015 The Appraiser Special Magistrate (SM) conducted a hearing that occurred on Nov 14, 2024 for the correctness of the 2024 Just/Market Value of 2305 86 Ave SW (33-38-35-00001-0140-00001.0) in Vero Beach. At the hearing were the Special Magistrate, clerk (Terri), representatives from Indian River County Property Appraisers Office (PAO) and Edward Kuvlesky/Best Choice Properties 2 LLC the petitioner (PET). Both parties presented evidence in support of their opinions for the subject value The PAO evidence consisted of a cover page, information/evidence request letter, evidence exchange 12D-9.020 document, methodology and consideration page, 193.011 Factors to consider document, email from PET, subject property card, aerial/interior subject photos, comparable grid, map of subject and comparables, property cards and aerial photos of the comparables. A 15% cos (cost of sale) adjustment was considered. The PET evidence consisted of an email with VAB, land survey, floorplan pages, construction cost pages (typed budgets, invoices, quotes, receipts etc). All documents were admissible, and all evidence was admitted into evidence without objection. Upon examination of the evidence submitted, the subject is a 17.2 acre parcel with a 4,800 sf structure. At the hearing the PAO and PET both indicated the structure does not meet code to be a habitable dwelling and is a partially overimproved barn (upgraded kitchen, A/C areas, not a typical horse/animal farm barn. The structure has 1,600 sf garage area and 4,800 sf enclosed A/C area. There are interior finishes of electric, plumbing, drywall, interior walls, kitchen, bathrooms to facilitate an office/business/working area. The VAB presented a comparable grid with three sales including the subject 2023 transaction. PAO sale 1 was the subject sale. Sale 2 is a 12.5 acre parcel with a 2660 barn/stable area and 1440 sf living area (A/C, kitchen, bathrooms etc). Sale 3 has 18.72 acres with a small open pole barn (420 sf). The PAO addressed the differences in land value from sales 2 & 3 north/east of 1-95 location to the subjects south location west of 1-95. The wind load construction codes were discussed which the subject building as built cannot be habitable for living purposes and can function as a business/farm structure. The PET provided construction costs which appear to adequately cover the structure, plumbing (rough in -not finished bathrooms), electrical costs, A/C and partial cost of the septic system (invoice had a discounted total of $4,500 with only $2,250 on the full budget sheet. These were older costs with invoice dates back in 2021. The PAO commented on the increase in construction costs. The cement invoice did not include all costs associated with Jeff Wilson Masonry Services portion of the work. The invoice indicated additional costs the owner at that time was responsible for that were not noted in the budget sheet: permit, dumpster for site, durnpster for concrete washout, power (electric cost on budget sheet do not show main feed costs) with the water costs appearing on the budget from Robert Scarborough Wells. The total budget of $163,111 is considered to be low for costs as of the Jan 1, 2024 effective date. Plus these additional items which were not in the budget; cost of sand for septic (invoice indicated not included in price), material & labor for kitchen, bathrooms, interior walls etc that did not appear to be included in the budget. The kitchen, bathrooms, walls etc have value for functionality allowing for multiple different usages of the structure. The PAO and PET somewhat agree on the land values based on the location of the parcel with similar access dirt roads. The area where they disagree is with the additional structure value. PAO sale had a 420 sf open pole barn which has minimal value and is basically a large parcel with a tree farm. The PAO did provide a building value of $264,155 for sale 2 having a small living area of 1,140 sf, 380 sf carport and non -A/C barn area of 2,660 sf which is an older structure built in 2011. The SM reviewed the data presented by both parties. The SM concurs on the low side with the PAO land value portion of the assessment at $219,300. The structure value prior to the hearing of $423,318 appears high as the dwelling cannot be lived in as a typical home due to not meeting code for a full-time living dwelling. The building does have value being composed of a 1,600 sf garage/storage area and 4,800 sf of A/C enclosed semi -finished area. The construction costs provided a staring point for valuation for the structure (shell), partial electric/plumbing and A/C. The cost was from 2021 per invoice dates and would require modification to costs on the effective date. The SM also considered the finishings for the subject (kitchen, bathrooms, interior walls etc) and other construction costs not included in the budget when comparing to PAO sale 2 structure. PAO sale 2 building breakdown is noted to be 27% living -A/C area, 9% carport and 64% barn/stable. The subject structure has 25% for the garage area and 75% for the A/C -enclosed area. These figures along with building budget costs were considered in the building valuation. Overall for all areas combined the subject is 33% larger in size and sale 2 A/C area is less than 25% of the subject A/C area. The subject incomplete building budget with a 20-25% cost increase, additional costs for construction items not included in the budget, finishings as mentioned previously and the full size of the structure is reasonably supported at a value of $300,000 (approx $47 per sf x 6,400 sf). The building has significant value as it has a large area under A/C, which can be utilized for business/farm support purposes and the additional large garage area which has many uses. The SM considered the structure to have substantial value due to its overall size and utility (larger than typical garage area and 4,800 sf under A/C allowing for a myriad of usage other than living area (ag and other commercial use). Having electric and plumbing (well/septic) in place is a plus for further expanding on parcel improvements. Taking the land value of $219,300 and an existing structure value of $300,000 returns a value of $519,300 for the subject. The subject was purchased for $800,000 with a non -habitable structure. Original purchase price was $1,000,000 and reduced to $800,000 per PET prior agreement if the dwelling could not be habitable. The value of $519,300 is more than sufficient to cover the 15% cos (cost of sale) adjustments (approx 35% from purchase price). This value is based on the land and structure maintaining AG usage. Any changes to the parcel would warrant modifications to the assessment. The subject Just/Market value prior to the hearing of $642,618 is higher than the data shows indicating a revision is warranted. In conclusion, it is the magistrate's opinion that the PAO sales, PET cost analysis and additional evidence provided sufficient credible data to determine a supported Just value for the subject. Factoring all the evidence provided, $519,300 is a supported Just Value for the subject. The PET request for a value revision is approved based on the evidence presented. -117- The Appraiser Special Magistrate (SM) conducted a hearing that occurred on Nov 14, 2024 for the correctness of the 2024 Just/Market Value of 211 Beachside Dr (31-39-23-000110000-00021.0) in Vero Beach. At the hearing were the Special Magistrate, clerk (Terri), representatives from Indian River County Property Appraisers Office (PAO) and James Calkins the petitioner (PET) with Janice Cosden & Alexandra Mishler from Cosden-Mishler Appraisers. Both parties presented evidence in support of their opinions for the subject value The PAO evidence consisted of a cover page, information/evidence request letter, evidence exchange 12D-9.020 document, methodology and consideration page, 193.011 Factors to consider document, emails from PET, copies of the PET appraisal, subject property card, subject MLS from the 2023 sale, land value analysis, aerial photos of subject and comparables, comparable grid, map of subject/comparables, property cards/ aerial photos of the cornparables and case law documents. A 15% cos (cost of sale) adjustment was considered. The PET evidence consisted of an appraisal or-, a GP Residential form, assessment comparison pages, property cards for subject/comparables and time trend submitted as rebuttal/additional data. All documents were admissible, and all evidence was admitted into evidence without objection. Upon examination of the evidence submitted, the PAO provided a grid with four sales (two shared with the PET). The PAO applied adjustments in the grid for size, bathrooms, effective age, WFF (water front footage), Iccation and cos. No adjustments were applied for the subject having a much larger garage size than the comparables. The four sales provide an average adjusted value of $11,607,050. The PAO provided a vacant land analysis that showed the increasing land values from 2021 through 2023. The first page of the land analysis showed a price per sf and WFF breakdown. The second page of the land sales showed increase in sale prices for parcels that had a sale and then a subsequent sale with the minimum increase of 4% monthly from 04/2021 to 05/2022. The other sales had 6% monthly from 06/2021 to 01/2023 and the third was a 40% increase in 3 months (flip sale). This data does provide sufficient support for the subject land value portion at $3,093,179 ($25,354 WFF/between $81-82 per sf). The PAO commented on the vacant land sale in Apr 2021 that was next to the subject. The aerial imagery shows the site was vacant!raw land ori the effective date (photo flight date was Jan 2, 2024 per PAO). This parcel has less buildable land, less front footage with a wider WFF view. The land sale value plus an increase on the low end still supports the land assessment portion. -118- The PET provided three copies of appraisals on the subject property. Their original submission to the PAO was not considered as it had four 2024 sales and one 2023 sale with an effective date of Sept 2024 which is after the effective date of value for this hearing (Jan 1, 2024 value date), That appraisal had a value of 510,065,000. Comparable S was actually a 2023 sale per the other appraisals and the PAO grid as this was a shared sale from Nov 2023. There was a second appraisal presented which had six sales (4 from 2023, 2 from 2019) which had a value of $10,280,000 (signature date 10/22/2024, effective date 12/31/2023). The third appraisal is the one reviewed for this hearing. It had the same six sales as the second appraisal plus an additional seventh sale (included as comp 5) which changed the value to $9,980,000 (signature date 10/3C/2024). The PET presented one -line grids of the assessed values of the other beachfront properties in the subject subdivision. This data is not relevant in this instance as the PAO does not compare assessments due to differences in sale dates, homestead exemptions, portability etc. The PAO commented on the changes to the market values that fluctuate with market area values with the owners having protections/caps in the Assessed/SOH value lines. The owner stated they purchased the dwelling with the furniture; however, without a tangible property appraisal and a separate real estate appraisal from time of sale, the sale price is considered for the real estate. Typically, when the furnishings are left, it's for seller convenience (time, sell, donate, move items etc), to entice a buyer, AirBnB/short term rental etc. In the hearing folder was page 1 of the subject purchase contract. The contract indicated the items to be included in the sale per MLS listing and furniture as seen on 12/14/2022. The MLS was provided in the PAO evidence which did not provide details or photos of the personal items. The contract did indicate that the vehicles in the garage, artwork, Ferrari dinnerware, wine, glasses, statues, glass turtle in billiard room and other personal items were not included in the sale, hence, the remaining items left did not have value to the seller. The PAO and PET utilize two sales in common. 910 Reef Rd was adjusted for inferior location by the PAO. The PET indicated the site size offset the location adjustment which is not supported as the site size is similar and the WFF differs by 2 If which did not warrant an adjustment. The PET should have applied a location adjustment based on the data presented. The condition/quality, effective age, size and bathroom adjustments are similar from both parties. 8150 Highway A1A was also similarly adjusted by both parties except the location adjustment by the PET. Without the location adjustment the adjusted values from both parties are less than $200,000 apart (less than 2% difference). PAO sale 2 is the high sale from both parties. The PAD applied a large effective age adjustment for being newer construction (no data provided to confirm/dispute the adjustment) and appeared reasonable and similar to the other comparable adjustments. 1916 Ocean Dr had an inferior age/effective age adjustment that was large. No MLS data was presented to validate/dispute the adjustment. The PAO provided the adjustment amounts on the bottom of their grid which appear reasonable for large luxury ocean front properties. The PET had seven comparables. Comparable 5 was excluded per the PAO indicating it was an auction sale and not a typical awns -length transaction. Comp 5 had a 100% overall increase from sale price to the adjusted value further reducing the credibility of this sale. Comparables 6 & 7 were from 2019. The PET did apply an increasing trend adjustment which the SM did not deem fully supported. The PET provided a one -line grid to support the adjustments; however, the data was not just for similar properties. A brief synopsis of the data showed majority of the sales were inferior prcperties with sale prices below $5million. There were 6 of 18 above $5M for 2019, 4 of 30 in 2020, 11 of 38 in 2021, 5 of 11 in 2022 and 4 of 13 in 2023. A further analysis shows number of sales above $9M to be i for 2019 & 2020, 4 in 2021, 2 in 2022 and 3 in 2023. Looking at the data the size of the dwellings is important with the number of properties above 8,000 sf were 4 in 2019, 5 in 2020, 6 in 2021, 1 in 2022 and 3 in 2023. The three large sales in 2023 were the subject sale at $13M and two others at $22M & $22.5M. These sales over 8,000 sf in size are mostly much higher in value than the smaller dwellings reducing the credibility of the trend. Insufficient data was available on these sales to determine size, condition, location etc prior to extracting a trend adjustment. PET sale 2 is not deemed comparable with a GLA almost half the subject size with a 0.3 acre parcel which is not comparable to acre+/- properties. The PET adjusted value is 276% higher than the actual sale price. A $2.5M view adjustment lends support for not being comparable as the ocean view is not direct. PET sale 3 is insufficiently adjusted being a riverfront property and not oceanfront. This sale would require different adjustments for WFF as the oceanfront properties have view while the riverfront properties dock sizes/depth of water become most important for boat/yacht owners. The PET included the guesthouse living areas of the comparables in the overall gla which may or may not be fully supported. The SM did not have additional supporting/market area data to verify the -120- adjustments applied this way. The PET had additional trivial adjustments for elevator, summer kitchen, seaway that were not fully supported. The PAO utilized the averages from the adjusted value of the comparables. The PET provided a weighted average based on adjustment percentages. The PET placed most weight on the least comparable riverfront property. The 5M calculated the PAO 4 sales as shown in their grid which returned a value of $11,607,050 after the cos. The same 4 sales with the PET values for the shared sales with the location adjustment removed from 8150 Hwy AIA and the location adjustment added to 910 Reef Rd provide an average value of $11,102,460. The subject sale with the 15% cos applied is $11,050,000. The subject sale by itself indicates a revision is warranted. The subject value prior to the hearing of $11,126,326 is higher than the best 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 lust value for the subject. Factoring all the evidence provided, $11,050,000 is a supported lust value for the subject, The PET request for a value revision is approved based on the evidence presented. I Wr Ron DeSantis, Governor Melanie S. Griffin, Secretary FI riga STATE OF FLORIDA dolor DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION THE CERTIFIED RESIDENTIAL APPRAISER HEREIN IS CERTIFIED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 475, FLORIDA STATUTES EXPIRATION DA BER 30, 2026 Always verify licenses online at MyFloridaLicense.com ISSUED: 09/05/2024 Do not alter this document in any form. This is your license. It is unlawful for anyone other than the licensee to use this document. Item 10 VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD MEMORANDUM To: Members of the Value Adjustment Board Date: July 23, 2026 Subject: Review and Discussion on Hourly Compensation for Appraiser Special Magistrates From: Terri Collins -Lister, Supervisor Clerk to the Board and VAB The purpose of this memorandum is to request that the Value Adjustment Board review and discuss the hourly compensation rate for Appraiser Special Magistrates. The current hourly rate of $125.00 has remained unchanged since 2015. All Appraiser Special Magistrates, except for one, travel over 30 miles one way to hear appeals for the Indian River County Value Adjustment Board. Each magistrate receives a minimum of four hours per day. For the Board's consideration, I have attached a survey detailing the compensation rates for Appraiser Special Magistrates across various Florida counties. This survey indicates that many counties have adjusted their compensation rates over the past several years. The Board is asked to: - Review the attached VAB survey of Special Magistrate compensation rates. - Discuss whether the current hourly rate of $125.00 is still appropriate. - Consider the necessity of adjusting the hourly rate for the retention of Appraiser Special Magistrates. - Provide direction to the VAB Clerk regarding any recommended changes. The goal of this discussion is to ensure that the Board's compensation remains reasonable, competitive, and consistent with other Florida counties, while also supporting the recruitment and retention of experienced professionals to serve as Appraiser Special Magistrates. -123- Item ' S AL: k�' ' C �kTIJ`1�:: , ,i" XVtA, 'lease.type'QYptinf,.3i_tri� � pacz.isneet- hftarh -iddift' 'A I4Wiewjp.maYs�Y1'atinp::: ;~ ;:'•;..:,. ti4irh f� rN uitf(a ::Noti tier ti recri»ae cannot be: iseci `lieu of Aii:�tppr'jCgitonV. ;pplisration: foX;tldlie'v.ptGi1. fbla� p' faiser5' Tf . 1�St?t 3; ea11'tQpEtlynd>6,r. Tatipbe; nal Prcipeity io .`mu. ch..b .arai'Iaie 40.....�, ..?.and eoivplIfappin. 0,10x Oofrmidto : ., .ltiqurs. jet` :week;; 0 9 to •?A i4i13 s per'viieEk;: []. 2 i". io 3 fibyrs per week; r: ra p lioiri rj r ? + k Nettie: Pam fa.,B. A"r dre :A;S.A. _A. . ti e. ..... .. C' e A d 1•�I�..Kis'sen• S:.r:•i hpAdarco, : D : f3usixi� shame:':'::Ual��tierl.�elwiee . Bus'n s Address':SI7]�S..id'bbV _ _ :..: • ' iri 1904-800-24.` :... - essi' . 1'har�- - _ .� •�� �t,.,'• .'#-tom i '-err.' si ',: ' ' . • • fFbSialsery aof:Goin '•." , ',:'.' .. .. ... .: a •:. • :.•. : c . t'..• . .. Cly tiislieensc �efr;riicett fiMpw• ;' ' Do4tJY�ieii al it tt) Sup�it rgirrtibgrsltip in prt�frfs.SivnGl. orgtiizations lfQcd`.b0)*utt¢er'Qt-iat;on . A --w- r-Jtipg:sampje, Wb16h:'ii$y-o6n$is-t 6f,an,opiriio'.16toF Qr othipx'tus*ess�eiai contains:opc:vi;more itiep.p2 e . bf ongi►7al materials Il y u:hav serfied 1s a spe, ial :tdaj�rsft tey.i•cv Olisly,•': 7ti;1'a rok.fiifti6lW d&:siss' V';uur.sffizplit:.. X50 AOt apt -a �i aF2P ? S'•a'vvrlfl?4g' samplt::- P;& w ciin lui;tin'.h gs, allappli�atits .tiw ' initgpitv.zt.oFTvenµe,'Ith;tarrerit year ll41'i.0 a pn of ul?tain•Cl}ir ii n$: go;.online tcs the ' • .. , � Depatpriei�f:'.s: website-at:filYp:./doTcm��loi�da.cfiiin,°dcnl 'i-o��hablfraiitin - ftttt�Y.- Itettixri.'�?out`�.�i '.•It�itiri - ... ffca t:to the:�'A$-Fleck: AltoeYMa$istr ;pl4Pj}'t: $a ,W lit; :b; bf Adriussion How. titanj+' yearS.bEi°x2rieric 8o'yoU:hav f n. of ati �+a(br�trt..taxa4toli: :? -�ippraiser.l�Iagi'Stihtte'A 4c�t[t: I2irsidirpti�lAP j,:i*E C#: yalit l rdii h Pl =.. - Qenctal4hratc e..Ljcens&f/-:: _ Valtd'Ttiri3iigii Provide numb of ydar's of ei rience'�+pu have_iii tht hrea:o[ prppatfiq;valuatiart: }; IT Describe latpetiincef aiid gUihtitr of yEats you }iavi is tkte'+ata pfta3igible propcy : i:. :.ptiga I y. XPERIEN>vE1APEGr cnmmercisj R ai.Prij e: r Tan ble.Pro e:, See kesutne,`a#Sarhed ' leases :..,I ........... 3.: If jots ourreritly:.pr prevtously.lidve served *s.a special irlaglstrafe, p1ea5C:proyide :he �riiuliCipalit . or county 11d .•See BigiChed lint r - .• _ 4.-H.prc.you ever,'lreetrfiptigS eed;- stcd..grde�tad:atipo�itmepl,�s A=s f�1'ma�i5fiate fbF�pz o�:1ffipi'oPer 14, .9 %`a';]:'s (pledse:explai}�� Iist arty ;ic�difi al itifbrtti-atioin: whicfi makes: ali quili�ed:t� `rve m as .'ap ;i 'ma irtrate: Mo. prcjvidri nam6. • r 1. . atTrt'cogt$ttnf'timati�n<f ai.'feast:ttivo iridivithils :�vltb' cari aEtcat to:your e•rsezrctaii' {► m taxBtlbn,;tiirij ib ,.pgrsonal_properiy. br;re.$1 pfopert'y appraisals. . .. �,�{eauine attacF�eti arKi:Referericellst atip' '. - '.. - - - . 5. ATeyou;'}villiri :t'ti:.a o txhB.Va10c.Ad-ustmenf$fi idestatilishe :s�llettult b: fees?' : Yes:[Ql�in:.'t' .: �.., .. : if.tto, please.icidr ate':y ti schedule tlff4es:ta-t4e.Ctia# c fbe.bbsiii �n'k M —Ii;tiiir • See 3it�CFled;jier'lAst.yCals.schedWe EMpjtikY'piur•'1Cti%lr'#.af,itii�vrigttge'and: gxP.9>rict�o avawcC--Ot tp►iier�'and list Oio.' lieatia is �t� fa�iliai'wii incjuciing'Azia:: .. - .... � � • . ; • �... h'' • Veiy'faillar'vyifh A�aa 1M1lorii 8: E�ccel 1. . List eachbiiApiin; teinizecl;y the cry estate aper�i:iixit3y;Qritht pzifgss►pirls is iflatfl Yd; in you aretwtt `oi is a prEvlottsly, beef a d? ign;ticd igb�r:. ' AWN" .'.9 American $ociefy of sers: _ 5997 MV 2. b .thae orgarii�alion$:�sC�*ib_t any=ji6Sfiihle epiifl5bt�i�teirestthat could occur pz tse pppcc bfa' jCt.'' of ID ere' preeiit Yoit' frbfi fairl.ctiductjtig a heariira: loon ,.. �r8 K ."Jpute dy a.aa{tig. - ctrl l�'iiur jnr#arje fn..cafjnn.irjiilJiR+jsdlnjlzlvtfl f.'tnit7isd8pajnivRPnPiau$"Puil0 `R� uiv oa 7i q.3n,?. `itan^vl:sxuioS:4c�t(#[l ltl�l�uvrxv�i�lbtlt..,.bo;PaiajJtfra;!�JShfPiF��ij�']_�?4�(i�.'au8zsl�puazf_ ••siva4 .:spfapjdtjrori: p,►�vian sr:sr�vpr n. aril fo iirf ua' �¢ �q paa(eerre( �uakn?upJ,.r?gj . rfu l tQ, Wpvvag. jn srio.:uwvnfisrp : �:.Jjp'r<ad: p ;un°:?sa j?a7.;pauijrsda un. a ' •' �'=. .:d '�1� • .•+sa�#g.��fao•`iitii�FPsunf�i}••$ `i�iuii'p�;:�•: o:aa�o d�{a:ia��at�o;�a;.fifolid.�.�;�gpik�ilau�'nQ!�•-� .' saxej'iCuodo d jo'Ato1Aai'WkoO9rutiuft . s;uaaaadai�iejjtii6tulm-'-29d4 a w-pup oql sagitias_:a�syay e.�{#' �izekau ai{ ut tgsunl 2u 'u `kiiNg:e,jo jQ t.-'st'`Q' agk:iq ` ori ip�uiif uix %:e'`i}uttaj t d•[i�i�!{kP pa}tft�cijii� �Si ,p lo'u-V sL.a4$/ae J: '9Tmi� inu'.lE Jbuui'j":t!mwd q ;50 §. �Ets` ;ellj Quensind OL -t• .., - - _ • .. '�'2s �, .. .:'. _ 'BLUE. , .. ', :'{aiSet3 cit .pue i3eitis. t do�¢:aiki pus i sisadde.:,C1i?dotd x1455 3q uWi??u'?Nl $u[jonp-46p: iStAmtuplj not. :. asps;..nu:spa a. i:>3...aapBldde'a lb i oe.7sai5aai o''�aitioelq►ssod K • ' _.• gu��et'n�pue:ural���!�lic�ib,3ezbr�l-!�p�•Kan{ri�.g�.&a��4la,iactiod:'.S�ol;st?ossa,`.s�pti�sie$jd`s�nta.�ue.isrl.: �s 3Uit�jticie ais no�:e{akq�+ Q1Ilusaz{}o jdaeoq. 3aaiuis4�lpe akin o ioaulo_!:Rk �� a? gjp'`�:}i>a::tjj #4�1a ?g73o'aov `iasieidde';C.ua azdn.7• .. :a 4.kl o :aota dl�Aa:•..rax¢'ti�' .�it•:q ia�h non t?igsaorieta i sutsnq icj' leucjs ted �t'15j i pI.QT 0:alej attl'iu io ;`upi;et�osse:, iQ . papt�aiisiis ::°pace.gstp q k� a:• tto i _ ane.H ; v- .. .. '+� c� ?:L•b'�:S `f!=f3 l� .� . 2a'"s��}k:1:��I�Pv�'1�'.��rC�t':�S'�r+�t �.L�td:3i. �.� .. : '. s .. •, r .. ....'tid,�', '���.:'C9��`edll�.;kliino�.'W��e;�ul�.d:'�t�eH�'u�b• . ' . 'OVA MOO 4 "47 MAL 1-20-5.4 i-0 Apeount Njo... r) fX�' 'Arrefi4eiDs: 6W TYPO 11 P* K. . ......... 00 Y. 0AC* . . . . . . . . . . Agent — Petitioner:; Special. Ka_at� .stt P 0!a!�WA gi Boic And'Unded 'Yi -Me §j -§jectof:the hoaiili ':tie Fa gi I m I oilty. on, "..';bban -t*'4g:&0n Wwa. . ja 'Co ;t it gh 9trat 'fh ColhOlence -'.O.Ad flbAOL24�3 sm a N A VC im any querstrgns:: A le-TeVoMq vas' had No.' toin .1* orida 4b A P I _S JyetT. S.Pt.iAk foe; t Pr - to .'§U.P VVVII: In Th i6eiA -M 0 -.w - r --�P-.A "C 'Unde 7.5-1-94.'' i��d. eAW ate Prope4y.-Appraiser PA.}! J ni The PA read. atf Petitib.n.'No. The S2100.0_1�X�mp Fl- tb - t The PA b qgatA ihe--.'p' T hd The PA's: oiA60 r S . e';.. aA jo'' Izto=abfr ioux Ai -Etr Jife" S sto. af. gg:.....:.. "IC Wo k h' C 5dtrcti .48; a Its. v 16 6: - -A itak-li A. C: R:&o '491 J6 7' i &A, 194 6 6 m P' Y, 06.01 ' '"' 6 * ... ' .-f'h Pte. - -i P V.. f 0 tp .-Antg. A-0. e -red-;. 6jj.gij%' acqtji -bet. Iivii A 0 X:� d I-Zw 6 Ul� dAaof btyanb t0141 sold price am 'k d - Age.,, nc A luded in.0je idjj� Ce:.pad &wi 0btt0A-jX The Propefty dh of e years,as-11 $--d X -1VWi'4e`66.,q r0k t"C, was D *9 tra pe 411. P. P40-108 mftft lies esses tlie. earn tilt'f4pp��i 00 6WC A 4 ad I fi ot m d- Pkih Od, .6 .h. 177 IM q. xxir- x.j my:4ik%* ;1 Mu 4041. go -v - Fu Ia 31-M N. `41P4. I tL9. A ;o; ..... ..... ... V4 I . 'U T 0 k -.v 06, t4 1p, 0 .L.a - ..1c ISO. v bti ffy - : — A . . P v ii�O , i M! .2. ppgg q VQ & Ad" D. A.0 ava - N - -P R.: 4 do -qj k d -M -va Im d" psi:�JvAiuwl, , %�Oqj:.,! .. o _f� UOM u** , 4v "M ViV4 #:W4i POO Jun � ., g ugWjO*OUjMPmvvd,ol1R AU...: 64d.0R.1 q- TM ;M 45t IA 116 V*h 1 4 19MAMI U -M .39,110 _-A-4v 6 OTO 00 -Tv . .1 .9.IL _ _ .. .0 AkqIQ; . O.: -V q, P jl()Iub'-: P. -Jo -suo q jil b4 id n oq*. IE plit. 1p..q.4o ... - - t it�Lqjq qj­ f. . A .t .1:`,1A1-- ... 1910. — - p.WQjL _q aa} &sSidPD. N. I-jo qj --d LToo J, I WiJ T MI .!tg --uu 4M. -g _j lmi6 9: UL m .j1pox p .�Dql 7:0 u .. 64:vgo -n p. uv wrip tnogj!p ug Oi4t4#4 Ao. oa pad. TR�,. ;q j� 4.10 dx ponrt somill.t.. on A up D 9. RON -fd nttA OlUb -V A y -a d" OLX5 ft _A ties 0; 4::-Ov-:;A1 14 4PA DR. .�OA -jus, ado ON X. - LY .0 X I ... . .. d n b!uo n Ulm. st. 4. AiR m _q .7.4.4 S-,4 inn 3" aT 3. #4� �PHXR4 QqL­ -at-1173A WD_? J.:-' )j Oro. fiio.1�0 W% i'.. qw J 1jr --. : ': :.-.. . . ... � 3 ks• ¢ A,,ct pe '".0 . '.O,y :'� � Q .:3 rn..Q.,: • (rQ:. , iD ., , ' . a w .. rte- h.'• :�'(P, fD 'C:';[D fD'.•C9. 9 R 'p7•': r+. llor, �?�� �-a .: co. c� .. . •cam' ru '. .F O 7^ `� . - ':, �: O a Q,....t? o ,i, C D . fie, ca.. `,� b ' o. w '; .. C a ` .b 0�4 $s 23 a? ' .0 :4 �,: 'ts. oq. w.;. ca,ss,': " . ,,qv•' ..e�. I__. rn :a� U" c� ts. o. o' .,. , �: 9. � .�. N•�.. o..':':a..,,. � � '�'on � CD -1. Ca � � � �`.-t ,0• `J• ' Cr ... . ...t:Oo' ". . . :: - �' V� O �: +:- Cw�D nS �+ pq. rte+.:.. Vii..lP:�' �..., to .� r '.: '�• ars rN '."(p'..CG ,:.. T�'..p .. r .a'. y7. p . �y .(S V1 :kvj. "+T .:gip. Uf `�:"' ::. + l4 .37?',.r.+::_ .9Q a•... ..Q....R2 rVs ..+ ..�,':__ Y CJr . ;pa . .:. r..� . `+y'+ys rr't'' n rT . • . " .r. Q• A>.: `:T:'r ,r`i: E]:..-... Pa. 'iC . . rrte�••, ' �••:r Ch � ...�-y.• 9 , ..• '- l .. : . :. - �_ =. :'t`i . /F%: . ... Cd '3'Q'- ' ""#: y} :.. :':. ;" ' „y, `.S' +` {Y=:. �:'4D'..'`*' [A,rt(D �, ..'. i D:' ...'. Q :N:: -- . rr .iq pt. ,S :s .r*, �D:"� . n-�-i;`:R : `'.+ ..;; rn C .Qr�U LI6. :. C rrby rr •fL'. E cD:*z'5' *rs. Gt:. �33'. Y4 e►- .0 �y gip. .r !' ,�' pCAr �. L ` ` .�.•:; cn,.:. < .�' .C.-:.!Cj:�pyr su...� YW . '' Ci+ .&' ..•'„ba'„'. O:.qt.� u �'`*C� •�-+ ; .4 .'N'''•3..'' -,,T. ..e... p`. • :.•°�,j, � ,"3'.. =*,. � {D.. .. t ' .. %r. pF '1 � : .': '.. a'. ..M:p . �' tet' • t•:}.:rr`: c+.. �y'+ + .v,, , .{p . iJ.., F' a . �+ lam* . C � . fD • A . 0. ,••F.. a.... drti m' � r`�-e l :� . i'Z t�3 :LD (tl . fife. ly . .., .fin ' :1`3.`.. ..: .'r'`• �': . tn- S ^. .:... Sp. L. V _":� H.d e: F.V. �. Cis0.tp . .. 'iU :1,.::.,� c4:. 'Y,' Ci: . , -� a .#`C, '. 'd :``�. cD' ' xs P+: _0- ,.'. .: I :: :tom-.• .. ,.:.. . - �:: :- �..,r...a �.��. : : �. /}} °:'.. ':..:.' )[ :. - 4� z Y ..�; h -ri'• 110 *t to 0, -- .... :' , :::. FD .' : '1'. . ,� I aa.. , East :` ti 11" PL '�p C� . Cp. fD tii . ..h- fC t7' :y:.. ' a7. GY 0Q is r :'Q: ' ':r .::, , , ':, 6. Yfi'_CD- i• �`' SY : 3:. c.' `r+3' 't c7 :f W ', ;Si•''O' .ff .. fa �p vn. :.., ,:. ::a6:1 c>i:.a: ::P.:: y �:�. :* ::.. ..:i.�-: — e,,:,. : ..� r, O .cam :. ea..w' .ts. . ,4. ry ::Q. :':R -, ca. a .... ro. ca. ' ' �.•:: ; { t,,,��/• :.c�.: th /��1y71 _ .. co... c>r . �xy� ,.r yam.¢, ' , ro' 1!� {, ;ice: �' :; Elf ':Q. .'•a • rs. '. .: :y' _.F.M':..: 6ty .e. Com' 'o ; :qr «'. . '.i�?. nr.. : C7: v� . pr .ti .', ' .:. c gyp.. ,*i'' ' +' C7 ' o . ,.. to ., 'o • ..�, w. _ :o-: .. .k ':. ., '>`: :7 . : `- U•" r• .` a' :�. :�.. 0.. c�; C' 1w u7 :. . . �..._. A rir : C . s� r �,. -'::::,-;9.S--,-.-,:. E, '' :'�: .5 p, . /.� YB /yY� /,� .G .//�� /� '. pr�..F i f%. `�� ..rC=' rd'' A- ++� ' D. t. ;,p�. . :. {�• '� .. Wit•' '" �- ' gyp.. ..p:': ' . :.rF :�' ' ..r` .'. :�, 1. I ' ` ae.¢},. t r... cri' :cs... ate: co:. !=F A�. •�4: rff, . . n . :.A: ,'. O: .� �` . c i : ., . . G,..ta :p:tD:: :�'. :.:tb, ."!�'' vt p.y F.4. !�A-..-. r�,,j : * ►+ I3'' 1F•� A� �. - L !:. C iy,� ./� .. �'� .v' y{ J. V . ".. A , �r.,,y1 �r ..a..,:,. ..',fir*' .. •'� �EJ' _ .. :�° ,. g� p'a. tra Cs:... . , . 'L .. � .h: •c , ..ff. a a a> .. .� ._,. ��L��L��:: �q o. .+ R.: ra ca ::' :'G :.' a.. .. oi. :. �a.. o' ' .:: `', a, . ru h c: ^: �; »._ -t �.: ,ti '. .,:�': '' 1. ., f �i r� .4.w �.�a . WM •:: �.p� : rte, } '. j��, �r :�' V � - v. I.�... Q! :::: O ... aa'.. : Fi?:_ C.: — 1p'► 'Z.D - {+•: ,*.V4. ..Fi , K: Ir ."' ,T:;.. r� .': <: :: .: 0 `'?.: :'' �F. j/.j� ..�M'7'..'.. i ff y i .F+..: I� • "�•.• 1, r .. ,J��],:::? : � ��[, w / }:. :�. :'� ..%•. yAR ! yy' :h.-. �+ Y.. .­.. Y4 •- //��, �. . y }r. : 'd a �. : ry::y �'*> /L•� r� -V . :4" VJ F.L.• \, '" p� -. :M: w :.: :� h3 {--r - : Mr. ". iP ,,. - A'•. ''' :. _ - .rt. ►�3 " . :.r . yy '- - f. I .� V W,1,� a � may.. .i.l. ^ yy ,.,( . • _ .I•.••II ' `.' �.r� �F � T/� : �•, �r1� �' ��,y�.1, (,Ti� .F f. tel, _ ryM���� yy V'.. } e Fy, 4f'' ':.T/j: ' ':''.:. : M ,'Y'i - V' r+.. . _ EC .': y�� !r: ' r Y"� `. ."' •�,. •.:•• . . }i•'40r a .�' i,. y '., :: ' ,- I'' F� :•'•` �t r .�': ' :. Za, . y .Yd.. !- F/ T �y :o ` J r . '• . :.. ''': �:'