Loading...
Item F2010 SM Findings Valuation Item F Number Name Agent Outcome R006 R012 Ken Wells Dennis Michael Denied Denied R017 Ana M. Valenti-Brisuela Denied R020 !Jeanette Dedek Denied R036 Benjamin Wright Denied R038 George Scott Denied _ R039 R040 George Scott George Scott_ _ Denied Denied R041 R046 Petr Blahout & Radmila Brozkova Solomon Beach Inn Imran Thobani Denied Denied R050 Meristar Key Largo S_pe LLC Imran T_hobani Denied R053 Ilene Meg Appleton Denied R064 Eddy A. & Carmen Mora Denied R065 Eddy A. & Carmen Mora Denied R066 Eddy A. & Carmen Mora Denied R072 R078 Keys Sunrise Investments LLC Jerry Lieberman - - --- Mark or Kristina Serbinski Denied Denied R122 Thomas Watts - - Denied R153 NHC - FL 131 LLC Michael Blas6 Denied R717 Joe R. Madiedo Patricia Madiedo Denied R723 3D of Key West, Inc. _ David VanLoon Denied R724_ - - Consolidated Electrical Distributors, Inc. i Bob Cendejas Denied R7_45 _ _ Eugene Grattan Denied R748 Parcel G Island Development Corp. Robert Garcia Denied R750 R751 — Island Development Corporation Jkey LLC Robert Garcia Robert Garcia Denied Denied R752 Sunset Acquisitions Corporation Robert Garcia Denied R754 Sunset Acquisitions Corporation Robert Garcia Denied r R755 Sunset Acquisitions Corporation_____ Robert Garcia Denied R756 R757 Sunset Acquisitions Corporation Sunset Acquisitions Corporation Robert Garcia Robert Garcia Denied Denied R820 Elizabeth Pons Daniel Weiss Denied R824 Brian Antoni Daniel Weiss Denied R1007 Mary L. Zerbel Denied R1010 Deborah L. Acker Denied !Paradise R1012 _ CDenied ohnM_cCorm McCormick - - - - oseph Niece - -- - Denied/No Jurisdiction R1013 Diane Schaffer Denied Ala s�o�v ' DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Y. DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE County ) 4 ro en— DR-485V N. 12/09 Rule 12D-16.002 Florida Administrative Code The,p6tions below were taken on your petition. hese 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 (sections 193.155(8)(k), 194.036, 194.171(2), and 196.151, F.S.). Petition # Parcel IDOo/ Petitioner name Address 66 51 M4Ime The petitioner is: taxpayer of record taxpayer's agent J � �� ��I �_ /EJ other, explain: r^ Decision Summa Denied your petition Granted your petition Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed. Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Market value, required cl F Z7, G -7 $ 9 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable $ $ 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none $ $ 4. Taxable value,* required $ f / b $ 7 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ (section 196. 31(7)(d), F.S.). Rasons for Decision idings of Fact 4-t- s-PPOri- �L,ia/At/+ v& Wf- . s of tion�all7sheets, if ne if 40-C,tx� rVI Reco ende i 'on of Special Magistrate Findings and conclusions above are recommendations. i natur ial is a e Kev(l 1 3�0 9 — 9 Print name Date Olt vhG/& Cam. 14d-46o4.4 1?-/13/10 Signature, VAB clerk or representative Print name ate If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address Date Time 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 (3e6) 2 y.S• 9/0-0 or visit our web site at www. . f- 446 - co`e•- . C.-11 Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment boa Print name Date of decision I bignature, VAB clerk or representative rint name n o m—o 1- —s- 1 Reset Form DR-485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD N. 12/09 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002 Florida Administrative Code DEPARTMENT Of REVENUE County Monroe 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 (sections 193.155(8)(k), 194.036, 194.171(2), and 196.151, F.S.). Petition # R012-2010 Parcel ID AK# 8926065 Petitioner name Mr. Dennis Michael Address Dock at the Village of Hawks Cay Unit 1 The petitioner is: Q taxpayer of record taxpayer's agent Fj other, explain. - Decision Summary Denied your petition Granted your petition Granted your petition in part Value Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser After Board Action Lines 1 and 4 must be completed. Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. 1. Market value, required $ 66,096 $ 66,095 2. Assessed or classified use value,` it applicable $ 66,095 $ 66,095 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none $ $ 4. Taxable value,* required $ 66,095 $ 66,095 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ (section 196.031(7)(d), F. S.). Reasons for Decision Findings of Fact Use page 2, if needed. The Property Appraiser's Office has complied with the 8 criteria and mass appraisal model standards. The Petitioner was present at the hearing and submitted evidence that is pertinent to Tax Year 2010, outside the statutory time period allowed for consideration of the Petition. Ms. Greger presents Sales Comparisons occurring in 2009 (the statutory time period under consideration), two of which are in Hawks Cay. The range of value is $74,095 - $80,095. After taking into consideration the 1 st-8th Criteria, the subject's taxable value is indicated at $66,095. Conclusions of Law Use page 2, if needed. The Property Appraiser's determination is presumed to be correct if a preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the methodology used is appropriate and complies with F.S. 193.011 and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. In this case, a preponderance of the evidence did demonstrate that the Property Appraiser's methodology was appropriate and complied with F.S. 193.011 and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Therefore, the Property Appraiser's determination of value is presumed to be correct and the appraisal should be upheld. Q Recorpmended Decision of Special Magistrate Findings and conclusions above are recommendations. Patricia P. McGrath 1 /19/2011 Si m strate Print name Date Pi.►� e l a �. �zr� c a G i� l/z ra l r Sig-lugure, VAErclerk or representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address Date Time If the line above is blank, the board does not et know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call D or visit our web site at Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision I Cron +fi . %1A9J nlnrlr n Pnnt nnmc %_+n meil-A +n DR-485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD N. 12/09 qvi VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002 Florida Administrative Code DEPARrhtENT OF REVENUE County Monroe The actions below were taken on your petition. 0 These actions are a recommendation only, not final. nThese 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 (sections 193.155(8)(k), 194.036, 194.171(2), and 196.151, F.S.). Petition # R017-2010 Parcel ID 00533930-000000 Petitioner name Anna M. Valenti-Brisuela Address 146 Long Key Road The petitioner is: Q taxpayer of record taxpayers agent Lake Surprise other, explain: Key Largo Decision Summary Z Denied your petition Granted your petition Granted your petition in part Value Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser After Board Action Lines 1 and 4 must be completed. Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. 1. Market value, required $ 201,764 $ 201,764 2. Assessed or classified use value,* d applicable $ $ 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none $ $ 4. Taxable value,* required $ 201,764 $ 201,764 *AII values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ (section 196.031(7)(d), F. S.). Reasons for Decision Findings of Fact Use page 2, if needed. Both the Property Appraiser's Representatives and the Petitioner were sworn. The Property Appraiser indicates the eight statutory requirements have been met, and submitted evidence describing mass appraisal modeling and attesting to the utilization of standard appraisal practices. The subject property is an older "trailer" (1969), located on the canal and containing 552 square feet of GLA. The subject is assessed at $201,764. The Petitioner indicates she has had the property listed for less, with no offers, but was unable to present the listing agreement or MLS documentation. See attached. Conclusions of Law Use page 2, if needed. The Petitioner has submitted no evidence that would overcome the Presumption of Correctness enjoyed by the Property Appraiser, therefore, the Petition is denied. o mended Decision of Special Magistrate Findings and conclusions above are recommendations. TV�� Patricia P. McGrath 2/10/201! Sign a r s 1 'strate Print name a Paw,e-1a Z11 hi Signature, VAMIerk or representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address Date Time 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 job Zy.S 313 G or visit our web site at Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of dectsion I Ci—fi— %/AQ nIc Le nr rnnrocnnfoti.m Print n7mn -TS�1n _';1­ J+n —4i— I Petition # R017-2010 DR-485V N. 12/09 Page 2 Findings of Fact, continued The Petitioner also submits a letter from Schwartz Property Sales signed by two sales persons, neither of which were available as witnesses. The Property Appraiser enjoys a statutory Presumption of Correctness and has submitted four comparable sales with an indicated range of value of $208,556-$259,434. Conclusions of Law, continued No 5%o AJ DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE County n ,r O ,6—, Theta ions below were taken on your petition DR-485V N. 12/09 Rule 12D-16.002 Florida Administrative Code UV These actions are a recommendation only, not final. 0 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 (sections 193.155(8)(k), 194.036, 194.171(2), and 196.151, F.S.). Petition # RW p - X01 p Parcel ID 0o) �p Petitioner name Address s 70 0✓mod e y ..v�J The petitioner is: taxpayer of record taxpayers agent SL „ , �,��� „/� 7 4 / ❑ other, explain: J V`'i`' � `� Decision Summa enied your petition Granted your petition Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed. Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Market value, required $ �' $ 2. Assessed or classified use value,' if applicable $ $ 3. Exempt value,' enter T" if none $ $ 4. Taxable value,' required $ 261, Ybl $ 69.1 'All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ (section 1 .031(7)(d), F.S.). Reasons for Decision Findings of Fact � r e/3 Use additional sheets if needed. P f c-td �wC� C,�/kpC1 r1J 0-1 t:A or �st -S L ael PtGl s v p p o%-4- Conclusions of Law Use additional sheets, if needed. Re men ecision of Special Magistrate Findings and conclusions above are recommendations. f�l� iT /1- Signa s rate /Print name Date Pn da- (- �i4t6neaek- ,Z/r3/,, ignature, VAB erk or representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address Date Time 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 (30.v) 2'JS 3 f 3 /g- or visit our web site at wjr✓ f • U Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board name a e o ecision I bignature, vAti cierK or representative Print name i rteset corm r DR-485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD N. 12/09 VALUE PETITION Rule 1213-16.002 . Florida Administrative Code Of County Monroe The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final. These actions are a final decision of the VAB. If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment (sections 193.155(8)(k), 194.036, 194.171(2), and 196.151, F.S.). Petition X R036-2010 Parcel ID 1272230 Petitioner name BENJAMIN WRIGHT The petitioner is: 0 taxpayer of record taxpayers agent other, explain: Address 340 MUNSON AVE RAMROD KEY, FL 33042 Decision Summary Z Denied your petition Granted your petition Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed. Before Board Action Value presated by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), FAC. After Board Action 1. Market value, required $ 94,025 $ 94,025 2. Assessed or classified use value,' I applicable $ $ 3. Exempt value,` enter V if none $ $ 4. Taxable value,' required $ 94,025 $ 94,025 'All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ (section 196.031(7)(d), F.S.). Reasons for Decision Findings of Fad Use page 2, if needed. SEE ATTACHED Conclusions of Law Use page 2, if needed. SEE ATTACHED Pq Recommended Decis on of Special Magistrate Findings and conclusions above are recommendations. REGINA E CORCORAN 12/9/10 SiLThature,Aecial magistrate Print name ate (3—� Pwr�iQ Co. 144aG•e-K— 1241110 grgnature, VAB dft or representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address Date Time 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 (30S•• Z JS'- 3/ 9 ° or visit our web site at wov W • C I e � K - o tr } j, a • ce wi Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of diaiii� Signature, VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed o —paffiii- FINDINGS OF FACT SCOTT RUSSELL R036-2010 340 MUNSON AVE, RAMROD KEY, FL. 33042 PAO SUPPLIED 5 COMPS AND COMP 5 WAS MOST SIMILAR TO SUBJECT IN SIZE, SITE SIZE, AGE, CONSTRUCTION. ITS VALUE AFTER ADJUSTMENTS WAS $109,295. ASSESSED VALUE OF SUBJECT AFTER AN EARLIER ADJUSTMENT IS $94,025 PETITIONER DID NOT APPEAR AND PETITIONER DID NOT SUPPLY ANY DATA CONCLUSIONS OF LAW IN LIGHT OF PAO SUPPLYING SUFFICIENT DATA TO SUPPORT ITS ESTIMATE, IT IS ENTITLED TO PRESUMPTION OF CORRECTNESS. PAO VALUE IS RETAINED AND PETITIONER'S REQUEST IS DENIED. • ' DR-485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD N. 12/09 \i VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002 Florida Administrative Code DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE County Monroe The actions below were taken on your petition. 0 These actions are a recommendation orgy, 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 (sedans 193.155(8)(k), 194.036, 194.171(2), and 196.151, F.S.). Petition # R038-2010 Parcel ID AK# 1682047 Petitioner name George Scott Address 91831 Overseas Highway The petitioner is: R] taxpayer of record taxpayer's agent Key Largo other, explain: Decision Summary Z Denied your petition Granted your petition Granted your petition in part Value Before Board Action Lines 1 and 4 must be completed. Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), FAC. After Board Action 1. Market value, required $ 606,786 $ 606,786 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable $ $ 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none $ _ 4. Taxable value,* required $ 606,786 $ 606,786 *AN values entered should be county taxable vakies. School and other taxing authority values may differ (section 196.031(7)(d), F. S.). Reasons for Decision Findings of Fact Use page 2, if needed. The subject property is known as "Conch Plaza" and is a two story office building. Tobias Foster, PAO representative and George Scott were sworn. The Property Appraiser's office presented their statement as to appraisal practices employed, the eights criteria and correctness (FS 194.301), as evidence, along with a sales grid demonstrating the assessed valuation. The Sales Comparison approach is the favored sales, due to the lack of income data available from similar properties. Mr. Scott also presented sales data effectively rebutted by the Property Appraiser's Office. Conclusions of Law Use page 2, if needed. The petitioner has the challenge of proving that the assessed value either does not represent the just value or is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices different from those generally applied. The sales submitted by Mr. Scott were problematic, due to condition and other issues and were not considered probative of value. Expense information is extraordinarily high and not indicative of the market. The Property Appraiser's Office enjoys a presumption of correctness, which remains intact. Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Findings and conclusions above are recommendations. / Patricia P. McGrath 2/25/11 igna al micestrate Print name Date e— X ✓t 2- 1 I igna ire, VAB derkor representative Print name Date If this is a recommend decision, the board wiN consider the recommendeddecision on /Z ' I Z t ( at ( t�L Address 2-7 yd 0 ,4..2 Date Pme If the line above is blank, the board " not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call or visit our web site at Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision --------'-`--- wrinr nnmo "-+- ... d—i 4n Petition # R038-2010 DR-485V N. 12/09 Page 2 Findings of Fact, continued The Special Magistrate has relied upon FS 193.011 and 194.301 in this determination. Conclusions of Law, continued DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485V VALUE PETITION N. 12/09 Rule 12D-te.002 DEPARTMENT Florida Administrative Code OF REVENUE County � TheTctions below were taken on your petition. hese 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 (sections 193.155(8)(k), 194.036, 194.171(2), and 196.151, F.S.). Petition # ` G 0 rj - Parcel ID Petitioner name P �,� �+�'� Address a, The petitioner is: Q taxpayer of Adcord taxpayers agent other, explain: aiztt — Decision Summary oe enied your petition [:]Granted your petition Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed. Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Market value, required $ N,$ 1 2. Assessed or classified use value," if applicable $ $ 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none $ $ 4. Taxable value,' required $ $ 'All values entered should be county taxable values. School and othef taxing authority values may differ (section 1 .031(7)(d), F.S.). Reasons for Decision of Fact c� -� �c�.�-h�,r�91`10s of Law - M 1' O-qecom a ded Decision of Special Magistr a Findings and conclusions above are recommendations. Sig— a trat pecial Print riame a e � V"el I G Na.1 31Zq 11r Signs ure. VAS clerk or representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on y 1 I 011 at 10 : o o, Address Z 7 g Y 0 ✓evs en s HIV q. 2--q J r/ o o- M a ru � � a In Date Time 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 or visit our web site at L_I Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board not name Date of decision I signature, vAts clerK or representative not name nnfa mmi in — ,ems IMA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD REMAND TO PROPERTY APPRAISER DR-485R N. 12/09 Rule 1213-16.002 Florida Administrative Code Section 1. Completed by Value Adjustment Board or Special Magistrate Petition # 039-2010 Unit B I County Monroe Parcel ID 9084742 Date 2/4/2011 To: Property Appraiser From: Clerk or Special Magistrate Name Ervin A. Higgs Name Patricia P. McGrath Address 500 Whitehead Street Address 2308 Village Green Blvd. Key West, Florida 33040 Plant City, Florida 33566 The value adjustment board or special magistrate has: EiDetermined that the property appraiser's value is incorrect (section 194.301, F.S.). ❑ Granted a property classification. Include findings of fact on which remand decision is based or reference and attach Form DR-485V, Form DR-485XC, or other document with these items completed. See Form 485V attached. Include conclusions of law on which remand decision is based or reference and attach Form DR-485V, Form DR-485XC, or other document with these items completed. See Form 485V attached. Appropriate remand directions to property appraiser: Both Unit A and Unit B are atypical. Structurally, they are most similar to the surrounding duplexes, however, they are assessed separately. Once again, the Special Magistrate is well aware of the lack of comparable data, calling for alternate methods of approaching valuation. The Special Magistrate would recommend considering the subject as a duplex, in theory, and using two duplex sales in addition to Sale # 1 and Sale # 2, giving a premium to the subject's ability to have two structures, if necessary. Utilizing duplex sales for data has already been acknowledged as viable (see capitalization rates, obtained from duplexes, not SFR's). The board retains authority to make a final decision on this petition. Section 2. Completed by Property Appraiser Provide a revised just value or a classified use value and return this form to the clerk of the Board. Just Valuation Classified Use Valuation Previous Revised T-0 R Signature, property appraiser Print name Use additional pages, if needed. Date I nebei rune R.. OEN1RTMENNTT OF REVENUE DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION County Monroe DR-485V N. 12/09 Rule 1213-16.002 Florida Administrative Code The actions below were taken on your petition. Q 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 (sections 193.155(8)(k), 194.036, 194.171(2), and 196.151, F.S.). Petition # R-039-2010 Unit B Parcel ID 9084742 Petitioner name George Scott Address 250 66th Street Ocean The petitioner is: Q taxpayer of record taxpayer's agent Unit B - Marathon other, explain: Decision Summary Denied your petition Granted your petition VolGranted your petition in part Value Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser After Board Action Lines 1 and 4 must be completed. Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. 1. Market value, required $ 113,049 $ 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable $ $ 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none $ $ 4. Taxable value,* required $ 113,049 $ 0 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ (section 196.031(7)(d), F.S.). Reasons for Decision Findings of Fact Use page 2, if needed. The Property Appraiser's Office was swom and attested to the fact that the 8th Criteria have been adhered to, along with mass appraisal modeling and standard appraisal practice. Mr. Scott also appeared and was swom. The subject property is a "duplex" style residential structure, deeded and assessed under two parcel numbers. The Property Appraiser's Office has appraised each unit - comparing each unit to a typical free-standing single family residence on a lot. The Petitioner is of the opinion that, due to lack of parking and yard issues, and the underlying land value, that he is over -assessed. Conclusions of Law Use page 2, if needed. The Property Appraiser is entitled to a presumption of correctness. To overcome the presumption, the Petitioner must show by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser failed to follow the requirements of law or that the assessment is based on appraisal practices which are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same class within the same county. See attached for further discussion. Recornjnended Decision of Special Magistrate Findings and conclusions above are recommendations. Patricia P. McGrath 2/3/2011 igna r , s cial rate Print name Date Signature, VAB clerk or representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address Date Time 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 or visit our web site at 0 Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature, VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to pa es Petition # IR039-2010 DR-485V N.12/09 Page 2 Findings of Fact, continued SEE ATTACHED Conclusions of Law, continued It is the Special Magistrate's opinion that the Petitioner has overcome the Property Appraiser's Office presumption of correctness. Once again, lack of comparable data has created the necessity to examine other forms of data and appraisal techniques. This remand may or may not produce a reduction in assessed value. Mr. Scott's presentation regarding underlying land value created substantial doubt that all methods for approaching the problem had been undertaken. The Special Magistrate does not have the legal ability to perform research outside the context of the hearing. Considering the subject as a "duplex" is perhaps one alternate form of solving this appraisal problem. Remand suggestions are found on Form 485R, attached. Remand of Petition Ray -2010 February 4, 2011 Findings of Fact (continued from Form 485V, Page 1) The subject Unit B is situated on a small lot - containing 2,332 square feet. The subject land is assessed at $13.00 per square foot. Ms. Greger proffered four comparable sales, one of which has a site smaller than the subject, Comparable Sale # 1, containing only 1,563 square feet. The land under this sale has a just value of about $11.00 per square foot. PAO Comparable Sale # 2 appears to have been utilized by the Property Appraiser's Office due to its small site size, as well, even though it is located on Conch Key. The structure occupies the bulk of the site and, regardless of its location on Conch Key, it is determined to be comparable. The underlying land is assessed at $11.00 per square foot. Comparable Sale # 3 enjoys a much larger lot, containing 5,300 square feet with a just value of $5.00/SF overall. The Property Appraiser's Office indicated in oral testimony that the low price/square foot of land is due to the site size (excess land). The aerial map of this comparable appears to be a double lot under single ownership and assessment. Comparable Sale # 4 contains 10,000 square feet of land - five times the land as the subject - with a just value of $4.75 per square foot. All four sales are similar in age. Sale # 3 and Sale # 4 have a much lower just land value per square foot. When questioned as to why the difference in just value per square foot (land value) in the comparables, it was indicated the differences were due to utility. The subject enjoyed the ability to support two dwellings - whereas the comparables did not, because they were single family dwellings sitting on one lot. Each "lot" and its common wall unit are assessed separately, however - neither having the ability to construct a second dwelling. In order to enjoy the ability to construct a second unit, the subject property would need to be appraised as a duplex with a premium adjustment for the ability to sell separately. Mr. Scott has testified that parking is difficult and the minimal yard for Unit B has a negative impact on value due to functional obsolescence not recognized by the Property Appraiser's Office. There are a wide variety of remedies available: utilizing road right- of-way (which is common practice) or the side yard, removing trees, granting a parking easement to Unit B from Unit A, etc. DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485V VALUE PETITION N. 12/09 Rub 12D-16.002 pEp ENT Florida Administrative Code OF REVENUE County The actions below were taken on your petition. [These actions are a recommendation only, not final. [] These actions are a final decision of the VAB. If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment (sections 193.155(8)(k), 194.036. 194.171(2), and 196.151, F.S.I. Petition # — Parcel ID 14 Petitioner name Address The petitioner is: t xpaye record � taxpayers agent A other, explain: ���, _ . � �(�(,b f{ Decision Summary enied your petition Granted your petition Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed. Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.02 10), F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Market value, required $ 4U $ ' I 2. Assessed or classified use value,' if applicable $ $ 3. Exempt value,' enter "0" if none $ $ 4. Taxable value,' required $ $ Wig All values entered should be county taxable values. School and othe taxing authority values may differ (sect' n 1 1(7)(d), F.S.). ons for Decision AA Recom ended Decision of Special MaglStrAte Finding and conclusior6labove are recommendations. n sp cia ma ist to r ri % N&L�c.vG� igna ure, VAB clerk or representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on `(I I C12, I I at I o . o o Address'171V �Jz✓S�aS q-w Znj F1o0- Mu'a f (Io, Date Time If the line above is blank, the board do s not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call or visit our web site at Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board not name Date of decision or representative Print name "_'t DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION OF MNUUEE County Monroe DR-485V N. 12/09 Rule 12D-16.002 Florida Administrative Code 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 (sections 193.155(8)(k), 194.036, 194.171(2), and 196.151, F.S.). Petition # R040-Unit A Parcel ID 1419079 Petitioner name George Scott Address 259 66th Street Ocean The petitioner is: R] taxpayer of record taxpayees agent Unit A other, explain: Marathon, FI Decision Summary Denied your petition Granted your petition ,/ Granted your petition in part Value Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser After Board Action Lines 1 and 4 must be completed. Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. 1. Market value, required $ 117,046 $ 2. Assessed or classified use value,* 'If applicable $ $ 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none $ $ 4. Taxable value,* required $ 0 $ *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ (section 196.031(7)(d), F. S.). Reasons for Decision Findings of Fact Use page 2, if needed. The Property Appraiser's Office was sworn and attested to the fact that the 8 Criteria have been adhered to, along with mass appraisal modeling and standard appraisal practice. Mr. Scott was present and sworn. The subject property is a "duplex" style residential structure, deeded and assessed under two parcel numbers. The Property Appraiser has appraised each unit individually, comparing it to a typical free standing dwelling. Neither unit enjoys the benefit of being free standing. Unit B has been remanded back to the Property Appraiser's Office. Conclusions of Law Use page 2, if needed. The Property Appraiser is entitled to a presumption of correctness. To overcome the presumption, the Petitioner must show by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser failed to follow the requirements of the law or that the assessment is based on appraisal practices which are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property to comparable properties within the same class. See Page 2 Reco mended Decision of Special Magistrate Findings and conclusions above are recommendations. A gna s ial agi rate Print name a amera G Net"C-►- 41011 igna ure, VAB'dlerk or representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address Date Time 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 or visit our web site at Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision 1 Cin +o . \/AR nlnrL nr renrmnn4ofivo :%nnt n�ma I Iete m I� A t- name+' , Petition # DR-485V N.12/09 Page 2 Findings of Fact, continued Conclusions of Law, continued It is the Special Magistrate's opinion that the Petitioner has overcome the Property Appraiser's Office presumption of correctness, in part. See attached for further discussion. Again, the lack of comparable data has created the necessity of employing alternate methods to adequately address the value of this property. Neither unit enjoys the same utility as a free standing dwelling - regardless of the dual assessment This remand may or may not produce a reduction in value. Mr. Scott's argument regarding the underlying land value created substantial doubt, leading to my conclusion that perhaps employing a Hypothetical Condition and looking at duplex sales should be examined. Remand suggestions are found on Form 485R, attached. IRA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD REMAND TO PROPERTY APPRAISER DR-485R N. 12/09 Rule 12D-16.002 Florida Administrative Code Section 1. Completed by Value Adjustment Board or Special Ma istrate Petition # I County Parcel ID Date 2/8/11 To: Property Appraiser From: Clerk or Special Magistrate Name Ervin A. Higgs Name Patricia P. McGrath Address 500 Whitehead Street Address 2308 Village Green Blvd. Key West, Florida 33040 Plant City, Florida 33566 The value adjustment board or special magistrate has: Determined that the property appraisers Granted a property classification. value is incorrect (section 194.301, F.S.). Include findings of fact on which remand decision is based or reference and attach Form DR-485V, Form DR-485XC, or other document with these items completed. SEE ATTACHED 485V It is unknown whether employing the Hypothetical Condition will change assessment or not. Include conclusions of law on which remand decision is based or reference and attach Form DR-485V, Form DR-485XC, or other document with these items completed. SEE ATTACHED 485V Appropriate remand directions to property appraiser: The Special Magistrate is well aware of the lack of data available for comparison purposes. The two units are more similar to a duplex than the free-standing units presented as comparable, regardless of the dual assessment and AK#'s. It would be my opinion that undertaking the opposite Hypothetical Condition for the assessment (a Hypothetical Condition was undertaken to compare the units to free standing dwellings) would either substantiate or disprove the current assessed value as single free standing units. If assessed as a duplex, no adjustments will be necessary for excess land, parking, etc. The board retains authority to make a final decision on this petition_ Section 2. Completed by Property Appraiser Provide a revised just value or a classified use value and return this form to the clerk of the Board. Just Valuation Classified Use Valuation Previous Revised OR Signature, property appraiser Print name Date DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD M." VALUE PETITION DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE County Monroe DR-485V N. 12/09 Rule 12D-16.002 Florida Administrative Code The actions below were taken on your petition. ✓V These actions are a recommendation only, not final. RThese 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 (sections 193.155(8)(k), 194.036, 194.171(2), and 196.151, F.S.). Petition # R041-2010 Parcel ID AK#1258393 Petitioner name PETR BLAHOUT&RADMILA BROZKOVA Address 551 EAST SHORE DR The petitioner is: ✓0 taxpayer of record taxpayer's agent SUMMERLAND KEY, FL 33042 other, explain: Decision Summary Denied your petition Granted your petition Granted your petition in part Value Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser After Board Action Lines 1 and 4 must be completed. Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. 1. Market value, required $ 1,217,336 $ 1,217,336 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable $ $ 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none $ 0 j $ 0 4. Taxable value,* required $ 1,217,336 1 $ 1,217,336 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ (section 196.031(7)(d), F.S.). Reasons for Decision Findings of Fact Use page 2, if needed. PETITIONER DID NOT APPEAR BUT SUPPLIED 3 APPRAISALS, OF WHICH 1 WAS COMPLETED 11/6/09 FOR TAX PURPOSES. THE OTHER 2 WERE NOT CONSIDERED AS THEY WERE OUTSIDE THE TIME OF CONSIDERATION. APPRAISER DID NOT APPEAR. APPRAISER USED COST ESTIMATE OF $659,690 WITHOUT REPORTING A SITE VALUE. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO KNOW THE COST INCLUDING THE SITE VALUE AS NONE WAS SUPPLIED BY THE APPRAISER. WITHOUT THE ABILITY TO QUESTION THE APPRAISER IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO KNOW HOW THE SITE Conclusions of Law Use page 2, if needed. ✓� Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Findings and conclusions above are recommendations. REGINA E CORCORAN 12/9/10 ignatur , special m istrate Print name ate Signature, VA13 clerk or representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address Date Time 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 La 2131 -3 d or visit our web site at wrva v —a ctw • L i Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature, VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Petition # DR-485V N. 12/09 Page 2 Findings of Fact, continued VALUE OR SALES COMPARISON APPROACH WERE DERIVED. APPRAISER CONCLUDED A VALUE OF $856,000 AND WITH A COST ESTIMATE OF $659,690 WITH NO SITE VALUE I CAN'T FIGURE OUT HOW THE COST ESTIMATE AND THE SALES COMPARISON APPROACH WERE RECONCILED. ALSO APPRAISER USED NO COMPS FROM SUBJECT ISLAND AND USED COMPS WITH SALE DATES BETWEEN 6/09 AND 8/09 PAO SUPPLIED 4 COMPS AND 3 WERE ON THE SUBJECT'S ISLAND. THE SALES WERE BETWEEN 1/09 AND 10/09 AND AGE OF CONSTRUCTION AND SITE SIZE WERE MORE SIMILAR THAN THOSE USED BY APPRIASER. BY VIRTUE OF THE DATA, PAO IS ENTITLED TO THE PRESUMPTION OF CORRECTNESS. Conclusions of Law, continued SINCE THE PETITIONER'S APPRAISER DID NOT APPEAR, NO EXPLANATION OF THE REPORT WAS POSSIBLE. PAO SUPPLIED 4 SIMILAR COMPS WITH VALUES AFTER ADJUSTMENTS RANGING BETWEEN $1,187,556 AND $1,445,478. RECOMMEND PAO ASSESSMENT BE RETAINED AND PETITION BE DENIED January 51h, 2011 To: Pamela Hancock, Deputy Clerk Monroe County Clerk's Office Key West, FL Via fax: 305- 295-3663 Re: Decision of VAB dated 12/09/2009 Petition # R041-2010 Dear Ms. Hancock„ As per our phone discussion earlier today we are requesting clarification on what is the actual time frame for " tnae of consideration" for appraisals submitted to VAB with request for 2010 real property taxes value adj ustment. We are referring to Reason for Decision paragraph as per the Decisions of the Value Adjustment Board document dated 12/09/2009 and issued by your office. We would appreciate you e-mailed us your answer to Eris2001 @aol.com or called us at 518-294-6489. '-hank you; Radrni b.8 ` va and Petr Blahout Eris2OOl@aol.com 518-294-6489 �-d 69179t76Z9 15 L eaey auleu jnoA dqe: Lo L L 90 uer ti� b January 6, 2011 R041-2010 Petr Blahout & Radmila Brozkova, Petitioners AK#1258393 551 East Shore Dr Summerland Key, Fl. 33042 Petitioners have requested to learn what is "the actual time frame for "time of consideration' for appraisals submitted to the VAB with request for 2010 real property taxes value adjustment." For the 2010 tax year, the Property Appraiser's Office was charged with the obligation to estimate the value of all parcels in the county as of January 1, 2010. The petitioners supplied 3 appraisals. The appraisal dated 11/06/2009 is the only pertinent one. As I stated in my recommendation, the appraiser used no comps from the subject island and comps used sold between 6/09 and 8/09. The Property Appraiser's Office, on the other hand, did find 3 comps from the subject island and their sales took place between 1/09 and 10/09. Their comps were more relevant and also more reliable from a time of sale standpoint. That same appraiser who produced the first appraisal also completed another report for the petitioner with a date of 7/19/2010. I did not rely on this one because all 4 of the comparable sales took place in 2010. Three of them took place in the 2' quarter of 2010 and the 4' closed in Feb, 2010. As we are seeking a value estimate as of January 1, 2010, these sales don't appear pertinent as they all took place after the desired date. The 3' appraisal has a date of 8/31/2010. The effective date of that appraisal is 8/31/2010 and not 1/1/2010. Therefore, the appraisal is not considered relevant. Again all 4 comparable sales took place in 2010, after the period in consideration. Regina E Corcoran Special Magistrate VAB 2010 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION DR-485V N. 12/09 DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE County Monroe Rule 1213-16.002 Florida Administrative Code The actions below were taken on your petition. VThese actions are a recommendation only, not final. nThese 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 (sections 193.155(8)(k), 194.036, 194.171(2), and 196.151, F.S.). Petition # R0046-2010 Parcel ID 1557064 Petitioner name Imran Thobani Address Supertel (Solomon Beacon Inn) The petitioner is: taxpayer of record ❑✓ taxpayer's agent 201 Ocean Drive other, explain: Key Largo Decision Summary Denied your petition Granted your petition Granted your petition in part Value Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser After Board Action Lines 1 and 4 must be completed. Rule 12D-9.025(10), FA.C. 1. Market value, required $ 2,759,246 $ 2,759,246 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable $ $ 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none $ $ 4. Taxable value,* required $ 2,759,246 $ 2,759,246 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ (section 196.031(7)(d), F.S.). Reasons for Decision Findings of Fact Use page 2, if needed. This finding is the decision resulting from a remand to the Property Appraiser's Office and their response, as well as a response from Mr. Thobani. In essence, the Special Magistrate was seeking clarification as to which of the three (3) income and expense statements (one from the DOR filing, one from the owner and one from the tax representative) and/or combinations thereof) had been utilized in the formulation of the Property Appraiser's Income Approach. See attached. Conclusions of Law Use page 2, if needed. It is my opinion that the Property Appraiser's Office has properly considered all statutory criteria in he valuation process - not once, but several times. The PAO has also considered other market data relevant to the valuation and all professionally accepted appraisal practices have been met - including mass appraisal methodology and standards. The estimate of $2,999,440 has been tempered by the submission of the 2nd set of data and the results of the Market Approach. Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Findings and conclusions above are recommendations. 262A-=: Unature Patricia P. McGrath 3/22/11 sp a Vagistrate Print name Date ++ 7-1k� (�0.m�12 a . 0a""C-lL 31zq // I Signature, VAB clerk or representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on 4/ 15 1 Zo + 1 at + o - o o az-1- Address279S OvcrScaS H"Vy- Zn d F00,., M6LVa-#-'n0"n , FL— Date Time 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 or visit our web site at 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 mai o a es DR-485V Petition # N. 12/09Page 2 Findings of Fact, continued Please reference Page 2 of the Property Appraiser's response to the remand wherein Mr. Borglam has outlined the procedural steps, including: 1. Initial reliance by the PAO upon the DOR filing (due to the lack of specific data supplied by the owner after the standard request for income and expense information - availed to all income producing properties in Monroe County). 2.The second set of data was received in early August, 2010, from Solomon Beacon Inn, owner of record, with the following results: a. Property owner's reported income, market derived expenses and market derived capitalization rate = $2,999,440. b. Property owner's reported income, property owner's reported expenses (August 2010 expenses as reported) and a market derived capitalization rate = $2,759,246 (published 2010 TRIM notice value). The Property Appraiser's office indicates they did not just "consider" the actual income/expense information; they "used" the actual income/expense information supplied by the property owner in August, 2010. 3. The third set of income and expenses were submitted in September as part of this appeals process, by the property owner's representative. This statement was similar to but not identical to the one submitted in August. Conclusions of Law, continued Petitioner waived his right to a continuation hearing under Rule 12D-9.029. Instead, the parties agreed upon written submissions to the Special Magistrate after the Property Appraiser's Office's remand review. In consideration of the remand review and these written submissions, I find in favor of the Property Appraiser's Office. I Reset Form DR-485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD N. 12/09 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002 Florida Administrative Code DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE County Monroe The actions below were taken on your petition. 0 These actions are a recommendation only, not final. nThese 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 (sections 193.155(8)(k), 194.036, 194.171(2). and 196.151, F.S.). Petition # R046-2010 Parcel ID AK# 1557064 Petitioner name Iman Thobani Address 201 Ocean Drive The petitioner is: 0 taxpayer of record Q taxpayers agent Key Largo other, explain: RPC for Supertel Hospitality/Key Largo Decision Summary Denied your petition Granted your petition Granted your petition in part Value Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser After Board Action Lines 1 and 4 must be completed. Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. 1. Market value, required $ 2,759,246 $ 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable $ $ 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none $ $ 4. Taxable value,* required $ 2,759,246 $ *AII values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ (section 196.031(7)(d), F. S.). Reasons for Decision Findings of Fact Use page 2, if needed. The Property Appraiser's Office representative and the Petitioner's agent were swom. The Property Appraiser submitted evidence regarding Correctness (FS 194.301). The primary issues are: 1. Given that petitioner failed to meet the Property Appraiser's Office's April 30, 2010 date for the submission of income information for the subject property, is that information now admissible evidence under the Exchange of Evidence Rule?" 2. Cost of sale as it applies to the development of the subject's Income Approach. SEE ATTACHED. Conclusions of Law Use page 2, if needed. 1. The Special Magistrate, based on PTO Bulletin 10-24, must consider the income evidence Petitioner presented at the hearing. SEE ATTACHED. 2. Mr. Borglum, Supervising Appraiser, stated in his final rebuttal at the hearing that COS has been addressed within the income modeling, prior to, but in accordance with the issuance of PTO Bulletin 10-24. JnJ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Findings and conclusions above are recommendations. "'o Lk=:— 0(1 [it Sign s c ra a Print name fPit W"e-Ia G. 4 ^.44C-0 C_tL shy III Signature, VAIN clerk or representative Print name MaTe If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address Date Time If 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 or visit our web site at Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Cin­4nrn VAR Prinf n7mo o n men n in nerfi nc P�ll Petition # DR-485V N.12/09 Page 2 Findings of Fact, continued The Special Magistrate is subject to DOR rules and interpretations, and DOR has given the Exchange of Evidence rule more weight than the Higgs v. Good rule. Gross revenue indications are similar. The expenses, however, differ: roughly 69% (PAO) and 77% (Petitioner), resulting in an NOI differential, thereby creating the two differing opinions of value. Conclusions of Law, continued Higgs v. Good appears to apply to judicial hearings rather than administrative hearings. The Petitioner appears to have partially overcome the presumption of correctness enjoyed by the Property Appraiser's office, as acutal income and expense information, which was available to the PAO 15 days prior to the hearing date, may not have been considered by the Property Appraiser's office. Therefore, the Special Magistrate is going to remand the appeal back to the PAO based on the Petitioner's income and expense evidence for consideration. As an endnote: The Magistrate agrees with the Property Appraiser's office regarding the 4% Reserve for Replacement matter discussed toward the end of the hearing. This expense item has, with the downturn in the real estate market, become a matter of much discussion and examination. It is my opinion that consideration of such expenses are typically made by value loss estimates at the date of resale, swap, etc. As such, provisions for replacements are incorporated in the capitalization rates and their inclusion as an expense item would result in a double application, unduly lowering the value of the subject property. The Special Magistrate also agrees with the Property Appraiser's capitalization rate, as this evidence is obtained directly from the Florida Keys market and is the best evidence available of an OAR for Monroe County hotels/motels. This recommended decision is based, in part, on the advice of counsel pertaining to the evidence issue. VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD REMAND TO PROPERTY APPRAISER DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE DR-485R N. 12/09 Rule 12D-16.002 Florida Administrative Code Section 1. Completed by Value Adjustment Board or Special Magistrate Petition # R04&2010 County Parcel ID AK# 1557064 Date 2/14/11 To: Property Appraiser From: Cleric or Special Magistrate Name Mr. Ervin Higgs Name Patricia P. McGrath Address 500 Whitehead Street Address 2508 Village Green Blvd. Key West, Florida Plant City, Florida The value adjustment board or special magistrate has: Determined that the property appraiser's value is incorrect (section 194.301, F.S.). ❑ Granted a property classification. Include findings of fact on which remand decision is based or reference and attach Form DR-485V, Form DR-485XC, or other document with these items completed. See attached 485V Include conclusions of law on which remand decision is based or reference and attach Form DR-485V, Form DR-485XC, or other document with these items completed. See attached 485V Appropriate remand directions to property appraiser: Consider Petitioner's actual income and expense statement. Utilize the OAR developed by the Monroe County Property Appraiser's Office as is is locale specific. Apply the cost of sale, as previously addressed by Mr. Borglum. The board retains authority to make a final decision on this petition. Section 2. Completed by Property Appraiser Provide a revised just value or a classified use value and return this form to the clerk of the Board. Just Valuation Classified Use Valuation Previous Revised OR Signature, property appraiser Print name Date I DR-485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD N. 12/09 Rule 12D-16.002 i VALUE PETITION Florida Administrative Code OF REVENUE County Monroe 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 (sections 193.155(8)(k), 194.036, 194.171(2), and 196.151, F.S.). Petition # R050-2010 Parcel ID 1105074 Petitioner name Address 97000 South Overseas Highway The petitioner is: Q taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayers agent Key Largo other, explain: Decision Summary Denied your petition Granted your petition Granted your petition in part Value Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser After Board Action Lines 1 and 4 must be completed. Rude 12D•9.025(10), F.A.C. 1. Market value, required $ 17,989,610 $ 17,989,610 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable $ $ 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none $ $ 4. Taxable value,* required $ 17,989,610 $ 17,989,610 *AII values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ (section 196.031(7)(d), F. S.). Reasons for Decision Findings of Fact Use page 2, if needed. The Property Appraiser's Office representatives and the Petitioner's agent were sworn. The Property Appraiser's Office submitted evidence in support of its presumption correctness (F.S. section 194.301). SEE ATTACHED. Conclusions of Law Use page 2, if needed. Mr. Borglum, Supervising Appraiser, has stated that Cost of Sale expenses (PTO 10-24) has been considered in their income modeling. It is my opinion, based on a brief discussion found within this document, that the line item utilized by the Petitioner entitled "Reserves for Replacement" has been incorporated into the agreed upon overall capitalization rate. SEE ATTACHED Reco mended Decision of Special Magistrate Findings and conclusions above are recommendations. �A FAIMic", Patricia P. McGrath 2/21/11 a m istrate Print name a e 7gndto 41&"0./a. C 4 *_' " C� K - z)s`l / I/ Signature, VA clerk or representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address Date Time 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 2 % S• ?/ 3 0 or visit our web site at Ej Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Qin +o . %/AR 1­1, nr rnnrn -+n +iv nn} namn ,+- T-d -1r...nr+i Petition # R050-2010 DR-485V N. 12/09 Page 2 Findings of Fact, continued The subject is a resort -style hotel and carries the Hilton flag, has 200 rooms, along with food and beverage service, and is located on 11.5 acres (open water). A market approach was presented by the PAO, however, the parties and the market segment agree that the Income Approach is the favored of the approaches to value. The parties also agree on the utilization of a 2-year stabilized income and the capitalization rate. The issue is narrowed down to a 4% Reserve for Replacement - utilized by the Petitioner. This expense item has, with the downturn in the real estate market, become a matter of discussion and examination amongst industry participants. Independent fee appraisers are taught in their very first 'Income' class that reserves for replacement are maintained in an interest bearing account to be drawn upon as capital expenditures are required. We are also taught that the interest bearing depository accounts for short-lived items can be actual or theoretical. The Petitioner has made a 4% deduction for Reserves for Replacement for items that are shorter lived than the basic structures. It is my opinion that consideration of such expenses are typically made by value loss estimates at the date of resale, swap, etc As such, provisions for replacements are incorporated in the capitalization rates and their inclusion as an expense item would result in a double application, unduly lowering the value of the subject property. Conclusions of Law, continued The Property Appraisers Office has proved its case by a preponderance of the evidence, and therefore its presumption of correctness is retained. DR-485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD N. 12/09 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002 ."-t Florida Administrative Code DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE County Monroe 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 (sections 193.155(8)(k), 194.038. 194.171(2), and 196.151, F.S.). Petition # R053-2010 Parcel ID 1703699 Petitioner name Ilene Meg Appleton Address 105 Andros Road The petitioner is: FZ] taxpayer of record taxpayer's agent Key Largo other, explain: Decision Summary Denied your petition Granted your petition FFnl Granted your petition in part Value Before Board Action Vakre presented by property appraiser After Board Action Lines 1 and 4 must be completed. Rule 12D-99.025(10), FAC. 1. Market value, required $ 2,541,162 $ 2,541,162 2. Assessed or classified use value,' if applicable $ $ 3. Exempt value,* enter"(" if none $ 1 $ 4. Taxable value,* required $ 2,541,162 $ 2,651,162 *All values entered should be county taxable values. Schod and other taxing authority values may differ (section 196.031(7)(d), F. S.). Reasons for Decision Findings of Fact Use page 2, if needed. Petitioner did not appear for the hearing and did not make a good cause request for postponement. Property appraiser was swom and presented their evidence. The subject is an open water property, an older home built in 1963. AN sales were of canal front properties, early 1960 buildings, and required adjustment. The final value is at the lower end of the range. The Property Appraiser prefers the Market Approach, although all three approaches were taken into consideration. Conclusions of Law Use page 2, if needed. The Petitioner was absent and presented no evidence to be considered at the hearing, therefore, the Property Appraisers Office has maven by a ereponderance of the evidence that thir assessment (arrived at by complying with the criteria of ojkua .riaius.e�, I 1);s algid therefore, its presumption of correctness is retained. XL Recorpmended Decision of Special Magistrate Findings and conclusions above are recommendations. 4mr/ 4� Patricia P. McGrath 1 /31 /2011 c' I a ' ate Print crams Date Pamela G. Hancock 2/2/2011 igna re, VAB derkor representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board vA# consider the recommended decision on March 3, 2011 at 9 : 30 a. m Address Marathon Government Center, 2798 Overseas Highway, 2nd FloorDateTime If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the rec�t�i9k%%*n will be considered. To find the information, please call or visit our web site at Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Ci—ti— WAD ^I—L, Prinf n�Mn -#e --plc, M r.-,rhos DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD i VALUE PETITION DEPARTMEM OF REVENUE County Monroe DR-485V N. 12/09 Rule 12D-16.002 Florida Administrative Code 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 (sections 193.155(8)(k), 194.036, 194.171(2), and 196.151, F.S.). Petition # R064-2010 Parcel ID 8850981 Petitioner name Eddie A. A Carmen Mora Address Kawama Vitas Condominium Unit 19 The petitioner is: 0 taxpayer of record taxpayer's agent 1540 Ocean Bay Drive other, explain: Key Largo Decision Summary ✓ Denied your petition Granted your petition FnJ Granted your petition in part Value Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser After Board Action Lines 1 and 4 must be completed. Rule 12D-9.025(10), FAC. 1. Market value, required $ 377,189 $ 377,189 2. Assessed or classified use value,' if applicable $ $ 3. Exempt value," enter "Cr if none 1 $ $ 4. Taxable value,* required $ 377,189 $ 377,189 *A I values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ (section 196.031(7)(d), F. S.). Reasons for Decision Findings of Fact Use page 2, if needed. Petitioner did not appear for the hearing and did not make a good cause request for postponement. Property appraiser was swom and presented their evidence. The subject contakis 1,935 square feet and was constructed in 1993. The value range from the three comparable sales presented is 3185/square foot to $218/square foot. The final value is $1 a5/square foot. The Property Appraiser prefers the Market Approach, although all three approaches were taken into consideration. Conclusions of Law Uce nAge. 2 if nepijed The Petitioner was absent and presented no evidence to be considered at the hearing, thereic.e, ;ire 4rvi e;:y ;i c ti `cs by a ureponderance et the evidence that thir assessment (arrived at by complying with the criteria of �r :, ;:.� �; �v _, _:, ; ; and the+efure, its presumption of correctness is retained. [�J,Recomjnended Decision of Special Magistrate Findings and conclusions above are recommendations. Y. I lyr'AA Patricia P. McGrath 1 /31 /2011 Sm strate Print name Date ra e Pamela G. Hancock 2/2/2011 SigintatiAe, VAB derkor representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on March 3, 2011 at 9: 30 a.m. Address Marathon Government Center, 2798 Overseas Highway, 2nd Floor Date Time Marathon FL If the line above is blank the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision witl be considered. To find the information, please call or visit our web site at Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision DR-485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD N. 12/09 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002 vil Florida Administrative Code DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE County Monroe The actions below were taken on your petition. W1 These actions are a recommendation only, not final. These actions are a final decision of the VAB. If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment (sections 193.155(8)(k), 194.036, 194.171(2), and 196.151, F.S.). Petition # R065-2010 Parcel ID 8846240 Petitioner name Eddie A. & Carmen Mora Address 1550 Ocean Bay Drive The petitioner is: R] taxpayer of record taxpayers agent Key Largo El other, explain: Decision Summary Denied your petition Granted your petition Granted your petition in part Value Before Board Action Value presented by properly appraiser After Board Action Lines 1 and 4 must be completed. Rule 12D-9.025(10), FAC. 1. Market value, required $ 51,188 $ 51,188 2. Assessed or classified use value,' if appkAge $ $ 3. Exempt value," enter Ir if none $ $ 4. Taxable value," required $ 51,188 1 $ 51,188 'All .values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ (section 196.031(7)(d), F.S.). Reasons for Decision Findings of Fact Use page 2, if needed. Petitioner did not appear for the hearing and did not make a good cause request for postponement. Property appraiser was sworn and presented their evidence. The subject is a boat slap. The value range from the three comparable sales presented is $2,090/finear foot to 32,635/1inear foot. The Property Appraiser prefers the Market Approach, although all three approaches were taken into consideration. nclusions of Law Use page 2, ifneeded- Co i The Petitioner was absent and presented no evidence to be considered at the hearing, therefore. the Property ;,ppraisers ?Sf % e has nQvesr by a vieponderance of the evidence that thin assessment (arrived at by complying with the criteria of -+I;U tiie,eW e, its presumption of correctness is retained. Recorpmended Decision of Special Magistrate Findings and conclusions above are recommendations. Patricia P. McGrath 1 /31 /2011 n e ' m [rate Print name Date Pamela G. Hancock 21&L2011 Signature, a or representative Print name ta�6 If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on March 3, 2011 at 9 : 30 a.m. Addresttarathon Government Center, 2798 Overseas Highway, 2nd Floor Date Time If the fine above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommenhcWd decision win be considered. To find the information, please call or visit our web site at Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decksion I Qi—+et— VAR 4—Lr nr rnnrneanfofnin L not n�mo F-N-+ -- il-A t..I DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION DEPAIiTrAENT OF REVENUE County Monroe DR-485V N. 12/09 Rule 1213-16.002 Florida Administrative Code 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 (sections 193.155(8)(k), 194.036, 194.171(2), and 196.151, F.S.). Petition # R06&2010 Parcel ID BU6258 Petitioner name Eddie A. & Carmen Mora Address 1500 Ocean Bay Drive The petitioner is: n taxpayer of record taxpayees agent Key Largo other, explain: Decision Summary Z Denied your petition Granted your petition Granted your petition in part Value Before Board Action Value prowled by property appraiser After Board Action Lines 1 and 4 must be completed. Rule 12139.025(10), FAC. 1. Market value, required $ 51,188 $ 51,188 2. Assessed or classified use vahie,* if applicable $ $ 3. Exempt value,` enter "0" if none 1 $ $ 14. Taxable value," required $ 51,188 $ 51,188 ` a- &r,terad srculd be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ (section 196.031(7)(d), F.S.). Reasons for Decision Findings of Fact Use page 2, if needed. Petitioner did not appear for the hearing and did not make a good cause request for postponement. Property appraiser was swom and presented their evidence. The subject is a boat slip. The value range from the three comparabie sales presented is $1,527/ inear foot to $2411/finear foot. The Just Value is $2,133 per square feat. The Pr A.F, Fpf ci Market Approach, although all three approaches were taken into consideration. Conclusions of Law The Petitioner was absent and presented no evidence to be considered at ti e a;at'.hir assessment (arrived at by complying with the criteria of stl3ption of correctness is retained. Recoihmended Decision of Special Magistrate Findings and conclusions above are recommendations. A1 _-J Patricia P. McGrath 1 /31 /2011 n ate Print name Date Pamela G. Hancock 2/2/2011 ign re, VABderk or representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on March 3, 2011 at 9 : 30 a.m. AddressMarathon Government Center, 2798 Overseas Highway, 2nd Floor fate Time If the line above Is dank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the re Mar h If wilt be considered. To find the information, please call or visit our web site at Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of dectston Ci—+.— WAD nln.1. n. rnn.mo..fof:.•e .d ____ , _ ........ •....-,.+..,.. DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE County Monroe DR-485V N. 12/09 Rule 12D-16.002 Florida Administrative Code The actions below were taken on your petition. ✓Z These actions are a recommendation only, not final. These actions are a final decision of the VAB. If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment (sections 193.155(8)(k), 194.036, 194.171(2), and 196.151, F.S.). Petition # R072-2010 Parcel ID 1007609 Petitioner name KEYS SUNRISE INVESTMENTS LLC Address 1030 FLEMING ST The petitioner is: ✓❑ taxpayer of record taxpayees agent KEY WEST, FL 33040 other, explain: Decision Summary Z Denied your petition Granted your petition Granted your petition in part Value Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser After Board Action Lines 1 and 4 must be completed. Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. 1. Market value, required $ i $ 1 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable $ $ 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none $ $ 4. Taxable value,* required $ S $ *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ (sec ion 196.031(7)(d), F.S.). Reasons for Decision Findings of Fact Use page 2, if needed. PETITIONER DID NOT APPEAR BUT SUPPLIED LETTER OBJECTING TO ASSESSED VALUE IN LIGHT OF THEIR PURCHASE PRICE OF $530,000 ON 4/2/10. PAO SUPPLIED 4 COMPS WITH A RANGE OF VALUES AFTER ADJUSTMENTS BETWEEEN $558,367 AND $949,951. BY VIRTUE OF DATA, PAO ENTITLED TO PRESUMPTION OF CORRECTNESS. Conclusions of Law Use page 2, if needed. PETITIONER SUPPLIED NOT DATA TO OVERTURN PRESUMPTION OF CORRECTNESS ON THE PART OF PAO. RECOMMEND ASSESSED VALUE OF PAO BE RETAINED AND PETITION BE DENIED. Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Findings and conclusions above are recommendations. i REGINA E CORCORAN 12/9/10 Signa� special magistrate Print name ate Q ✓tLL� fQn�c�� �as,co<_!K 12-11.. /Z' Signature, VAB clerk or representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address Date Time 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 3�a- LJS 2i 3' or visit our web site at .vwry, c Ie-a-K - o f - f c - c4,t Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature, VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE County Monroe DR-485V N. 12/09 Rule 12D-16.002 Florida Administrative Code The actions below were taken on your petition. ✓� These actions are a recommendation only, not final. These actions are a final decision of the VAB. If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment (sections 193.155(8)(k), 194.036, 194.171(2), and 196.151, F.S.). Petition # R078-2010 Parcel ID AK1236098 Petitioner name JERRY LIEBERMAN Address 22927 DRAKE LN The petitioner is: ✓❑ taxpayer of record taxpayer's agent CUDJOE KEY, FL 33042 other, explain: Decision Summary Denied your petition Granted your petition Granted your petition in part Value Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser After Board Action Lines 1 and 4 must be completed. Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. 1. Market value, required $ 854,054 $ 854,054 2. Assessed or classified use value,` if applicable $ $ 3. Exempt value,` enter "0" if none $ 0 $ 0 4. Taxable value,' required $ 854,054 $ 854,054 `All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ (section 196.031(7)(d), F.S.). Reasons for Decision Findings of Fact Use page 2, if needed. SEE ATTACHED Conclusions of Law Use page 2, if needed. SEE ATTACHED ✓0 Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Findings and conclusions above are recommendations. REGINA E CORCORAN 12/9/10 Signatur special ma istrate Print name Date Signature, VAB 6lerk or representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address Date Time 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 1-15- Z%S- 3/ 3- or visit our web site at wcyvy, (Je-.-K"� f ' �4e- �����. W• Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature, VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties Petition # DR-485V N. 12/09 Page 2 Findings of Fact, continued R078-2010 JERRY LIEBERMAN AK#1236098 22927 DRAKE LN SCOTT RUSSELL PAO STIPULATES THEY INCLUDED 8 CRITERIA AND CONSIDERED TYPICAL APPROACHES BUT RELIED ON THE COMPARABLE SALES APPROACH BY VIRTUE OF THE DATA IS ENTITLED TO THE PRESUMPTION OF CORRECTNESS JERRY LIEBERMAN USES DEFINITION OF MARKET VALUE. LISTED FOR $826,950 AND WAS LISTED FOR $700,263. OFFER ACCEPTED ON MAY 4 AND PAID $630,000. HOUSE IS AN REO SALE. PETITIONER HAS OPEN WATER AND A CANAL FRONTAGE. Conclusions of Law, continued `4 LIST VALUE WAS PREVIOUSLY $826,950 ON FEB 2 2010 WHICH IS ABOUT 7% LESS THAN ASSESSED VALUE AS OF 1 /1 /10. SALE IS AN REO SALE THAT TOOK PLACE 5 MONTHS AFTER THE DATE OF 1 /1 /10. PETITIONER DID NOT SUPPLY ANY PROOF THAT HIS HOUSE IS WORTH LESS THAN THE PAO ASSESSED VALUE. HE COMMENTED ON SOME FINISHES AND FEATURES BUT WITH NO PROOF AS TO WHAT IMPACT THEY MIGHT HAVE. PAO APPLIED ADJUSTMENTS FOR QUALITY CONDITION SIZE LOT SIZE AND BR AND BA PAO SUPPLIED 6 COMPS WITH INDICATED RANGE OF VALUES AFTER ADJUSTMENTS BETWEEN $850,232 AND $1,108,153. PAO ESTIMATE OF VALUE OF SUBJECT PAO ENTITLED TO THE PRESUMPTION OF CORRECTNESS AND PETITIONER SUPPLIED NO DATA TO MEET THE PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE RULE TO OVERTURN THE ESTIMATE OF VALUE. FIND IN FAVOR THE THE PAO AND RECOMMEND THAT THE PETITION BE DENIED. OR DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE County Mon-- e— Thyactions below were taken on your petition. DR-485V N. 12/09 Rule 120-18.002 Florida Administrative Code U 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 (sections 193.155(8)(k), 194.036, 194.171(2), and 196.151, F.S.). Petition # Z 2- -;-0 V Parcel ID t 70 / 513 Petitioner name ft W Address Y3 �,,,K�k1144 The petitioner is: taxpayer of record taxpayer's agent Du,�^ I�O-� Cal ✓b other, explain: Decision Summa enied your petition Granted your petition Granted your petition in part Value Before Board Action Lines 1 and 4 must be completed. Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Market value, required $ , 7 3 19, 6 $ $ 7 6 2. Assessed or classified use value,' if applicable $ $ 3. Exempt value,' enter T" if none $ $ 4. Taxable value,' required $ -7 3 6 � $ 39, 6 'All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ (section 196.031(7)(d), F.S.). Reasons for Decision Findings of Fact No eV'0-e.4 �r� W& i py- r% G 6 Use additional sheets, if needed. 4el'r Ci . r✓oncwsions oT Law �L✓CUsq-eA additional sheetsy if needed. � I - T � L CAS Reco a ed ecision of Special Magistrate Findings and conclusions above are recommendations. ign pecial mag" trace Print name ate I:Z -z/19 )11 ignature. VA cl rk or representative Print name ate If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address Date Time 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 or visit our web site at [] Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board rint name ate o ecision Signature, VAB clerk or representative DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION DR-485V N. 12/09 Rule 12D-16.002 Florida Adminlstratfve Code DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE County Monroe The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final. These actions are a final decision of the VAB. If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment (sections 193.155(8)(k), 194.036. 194.171(2), and 196.151. F.S.). Petition # R122-2010 Parcel ID 1701513 Petitioner name Thomas E. & Mary Wags Address 43 Pumpkin Cay Rd. A The petitioner is: 0 taxpayer of record El taxpayers agent Ocean Reef other, explain: Decision Summary Z Denied your petition Granted your petition Granted your petition in part Value Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser After Board Action Lines 1 and 4 must be completed. Rule 12D-9.025(10), FAC. 1. Market value, required $ 1,738,876 $ 1,738,876 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable S $ 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none $ $ 4. Taxable value,* required $ 1,738,876 $ 1,738,876 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ (section 196.031(7)(d), F. S. ). Reasons for Decision Findings of Fact Use page 2, if needed. Petitioner did not appear for the hearing and did not make a good cause request for postponement. Property appraiser was swom and presented their evidence. The subject was constructed in 1975 and contains 2,041 square foot. The value range from the three comparable sales presented is $875/square foot to $887/square foot. The Property Appraiser prefers the Market Approach, although all three approaches were taken into consideration. Conclusions of Law Use page 2, if needed. The Petitioner was absent and presented no evidence to be considered at the hearing, therefore, the Property Appraisers 101`114ce has vfoven by a Preponderance of the evidence that thir assessment (arrived at by complying with the criteria of _ ......... ; I) i's WI-1 ect, atid therefore, its presumption of correctness is retained. ✓ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Findings and conclusions above are recommendations. Patricia P. (McGrath 1 /2011 gnatur al is strafe Print name Pamela G. Hancock 2/3/2911 ignature, VAB derkor representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on March 3, 2011 at 9 : 30 a.m. AddressMarathon Government Center, 2798 Overseas Highway, 2nd Floor Date Time If the fine above is blan the board does not et know the date, time, and ace when the reommen o FII k Y place �becis on will be considered. To find the information, please call or visit our web site at Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of deciston Ci—+o— WAD ^1—ie nr rer.rmnnf�:..e r,n name a........ .. ♦....., w..... NO .540 A✓ DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION CountyMo 41�,� below were taken on your petition. DR-485V N. 12/09 Rule 12D-16.002 Florida Administrative Code Lohese 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 (sections 193.155(8)(k), 194.036, 194.171(2), and 196.151, F.S.). Petition # — yp 7 U Parcel ID 6m i 2 C-i tJn Petitioner name e- L Address 6S311AI/Q4 The petitioner is: taxpayer of record taxpayers agent �� G� - /ate other, explain: Decision Sum m Denied your petition Ej Granted your petition Ej Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed. Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Market value, required $ $ 9 2. Assessed or classified use value,' if applicable $ $ 3. Exempt value," enter "0" if none $ $ 4. Taxable value,' required $ p $ 'All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ (section 1 6.031(7)(d), F.S.). Reasons for Decision Findings of Fact � j t _ a Use ad tion I heets, if needed. tl s of Law Use additional sheets, if EkfRe,0mMMd,9)l.DfcIsion of Special Magistrate Findings and conclusions above are recommendations. / A , _v ' t I � li� ' 1) l �,/` 40 Sign p ial strate ! Print name ate p N.en co G�-,zA3I�.a ignature, VAB clerk or representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address Date Time 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 (BOSS) Z 95�• $ / 3o %. or visit our web site at w.v„ , G/e.„ K. , 4c - "k&- 4. c a &" Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board not name ate o easion or representative not name a e mai e o pa ies t ..��� ....... DR-485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD N. 12/09 VALUE PETITION Rule 1213-16.002 �R� Florida Administrative Code OF= County Monroe The actions below were taken on your petition. n 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 (sections 193.155(8)(k), 194.036, 194.171(2), and 196.151, F.S.). Petition # R717-2010 Parcel ID 1032328 Petitioner name PATRICIA MADIEDO Address The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record 0 taxpayers agent ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary Denied your petition Granted your petition Granted your petition in part Value Before Board Action Value preaen0ed by property appraiser After Board Action Lines 1 and 4 must be completed. Rule 12D-9.025(10), FAC. 1. Market value, required $ 282,336 $ 282,336 2. Assessed or classified use value,' N applicable $ 113,220 $ 113,220 3. Exempt value,' enter'(" if none $ 51,000 $ 51,000 4. Taxable value,' required $ 87,220---+ $ 87,220 `AA values entered should be county taxable valves. School and other taxing authority values may differ (section 196.031(7)(d), F.S.). Reasons for Decision Findings of Fad Use page 2, if needed. SEE PAGE 2 Conclusions of Law Use page 2, if needed. SEE PAGE 2 Recommended Decis on of Special Magistrate Findings and condusiorts above are recommendations. REGINA E CORCORAN 12/9/10 Sig7ecial magi to Print name Date gZgnatdre. VAB derk or representable Print name to If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address Date Time 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 39S• z9s - 3/ 140 or visit our web site at ww. w , GlG' K - e ir- 1, - a• n� f c 0 Final Decision of the Value Adjulsi rent Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature, VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed o parties W" Petition # DR-485V N.12/09 Page 2 Findings of Fad, continued PAO SUPPLIED 4 COMPS SUPPORTING THE ESTIMATE OF VALUE LOCATION OF COMPS: 2-3 BLOCKS FROM SUBJECT. CONSIDERED ALL 8 FACTORS RELIED MOSTLY ON MARKET VALUE FOR DETERMINING VALUE ADJUSTMENTS FOR MISC IMPROVEMENTS: INCLUDE POOLS, DECKING FENCES, COMPI HAD POOL COMP 4 HAD POOL, DECKING, FENCES, WOOD DECK, WATER FEATURE ALONG WITH THE POOL Conclusions of Law, continued IT IS NOT WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE S.M. TO MAKE ANY ADJUSTMENT WHATSOEVER WRT HOW MUCH THE TAXES ARE THE ONLY ADJUSTMENT AVAILABLE TO THE S.M. IS TO ADJUST THE ASSESSED VALUE IF THE PETITIONER PROVES THAT THE PAO ESTIMATE OF VALUE IS TOO HIGH. PETITIONER DID NOT SUPPLY ANY DATA WHATSOEVER TO OVERTURN THE PRESUMPTION OF CORRECTNESS NOR DID PETITIONER SUPPLY ANY DATA TO SHOW THAT THE PAO ESTIMATE OF VALUE WAS INCORRECT. ESTIMATE OF VALUE OF PAO IS UPHELD Findings of Fact R717-2010 1108 GRINNELL ST, KW FL PAO SUPPLIED 4 COMPS SUPPORTING THE ESTIMATE OF VALUE. LOCATION OF COMPS: 2-3 BLOCKS FROM SUBJECT. CONSIDERED ALL 8 FACTORS RELIED MOSTLY ON MARKET VALUE FOR DETERMINING VALUE ADJUSTMENTS FOR MISC IMPROVEMENTS: INCLUDE POOLS, DECKING FENCES, COMP 1 HAD POOL COMP 4 HAD POOL, DECKING, FENCES, WOOD DECK, WATER FEATURE ALONG WITH THE POOL MS. MADIEDO REPRESENTING HER FATHER JOE MADIEDO. 1 110 GRINNEL ST. HAD A NUMBER OF IMPROVEMENTS. DAD'S TAXES WENT UP $103 COMPARED WITH $83 FOR 1110 GRINELL ST. MS. MADIEDO DID NOT PRESENT ANY DATA TO OVERTURN THE PAO ESTIMATE OF VALUE. Conclusions of law IT IS NOT WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE S.M. TO MAKE ANY ADJUSTMENT WHATSOEVER WRT HOW MUCH THE TAXES ARE. THE ONLY ADJUSTMENT AVAILABLE TO THE S.M. IS TO ADJUST THE ASSESSED VALUE IF THE PETITIONER PROVES THAT THE PAO ESTIMATE OF VALUE IS TOO HIGH. PETITIONER DID NOT SUPPLY ANY DATA WHATSOEVER TO OVERTURN THE PRESUMPTION OF CORRECTNESS NOR DID PETITIONER SUPPLY ANY DATA TO SHOW THAT THE PAO ESTIMATE OF VALUE WAS INCORRECT. ESTIMATE OF VALUE OF PAO IS UPHELD NO S A o VV DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR485V VALUE PETITION N. 12/09 Rule 12D-16.002 DEPARTMENT Florida Administrative Code OF REVENUE County i► G d/J rd -Q, below were taken on your petition. I�'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 (sections 193.155(8)(k), 194.036, 194.171(2), and 196.151, F.S.). Petition # V Parcel ID 00 0 Petitioner name -p4vwl iJo.ALoLA Address 68O 1 SAr1o,.O gvecf The petitioner is: taxpayer of record taxpayers agent 3)v UL ZS ?mod 0 other, explain: Decision Summa enied your petition Granted your petition Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed. Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Market value, required $ Cp Z- $ v L 2. Assessed or classified use value,' if applicable $ $ 3. Exempt value,' enter "0" if none $ $ 4. Taxable value,' required $ S 0 Z $ S 0 'All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ (section 1 6.031(7)(d), F.S.). Reasons for Decision inoings of tact Use additional sheets, if needed. pr 4pp-�ref-C-1 t w/V-C- X of s0U4 C-1�4pG,r/J0.^ CIA 44�JrJ was ✓� ^CV�Y-e-* WO t-e-- Use additional Reco ends0 D 'ion of Special Magistrate Findings and conclusions above are recommendations. 41700 igna ecial i Print name I Date Signature, VAB erk or representative Print name ate If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address Date Time 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 (3•f) Z99• 3/3o or visit our web site at~-. c/c.K- • F- J-/rc - c. • 6L• f• o. Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature, VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed o pa ies /va SAe✓,) DEPARTMENT Of REVENUE DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION County-Mdn I-oL below were taken on your petition. DR-485V N. 12/09 Rule 12D-16.002 Florida Administrative Code ["These actions are a recommendation only, not final. n 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 (sections 193.155(8)(k) 194.036, 194.171(2), and 196.151, F.S.). f-Cuuvn it - — Parcel ID OC3 o Petitioner name Address S'6S-O /`14/0i4U Av--- The petitioner is: taxpayer of recorcr taxpayers agent S b o �� ❑ other, explain: 01 Decision Summa enied your petition Granted your petition Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed. Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 1213-9.025(10), F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Market value, required $ 106eO $ 70 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable $ $ 3. Exempt value,' enter "0" if none $ $ 4. Taxable value,' required $ D 6 0 $ C2 'All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ (section 196.031(7)(d), F.S.). Reasons for Decision Findings of Fact Use additional sheets, if need d. TAt ��Opr sib► N�1 soG-P G vluMe P vtuve- fv'✓ usions of Law Use , if needed. ision of Special Magistrate Findings and conclusions above are recommendations. Sigi 7ma ' trate Print name ate na �-1e./. t?•gap%"r-/L lZbelio 'Signature, VAB clerk or representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on Address at Date Time 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 (5eT) or visit our web site at A^vv• r- lark- • F - 44c- c.ac„t• �� Uj Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name ate of decision or representative Print name DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION County M 04 (-Q, e DR-485V N. 12/09 Rule 12D-16.002 Florida Administrative Code The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final. These actions are a final decision of the VAB. I 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 (sections 193.155(8)(k), 194.036, 194.171(2), and 196.151, F.S.). Petition # Parcel ID DO 32s- Petitioner name Z e t_ �� Address / $ S ww The petitioner is: taxpayer of record taxpayers agent Au' GJ� "�, �'73D ye)other, explain: / Decision Summary Denied your petition [:]Granted your petition Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed. Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Market value, required $ TD $ 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable $ $ 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none $ $ 4. Taxable value,* required $ / $ s / 'All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ (section 196.03 (7)(d), F.S.). Reasons for Decision Findings of Fact /„ rp , Use additional sheets, if needed. i J ) /% i• Conclusions Qf Law Use additional sheefs, if AeedO. pi c.e_ s.���,�-e� � � �'► r► � � � S//. ��, cam. Recomqr&ndedlopisiqAof Special Magistrate Findings and conclusions above are recommendations. or /-�' � A'�Vl�111�� C/) /-1 717-- Signat ism r Print name 1'1-� eav"e-/0 G. q&.1CoGK— Date 112111) Signatur&;1VAB clerkor representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address Date Time 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 305 2 YY 3 / _TO or visit our web site at Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of deciii—on or Print name a • DR-485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD N. 12/09 Rule 12D-16.002 VALUE PETITION Florida Administrative Code DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE County Monroe 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 (sections 193.155(8)(k), 194.036, 194.171(2), and 196.151, F.S.). Petition # R748-2010 Parcel ID 8868499 Petitioner name Parcel G Island Development Corp Address 18 Sunset Key Drive The petitioner is: taxpayer of record taxpayer's agent Sunset Key other, explain: Robert Garcia, agent Decision Summary Denied your petition Granted your petition Granted your petition in part Value Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser After Board Action Lines 1 and 4 must be completed. Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. 1. Market value, required $ 3,986,527 $ 3,986,527 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable $ $ 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none $ $ 4. Taxable value,* required $ 3,986,527 $ 3,986,527 *AII values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ (section 196.031(7)(d), F. S.). Reasons for Decision Findings of Fact Use page 2, if needed. The subject vacant parcel is located on Sunset Key and contains approximately 14,549 SF of land. Sale # 1 is the sale of a property most similar in size to the subject property. Sale # 4 is a waterview, sale with a possible adjoiner premium. The subject is assessed at 84% of the lowest adjusted and favored sales. Sale # 1 also has the lowest gross and net adjustments. The utilization of older sales and determining by matched pair analysis if an adjustment is due for market conditions is a common and accepted professional appraisal practice. Conclusions of Law Use page 2, if needed. The petitioner has the challenge of proving that the assessed value either does not represent the 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 within the same county. The PAO has supplied direct comparison evidence to support the assessed value. The appraisal practices employed are professionally accepted, therefore, it is my opinion that the petitioner has failed to overcome the burden. ✓ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Findings and conclusions above are recommendations. 1 1 Patricia P. McGrath 2/18/11 na pedal a "strate Print n'a a fine ignature,VAB derkor representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address Date Time 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 or visit our web site at Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name a e o ecision 6nnoh�rn WAD A—L, nr r—r—n+o4nin Drint nnmo ,fin --; n M no+;— Petition # R748-2010 DR-485V N. 12/09 Page 2 Findings of Fact, continued Both the Property Appraisers Office and Mr. Garcia, agent for the petitioner were sworn and have agreed that valuation of properties located on Sunset Key is difficult, based upon the limited available data. The PAO has utilized sales from the past 5 years and one 2010 sale to support the subject's current estimate of value. This is not typical, nor is Sunset Key. The Petitioner has submitted a two part evidence package containing a recent history of Sunset Key, bulk sale and assessment comparisons of groups of properties both on and off the island, paying particular attention to properties over $1,000,000. The PAO has submitted into evidence their Statement of Correctness in accordance with FS 194.301, which pertains to adherence to Florida Statutes, the appraisal methodology utilized by the office and other forms of applicability to the preparation of this assessment. The Property Appraiser has properly considered all statutory criteria in the valuation process. The Special Magistrate has relied upon FS 193.011 and 194.301. Conclusions of Law, continued t � ra war— . DR-485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD N. 12/09 .� VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002 t Florida Administrative Code DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE County Monroe 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 (sections 193.155(8)(k), 194.036, 194.171(2), and 196.151, F.S.). Petition # R750-2010 Parcel ID 8885334 Petitioner name Island Development Corporation Address 39 Sunset Key Drive The petitioner is: taxpayer of record 0 taxpayer's agent Sunset Key other, explain: Mr. Garcia Decision Summary Z Denied your petition Granted your petition GrFM anted your petition in part Value Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser After Board Action Lines 1 and 4 must be completed. Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. 1. Market value, required $ 1,083,572 $ 1,083,572 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable $ $ 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none $ $ 4. Taxable value,* required $ 1,083,572 $ 1,083,572 "Al values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ (section 196.031(7)(d), F. S.). Reasons for Decision Findings of Fact Use page 2, if needed. Subject vacant property is a small lot (5,562 SF) located on Sunset Key. PAO Sale # 1 is the only sale that did not require building extraction and sets the lower limit to value. The PAO has adequately demonstrated value via a matched pair analysis and a 4 Comparable Sale grid. Subject property is assessed at about 59% of the lowest adjusted sale. Utilizing older sales and adjusting upward,downwarri or not at all for market conditions is an accepted professional appraisal practice, particularly when the property is unique and when paired sales data is available. Conclusions of Law Use page 2, if needed. The petitioner has the challenge of proving that the assessed value either does not represent the 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 within the same county. The PAO has supplied direct comparison evidence to support the assessed value. The appraisal practices employed are professionally accepted, therefore, it is my opinion that the petitioner has failed to overcome the burden. ✓[� Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Findings and conclusions above are recommendations. Patricia P. McGrath 2/17/11 Signatur special m 'strate Print name Date nan�eco c- IL- Signdtar6, VAB orerkor representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address Date Time 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 3 41-'117 313'3 or visit our web site at Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision I Ci—finn \/AO nlnrL nr rnnrocnnfofivn Print n7mo rS.;i#n mni1e,4 4n r,n +;— I Petition # R750-2010 DR-485V N.12/09 Page 2 Findings of Fact, continued Both the Property Appraiser's Office representatives and Mr. Garcia were sworn and have agreed that the valuation of properties located on Sunset Key is difficult, based upon the limited amount of data available. The property appraiser has utilized sales from the past 5 years and one 2010 sale to support the subject's current estimate of value. This is not typical, nor is Sunset Key. The Petitioner has submitted a two-part evidence package containing a recent history of Sunset Key, bulk sale and assessment statistical pairings of properties on the mainland and off, with attention paid to properties assessed in excess of $1,000,000, etc. The Property Appraiser's office has submitted into evidence their Statement of Correctness in accordance with FS 194.301, which explains the adherence to Florida Statutes, the appraisal methodology utilized by the office, and other items of applicability to the preparation of this assessment The Property Appraiser has property considered all statutory criteria in the valuation process. The Special Magistrate has relied upon "Factors to Consider Factors to Consider (193.011) and Presumption of Correctness (194.301) in preparing this decision. Conclusions of Law, continued I DR-485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD N. 12/09 VALUE PETITION le 12D-16.002 Florida Administrative Code DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE County Monroe 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 (sections 193.155(8)(k), 194.036, 194.171(2), and 196.151, F. S.). Petition # R751-2010 Parcel ID 8885270 Petitioner name JKEY LLC Address Parcel J-5 The petitioner is: taxpayer of record taxpayer's agent Sunset Key other, explain: Robert Garcia, agent Decision Summary Denied your petition Granted your petition Granted your petition in part Value Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser After Board Action Lines 1 and 4 must be completed. Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. 1. Market value, required $ 3,744,354 $ 3,744,354 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable $ $ 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none $ $ 4. Taxable value,* required $ 3,744,354 $ 3,744,354 *AII values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ (section 196.031(7)(d), F. S.). Reasons for Decision Findings of Fact Use page 2, if needed. The subject vacant parcel is located on Sunset Key and contains approximately 13,854 SF of land. Sale # 1 is the sale of the subject property in 2007 and required no adjustments for use as a comparable, with a sales price of $4,500,000. The subject is assessed at 83% of the sales price. The utilization of older sales and determining by matched pair analysis if an adjustment is due for market conditions is a common and accepted professional appraisal practice. Conclusions of Law Use page 2, if needed. The petitioner has the challenge of proving that the assessed value either does not represent the 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 within the same county. The PAO has supplied direct comparison evidence to support the assessed value. The appraisal practices employed are professionally accepted, therefore, it is my opinion that the petitioner has failed to overcome the burden. Q Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Findings and conclusions above are recommendations. DWA C 1(--,/ Patricia P. McGrath 2/17/11 nacial agistrate Print name a P,-„„� IdL C. 44""C-IL- zrZ3 �I, ignature, VAETderk or representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address Date Time 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 30�• 29 S"• 3T 3 - or visit our web site at Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Ci—fit— WAD A—te ——n--+-w4i%— Print names ,n —; n — 1— Petition # R750-2010 DR-485V N. 12/09 Page 2 Findings of Fact, continued Both the Property Appraiser's Office and Mr. Garcia, agent for the petitioner were sworn and have agreed that valuation of properties located on Sunset Key is difficult, based upon the limited available data. The PAO has utilized sales from the past 5 years and one 2010 sale to support the subject's current estimate of value. This is not typical, nor is Sunset Key. The Petitioner has submitted a two part evidence package containing a recent history of Sunset Key, bulk sale and assessment comparisons of groups of properties both on and off the island, paying particular attention to properties over $1,000,000. The PAO has submitted into evidence their Statement of Correctness in accordance with FS 194.301, which pertains to adherence to Florida Statutes, the appraisal methodology utilized by the office and other forms of applicability to the preparation of this assessment The Property Appraiser has properly considered all statutory criteria in the valuation process. The Special Magistrate has relied upon FS 193.011 and 194.301. Conclusions of Law, continued • j DR-485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD N. 12/09 \i VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002 Florida Administrative Code DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE County Monroe 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 (sections 193.155(8)(k), 194.036, 194.171(2), and 196.151, F.S.). Petition # R752-2010 Parcel ID 8885083 Petitioner name SUNSET ACQUISITIONS CORPORATION Address 183-283 Sunset Drive The petitioner is: taxpayer of record o taxpayer's agent Sunset Key other, explain: Mr. Garcia Decision Summary ✓ Denied your petition Granted your petition Granted your petition in part Value Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser After Board Action Lines 1 and 4 must be completed. Rule 12D-9.025(10), FAG. 1. Market value, required $ 4,411,265 $ 4,411,265 2. Assessed or classified use value,* it applicable $ $ 3. Exempt value,* enter V if none $ $ 4. Taxable value,* required $ 4,411,265 $ 4,411,265 *AII values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ (section 196.031(7)(d), F. S.). Reasons for Decision Findings of Fact Use page 2, if needed. Subject vacant property is one of the largest lots on Sunset Key, with 18,881 square. All of the PAO's Comparable Sales are smaller than the subject lot, with sale # 1 having the most similar lot size. The PAO has adequately demonstrated value via a matched pair analysis and a 4 Comparable Sale grid. Subject property is assessed at about 79% of the lowest adjusted sale. Utilizing older sales and adjusting upward,downward or not at all for market conditions is an accepted professional appraisal practice, particularly when the property is unique and when paired sales data is available. Conclusions of Law Use page 2, if needed. The petitioner has the challenge of proving that the assessed value either does not represent the 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 within the same county. The PAO has supplied direct comparison evidence to support the assessed value. The appraisal practices employed are professionally accepted, therefore, it is my opinion that the petitioner has failed to overcome the burden. ✓❑ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Findings and conclusions above are recommendations. '41 Patricia P. McGrath 2/16/11 Signatu fspdci)kI agistrate Print name Date Pv►ie, G• r(0.Nco Gk ZII�'IlI ignature, VAIS clerk or representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address Date Time 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 3o S- 2147.313 o or visit our web site at Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Ci—fi— WAD nlorL Print n7mo .i n mop n ♦n nnriine Petition # R752-2010 DR-485V N. 12/09 Page 2 Findings of Fact, continued Both the Property Appraiser's Office representatives and Mr. Garcia were sworn and have agreed that the valuation of properties located on Sunset Key is difficult, based upon the limited amount of data available. The property appraiser has utilized sales from the past 5 years and one 2010 sale to support the subject's current estimate of value. This is not typical, nor is Sunset Key. The Petitioner has submitted a two-part evidence package containing a recent history of Sunset Key, bulk sale and assessment statistical pairings of properties on the mainland and off, with attention paid to properties assessed in excess of $1,000,000, etc. The Property Appraiser's office has submitted into evidence their Statement of Correctness, which explains the adherence to Florida Statutes, the appraisal methdology utilized by the office, and other items of applicability to the preparation of this assessment. The Special Magistrate has relied upon "Factors to Consider Factors to Consider (193.011) and Presumption of Correctness (194.301) in preparing this decision. Conclusions of Law, continued DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION UH-48bV N. 12/09 Rule 12D-16.002 Florida Administrative Code DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE County Monroe The actions below were taken on your petition. 0 These actions are a recommendation only, not final. nThese 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 (sections 193.155(8)(k), 194.036. 194.171(2), and 196.151, F.S.). Petition # R754-2010 Parcel ID 8885326 Petitioner name SUNSET ACQUISITIONS CORPORATION Address 38 Sunset Key Drive The petitioner is: taxpayer of record 0 taxpayer's agent Sunset Key other, explain: Mr. Garcia Decision Summary Denied your petition nGranted your petition Granted your petition in part Before Board Action Value Value presented by property appraiser After Board Action Lines 1 and 4 must be completed. Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. 1. Market value, required $ 4,576,149 $ 4,576,149 2. Assessed or classified use value,' if applicable $ $ 3. Exempt value,' enter "0" if none 1 $ $ 4. Taxable value,` required $ 4,576,149 $ 4,576,149 'All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ (section 196.031(7)(d), F. S.). Reasons for Decision Findings of Fact Use page 2, if needed. Subject vacant property is one of the largest lots on Sunset Key, with 20,037 square feet. The PAO's Comparable Sales are smaller than the subject lot, with sale # 1 having the most similar lot size. The PAO has adequately demonstrated value via a matched pair analysis and a 4 Comparable Sale grid. Subject property is assessed at about 85% of the lowest adjusted sale and 75% of the highest. Utilizing older sales and adjusting upward,downward or not at all for market conditions is an accepted professional appraisal practice, particularly when the property is unique and when paired sales data is available. Conclusions of Law Use page 2, if needed. The petitioner has the challenge of proving that the assessed value either does not represent the 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 within the same county. The PAO has supplied direct comparison evidence to support the assessed value. The appraisal practices employed are professionally accepted, therefore, it is my opinion that the petitioner has failed to overcome the burden. 1 commended Decision of Special Magistrate Findings and conclusions above are recommendations. /� / / Patricia P. McGrath 2/16/11 te Signature, speci magus rate Print name a ea ignature, c er or representative Print name ate If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Date Time Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 3'S • L % S"- 313 0 or visit our web site at Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board not name Date of decision __* r.­ .,ate . e e n ­e I Cinno4,iro VAR r1n i, nr ronrocnnfoftvn Petition # R752-2010 DR-485V N. 12/09 Page 2 Findings of Fact, continued Both the Property Appraiser's Office representatives and Mr. Garcia were sworn and have agreed that the valuation of properties located on Sunset Key is difficult, based upon the limited amount of data available. The property appraiser has utilized sales from the past 5 years and one 2010 sale to support the subject's current estimate of value. This is not typical, nor is Sunset Key. The Petitioner has submitted a two-part evidence package containing a recent history of Sunset Key, bulk sale and assessment statistical pairings of properties on the mainland and off, with attention paid to properties assessed in excess of $1,000,000, etc. The Property Appraisers office has submitted into evidence their Statement of Correctness in accordance with FS 194.301, which explains the adherence to Florida Statutes, the appraisal methodology utilized by the office, and other items of applicability to the preparation of this assessment The Property Appraiser has properly considered all statutory criteria in the valuation process. The Special Magistrate has relied upon "Factors to Consider Factors to Consider (193.011) and Presumption of Correctness (194.301) in preparing this decision. Conclusions of Law, continued • DR-485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD N. 12/09 \i VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002 Florida Administrative Code DEPARTAAENT OF REVENUE County Monroe The actions below were taken on your petition. Q 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 (sections 193.155(8)(k), 194.036, 194.171(2), and 196.151, F.S.). Petition # R755-2010 Parcel ID 8868499 Petitioner name Sunset Acquisitions Corp Address 36 Sunset Key Drive The petitioner is: taxpayer of record 0 taxpayer's agent Sunset Key other, explain: Robert Garcia, agent Decision Summary ,/ Denied your petition Granted your petition Granted your petition in part Value Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser After Board Action Lines 1 and 4 must be completed. Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. 1. Market value, required $ 4,106,662 $ 4,106,662 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable $ $ 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none $ $ 4. Taxable value,* required $ 0 $ 4,106,662 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ (sedion 196.031(7)(d), F. S.). Reasons for Decision Findings of Fact Use page 2, if needed. The subject vacant open water parcel located on Sunset Key containing approximately 16,553 SF of land. Sale # 1 is the sale of a property most similar in size to the subject property. The subject is assessed at 84% of the lowest adjusted and most similar sale. Sale # 1 also has the lowest gross and net adjustments. The utilization of older sales and determining by matched pair analysis If an adjustment is due for market conditions is a common and accepted professional appraisal practice. Conclusions of Law Use page 2, if needed. The petitioner has the challenge of proving that the assessed value either does not represent the 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 within the same county. The PAO has supplied direct comparison evidence to support the assessed value. The appraisal practices employed are professionally accepted, therefore, it is my opinion that the petitioner has failed to overcome the burden. 0 Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Findings and conclusions above are recommendations. Patricia P. McGrath 2/18/11 Signatu cial rate Print name ate /mfJagis - / 4it�Yf t.[a. �.e vh s I0. �• °( ✓1 t.• L IL ignature, VAB cleft or representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address Date Time 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 SOS • Z9 !� • j Is a or visit our web site at Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision i �innon— WA nio it nr ronrocnnr xnic :!nnt n7mo TSnin n r+;n 1 Petition # R755-2010 DR-485V N. 12/09 Page 2 Findings of Fact, continued Both the Property Appraiser's Office and Mr. Garcia, agent for the petitioner were sworn and have agreed that valuation of properties located on Sunset Key is difficult, based upon the limited available data. The PAO has utilized sales from the past 5 years and one 2010 sale to support the subject's current estimate of value. This is not typical, nor is Sunset Key. The Petitioner has submitted a two part evidence package containing a recent history of Sunset Key, bulk sale and assessment comparisons of groups of properties both on and off the island, paying particular attention to properties over $1,000,000. The PAO has submitted into evidence their Statement of Correctness in accordance with FS 194.301, which pertains to adherence to Florida Statutes, the appraisal methodology utilized by the office and other forms of applicability to the preparation of this assessment The Property Appraiser has properly considered all statutory criteria in the valuation process. The Special Magistrate has relied upon FS 193.011 and 194.301. Conclusions of Law, continued • 1 A DR-485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD N. 12/09 \% VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002 DEPMTMENT Florida Administrative Code OF REVENUE County Monroe 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 (sections 193.155(8)(k), 194.036, 194.171(2), and 196.151, F.S.). Petition # R756-2010 Parcel ID 888530 Petitioner name Sunset Acquisitions Corporation Address 34 Sunset Key Drive The petitioner is: 0 taxpayer of record Q taxpayers agent Sunset Key El other, explain: Robert Garda, agent Decision Summary Z Denied your petition Granted your petition Granted your petition in part Value Before Board Action Lines 1 and 4 must be completed. Value presented by property appraiser After Board Action Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. 1. Market value, required $ 2,991,730 $ 2,991,730 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable $ $ 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none $ $ 4. Taxable value,* required $ 2,991,730 $ 2,991,730 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ (section 196.031(7)(d), F.S. ). Reasons for Decision Findings of Fact Use page 2, if needed. Both the Property Appraiser's Office and Mr. Garcia were swom. Both parties have agreed that the assessments of properties located on Sunset Key are difficult, based upon the limited amount of data available. The property appraiser has utilized sales from the past 5 years to support the subject's current estimate of value. This is not typical, nor is Sunset Key. Utilizing older sales and adjusting upward,downward or not at all for market conditions is an accepted professional appraisal practice, particularly when the property is unique and when paired sales data is available. Conclusions of Law Use page 2, if needed. In the instant case, the petitioner has the challenge of proving that the assessed value either does not represent the 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 within the same county. The PAO has supplied direct comparison evidence to support the assessed value. The appraisal practices employed are professionally accepted, therefore, it is my opinion that the petitioner has failed to overcome the burden. Recom ended Decision of Special Magistrate Findings and conclusions above are recommendations. Patricia McGrath 2/15/11 atu cial agistrate Print name ate &-c- ignature, VAS clerk or representative Print name a e If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address Date Time 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 3 0 V - 2 f S 313 G or visit our web site at Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision not n�mo efe --if-A +n nn .ne Petition # R756-2010 DR-485V N. 12/09 Page 2 Findings of Fact, continued f The subject property is a vacant parcel of land located on the open water on Sunset Key containing 8,276 square feet. The Property Appraiser's office has entered into evidence their statement of Correctness in accordance with 194.301. The Special Magistrate has utilized s. 193.011 and Rule 1213-9.027 in the formulation of these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Conclusions of Law, continued DR-485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD N. 12/09 "IF1VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002 Florida Administrative Code DEPAUMENT OF REVENUE County Monroe 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 (sections 193.155(8)(k), 194.036, 194.171(2), and 196.151, F.S.). Petition # R757-2010 Parcel ID 8885091 Petitioner name Sunset Acquisitions Corporation Address 292 Sunset Key Drive The petitioner is: taxpayer of record taxpayer's agent Sunset Key other, explain: Robert Garcia, agent Decision Summary ✓ Denied your petition nGranted your petition Granted your petition in part Value Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser After Board Action Lines 1 and 4 must be completed. Rule 12D-9.025(10), FAG. 1. Market value, required $ 3,707,453 $ 3,707,453 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable $ $ 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none $ $ 4. Taxable value,* required $ 3,707,453 $ 3,707,453 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ (section 196.031(7)(d), F.S.). Reasons for Decision Findings of Fact Use page 2, if needed. Both the Property Appraiser's Office and Mr. Garcia were swom. Both parties have agreed that the assessments of properties located on Sunset Key are difficult, based upon the limited amount of data available. The property appraiser has utilized 2 older sales and one 4/2010 sale. This is not typical, nor is Sunset Key. Utilizing older sales and adjusting upward,downward or not at all for market conditions is an accepted professional appraisal practice, particularly when the property is unique and when paired sales data is available. The 2010 sale sets the upper limit. Conclusions of Law Use page 2, if needed. In the instant case, the petitioner has the challenge of proving that the assessed value either does not represent the 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 within the same county. The PAO has supplied direct comparison evidence to support the assessed value. The appraisal practices employed are professionally accepted, therefore, it is my opinion that the petitioner has failed to overcome the burden. Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Findings and conclusions above are recommendations. ? Patricia McGrath 2/15/11 ature, peci a 'strate Print name Date A. C.I4K L/17/ir igna ure, VAB-flerk or representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address Date Time 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 (3•S) i9S 313v or visit our web site at Ej Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision 1 Qi—fnro WAR ^1—L, nr ronr—nfefitin Pnnt nnmo rlofo —nil-A fn et@bn # R757-2010 DR-485V N. 12/09 Page 2 Findings of Fact, continued The subject property is an open water parcel, improved with a 2-story dwelling, located on Sunset Key. The PAO has demonstrated by the use of the paired sales method, that value does not seem to have decreased or increased on Sunset Key. The final assessed value of the subject is near the bottom of the value range. Comparables # 1 & #2 are both located on open water. Comparable # 3 is a dry lot containing about half the square footage of the subject, setting the upper end of value. The Property Appraiser's office has entered into evidence their statement of Correctness in accordance with 194.301. The Special Magistrate has utilized s. 193.011 and Rule 12D-9.027 in the formulation of these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Conclusions of Law, continued ' DR-485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD N. 12/09 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002 11241 Florida Administrative Code OF�REYENUE County Monroe 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 (sections 193.155(8)(k), 194.036. 194.171(2). and 196.151, F.S.). Petition # R0820-2010 Parcel ID AK: 1707317 Petitioner name Elizabeth Pons Address 10 Golf Village Drive The petitioner is: taxpayer of record 0 taxpayer's agent Unit A other, explain: Daniel A. Weiss, J.D. Decision Summary ✓ Denied your petition Granted your petition Granted your petition in part Value Before Board Action Lines 1 and 4 must be completed. Value presented by property appraiser After Board Action Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. 1. Market value, required $ 201,068 $ 201,068 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable $ $ 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none $ $ 4. Taxable value,* required $ 201,068 $ 201,068 *AII values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ (section 196.031(7)(d), F. S.). Reasons for Decision Findings of Fact Use page 2, if needed. After remanding to the Property Appraiser's Office for consideration of an April, 2010 sale, due to the lack of comparable market data, the Property Appraiser's Office has considered the sale and adjusted it appropriately. It appears the sale adjusts to within 4.7% of the assessed value, which is within the acceptable value range. Conclusions of Law Use page 2, if needed. The Property Appraiser's Office has property considered all statutory criteria, as well as all market data relevant to the valuation of the subject property. The Property Appraiser's Office enjoys a presumption of correctness and it is the petitioners task to overcome that presumption when seeking an assessment reduction. After an analysis of the 2010 sale mentioned previously, it is my opinion that the Petitioner has failed to overcome the burden Q✓ Recommended Decision of Special Magistr Findings and conclusions above are recommendations. 3/2/11 Signature special magistrate t narne Date C Signature, VABdlerk or representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address Date Time 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 or visit our web site at Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision a+nnr n�mo rlelc —,i[-A ♦....erFinn I hl�R4 DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD REMAND TO PROPERTY APPRAISER DR-485R N_ 12/09 Rule 12D-16.002 Florida Administrative Code Section 1. Completed by Value Adjustment Board or Special Magistrate Petition # R820-2010 County Monroe Parcel I D AK 1707317 Date 2/4/2011 To: Property Appraiser From: Clerk or Special Magistrate Name Ervin A. Higgs Name Patricia P. McGrath Address 500 Whitehead Street Address 2308 Village Green Blvd. Key West, Florida 33040 Plant City, Florida 33566 The value adjustment board or special magistrate has: Determined that the property appraiser's Granted a property classification. value is incorrect (section 194.301, F.S.). Include findings of fad on which remand decision is based or reference and attach Form DR-485V, Form DR-485XC, or other document with these items completed. See Form 485V attached. Include conclusions of law on which remand decision is based or reference and attach Form DR-485V, Form DR-485XC, or other document with these items completed. See Form 485V attached. Appropriate remand directions to property appraiser: The Special Magistrate is well aware of the lack of data available for comparison purposes, and also aware that the Property Appraiser's Office (and petitioners) have found it necessary to utilize not only older data from years past, but sales transacted after January 1, 2010, in an effort to arrive at a just and fair valuation. The subject property is a small unit, built in the early 1970's. Size, year built (PAO Sale # 2 with a YB of 1991), market conditions and location are felt to be primary criteria, with consideration given to 8 Golf Village Drive, a B unit, closing after January 1, 2010. The board retains authority to make a final decision on this petition. Section 2. Completed by Property Appraiser Provide a revised just value or a classified use value and return this form to the clerk of the Board. Just Valuation Classified Use Valuation Previous Revised OR Signature, property appraiser Print name Use additional pages, if needed. Date nebri ruin DR-485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD N. 12/09 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002 Florida Administrative Code o�Rrr�Nr OF REVENUE County Monroe The actions below were taken on your petition. Z These actions are a recommendation only, not final. These actions are a final decision of the VAB. If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment (sections 193.155(8)(k), 194.036, 194.171(2), and 196.151, F.S.). Petition # R820-2010 Parcel ID AK-1707317 Petitioner name Elizabeth Pons Address 10 GOLF VILLAGE DR UNIT: A The petitioner is: taxpayer of record Q taxpayer's agent KEY LARGO other, explain: Taxpayer represented by Daniel A. Weiss, Esq. Decision Summary Ej Denied your petition Granted your petition WMI Granted your petition in part Value Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser After Board Action Lines 1 and 4 must be completed. Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. 1. Market value, required $ 201,068 $ 201,068 2. Assessed or classified use value,' if applicable $ $ 3. Exempt value,' enter "0" if none $ $ 4. Taxable value," required $ 201,068 $ 201,068 "All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ (section 196.031(7)(d), F.S.). Reasons for Decision Findings of Fact Use page 2, if needed. The Property Appraiser's Office was swom and attested to the fact that the 8th Criteria have been adhered to, along with mass appraisal modeling and standard appraisal practice. Mr. Daniel Weiss also appeared, representing the Petitioner. The Property Appraiser's Office submittted and reviewed a Sales Comparison grid containing three transactions, one of which is located in Golf Village. The other two sales are located outside Golf Village, in Ocean Pointe and Rock Harbor. The sale located within Golf Village has an adjusted value of $204/SF. Conclusions of Law Use page 2, if needed. The Property Appraiser is entitled to a presumption of correctness. To overcome the presumption, the Petitioner must show by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser failed to follow the requirements of law or that the assessment is based on appraisal practices which are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same class within the same county. See attached for further discussion. Recomqnended Decision of Special Magistrate Findings and conclusions above are recommendations. Patricia P. McGrath 2/3/2011 rate Print name a e atur al ntlt Signature, VAB clerk or representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address Date Time 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 or visit our web site at 0 Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Priint name Date of decision Signature, VAB clerk or representative Print name bate Mailed o parties* Petition # R820-2010 DR-485V N.12/09 Page 2 Findings of Fact, continued Conclusions of Law, continued Petitioner provided sufficient evidence to overcome the Property Appraiser's presumption of correctness. Standard appraisal practice indicates that similarly sized sales, of similar construction and year built from within the subject neighborhood are typically more reliable indicators of value than those located outside the neighborhood - even if adjustments need to be made to bring them equivalent in market conditions, location, etc. In the instant case, the subject is an "A" unit. The Property Appraiser's Comparable Sale # 1 is a B unit that appears to have been appropriately adjusted to account for the differences between "A" units and "B" units. The Petitioner has provided an additional sale located within the subject's immediate neighborhood, and while it is a B unit and closed outside the statutory time period under consideration, it is my opinion that, due to the lack of available data for like properties, 8 Golf Village Drive should be considered, if, in fact, it is a qualified sale. Mr. Weiss's testimony indicates a meeting of the minds occurred in early March, 2010. Please refer to Form 485R. DR-485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD N. 12/09 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002 Florida Administrative Code OEYAR n F- :!! Of REVENUE County Monroe 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 (sections 193.155(8)(k), 194.036, 194.171(2), and 196.151, F.S.). Petition # R824-2010 Parcel ID 1012203 Petitioner name Brian Antoni Address 711 Bakers Lane The petitioner is: Ej taxpayer of record Q taxpayers agent Key West other, explain: Daniel A. Weiss, Esq. Decision Summary Denied your petition Granted your petition Granted your petition in part Value Before Board Action Vakie presented by property appraiser After Board Action Lines 1 and 4 must be completed. Rule 12D-9. 10), FAC. 1. Market value, required $ 507,440 $ 507,440 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable $ $ 3. Exempt value,' enter "0" if none $ $ 4. Taxable value,' required $ 507,440 $ 507,440 'All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ (section 196.031Rd), F.S.). Reasons for Decision Findings of Fact Use page 2, if needed. The Property Appraiser's Office representatives were swom. Mr. Weiss appeared on behalf of Mr. Antoni as his attomey- agent. The Property Appraiser's Office has submitted evidence on correctness based on FS 194.301. The taxable value noted above was reduced at the hearing, based upon an agreement between the parties following the Petitioner's submission of photographic evidence regarding structural condition of the subject property. Minimal value remains that is attributable to the dwelling. The subject purchase dated 4/12/2010 does not appear to be at arms length. Conclusions of Law Use page 2, if needed. The Petitioner's three comparable sales are located west of Duval Street, and are in an inferior location. The Property Appraiser enjoys a presumption of correctness. The Special Magistrate did not find the Petitioner's further evidence, submitted after the above mentioned reduction, sufficient to overcome the presumption, therefore, the petition is denied. Recoigmended Decision of Special Magistrate Findings and conclusions above are recommendations. Patricia P. McGrath 2/14/2011 a u , speaa strate Print name a e PV%e-I^ (�. ;{Z/1k/ii Signature, VAB derk or representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address Date Time If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and plan: when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call ?oS - Z%L • 313 0 or visit our web site at [] Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board 2/14/11 Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date swn \1nnOT11r0 \/Ali NOry nr r nre arat- snru Vnnf names "-t- -1-4 1n -rt- 1 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD m VALUE PETITION DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE County Monroe DR-485V N. 12/09 Rule 12D-16.002 Florida Administrative Code The actions below were taken on your petition. ✓Z These actions are a recommendation only, not final. These actions are a final decision of the VAB. If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment (sections 193.155(8)(k), 194.036, 194.171(2), and 196.151, F.S.). Petition # R1007-2010 Parcel ID AK#1236951 Petitioner name MARY L ZERBEL Address 1028 PICARD LN The petitioner is: 0✓ taxpayer of record taxpayer's agent CUDJOE KEY, FL 33042 other, explain: Decision Summary Denied your petition Granted your petition Granted your petition in part Value Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser After Board Action Lines 1 and 4 must be completed. Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. 1. Market value, required $ 804,681 $ 804,681 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable $ $ 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none $ 25,000 $ 25,000 4. Taxable value,* required $ 374,800 $ 374,800 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ (section 196.031(7)(d), F.S.). Reasons for Decision Findings of Fact Use page 2, if needed. SEE ATTACHED Conclusions of Law Use page 2, if needed. SEE ATTACHED 0✓ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Findings and conclusions above are recommendations. a--� REGINA E CORCORAN 12/9/10 Signature, ecial magistrate~ Print name ate Sig-nVtffe, VAB clerk or representative Print name ate If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address Date Time 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 3/,3�) or visit our web site at �v-v, c le-, K"O Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature, VAB clerk or representative Pnnt name Date mailed to parties FINDINGS OF FACT SCOTT RUSSELL R 1007-2010 1028 PICARD LN, CUDJOE KEY, FL 33042 ALL 8 CRITERIA USED ALL APPROACHES CONSIDERED BY VIRTUE OF THE EVIDENCE PAO IS ENTITLED TO THE PRESUMPTION OF CORRECTNESS PAO SUPPLIED 7 COMPS LOCATED IN CLOSE PROXIMITY OF THE SUBJECT WITH SIMILAR FLA. ONE HAD A LOT SIZE SIMILAR TO SUBJECT MARY ZERBEL TRUSTEE OF THE PROPERTY. SPEND 2 MOS IN MI WITH FAMILY AUG AND JUL AND HEAD BACK SEP OF EA YEAR THIS YEAR ZERBEL HAD SERIOUS HEALTH PROBLEMS AND SO DID NOT RETURN THIS YEAR UNTIL 10/15/2010. ZERBEL PRESENTED TAX BILL AND PAID CHECKS FOR TAXES FOR PRIOR YEARS. BEGAN TO MAKE POINTS ABOUT THE INCREASE OF ASSESSED VALUE OF 2010 AS COMPARED WITH PRIOR YEARS. SAID BEWILDERED AS TO WHY THEIR ASSESSED VALUES WENT UP. ALSO DISTURBED BY THE INCREASE OF TAXES FROM 2007 TO 2008 OF 26% AND MORE THAN 40% TAX INCREASE FROM 2009 TO 2010. ONLY IMPROVEMENT IS A PATIO WHICH ZERBEL FEELS DOES NOT INCREASE VALUE SIGNIFICANTLY THOUGH IT IS MORE ATTRACTIVE. SEAWALL BUILT IN 1989 BUT NOT ENTERED INTO ROLL YEAR UNTIL 2009 AND DOESN'T KNOW VALUE PLACED ON THAT CONCLUSIONS OF LAW BY VIRTUE OF THE DATA PAO IS ENTITLED TO THE PRESUMPTION OF CORRECTNESS. S.M. CANNOT REDUCE TAXES. S.M. CANNOT ADJUST VALUE BASED ON ASSESSMENTS OF PRIOR YEARS PETITIONER DID NOT SUPPLY ANY DATA TO OVERTURN THE PRESUMPTION OF CORRECTNESS OF THE PAO. DID NOT SUPPLY ANY DATA TO SHOW THAT THE JUST VALUE IS TOO HIGH. FIND IN FAVOR OF THE PAO AND RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE PETITIONERS Reset Form DR-485V DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD N. 12/09 VALUE PETITION Rule 12D-16.002 Florida Administrative Code r OF REVENUE County Monroe 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 (sections 193.155(8)(k), 194.036, 194.171(2), and 196.151, F.S.). Petition # R1010-2010 Parcel ID AK# 1439312 Petitioner name Deborah L. Acker Address 124th Street Gulf The petitioner is: 0 taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayers agent Marathon, Florida other, explain: Decision Summary Z Denied your petition Granted your petition Granted your petition in part Value Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser After Board Action Lines 1 and 4 must be completed. Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. 1. Market value, required $ 225,072 $ 225,072 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable $ 225,972 $ 225,072 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none $ $ 4. Taxable value,* required $ 225,072 $ 225,072 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ (section 196.031(7)(d), F. S.). Reasons for Decision Findings of Fact Use page 2, if needed. The Property Appraiser's Office has complied with the 8 criteria and mass appraisal model standards. Ms. Acker, owner of records, has submitted evidence that was not timely and appeared at the hearing. Ms. Greger presents a Sales Comparison Grid displaying four comparable sales, one of which is in Key West and not favored. The range of value is $124,035 to $342,371. The subject property was purchased as a rental and the Property Appraiser's Office has completed an Income Approach, as well. Conclusions of Law Use page 2, if needed. The Property Appraiser's determination is presumed to be correct if a preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the methodology used is appropriate and complies with F.S. 193.011 and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. In this case, a preponderance of the evidence did demonstrate that the Property Appraiser's methodology was appropriate and complied with F.S. 193.011 and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Therefore, the Property Appraiser's determination of value is presumed to be correct and the appraisal should be upheld. FO Recojnmende4jarecision of Special Magistrate Findings and conclusions above are recommendations. OF Patricia P. McGrath 1/19/2011 na s agistrate Print name Date ign ure, VAS clerk or representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address Date Time 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 (S 1; j') 2y j 913 0 or visit our web site at 0 Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Qinnetnrn VAC! ^1-1,- nr rnnrnennteti— Print n9rnn e n mein n ne inn DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE County Monroe DR-485V N. 12/09 Rule 12D-16.002 Florida Administrative Code Th actions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final. These actions are a final decision of the VAB. If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment (sections 193.155(8)(k), 194.036, 194.171(2), and 196.151, F.S.). Petition # R1011-2010 Parcel ID AK8885261 Petitioner name JOSEPH NIECE Address LT 24 SUNSET KEY The petitioner is: ✓❑ taxpayer of record taxpayer's agent KEY WEST, FL 33040 other, explain: Decision Summary Z Denied your petition Granted your petition Granted your petition in part Value Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser After Board Action Lines 1 and 4 must be completed. Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. 1. Market value, required $ 2,886,730 $ 2,886,730 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable $ $ 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none $ 0 $ 0 4. Taxable value,* required $ 2,886,730 $ 2,886,730 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ (section 196.031(7)(d), F.S.). Reasons for Decision Findings of Fact Use page 2, if needed. PETITIONER DID NOT APPEAR. PETITIONER SUPPLIED A LETTER STATING THAT THE VACANT LOT HE OWNS IS ASSESSED AT $3,000,000 AND THERE WAS A RECENT SALE OF A HOUSE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD FOR $3,100,000. PAO SUPPLIED 4 COMPS AND DEMONSTRATED THEIR TIME ADJUSTMENT. RANGE OF VALUES AFTER ALL ADJUSTMENTS WAS $3,642,376 TO $4,449,547 Conclusions of Law Use page 2, if needed. BY VIRTUE OF THE DATA PAO IS ENTITLED TO PRESUMPTION OF CORRECTNESS. NO DATA WAS SUPPLIED TO OVERTURN THAT PRESUMPTION. RECOMMEND PETITION BE DENIED AND PAO VALUE OF $2,886,730 BE RETAINED. Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Findings and conclusions above are recommendations. REGINA E CORCORAN 12/9/10 Sig-ndturell, special magistrate Print name Date (17 G. N4-7L a <-k- I z1 7-1 �Z�•d Signature, VA clerk or representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address Date Time 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 ± �; 7-16- 313�1 or visit our web site at •vovv✓, a (e�,K—t E- Ae ,.W t. f U 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 mailecl to parties DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR485V VALUE PETITION N. 12/09 Rule 12D-16.002 DEPARTMENT Florida Administrative Code /�j/ OF REVENUE County /'/ dA f%'e- The,2fctions below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final. ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB. If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment (sections 193.155(8)(k), 194.036, 194.171(2), and 196.151, F.S.). Petition # QC>1.2—;L21U Parcel ID ODO 0 Petitioner name ah /1'1 ` Address Sl) (/�P�ja The petitioner is: taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's agent fi I �� - Y 0 other, explain: Decision Summary Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed. Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Market value, required $ $ 2. Assessed or classified use value," if applicable $ $ 3. Exempt value,' enter "0" if none $ $ 4. Taxable value,' required $ $ *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ (section 196.631(7)(d), F.S.). Reasons for Decision Findings of Fact WJhi,v jvnjdtzqN17 eh,1,2— Use additional sheets, if needed. 4 S a ✓'c- °'"' A 0,^-4 G S'S v� " Use additional sheets, if needed. Recommen d Decision of Special Magistrate Findings and conclusions above are recommendations. �e�c% -t l� do 0112- Signa cial magi rate Print name D e ate 8�-� wi a /A 6, ll a r, co c, k I / 2 ! 111 SignaTU76, VAB clefk or representative Print name ate If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address Date Time 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 Sc j-- Z 1 913 O or visit our web site at ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name ate o ecision or not name DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-485V VALUE PETITION N.12/09 Rule 12D-16.002 DEPARTAAENT Florida Administrative Code OF REVENUE County s below were taken on your petition. These actions are a recommendation only, not final. These actions are a final decision of the VAB. If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment (sections 193.155(8)(k), 194.036, 194.171(2), and 196.151, F.S.). Petition # IParcel ID 1.4.E . Petitioner name Ldifit G t Address tt4 AA The petitioner is: U taxpayer of record � ❑ taxpayers agent ❑ other, explain: '�k 3 _Y50 Decision Summary (� Denied your petition Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed. Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Market value, required $ Z14 4 Yq $ 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable $ $ 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none $ $ 4. Taxable value,* required $ $ *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ (section 196.031(7)(d), F.S.). Reasons for Decision Findings of Fact Use additional sheetp, if neede e ����-+ (c+�� {ale Ch4� -� h ei ) b6�ff) WC I 6 7 ce= � , Conclusion f Law �1 ` �Use additional jsheets, if needed. �'(" �I tL l /l,fr.cE,C,��L�L� >`1"� � (1��/� l /L'�i !����✓� !X �- �f Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Findings and conclusions above are recommendations. 1 Sig s a istrate D Print name Date Signs ure, VAlf clerk or representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address Date Time 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 (.3L9S 3130 or visit our web site at v✓N Ilv. c le• -IC- d T - ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board not name Date of decision Signature, VAB clerk or representative rant name Date mailed o pa ies