Item F f
Type Number Name Agent Hearing Date Outcome
R 1 Jorge & Margarita Pella 3 -May Denied
R 4 Steven F. Sonstein 6 -Dec Denied
R 5 Deja View LLC John Harrison 6 -Dec Denied
R 11 John Marston 6 -Dec Denied
R 14 Jose & Charlene Pagan 12 -Jan Denied
R 18 Stephen Pearse 16 -Dec Denied
R 19 John Maestrelli 16 -Dec Denied
R 21 Pader Corporation Trudie L. Fort Sanders 16 -Dec Denied
R 56 George Scott 26 -Jan Denied
R 78 HH2 ORC LLC Michael B. Willner 26 -Jan Denied
R 79 Allan S. Danoff 27 -Jan Denied
R 80 Robert Albrecht 12 -Jan Denied
R 83 Suzanne Miller 26 -Jan Denied
R 84 Petr Blahout & Radmila Brozkova 12 -Jan Denied
R 85 Scott & Donna M. Januik 12 -Jan Denied
R 86 Thomas & Dogmar C. Lesick 12 -Jan Denied
R 95 MarK Hohmeister Daniel Weiss 9 -Feb Denied
R 98 Conch Investors II LLC Daniel Weiss 9 -Feb Denied
R 99 Doris Pardo Daniel Weiss 9 -Feb Denied
R 100 Doris Pardo Daniel Weiss 9 -Feb Denied
R 102 Doris Pardo Daniel Weiss 9 -Feb Denied
R 103 Doris Pardo Daniel Weiss 9 -Feb Denied
R 106 National Realty LTD Daniel Weiss 9 -Feb Denied
R 108 Weiger Family LTD Jack N. Schlossberg 26 -Jan Denied
R 118 166 -6 Bayview Drive LLC Jeffrey J. Smith 9 -Feb Denied
R 119 Terry C. Pellegrini 23 -Jan Denied
R 130 Paul W. Boutin 12 -Jan Denied
R 141 Bluegreen Resorts Mgmt. Wendy Beck 27 -Jan Denied
R 160 David Greenberg 12 -Jan Denied
R 198 Leonard C. & Sally T. Atkins 27 -Jan Denied
R 199 Leonard C. & Sally T. Atkins 27 -Jan Denied
Item F
FLORIDA DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR -485V
VALUE PETITION N. 12/09
,/ Rule 12D- 16.002
DEPARTMENT Florida Administrative Code
OF REVENUE County Man 1
The actions below were taken on your petition.
K These actions are a recommendation only, not final. I I 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 # I(I W I — , g' Parcel ID 1-.r
Petitioner name at / ; Pella. Address
The petitioner is: ® .xpa of record n taxpayers agent w"� ' Dr. .
I I other, explain: Pet I�1,J. ' i'1 ✓1
Decision Summary �c.I J� lG! 1
p enied your petition I 'Granted your petition (1 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 $ 4-3J 1 $ 431 4-q
2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable $ J $
3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none $ $
4. Taxable value,* required $ 44I $ 441
*All values entered should be county taxable values. School and � � er taxing authority values may differ (section 196.031(7)(d), F.S.).
Reasons for Decision
Findings of Fact Use additional sheets, if needed.
` 1115 )5 a continua/ion (a- re-ma-rid hears . lam fag
PO rrcmo.rd rev/ ' � P ":0 " , • , - � ler e, --f0 [ '_I: - 0a $1 I/ ..z .1r J.' Da kiri. ,
Conc usions of Law . se addition -I sheets, i n: ede.. G 15 . $.1� _ y I .
xi Recom ended Decision of Special Magistrate Findings and conclusions above are recommendations.
laiii. PaJrie,Q NC1ai 5
atur- - 'a / .trate Print name ate
. / /aw7e/ // I/ L
lS . !—I Q n Go c. a� S/ // Z
Signature, VAB Jerk or representative Print name Date
If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on /4a is' 1. / L at / o : 0 aw,
Address 2 7 V 4 ✓Gr HA I 2 n 1 k*l n ' -, Al a,'- / 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 mailed to parties
VA L E ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR -485R
• R TO PROPERTY APPRAISER N. 12i09
Rule 12D- 16.002
Florida Administrative Code
bs
DEPARTMENT
R00l
OF REVENUE
Section 1. Comp ed by Value Adjustment Board or Special Magistrate
Petition # R - -1 =2 `County Monroe !Parcel ID rELLA 1502979 ( Date 1/24/20'
To: Property Appraiser From: Clerk or Special Magistrate
Name Karl Borglum Name Patricia P. McGrath, SM
Address Monroe County Property Appraiser Address Monroe County Clerk's Office
PO Box 1176 Key West, Florida
Key West, Florida
The value adjustment board or special magistrate has:
n Determined that the property appraiser's n 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 F orm DR - 485V, Form DR 485XC, or
other document with these items completed. (� Al The subject property is a vacant three-story dwelling locate id n Venetra Shores on Plantation Key at the end of
a plugged canal. The residence is a modular home constructed in 1988. Property Appraiser indicates in its
Property Comments Section, Paragraph 1, the unit "has been maintained in good condition ", yet the structure
has been assigned an effective age of 60 years on the PAO sales grid. The modular home contains 1,743
square feet of living area. Petitioner indicates substantial damage was sustained from Hurricane WIIma, with
only a portion of the needed repairs being made, due to financial and personal constraints. See 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.
The Petitioner has presented several valid points that warrant consideration in this assessment challenge and
the Special Magistrate has considered all admitted evidence and testimony by both parties and compared this to
the "standard of proof" required - in this instance, based upon Section 194.301,F.S., "preponderance of the
evidence ", to reach the decision to Remand. (12D -9) of the F.A.C.
Appropriate remand directions to property appraiser.
The particular conglomeration of negative factors potentially impacting this property - which may or may not
involve extemal obsolescence, functional utility, lot shape /configuration and utility, dwelling condition, quality,
etc., leave the Magistrate with the decision that the Petitioner has overcome the PAO's presumption of
correctness. It is my opinion that there is not sufficient or adequate evidence presented by the PAO to justify the
conclusion that the overall weight of the evidence presented for this unique situation has reached that required
for retention of the presumption of correctness. Items for further consideration are briefly in the attachment.
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 431,471 !Revised 431,471 OR
2. _/(4 - 11z_
Signature, appraiser Print nathe Date
Use additional pages, if needed.
,14712.0 / Z
' f
Attachment to Appeal Remand R001-2011/Pella
Findings of Fact (continued):
the Property Appraiser's Office has submitted i sales analysis grid
containing four comparable sales, all of which are newer homes of
superior lity, with m uc Ins ffer
et_,_iye ng s. All of the comparable
he the subs =
in LA. Two of the sales presented (#3
#4) closed in 2011 however, are felt to be reliable as the "meeting of the e
minds" occurrecdhin the statutory time frame under consideration.
Petitioner further contends his home is on a narrow variance lot abutting
an "illegal rental" party house which creates a nuisance for his home, in
particular and to a greater degree than his neighbors, due to the I r'
proximity next door ("12' away �� from the front door").
The two comparables presented by the Petitioner are not qualified sales
and have not been considered here.
The subject property brings to the table a collision of factors which render
the subject property "unique" in the neighborhood - including - but not
necessarily limited to - the following:
1. An unrepaired Wilma- damaged dwelling;
2. of atypical modular construction;
3. un- occupied;
4. located on a narrow lot;
5. next to a nuisance neighbor
FLORIDA DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR -485V
VALUE PETITION N. 12/09
' \-1 Rule 12D- 16.002
DEPARTMENT Florida Administrative Code
OF REVENUE County Monroe
The actions below were taken on your petition.
/hese actions are a recommendation only, not final. I I 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 # R004 -2011 Parcel ID 1041602
Petitioner name Steve9 F. Sonstein Address 1413 Von Phister Street
The petitioner is: Ff taxpayer of record I I taxpayer's agent Key West FL 33040
I I other, explain:
Decision Sum�mry
1/Den your petition I 'Granted your petition n Granted your petition in P art
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 Y3, vodf $ 3 y7 Oo
2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable $ $
3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none $ l.. $ 0
4. Taxable value,* required $ 1 y3 o 0? $ 3 y3, O
*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 needed.
ccppr4 (J4 VI (A/t•sL.{ pv'+ r✓a t c2 Ca/Lc—iv f I c)/1 •
4 /../t44/ of, c Ao± a of , 4' o1 oh 01 A 4 1 — V'LCQZ. cvA j ec &ley, CR.- .
Conclusions of Law �,r�, 1 Use additional sheets, if needed.
( irbpe G E A p t cat p�� j q�'- vn og . 44C
cat -±k ces4 c.- . ?2 � pf vM P�c� 4 come a-�.e s Is f1 i^ o
e_ S S-e 0 A. -e / oi-
/L----co me ded Decision of Special Magistrate Findings and conclusions above are recommendations.
• Kevin Talbott 12/6/11
Signatu - .et al ma., tra 7.-- Print name Date
4 /
Pamela G. Hancock 12/6/11
Signs lire, 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 305 - 295 - 3130 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 mailed to parties
1
FLORIDA DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR -485V
•
VALUE PETITION N. 12/09
\-1. Rule 12D- 16.002
DEPARTMENT Florida Administrative Code
OF REVENUE
County O'? fo Z
The actions below were taken on your petition.
these actions are a recommendation only, not final. 1 1 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. o - 2 -4 11 Parcel ID 5 ?3 `f7
Petitioner name
V if/ LL Address / �) `T Vic( c,/L y- 14-- it it
I The petitioner is: axpayer of record I I taxpayer's agent , '• , is � 5 . 4 / r ,_ s 3 ' ,� J
other, explain:
/t 7
Decision Summa
enied your petition 1 1Granted your petition n 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 $ s F “ $ ' 'y6 3 3 S
2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable $ $
3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none $ CJ
U $
4. Taxable value,* required $ S `7I ,YY 3 $ S - yE X I S
*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 rupv, 7 cppl-cv ri,,,/ / yinv -- Use additional sheets, if.needed.
(.ev � �' c t� eel i c s / k ,,rs 1 -- �✓ ti _ `� r 4-€ 4 � �t, �r, i,.� b� ✓ 1 /wk i-'7� 2 -- /
an
ll S � //�` -e i ✓ to t - 1 f J e t y 1:4; cif ti-, /gi7 -sf
eE (:) St.icA ,rt- - t ,r . e" !1ili t/a 1uP, 4 -. L. {-c-r
Conclusions of Law rr LL �� Use additional sheets, if needed.
v c..4 7 / a 41 w I o YT' i 7" coy e c/ t ,(1) -{ (� r
-tke. e vi)4%1 t4 , ro ( G 7f/ " l 1 - R( A 11� e jv/1+ .i -7�,^ i
/n"u,14 ar/tc G1c'l -f'-z vSSr -ill ,EIi (S L.:pjle( cal.
F. Recomn3ende51 Decision of Special Magistrate Findings and conclusions above are recommendations.
7 1 74 14.., 71- 2 A// 2 ...,
Signature, ecial rna istrat
Print name Date
� Jk -,�.� � �� l4- �, 9,14 G. /44„ Z/s) // Z
Signature. VAB lerk 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• 7-?S",:' 3 I3 0 or visit our web site at
1 1 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
/
FLORIDA VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR -485R
N. 12/09
REMAND TO PROPERTY APPRAISER Rule 12D- 16.002
Florida Administrative Code
DEPARTMENT
OF REVENUE
Section 1. Completed by Value Adjustment Board or Special Magistrate
Petition # KO o S. z e i 1 County Al, n t Parcel ID rot) 3 3'17 Date /Z16/!/
To: Property Appraiser From: Clerk or Special Magistrate
Name p,z_ j o (/ /Gw L-L — Name e
Address 1 009 Pa ciLac s1- ✓ # "'f Address So v‘iti ; SI - tee-
l j ( St, Fe- .710K cp ke vv4.5 f 3 3 o
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. 1
..S/ ai uJ g-.4(1 a rat poit 4-114.._ 4 co 4r4 ,//14.f
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.
r_ kqe._ /2-1 — 9.0)1 r .. y (i rte 0.1p/ 4 r ( )red v, rhun o- Code MM-rr a ovre.r
{'j0wW1L ;C on Q 4 60 Adoli - huna) 1/1'e-01 44 Thin frsm P .14 1 )414 X
to p�at�s v 1ce-. /s de car +0 c.,A P ro e's�d C�tfe.lsMeit-I-
s sA - 1 f
Appropriate remand directions to property appraiser r
By e( 04 silt_ , jvl , �t 4, At cd4 vk4, v�ilc�, aft. not t appor . -rain re-41a101.1 44.4-
4 -Me p ropy 4 pprd 44-ea Tr cf.,4t) ,wQYrde 5 o pd-d- a'r re. cA 41 L/,1 i2,./ IUD -9. 2.
Tte.G,re, ace 4peu _.s I/44 0L// or re- c- c/J v � 4 m 441 c& 414- s, i eJ'.
C(rt'A-ems r+4n A /f 4 4 -Re - ?J ( 7 1 -0 I 1
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
Use additional pages, if needed.
2
FLORIDA DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR -485V
VALUE PETITION N. 12/09
Rule 12D- 16.002
1 Florida Administrative Code
DEPARTMENT
OF REVENUE County Monroe
The ctions below were taken on your petition.
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.).
Petition # R011 -2011 Parcel ID 1214655
Petitioner name John Mar n Address 345 S Point Drive
The petitioner is: taxpayer of record n taxpayer's agent Sugarloaf Key FL 33042
❑ other, explain:
Decision Summ
Denied your petition I Granted your petition n 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 $ s7,2, 0 1. ` q $ s 7 I
2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable $ $
3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none $ a- s, 000 $ ■Z 000
4. Taxable value,* required $ ioo v S / $ 3o0, d S I
*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 o t4El� ice. hq . Us ad itional sheets, if needed.
1iS ?casts (°� e 1 P�`'Y 4 s /0
CAn
�1 1� '' 7 W1 t?t � - co ►rife- Yj I £ 711 4 /'7// 4 ed .
1te.+4 /oncri 4 i 4o# A o M,ze.,41 Gryl dla Add erovtasta/ti Wide", ,
Conclusions of Law Use additional sheets, if needed.
i k)e a p 3r i J� A a f s ( wed ` �J-� f mss. H of ,o�f ..^', p-b c/)
C,or're- clotel.c IS MO1- -1"f4, cS5.24meld' /J `pL2-1cI
FOteco ended D ecision of Special Magistrate Findings and conclusions above are recommendations.
II /IA im- Kevin Talbott 12/6/11
Signatur �/ pecial �'! : i tr?' Print name Date
,j/8" Pamela G. Hancock 12/6/11
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 305 - 295 - 3130 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 mailed to parties
FLORIDA DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR -485V
VALUE PETITION N. 12/09
Rule 12D- 18.002
DEPARTMENT Florida Administrative Code
OF REVENUE County !} 1W r
The actions below were taken on your petition.
[,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 # '7 .. 1'4 _ ZQ I Parcel ID ( 2,1t.� rc
Petitioner name Joie A ( p Q.n Address �
The petitioner is: taxpayer of record El taxpay is agent ��� w P SI 4 '
El other, explain: ' l F7 3304- Z
Decision Summary
® Denied your petition 0 Granted your petition 0 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 $ q 11 Co gS9 $ q!&
2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable $ $
3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none $ $
4. Taxable value,* required $ Gi`4, J $ ' f40 , -5
*All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ (sectidn 196.031(7)(d), F.S.).
Reasons for Decision
Findings of Fact Use additional sheets, if needed.
Pe+th orer w -5 rot gent- at heariT.
Conclusions of Law Use additional sheets, if needed. ...iyapwcfmuick. Od ,tuideilLet - to apkoed. .
YA-e- Ph-GdwVion 66 CetAwrtia
[C] Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Findings and conclusions above are recommendations.
Signature, p i agistrate t r "��a
Print name at
Signature, VA: clerk or representative /
Print name Date
If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on May /S L o 1 L a.-
at / ° : ° ° ,-,
Address 17 IF Qve s 1.4. v
v5 �/ 2 d Flak. i✓ � �o . t /
/ N 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
n 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
FLORIDA DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR -485V
VALUE PETITION N. 12109
Rule 12D- 16.002
l; Florida Administrative Code
DEPARTMENT
OF REVENUE County Mar
The actions below were taken on your petition. 161
A These actions are a recommendation only, not final. I 1 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 # t p , — „r Parcel ID 06 j1,11
Petitioner name Am n • 1 / A allell Address
The petitioner is: RI taxp- er of record ❑ taxpayer's agent g x o raj .
other, explain: / �i L L t , 1�
Decision Summary
i A Denied your petition n Granted your petition ( 1 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 $ .01, 41 � � 3i� $ Rite/ ?)4L
2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable $ $
3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none $ $
4. Taxable value,* required $ dIi /0rl4 3/4( $ -. 41/723A1
*AII values entered should be county taxable values. School and other t authority values may differ (section 196.031(7)(d), F.S.). •
Reasons for Decision
Findings of Fact ��� (/' Use addiyonal heets, i
' , J Min' �'GQ needed,
4
lI /I , .0 /'.iJ _A _/._' - 4. _' ,.. /i PI: Ii.. _ ! / .1i ' i At _ Zs
Cork �u/siioon1 of Law Us additional sheets, i needed.
6 lattlVd6i# )igitilabelt 4.1 .
T .
V Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Findings and conclusions above are recommendations.
Q % /
eli .' ' A Pc.0//C.1ot MC-graih .6
bz—
Signatur-, spe - al •• .. to Print name to
6 7 / / , L / G. 4, ,,�� sly f(z
Signature, VA: clerk or representative Print name Date
If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on May 1 S 2.* 12. at Jo o 0 a... .
Address 279? 0✓tyS 1 -1am, / , L., o va,, , M i ti /
vG- �''� 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 mailed to parties
r L t/ k i D A VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR 4858
hi 12419
REMAND TO PROPERTY APPRAISER :
` leii
Fhri+ia A6rrrrws ?ry - Co t
DEPARTMENT
OF REVENUE
i Secfion 1. Completed by Value Adjustment Board or Special Magistrate 1
Petition # R018 -2011 County Monroe r Parcel. ID 1495707 > Date 1130112
M
To: Property Appraiser From: Clerk or Special Magistrate t
Name Petitioner. Peat se, Stephen C. Ntame Patricia McGrath, Special Magistrate
[Address 82788 Overseas Highway bAcidress Monroe County Cleric's Office
I Upper Mafecurrrbe Key
The value adjustment board or special magistrate hasT
9 r i Determined that the property appraiser's
- value is incorrect (section 134.301. F-S.). Grar?ted a property classification.
include findings of fact on which remand decision is based or reference and attach Form DR -485V, Form DR -485X ;. cr
!other dociirnent with these items co1npiete €. i I
The subiect bay front property contains 3.37 acres 2.7 upland and .67 bay bottom). There are also two single
tamily residential units located on the property, constructed in 1950. The subject's 2011 total Just Value is
$2,617,324_ The two residences and the miscellaneous features appear to have a contributory value of
!g37t268. The subject property is quite unique in the Keys market, due to the size of the land involved. The
I County Property Appraiser's Office has prepared the assessment on a "residential comparison grid" that 4
4 by nature of its application, places primary emphasis on the valuation of the two dwellings rather than the land.
, include conclusions of law on which remand decision is based or reference and attach Form DR -485V, Form DR- 485X0. or
other document with these items competed,
The Florida Real Property Appraisal Guidelines (Section 195 Florida Statutes) generally describe the mass
- appraisal development process under Florida law. "it is implicit that. even when properly specified and calibrated
mass appraisal models are used, some individual value conclusions will not meet standards of reasonableness
I consistency, and accuracy." Eased upon the evidence presented it is my opinion the Petitioner has overcome
the Property Appraiser's presumption of correctness_ SEE ATTACHED.
,Appropriate remand directions to property appraiser :
Approximately 85 of the Just Value of this property ;s in the land. The Special Magistrate is remanding this
1
ipetitian for a valuation performed on a and comparison grid. perhaps with a line item adjustment for the
contributory value of the improvements„ so the primary component to value is addressed directly.
e 4F,.. 58#47
J .
The board retains authority to make a fina 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 2,617,324 P.evised 2,617,324 OR
L____ —
( , 4( t L
Signature, property a er Print na Date
Use additiona. pages, if needed
r 4,-- PA-0 2/i l2,o) 76261...„ ,
Remand — R4018 -2011 (continued)
1. Lengthy testimony was heard during the hearing from both the Petitioner
and the Property Appraiser's Office concerning the subject land and the
comparable sales land and their respective values. Oral testimony
was offered, questioned and disputed, regarding the presence, value and
usability of hardwood hammocks, submerged land and upland area and
their "rates", large boat basins, small boat basins, bay side vs. ocean side,
small parcels as opposed to large parcels (Comparable 4 is a .52 acre
parcel requiring a "Site Value" single line item adjustment of more than
125% of the total sales price of the comparable), etc.
2. The Property appraiser's valuation methodology must comply with the
criteria in Section 193.011, F.S. and professionally accepted appraisal
practice (Section 194.301, F.S., as amended by Chapter 2009 -121, Laws
of Florida, House Bill 521 and Section 193.011, F.S.). Based upon my 30
years of real property appraisal experience and recognized standard
appraisal practice, it is my opinion that the portion of the property
contributing the bulk of the value should be the primary focus of the
assessment.
Cg--°t
taJ
DR -485V
DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD N. 12/09
t 1e VALUE PETITION Rule Administrative .002
Florida Administrative Code
DEPARMIENT
Of REVENUE
County Monroe
The actions below were taken on your petition.
0 These actions are a recommendation only, not final. OThese 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 # R0192011 Parcel ID 1517747
Petitioner name John Maestrelli Address 2040 Oxford Ridge Circle
The petitioner is: 4 taxpayer of record 0 taxpayer's agent Lehigh Acres, Fl 33973
El other, explain:
Decision Summary
0 Denied your petition OGranted 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.AC.
1. Market value, required $ 20,807 $ 20,807
2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable $ $
3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none $ $
4. Taxable value,* required _ $ 20,807 $ 20,907
*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 subject is a dry vacant residential lot located on Plantation Key containing 8,391 square feet. After a lengthy permitting
process, a letter was issued by the Village of Islamorada in November of 2011 granting an allocation award for one
residential unit. Three sales were submitted by the Property Appraiser's Office with a value indication ranging from $7.19-
$14.80 per square foot. The subject's just value is $3.26 per square foot. All three sales utilized by the PAO are located on
the ocean side of the Overseas Highway, while the subject is located bay side. Paired sales indicate no value differential.
Conclusions of Law Use page 2, if needed.
The Monroe County Property Appraiser's office has considered all eight statutory criteria in accordance with FS 193.011 and
the Petitioner has presented no evidence to overcome the statutory presumption of correctness, therefore, Petition #
R0192011 is denied.
4 Rec• mended Decision of Special Magistrate Findings and conclusions above are recommendations. ‘040"
4
� � ;I` 1 %% Patricia P. McGrath 1/23/2012
Sig 7'i!:- ii ir agistrate Print name Date
,� �����/ H �w _ K— i/2-7/2_ --
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 S'-' j 1 ') S Y 1 3 a or visit our web site at
f] 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 fo parties
1
f o R DR -485V
DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD N. 12/09
VALUE PETITION Rule 12D- 16.002
Florida Administrative Code
oEMRnNErrr
Of REVENUE
County Monroe
The actions below were taken on your petition.
MI 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 # R021 -2011 Parcel ID 1656747
Petitioner name Pader Corporation Address Subject Property:
The petitioner is: ri taxpayer of record taxpayer's agent 800 Oakwood Avenue
other, explain: Key Largo, Fl
Decision Summary
Denied your petition Granted your petition D Granted your petition on in part
Value Before Board Action
Value presented by property appraiser After Board Action
Lines 1 and 4 must be completed. Rule 120 - 9.025(10), FAC.
1. Market value, required $ 104,931 $ 104,931
2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable $ $
3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none $ $
4. Taxable value,* required $ 104,931 $ 104,931
'AI 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 is a double -wide mobile home constructed in 1992 located on a dry, comer lot in Key Largo. The mobile home
contains approximately 1,431 square feet of living area. In accordance with F.S. 193.011 the the Monroe County Property
Appraiser's Office has appropriately complied with the eight statutory criteria, including a sales grid containing three nearby
comparable sales, two properties of which are similar in age to the subject and one property cornering to Largo Road, like
the subject The value range indicated is $131,948 - $136,492. See attached
Condusions of Law Use page 2, if needed.
Florida Statute provides the Property Appraiser's Office with a presumption of correctness. While bank-owned sales are
considered in determining market value, one sale does not create a "market". The Petitioner has failed to overcome the
burden of correctness enjoyed by the Property Appraiser's office, consequently, this Petition is denied.
IS Roc?, mended Decision of Special Magistrate Findings and conclusions above are recommendations.
f �� Patricia P. McGrath 1/24/12
- 1 . •istr. - Print name Date
Pawls/ V 1/2-7/2..,i
Signature, V • : 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 i ty -713 o or visit our web site at
n Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board
Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision
Signature, VAB Berk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties
1
DR -485V
(Petition # R021 -2011 I N. 12/09
Page 2
Findings of Fact, continued
•
The Petitioner's agent submitted her opinion and suggested three comparable sales, in writing, indicating the mobile home and lot
are worth $70,000, based upon a contract written December 29, 2010 and the later purchase of this bank -owned property
(reportedly listed at $119,000.) As mentioned, Petitioner presents three comparable sales, two of which were utilized by the
Monroe County Property Appraiser's Office in preparing their sales grid with appropriate adjustments for differences.
Conclusions of Law, continued
2
1 1
DR -485V
DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD N. 12 /09
VALUE PETITION Rule 12D- 16.002
Florida Administrative Code
County Monroe
The actions below were taken on your petition.
Q These actions are a recommendation only, not final. OThese 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 # R056 -2011 Parcel ID 1618934
Petitioner name George M. Scott Address 4 Coral Drive
The petitioner is: 0 taxpayer of record E taxpayer's agent Key Largo
❑ other, explain:
Decision Summary
Q 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 $ 143,055 $ 143,055
2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable $ $
3. Exempt value,` enter "0" if none $ $
4. Taxable value,* required $ 143,055 $ 143,055
`All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ (section 196.031(7Xd), F.S.).
Reasons for Decision
Findings of Fact Use page 2, if needed.
Subject residence is located in Key Largo on a dry lot The dwelling was constructed in 1963, is in average condition and
contains 912 square feet The Property Appraiser's Office presented 5 comparable sales, all located in Key Largo in
accordance with FS 194.301. The eight criteria (FS 193.011) have been adhered to. Among other concerns, the Petitioner
indicates the view from this dwelling is of a restaurant kitchen dumpster. Upon further discussion, it appears the wooded lot
between the subject and the back of the restaurant acts as a sufficient buffer and no external obsolescence is present.
Conclusions of Law Use page 2, if needed.
Appropriate adjustments have been made by the Property Appraiser's Office to the sales utilized. Comparable Sale # 1 is
located in closest proximity and was in poor condition at the time of sale. All sales have been adjusted in accordance with
standard appraisal practice for differences. Petitioner has presented no credible evidence that would overcome the
Presumption of Correctness enjoyed by the Property Appraiser's Office.
►� Recom ended Decision of Special Magistrate Findings and conclusions above are recommendations.
� ` ii 1' . rv O (time ���..�J 2/1/12
rgn - 'friTZI ".`M F'�' , ate Print name - Date
P aw+ e. . �.��� i110112
Sign e, IAB 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 °S Z9i. 313 ° or visit our web site at
f l 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
R DR -485V
DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD N. 12/09
VALUE PETITION Rule 120- 16.002
Florida Administrative Code
OEMRTr1AfM
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 # R078 -2011 Parcel ID AK: 8637942
Petitioner name Inrivet 13 W1 // )c'/' Address 2 Barracuda Lane
The petitioner is: 0 taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's agent Ocean Reef
❑ other, explain:
Decision Summary
4 Denied your petition (J 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 $ 1,180,475 $ 1,180,475
2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable $ $
3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none $ $
4. Taxable value,* required $ 1,180,475 $ 1,180,475
'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 subject condominium is located on the second floor of one of the Harbour House buildings in Ocean Reef. Petitioner
indicates the comparable sales utilized are inappropriate, based upon his restricted view. Petitioner indicates Sale # 1
contained substantial value in personalty (furniture, etc.), however the PAO indicates the sale was verified and no value
attributed to the personal property, if any. Petitioner presented no evidence to substantiate the inclusion or value of
personalty. SEE ATTACHED.
Conclusions of Law Use page 2, if needed.
Offering no evidence that would overcome the Presumption of Correctness enjoyed by the MCPAO, the Special Magistrate is
denying this petition. The Property Appraiser's Office has properly considered all statutory criteria in the valuation process.
SEE ATTACHED
Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Findings and conclusions above are recommendations.
i t it e d i
Patricia P. McGrath, J.D. 2/20/2012
. 1 4 " > • . • istrate Print name Date
1 ,/i Pa��la C. /(
Signature, V - B Berk 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
Signature, VAB deck or representative Print name Date mailed to parties
DR -485V
'Petition # 078-2011 ' N. 12/09
Page 2 •
Findings of Fact, continued
Petitioner also contests the value attributed to his partial "view ", which is obstructed due to mangroves. The MCPAO has
appropriately addressed "view" adjustments by adjusting downward (Sale * 2 - $184 /sf and Sale* 3 - $270 /sf) by nearly 20% of the
selling price /square foot. Petitioner indicates that Comparable 13 is a condo with an elevator, pool and amenities - all of which
have been adjusted for (See PAO grid line items: Sales Price Minus Elevator, View and Amenities).
Conclusions of Law, continued
F.S. 194.301 Challenge to ad valorem tax assessment
(1) In any administrative or judicial action in which a taxpayer challenges an ad valorem tax assessment of value, the property
appraiser's assessment is presumed correct if the appraiser proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the assessment was
arrived at by complying with s. 193.011, any other applicable statutory requirements relating to classified use values or assessment
caps, and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate.
1
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 # R079 -2011 Parcel ID AK: 1078450
Petitioner name Alan S. Danoff Address Unit 2 -304
The petitioner is: ig taxpayer of record taxpayer's agent 201 E. Ocean Drive,
(l other, explain: Key Colony Beach
Decision Summary
0 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 $ 293,099 $ 293,099
2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable $ $
3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none $ $
4. Taxable value,* required $ 203,099 $ 203,099
*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 unit is located on the third floor of Casa Clara Condominium (Building 2) in Key Colony Beach. The unit
overlooks the pool onto the ocean (ocean view). Petitioner indicates the comparable sales utilized are inappropriate, based
upon his impeded view of the ocean. Upon review of the MCPAO Comparable Sales grid, the three sales utilized have been
adjusted for both "view" and "floor" in order to allow comparison to the subject.
SEE ATTACHED.
Conclusions of Law Use page 2, if needed.
The Petitioner has offered no evidence that would overcome the Presumption of Correctness enjoyed by the MCPAO. The
Special Magistrate is denying this petition. The Property Appraiser's Office has properly considered all statutory criteria in
the valuation process. SEE ATTACHED
0 Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Findings and conclusions above are recommendations.
Patricia P. McGrath, J.D. 2/21/2012
Signatu special gistrate Print name Date
� ✓mil /
f l & lT. / k-• a f o c. l- 2/2.1/i
Z
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 30 S • L9 S 3/ 3 ° 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 mailed to parties
/
DR -485V
(Petition # 079 -2011 1 N. 12/09
Page 2
Findings of Fact, continued
FOR EXAMPLE:
Sale # 1 is an ocean front view unit located on the 2nd floor with adjustment being made (upward adjustment of $14/sf for the
inferior floor and a $27 /sf downward adjustment for the superior ocean front view). The other two comparable sales utilized have
inferior views to the subject (one pool view and one parking lot view), also adjusted in accordance with standard appraisal practice.
It is my opinion that the best comparable is Sale # 1, for the following reasons: similar unit size and the most recent sale available
After appropriate adjustment for physical differences and less "Cost of Sale ", Sale # 1 indicates $276 per square foot. The subject is
assessed at $271 per square foot.
Conclusions of Law, continued
F.S. 194.301 Challenge to ad valorem tax assessment
(1) In any administrative or judicial action in which a taxpayer challenges an ad valorem tax assessment of value, the property
appraiser's assessment is presumed correct if the appraiser proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the assessment was
arrived at by complying with s. 193.011, any other applicable statutory requirements relating to classified use values or assessment
caps, and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate.
2-
FLORIDA DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR -485V
VALUE PETITION N. 12/09
// Rub 12D- 18.002
DEPARTMENT Florida Administrative Code
OF REVENUE County 1 c e e-
The ctions below were taken on your petition.
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 # p. c go Parcel ID 0 &) / 3 7 y30
Petitioner name tiff b A R, -e 1 .11 1— Address y 3 D / I S . 7 (,�p,,,� Z.47-4-4-- The petitioner is: axpayer of record 0 taxpayer's agent c J j ()t /
❑ other, explain:
Decision Summary
L 6enied your petition O Granted your petition 0 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 $ 3 --9 :L, vJ.i $ .2 5 ,J , 0 c
2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable $ $
3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none $ 0 $
4. Taxable value,* required $ 3- C , 0 O $ 02 9 2 i ,, j 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 additional sheets, if needed.
D d P` f i? r , el v j ,4-" •f, „ j W k(',CJ .4.,: - t'-V / 4 it 0 ✓i / d a - 4 s 1 • s 01 f A c� c,, i 1'' 1 .6 .t1..� Piet'"'...' Sh e 6, v: I vec, a , 6 d 1 / +
j 6 i 1.' 1 C i 4 An ✓ J s X c ' 4,,;, b / k." Sa6.d J / f �
Iv: /1 1t en ���7 crt Q ,
Conclusions of Law Use,additional sheets, if needed.
/ n
l h L Per(. '1 , t ' , , � w � ,_,� C' k �'. aN i I C.r1 • c - -n •e r J A c s 4 / r j & , i el fr e f a. L p 1 1 C 4-
L_L (re c- c 1 l , 4 ' k 35 . 41-C.-VA IS v A-4- -i d
a r -
,/ Recomme ded cision of Special Magistrate Findings and conclusions above are recommendations.
i
t /�1✓► le l ti ; � -- VtJ,L//L
Signature . ec magi trate Print name Date
%,�,�, , ,,ea d / a wi e d a 6. 1-�_,,, c. , , K-- f l 1 7 / 1 2-
Signa , VAB c 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 5 Z `/S 3 / 3 0 or visit our web site at
n 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 _
LORI `TA DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR -485V
VALUE PETITION N. 12/09
Rule 120- 16.002
Florida Administrative Code
DEPARTMENT County Monroe
OF REVENUE
The actions below were taken on your petition.
® These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB
If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit
in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(k), 194.036, 194.171(2), and 196.151,
Florida Statutes.)
Petition # R083 -2011 Parcel ID AK# 1492868
Petitioner name Suzanne Miller Address 174 Carol! Street
The petitioner is: ® taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's agent Upper Matecumbe Key
❑ other, explain:
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 $197,610 $197,610
2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable
3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none
4. Taxable value,* required $197,610 $197,610
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 (Fill - in fields will expand as needed.)
Findings of Fact
The subject is an older two -story duplex located on a dry lot in Upper Matecumbe Key (Islamorada) and is
reportedly in poor condition. The petitioner reports the two units are small efficiency apartments, each
containing 480 SF. After negotiation, the MCPAO presented two sales grids - their original 3 comparables and,
at the hearing, the "Marathon Sales Grid ", which contained a total of 7 sales the Petitioner had provided to the
MCPAO for consideration during the discovery period. Older properties are difficult to assess /appraise, due to
the difficulty in determining accrued depreciation.
It is my opinion the defining criteria for comparison for this particular property are: age /condition /quality and
location.
A total of 10 comparable sales were considered by the Property Appraiser's Office, ranging in age from 1946-
1982/3. The sample size and the age range of the comparables (both actual age and effective age) is
considered sufficient for analysis.
Due to the quality of construction of the subject (Quality Grade 450), negative adjustments were made to all of
the comparables (which were superior), including the Marathon sales, except PAO Sale # 2 - which is of similar
quality to the subject. For purposes of this "quality" discussion only, PAO Sale # 3 will be disregarded due to
its 100 point quality difference, leaving us with 8 of the remaining 9 comparables with a 500 Quality grade - all
of which have been adjusted downward from about $3.70 a square foot to $8.00 per square foot to bring their
quality of construction commensurate to the subject. The adjustments are rationally applied.
The Petitioner questions the methodology of assessment and queries "net proceeds" (a/k/a "cost of sale "). For
purposes of reference, Subsection 193.011(8), F.S. addresses "net proceeds" and is generally known as the
"eighth criterion ". The most common practice throughout the State of Florida and in Monroe County, is to
deduct 15% (mol) for cost of sale via the application of rates and factors incrementally throughout the
adjustment/valuation process to achieve an assessment ratio of 85% or less. The 15% COS is effectively
factored into all assessments, whether the property has sold or not. The eighth criterior has been effectively
1
applied by the Property Appraiser's office.
The Petitioner has submitted documentary and testimonial evidence which partially based her appeal upon the
assessment of other properties. In my opinion, the assessment of comparable properties has limited relevance
in the instant petition. See Deltona Corp. v. Bailey, 336 So. 2d 1163 (1976) which indicates that The Special
Magistrate nor the VAB would not have the authority to reduce a taxpayers assessment based on other
assessments.
Conclusions of Law
The MCPAO has retained its presumption of correctness and proven its case by a preponderance of the
evidence it submitted during the hearing."
F.S. 194.301 Challenge to ad valorem tax assessment
(1) In any administrative or judicial action in which a taxpayer challenges an ad valorem tax assessment of
value, the property appraiser's assessment is presumed correct if the appraiser proves by a preponderance of
the evidence that the assessment was arrived at by complying with s. 193.011, any other applicable statutory
requirements relating to classified use values or assessment caps, and professionally accepted appraisal
practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate.
eco • mended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations.
• ` ar.is , te� Patricia P. McGrath
�� sp: agistrate Print name 3/15/2012 D
_
Signature, AB clerk or special representative Print name Date
If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at ❑ AM ❑ PM
Address
If the line above is blank, 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) J z1 3/30
❑ 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
2
FLORIDA DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR -485V
VALUE PETITION N. 12i09
Rub 12D- 18.002
DEPARTMENT Florida Administrative Code
OF REVENUE
County P1 41 t. •.�
The a 'ohs below were taken on your petition.
he se actions are a recommendation only, not final. These actions are a final dec'
❑ 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.).
R. Petition # 0 } �L f _ Z v y j
Petitioner name ;'z1<e✓ a f ah ' Parcel ID 6)O / a f c R ,/,,, a 6. 1.K. Address ' ca • ' ::!\12._ The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's agent / � p
❑ other, explain: S/44 rt et1C47,/ /�*y r-(__ Decision Summary J
L'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 After Board Action
Rule 12D- 9.025(10), F.AC.
1. Market value, required $ 1 L56, ._ LI $ /6 56 L Y
2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable $ $
3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none $ 0 $
4. Taxable value,* required $ / b _s-E,, "7 2- j $ /65-6 7 2 `'
*AII values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing aut ority values may differ (section 196.031(7)(d)( F.S.).
Reasons for Decision
Findings of Fact -L_47 0 4( ` / 1 ? 4 4 ` ,, �wc, , fie addition al sheets, if ee ed. fi
?-4. (304 c , a r,j G/1 fe cc Aeol ,M.t1 A N p �t
r cL /dlhp,i / s l opit y .i.tzt. khrm, hal i..-141 w 1 J. 1L 6/ p i f. er4p - kj a� WirrJ -e,s' f,�,. t i/Pr ;
Conclusions of Law'2 Q r e�= id-42 (-Q._ Use additions sheets, if needed.
A ,r r es ,,' rho 1 ;: f C�4'rf e c e S f . 6i s - -i T- /9-4 /, 3 ( i -e- a vte ?pia i�t »p . 1c .
� I /� 7� , j J vu� �` ��41c�
�'`�1'. 4ppralam,_ ?,--L, ;tided r<j „.j _sc,Lf d. i'- S: -(vf h , as f el Kell”:
U ktitecommen , : % Deci: on of Special Magistrate Findings and conclusions above are recommendations.
1 1 1 m d ■ Ke ✓, n Tom. I loc ti 1//210.-
ign�at speci. rna.." a Print name Date
t1-1.1 a /a 6 . ki. .--, - ,K._. 11/ 7/1-z_
igna ure. 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 ' i 1-1S 3 i 3 or visit our web site at
fl 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
FLORIh1
DR -485V
DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD N. 12/09
VALUE PETITION
Rule 12D- 16.002
41. VALUE Administrative Code
oFirvr
County Monroe
The actions below were taken on your petition.
These actions are a recommendation only, not final. OThese 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, 1 and 196.151, F.S.).
Petition # R085 -2011 Parcel ID AK#00197940- 000000
Petitioner name SCOTT & DONNA JANUIK Address 1335 OCEAN DR
The petitioner is: 0 taxpayer of record 0 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), FA.C.
1. Market value, required $ 1,956,639 $ 1,956,639
2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable $ $
3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none $ $
4. Taxable value,* required $ 1,956,639 $ 1,956,639
*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.
SEE ATTACHED
Conclusions of Law Use page 2, if needed.
SEE ATTACHED
El, Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Findings and conclusions above are recommendations.
i s Q REGINA E CORCORAN 1/23/12
Sign�tur :. • - «a magistrate Print name Date
/ <' L� P ma � a. G . � QrrGoC.I G 1/L (/1 7 .
ignature, VA: Berk 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' 29s• 313 0 or visit our web site at
(1 Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board
Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision
Cinnafi VAR rdarly nr ranracantativa Prinf names rlafa rrtalari in n•rbnc
R085 -2011
SCOTT & DONNA JANUIK
1335 OCEAN DR
SUMMERFIELD, FL 33042
FINDINGS OF FACT
POSTPONED HEARING
DATA WAS NOT DELIVERED TO PAO
MIKE RUSSO
ALREADY REVISED 2999 TO 125SF LESS
29,783 ADJUSTMENT TO VALUE
NEW ASSESSED
1956639 NEW ASSESSED VALUE
SCOTT RUSSELL
SALE 3 ON GRID
SALE IS NOT QUALIFIED AND SHOULD BE IGNORED
COMP 4 IS IN SHARK KEY WITH LIMITED BOATING ACCESS UNLIKE THE SUBJECT
THAT HAS GOOD BOATING ACCESS
PETITIONER
DONNA & SCOTT JANUIK
POINTED OUT COMPS 1 AND 2 ARE NICER THAN THEIRS
THEY COULD NOT BUILD THE 4000+ HOUSE THEY WANTED TO BECAUSE COUNTY
PROHIBITED IT DUE TO SETBACKS AND LOT SIZE
COMPS 1 AND 2 ARE IN SAME AREA AS SUBJECT AND THEY ARE 625 SF AND 900
SF LARGER AND WERE ADJUSTED FOR SAME
COMPS 1 AND 2 ARE ON LARGER LOT AND WERE ADJUSTED FOR SAME
AFTER ADJUSTMENTS COMPS 1 AND 2 HAVE VALUES OF $3.1MIL AND $3MIL
WHICH IS SUBSTANTIALLY HIGHER THAN THE ASSESSED VALUE OF SUBJECT OF
$1,956,639 OF SUBJECT
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
PAO HAS CORRECTLY CONSIDERED 8 CRITERIA AND IS THUS ENTITLED TO THE
PRESUMPTION OF CORRECTNESS.
PAO SUPPLIED 2 COMPS IN SUBJECT'S NEIGHBORHOOD SUPPORTING ADJUSTED
VALUES OF $3.1 MIL AND $3MIL.
SUBJECT'S ASSESSED VALUE IS $1,956,639
RECOMMEND PETITION BE DENIED AND PAO ASSESSED VALUE BE RETAINED
2
COMPS 3 AND 4 WERE NOT CONSIDERED AS #3 IS NOT A QUALIFIED SALE AND #4
IS TOO FAR DISTANT AND HAS DISSIMILAR UTILITY TO SUBJECT.
3
FLORIDA DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR -485V
N. 12/09
VALUE PETITION
■ I., Rule 12D- 18.002
Florida Administrative Code
O P RENUE
County filo0 re .e__
The actions below were taken on your petition.
[these actions are a recommendation only, not final. III 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 # ¥.._o c '6 -2,0 1 1 Parcel ID 00 9 -73,0
Petitioner name /� / c Ad/►'i' Q f f N Q.ft,r Address ? c 4e , J 4 a -_,_ '(fir
The petitioner is: axpay�r of record LI taxpayer's agent
3./44 M 0. ()A of % i f
other, explain:
Decision Summa
enied your petition fJ 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 $ / r) .7 1-- $ 1415Y , cr7 2
2. Assessed or classified use value,' if applicable $ $
3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none $ ..DO $ a S r)
4. Taxable value,' required $ KGT, 17S _ $ t'6 9 , /Js
*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 / L Use additional she ts, if needed. of .
� ''Yatof, 9 p0✓r�e S,� fpe r , - 40 5) ot-) "J -1,
41-4.- k s s-e l L A auk- ) 2c t ' -Iwe,. s „al( eA (7 / 0 it a cl c e - a - / 9 / o p Q ( - F j e J - . 1 a - r - c i J-
41e vat, 9 tl A ti. t) t m c2al j I r rG f .v� S`� e 1 su Tt f r 5 a rib 5 ✓fr('. VA 1 Ii
Conclusions of Law I / 1 / Use additional sheets, if needed.
pre a,4 0 41 o4 *2- -Qit e,1� et— Dry Pr 41 a /� lA'i- -re,* b/, JL�z '
o E C,e rre c4, c FSS 1 ` a ' G) c �.a �--
'5 � LIC Oa
lia4Zeco 0 ' nded Decision of Special Magistra Findings and conclusions above are recommendations.
A-
4i/ / ri /0 - 1 1 ) ---- I 0-
i natur. spe e ial magistrate Print name a e
9
/ rit./ a rn e let C. / c,6 c_ K-- )/171/ Z
Signs ure, 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 3 - Zy j 3 13 ' or visit our web site at
1 1 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
1
DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR -485V
VALUE PETITION N. 12/09
Rule 120- 16.002
Florida Administrative Code
IMPARTMENT County Monroe
Of REVENUE
The actions below were taken on your petition.
® These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB
If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit
in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(k), 194.036, 194.171(2), and 196.151,
Florida Statutes.)
Petition # R095 -2011 Parcel ID AK: 8930395
Petitioner name Daniel A. Weiss Address 5 Sunset Key Drive
The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record ® taxpayer's agent Sunset Key
❑ other, explain:
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 $3,056,202 $3,056,202
2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable
3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none
4. Taxable value,* required $3,056,202 $3,056,202
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 (Fill -in fields will expand as needed.)
Findings of Fact
The property under appeal is a single family residence on Sunset Key with an open water view. The dwelling
contains 2,908 square feet of living area. The subjects location on a small, exclusive island, accessible by
ferry or private boat only, makes it one of the most unique locations in the Florida real estate market. The
MCPAO presents three sales (47, 51 and 43 Sunset Key Drive, with sale dates from 2006 -2010, indicating no
marked difference in market conditions. Further, a paired sales analysis utilizing two sales /resales indicates no
decrease in value.
The Petitioner offers five sales, none of which have the "secluded island" appeal of the subject, all of which are
inferior to the subject due to Sunset Key's premiere location.
Conclusions of Law
The Petitioner has presented no evidence that would overcome the Property Appraiser's Presumption of
Correctness. The Property Appraiser's Office has properly considered all statutory criteria in the valuation
process. This petition is denied
The Special Magistrate has utilized F.S. 194.301 Challenge to ad valorem tax assessment, which states:
(1) In any administrative or judicial action in which a taxpayer challenges an ad valorem tax assessment of
value, the property appraiser's assessment is presumed correct if the appraiser proves by a preponderance of
the evidence that the assessment was arrived at by complying with s. 193.011, any other applicable statutory
requirements relating to classed use values or assessmentcaps, and professionally accepted appraisal
practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate
_4 Reco . ended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations.
i llititrII.01,•',14 Patricia P. McGrath 3/8/12
K. ial a 1 s a
Print name Date
/
et"--, L /& G, /--14A-Pc. c./4_ 3 h / 20 j j_
Signature, VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date
If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at ❑ AM ❑ PM
Address
If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and pace when the recommended decision will be considered.
To find the information, please call 3 d , . Zq s • j / 3
❑ 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
Z
DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR -485V
VALUE PETITION N. 12/09
Rule 12D- 16.002
Florida Administrative Code
DEPARTMENT County Monroe
OF REVENUE
The actions below were taken on your petition.
® These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB
If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit
in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(k), 194.036, 194.171(2), and 196.151,
Florida Statutes.)
Petition # R098 -2011 Parcel ID AK 1165085
Petitioner name Daniel A. Weiss, Esq. Address H -35 Miriam Street
The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record ® taxpayer's agent Stock Island
❑ other, explain:
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 120 9.025(10), F.A.C.
1. Market value, required $72,433 $72,433
2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable
3. Exempt value,* enter " 0 ° if none
4. Taxable value,* required $72,433 $72,433
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 (Fill -in fields will expand as needed.)
Findings of Fact
The subject property is a 37 year -old mobile home located on a small open water lot in Stock Island and
containing 550 square feet. The MCPAO offers 4 sales and the prior sale of the subject property as
comparisons. The value range of the comparables is from $64,719 to $96,250. All of the sales are located on
Stock Island and occurred in 2010. At the hearing, the PAO corrected their grid for the subject property,
indicating that a CHA unit was present..
During discussion of the sales utilized by the Property Appraiser, the Appellant stated the MCPAO 'Indicted
Value Range" does not consider Cost of Sale. Rebuttal offered by the PAO, along with a reading of the 2011
VAB Training Module 6 indicates that the deduction of an approximate 15% COS occurs as rates and factors
are applied in increments to the different adjustments to the comparable sales.
The Petitioner presents an evidence package containing the statement: ".......This waterfront mobile home is
the same class, grade and quality that sold in 2010 for less than $100,000, with twice the square footage, and
or a larger, better - located lot". The Special Magistrate is unable to ascertain which particular sale or sales the
Petitioner is referring to. The only sale presented for Tess than $100,000, by either party, occurring in 2010 is
PAO Comp # 1.
The Petitioner further addresses the class /grade /quality of the subject, stating it has perhaps been mis- classed
as "A" condition. The quality grade assigned to the subject is "350" - as is that of PAO Sales # 1 and # 3
(which is the same age as the subject property).
Conclusions of Law
The Petitioner has offered no sales or evidence that would overcome the Presumption of Correctness enjoyed
by the MCPAO.
See following page.
1
F.S. 194.301 Challenge to ad valorem tax assessment
(1) In any administrative or judicial action in which a taxpayer challenges an ad valorem tax assessment of
value, the property appraiser's assessment is presumed correct if the appraiser proves by a preponderance of
the evidence that the assessment was arrived at by complying with s. 193.011, any other applicable statutory
requirements relating to classified use values or assessment caps, and professionally accepted appraisal
practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate.
® Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations.
,,Olin 2rI' Patricia P. McGrath 3/13/2012
i sp: agistrate Print name Date
J I a i e I is . d-ti c,. c. I L 3/L V / L ° l Z-
Signature, V • = clerk or special representative Print name Date
If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at ❑ AM ❑ PM
Address
If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered.
To find the information, please call 0 3° 21 C 31 3°
❑ 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
2
L DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
DR -485V
VALUE PETITION N. 12/09
r► Rule 12D- 16.002
Florida Administrative Code
DEPARTMENT County Monroe
OF REVENUE
The actions below were taken on your petition.
® These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB
If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit
in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(k), 194.036, 194.171(2), and 196.151,
Florida Statutes.)
Petition # R099 -2011 Parcel ID AK 1236080
Petitioner name Daniel A. Weiss, Esq. Address Vacant Canal lot
The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record ® taxpayer's agent Cudjoe Key
❑ other, explain:
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 $39,356 $39,356
2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable
3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none
4. Taxable value,* required $39,356 $39,356
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 (Fill - in fields will expand as needed.)
Findings of Fact
The subject and R100 -2011 were heard as one, however, will be addressed individually. R099 is a vacant
residential canal lot located on Cudjoe Key, containing 6,000 square feet. The subject lot is on the FEMA
Injunction List which prohibits issuance of subsidized flood insurance when identified issues exist, such as
protected vegetation, sinkholes, wetland areas, etc. The MCPAO has presented a sales grid with five
comparable sales, testifying in the hearing that all five comparables utilized were also on the FEMA Injunction
List.
All sales have been adjusted by the PAO in their grid (line item entitled "Site Value "), in order to facilitate
comparison with the subject.
The Appellant offers four sales for consideration, along with aerial maps and public records. AK 1386855
occurred in 2009 and with ample sales available within the statutory timeframe under consideration, has not
been considered. In addition, the MCPAO indicates this sale has no legal access. AK # 1389561 is a partial
interest sale and has not been considered. AK 1384089 is also a 2009 sale. The Labat Lane transfers are also
2009 sales and transferred by Quit Claim Deed.
Conclusions of Law
The Petitioner has offered no sales or evidence that would overcome the Presumption of Correctness enjoyed
by the MCPAO.
The Special Magistrate is denying this petition under the assumption that the issue of vegetation vs. cleared
lots and their valuation will be addressed and applied, if appropriate, to all the Tots under common ownership
represented by this Petitioner.
F.S. 194.301 Challenge to ad valorem tax assessment
(1) In any administrative or judicial action in which a taxpayer challenges an ad valorem tax assessment of
value, the property appraiser's assessment is presumed correct if the appraiser proves by a preponderance of
the evidence that the assessment was arrived at by complying with s. 193.011, any other applicable statutory
requirements relating to classified use values or assessment caps, and professionally accepted appraisal
practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate.
.J Recom ; ended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations
dr , N %f /`, 2.. Patricia P. McGrath 3/13/2012
7 -7pec - agistrate Print name Date
/ / / ���nYSS�n�'�� // '}}��1''�,
Signature, VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date
If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at ❑ AM ❑ PM
Address
If the line above is blank, 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 34. In": 3i 3
❑ 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
2
DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD . DR -485V
VALUE PETITION Ruts a /0 9
OF County Monroe Florida Code REVENUE
DepArme
The actions below were taken on your petition.
® These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB
If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit
in circuit court to further contest your assessment (See sections 193.155(8)(k), 194.036, 194.171(2), and 198.151,
Florida Statutes.)
Petition # R100 -2011 Parcel ID AK # 1235920
Petitioner name Daniel A. Weiss, Esq. Address Vacant Canal lot
The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record ® taxpayer's agent Cudjoe Key
❑ other, explain:
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 $50,206 $50,206
2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable
3. Exempt value,* enter '0" if none
4. Taxable value,* required $50,206 $50,206
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 (Fill - in fields will expand as needed.)
Findings of Fact
The subject and R099 -2011 were heard as one, however, will be addressed individually. R100 is a vacant
residential canal lot located on Cudjoe Key, containing 7,500 square feet. The MCPAO's "Comments" letter
indicates the lot contains 6,000 square feet, which is assumed to be a typographical error, as both the sales
grid and the proffered public records indicate a lot size of 7,500 square feet. The subject lot is not on the
FEMA Injunction List, however, is fully vegetated and an "end" lot on a closed canal. The Property Appraiser's
Office offers 4 sales with a range of value from $60,000 to $101,581.
The Petitioner offers four sales for consideration in his combination packet (addressing both R -100 and R099),
along with aerial maps and public records. AK 1386855 occurred in 2009 and with ample sales available
within the statutory timeframe under consideration, has not been considered. In addition, the MCPAO
indicates this sale has no legal access. AK # 1389561 is a partial interest sale and has not been considered.
AK 1384089 is also a 2009 sale. The Labat Lane transfers are also 2009 sales and transferred was by Quit
Claim Deed.
Conclusions of Law
The Petitioner has offered no sales or evidence that would overcome the Presumption of Correctness enjoyed
by the MCPAO.
The Special Magistrate is denying this petition under the assumption that the issue of vegetation vs. cleared
lots and their valuation will be addressed and applied, if appropriate, to all the lots under common ownership
represented by this Petitioner.
F.S. 194.301 Challenge to ad valorem tax assessment
(1) In any administrative or judicial action in which a taxpayer challenges an ad valorem tax assessment of
value, the property appraiser's assessment is presumed correct if the appraiser proves by a preponderance of
the evidence that the assessment was arrived at by complying with s. 193.011, any other applicable statutory
requirements relating to classified use values or assessment caps, and professionally accepted appraisal
practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate.
® Recom ended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations.
m i t ir /iii. :,
� /Il Patricia P. McGrath 3/13/2012
7 1 1, magis Print name Date
�'� �(-4- is G. Na 1 4' c g. shazo,
Signature, AB clerk or special representative Print name Date
If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at ❑ AM ❑ PM
Address
If the line above is blank, 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 °1 S 3i3 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 parties
Z
FLORIDA DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR -485V
VALUE PETITION N. 12/09
1/ Rule 12D- 16.002
DEPARTMENT /� Florida Administrative Code
OF REVENUE C0U nty lil /�L
The actions below were taken on your petition.
g These actions are a recommendation only, not final. 1 I 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 # P 102, Parcel ID 12,3-19
Petitioner name o Address i 1 r
The petitioner is: taxpayer of record f l taxpayer's agent �V La re
other, explain: 10 h e9 / ri 3 .04-Z
Decision Summary •J ""J
ItA Denied your petition 1 1 Granted your petition 1 '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 $ 98 3' ' $ 98 3eAO
2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable $ $
3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none $ $
4. Taxable value,* required $ V' r� $ G�8 /3 C7 a
*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 dditional sheets, if ne 0ed.
upyi .review c-C *he rein2na rep - ors the .
pcw is 1 C/
Conclusions of Law J Use ad polAleets, if neededd No TV lce
Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Findings and conclusions above are recommendations.
1 tli A P 67),..c_O
Signature, s al,- .,strate Print name 4P51 —/-----
J / v�� F:.w,e,l,,_ 6.. I-1 et...--) co «. s1Li4
Signature, VA: clerk or representative Print name Date
If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on May / 5 Z0 / '2.. at / °!° 0 a.-1,
Z-7 D v e4's e 4 ! 2 ci F I o r K vt/-s f— /
Address 9� S di �! Date Time
1 /
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 mailed to parties
1.0 D VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR -485R
REMAND TO PROPERTY APPRAISER Rule
N. 00 2
Florida Administrative Code
at
DEPARTMENT
OF REVENUE
Section 1. Completed by Value Adjustment Board or Special Magistrate
Petition # R102 -2011 I County Monroe I Parcel ID 1235938 ( Date 3/12/2012
To: Property Appraiser From: Clerk or Special Magistrate
Name Karl Borglum Name Patricia P. McGrath, Special Magistrate
Address Monroe County Property Appraiser's Office Address c/o Pamela Hancock
Deputy Clerk
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 fact on which this remand decision is based or reference and attach Form DR -485V, Form DR- 485XC,
or other document with these items completed.
The subject is a vacant residential canal front lot located on Cudjoe Key, containing 6,000 square feet. The subject lot IS
NOT on the FEMA Injunction List - which prohibits issuance of subsidized flood insurance when identified issues exist,
such as protected vegetation and wetland areas. The MCPAO presents a grid containing four comparable sales, all
occurring in 2010, with per square foot sales prices (raw) ranging from $8.00 (Cudjoe Key) to $21.78 per square foot.
Sale # 4, the Cudjoe Key sale, has been adjusted upward 80 %. Sales # 1 -3 sold for $21.78, $11.92 and $16.50 per
square foot.
The Appellant presents AK 1317250 (29536 Constitution Avenue, Big Pine Key) for consideration, which indicates a
Qualified 2010 sale of a larger, permitted residential canal lot for $70,000 ($8.89 /square foot). The Public Records were
included in the evidence package provided.
Appellant also provided the public records (including an aerial map) of AK 1265250, an additional sale offered for
consideration. This comer canal lot is located on Ramrod Key and is fully vegatated and is also a Qualified Sale
occurring in 2010 at the per square foot price of $9.92.
Include conclusions of law on which this remand decision is based or reference and attach Form DR -485V, Form DR-
485XC, or other document with these items completed.
Rules 12- D.029(1) and 12D- 0.027(2) and (3) F.A.C. require the Special Magistrate to remand a value assessment to the
PAO when she has determined that the Property Appraiser's Office did not establish a presumption of correctness, or
concluded that the PAO established a presumption of correctness that is overcome (Rule 12D- 9.027) F.A.C; and the
record does not contain substantial evidence necessary for the Special Magistrate to establish a revised value.
Appropriate remand directions to property appraiser:
The two sales discussed above and timely presented by the Petitioner appear worthy of consideration by the
MCPAO in their analysis, based upon the Public Records presented to the Special Magistrate by the
Petitioner.
- 'A
The board retains authority to make a final decision on this petition.
<, ' tea+ , K f � # ": f , er.,' � , �i, ° , 'E , f - `1
�w _....a 4 aL„rs d ,. .... �' a 4� . F � � . 3'. k fi
Provide a revised just value or a classified use value and return this form to the clerk of the b oard.
Just Valuation OR Classified Use Valuation
Previous $ 98, 390 Revised $ 98, 390 I $
i i i i i l e ` ( • • _ 6 , , \ . c.fr \ Q . u - , _ . 3 / 1 - ( / 2
Signature, prope 4.7" Y Print name Date
Use additional pages, if needed.
�
3� 1
FLORIDA DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR -485V
VALUE PETITION N . 12/09
\': Florida 12D- 16.002
DEPARTMENT
Florida Administrative Code
OF REVENUE County M04/66
The actions below were taken on your petition.
X These actions are a recommendation only, not final. I 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 # Av Parcel ID A,3 60e360
Petitioner name Address R evd
The petitioner is: n taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's agent /����/ ,p
❑ other, explain: ` a /a6 PI 334 / [�
/�
Decision Summary ✓ •
n Denied your petition I 'Granted your petition n Granted your petition in part
Value Before Board Action
Value presented by property appraiser After Board Action
L
•
ines 1 and 4 must be completed. Rule 12D 9.025(10), F.A.C.
1. Market value, required $ A0,0802_ $ AO 08�
2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable $ $
3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none $ $
4. Taxable value,* required $ 0,Z $ a ce.2.
*AII values entered should be county taxable values. School and o taxing authority values may differ (serction 196.031(7)(d), F.S.).
Reasons for Decision
Findings of Fact Use additional sheets if needed.
1 4 I -flu- Eno •i 1'I • j 1 'v`a`-
Conclusions of Law , I Use additional sheets, if needed. G , A --te) rtuth-ot.
. e (16/ Lew)
VeVekil an ' fel.O 1 ri I I 0 . .
•
N Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Findings and conclusions above are recommendations.
-1 , I FH-ricia No r li2,_ ,
Signature, s. istrate Print name at
/ / • ea GI4, G. ii an ° /4- Sl7//Z
Signature, VA: clerk or representative Print name Date
if this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on M a. / S 2.0 1 2. at / 0 : a ° a, n-t
Address O ✓w Seas 41 2.. 1 FIQ0 -- P1 & / 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 mailed to parties
' `' ' u ' VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR -485R N. 12109
REMAND TO PROPERTY APPRAISER Rule 12D- 18.002
Florida Administrative Code
DEPARTMENT
OF REVENUE
Section 1. Completed by Value Adjustment Board or Special Magistrate
Petition # R103 County Monroe Parcel ID 1236896 , Date 3/6/2012
To: Property Appraiser From: Clerk or Special Magistrate
Name Karl Borglum Name Patricia P. McGrath, Special Magistrate
Address Monroe County Property Appraiser's Office Address c/o Pamela Hancock
Deputy Clerk
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 fact on which this remand decision is based or reference and attach Form DR -485V, Form DR- 485XC,
or other document with these items completed.
The subject is a vacant canal "end" lot located on Cudjoe Key, containing 7,500 square feet. The subject lot is on the
Fema Injunction List which prohibits issuance of subsidized flood insurance when identified issues exist, such as
protected vegetation and wetland areas. The MCPAO has presented a sales grid with five comparable sales, testifying in
the hearing that all five comparables utilized were also on the FEMA Injunction List.
Sale # 1 is the most similar lot and vegetated - selling for $4.18 square foot (raw), however, it is not an "end" lot.
The Petitioner indicated Sale # 3 is a "cleared" lot, selling for $7.69 per square foot (unadjusted), along with Sale # 5,
also a cleared lot, selling for an unadjusted price per square foot of $6.33.
Based upon an analysis of the raw (unadjusted) selling price per square foot of the MCPAO sales grid, it appears the
scraped /Geared /scarified lots sell for - at minimum - $2.50 per square foot more than the only vegetated lot presented
(Sale # 1), as indicated by pairing Sale # 1 (vegetated) with Sale # 3 and Sale # 5 (cleared).
Sale # 2 appears to be a permitted lot and Sale # 4 had improvements requiring further adjustment and have been
eliminated by the Special Magistrate, for the moment.
All sales have been adjusted by the PAO in their grid (line item entitled "Site Value"), in order to facilitate comparison with
the subject, however it has been difficult for the Special Magistrate to ascertain the components contributing to this single
adjustment to each comparable. It would appear the adjustment includes a compilation of neighborhood factor /rating,
location and size.
My query to the Property Appraiser is: Has the condition of the lots utilized (cleared or not) and the canal end placement
been considered and factored into the "Site Value" adjustment "?
The Appellant has testified and rendered pictoral evidence indicating the lot under discussion is fully covered with
protected vegetation, has no view of the water, nor any access to the water, and asks the question: Should this lot be
assessed as a canal/waterfront lot?
Include conclusions of law on which this remand decision is based or reference and attach Form DR -485V, Form DR-
485XC, or other document with these items completed.
Rules 12- D.029(1) and 12D- 0.027(2) and (3) F.A.C. require the Special Magistrate to remand a value assessment to the
PAO when she has determined that the Prorperty Appraiser's Office did not establish a presumption of correctness, or
concluded that the PAO established a presumption of correctness that is overcome (Rule 12D- 9.027, F.A.C.; and the
record does not contain substantial evidence necessary for the Special Magistrate to establish a revised value.
Appropriate remand directions to property appraiser:
Please respond to the following questions:
1. Has the PAO considered cleared vs. protected vegetation in valuation?
2. Inability to utilize, see or access the canal from the subject lot? How is that factored into the Site Value
adjustment line item on the grid....it appears to be based on the assessed land value of the comparable lot.
3. Mr. Weiss presents an interesting question - Should Tots that are bound by water but can't be utilized be
assessed as "waterfront/canal front ", etc.?
( . ,��r 1), �j
The b and r etains authority make a final decision on this petition.
Section 1. 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 OR Classified Use Valuation
Previous $ 20,082 Revised $ 20,082 I $
Signature, property ap r Print name " Date
Use additional pages, if needed.
FLORIDA DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR -485V
VALUE PETITION N. 12/09
Rule 12D-16.002
` i; Florida Administrative Code
DEPARTMENT MO,i)(0 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.).
Petition # (•� a, _ Aai ( Parcel ID kg to Ol 2(90
Petitioner name Dmitri titie.4 Address t z e a .
The petitioner is: 0 taxpayer of record IX taxpayer's agent W FL.. ��
other, explain:
Decision Summary
y. Denied your petition n Granted your petition n 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 $ cili f 22Z $ 914 I 2Z 2
2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable $ $
3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none $ $
4. Taxable value,* required $ q 14 022 $ c fl'4 ZZ Z
*AIL values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ (sectior> F.S.).
Reasons for Decision
Findings of Fact `' , Use additional sheets, if needed. ' tttnicoloi vLi c
4&t • • iIP / I
ail66.teAa/iGt ,
Con clusions of aw 4ca Yi
e U additi nal sheets, if needed.
IS. Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Findings and conclusions above are recommendations.
• 1,41, ►, P0711 CI I 7
Signature • -cia gistrate Print name at
r
Signature, VA: clerk or representative Print name M a� e. tee^ /
Date
If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on la N. 2•1 2. a t /0:0.0 a...-1.-
Address
v �/ y ! 1 :1." Address 2 7 ✓ ws 0. S r1 ^� 2-+ 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 mailed to parties
i ()RID A VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR -485R
N. 12/09
REMAND TO PROPERTY APPRAISER Rule 12D- 16.002
Florida Administrative Code
DEPARTMENT
OF REVENUE
Section 1. Completed by Value Adjustment Board or Special Magistrate
Petition # R106 -2011 County Monroe Parcel ID AK 1012190 Date 2/19/12
To: Property Appraiser From: Clerk or Special Magistrate
Name Karl D. Borglum Name Patricia P. McGrath
Address PO Box 1176 Address c/o Pamela Hancock
Key West, Florida 33041 Deputy Clerk
Monroe County
The value adjustment board or special magistrate has:
Determined that the property appraiser's
value is incorrect (section 194.301, F.S.). ( I 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.
The Monroe County PAO's public records indicate a year built for the dwelling of 1948 — as does the introductory
paragraph of the Property Appraiser's Office's evidence package (first page, first paragraph under "Comments ").
Upon review of the Sales Comparison Grid, prepared by the MCPAO, the indicated year built for the subject
property is 1958.
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.
The Property Appraiser enjoys the presumption of correctness and, while the entry of 1958 for the line item "Year
Built" on the MCPAO grid may be a typographical error, it is one that should be addressed and corrected in order
to retain the aforementioned Presumption. If this is not a typographical error, see below.
Rule 12D- 9.029.
Appropriate remand directions to property appraiser:
The subject property has the "youngest" effective age of all the comparable sales utilized on the Sales
Comparison grid, consequently, all the comparable properties have been adjusted upward from about $5,000 -
$32,000 (rounded). The Special Magistrate realizes that quality, condition, design, appeal, restoration, etc. play
an important role in the formulation of an appraisers opinion of Effective Age, especially when substantial
renovation has taken place. Please clarify adjustments made and ether they were based on the actual year
built of 1948 or the 1958 year reported on the grid. ,
The board retains authority to make a _ nal d:0' • n 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 914,222 Revised 914,222 OR
Signature, p;,• -rty appraiser Print name Date
P • 2 1 2.3 r ✓ 11 Use additional pages, if needed.
FLORIDA
DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR -485V
VALUE PETITION N. 12/09
Rule 12D- 16.002
\/ Florida Administrative Code
DEPARTMENT County Monroe
OF REVENUE
The actions below were taken on your petition.
® These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB
If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit
in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(k), 194.036, 194.171(2), and 196.151,
Florida Statutes.)
Petition # R108 -2011 Parcel ID AK# 1502600
Petitioner name Weidner Family LTD Address 140 Bayview Isle Drive
The petitioner is: ® taxpayer of record ® taxpayer's agent Plantation Key
® other, explain: Jack N. Schlossberg, Real Property
Consultant
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 $1,354,290 $1,354,290
2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable
3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none
4. Taxable value,* required $1,354,290 $1,354,290
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 (Fill - in fields will expand as needed.)
Findings of Fact
The property under appeal is a two -story SFR in Venetian Shores - an open water lot located on Snake Creek.
The dwelling was reportedly constructed in 1980 and contains 2,908 square feet of living area. The subject
has about 130' of frontage on Snake Creek and is in close proximity to the only working drawbridge. The
MCPAO has presented five comparables, all located in Plantation Key. All of the comparable sales have about
75' of of water frontage, which required upward adjustment. The comparable sales are all newer than the
subject with a lower effective age (3 -15 years) than the subject properties 21 years. Sales # 1 & 5 have the
same quality grade as the subject
The Petitioner's representative was absent, however presented an evidence package that has been thoroughly
reviewed by the Special Magistrate. Included were analysis of three of the comparable sales utilized by the
MCPAO in their sales grid, MCPAO Comps 2,3 and 5. The Petitioner has analyzed these three sales on their
raw selling price per square foot, less COS, without taking into consideration differences between the
properties under comparison. For example:: Comp # 1 (which is MCPAO's Comp # 5) only has 75' of water
frontage, is a smaller lot with shallow water /access issues and would require adjustment upward to bring it
similar to the subject. This comparable also has a lower quality grade and fewer site amenities, which would,
again, require an upward adjustment. Without adjustment for differences, the Petitioner has indicated this
comparable's value to be $383.47 /square foot (after COS), however, has not taken into consideration those
items that are inferior to the subject property - that would require upward adjustment to arrive at a fair
comparison.
Petitioner's Comp # 2 & #3 (MCPAO Comp # 2 & #3) are also inferior to the subject, with Comp # 2 requiring
an adjustment upward for lot size /water frontage, quality and inferior amenities and Comp # 3 requiring an
upward adjustment for its lower value canal location, regardless of its lot size, quality and inferior amenities.
Conclusions of Law
The petitioner has presented no credible evidence or further analysis of the comparables utilized that would
overcome the Property Appraiser's Presumption of Correctness. The Property Appraiser's Office has properly
considered all statutory criteria in the valuation process. This petition is denied
1
The Special Magistrate has utilized F.S. 194.301 Challenge to ad valorem tax assessment, which states:
(1) In any administrative or judicial action in which a taxpayer challenges an ad valorem tax assessment of
value, the property appraiser's assessment is presumed correct if the appraiser proves by a preponderance of
the evidence that the assessment was arrived at by complying with s. 193.011, any other applicable statutory
requirements relating to classified use values or assessmentcaps, and professionally accepted appraisal
practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate
® Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations.
IP/l /04111.101 Patricia P. McGrath 3/1/2012
Si • T rglf= I ate Print name Date
;'t! � 4 "16/ R s l �ri 4“..83 - 3 /i "1/ L
Signature, VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date
tf this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at ❑ AM ❑ PM
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 o v isit our web site at
( 2 •313.0
❑ 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 parties
•
•
{
2
- -- _ I DR 485V
lLORcU�
DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD N. 12/09
I VALUE PETITION Rule 12D- 16.002
DEPARTMENT
Florida Administrative Code
O 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 # R118 -2011 Parcel ID AK# 1480282
Petitioner name 166 -6 Bayview Drive LLC Address 166 Bayview Drive
The petitioner is: 0 taxpayer of record 0 taxpayers agent Lower Matecumbe Key
0 other, explain:
Decision Summary
0 Denied your petition EJ Granted your petition (1 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 F.AC.
1. Market value, required $ 905,382 $ 905,382
2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable $ $
3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none $ $
4. Taxable value,* required $ 905,382 $ 905,382
*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 subject is a two story single family dwelling located on open water (Gulf). The residence contains 2,478 square feet of
living area and was constructed in 1968. Testimony by the Property Appraiser's Office indicates the subject property plus the
vacant lot adjacent to is /has been listed for sale for $2,400,000. The MCPAO has presented six comparable sales, all with
open water views. Comparable Sale # 1 is located in Lower Mat Key, as is the subject and was constnided in 1969,
however, it is a much smaller dwelling. SEE ATTACHED.
Conclusions of Law Use page 2, if needed.
The Petitioner has offered no evidence that would overcome the Presumption of Correctness enjoyed by the MCPAO. The
Special Magistrate is denying this petition. The Property Appraisers Office has properly considered all statutory criteria in
the valuation process. SEE ATTACHED
Po R - co ended Decision of Special Magistrate Findings and conclusions above are recommendations.
� l / . al'
4. I Patricia P. McGrath 2/24/12
Sign urn peci. m.gistrate
Print name Date
/ / / /
Q O . wt G I cs 6'. Pict., Ge G K -2 1 2-7 II Z
igna ure, V : 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• S . 2 ./S • 313 0 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 mailed to parties
DR -485V
!Petition # R118 I N. 12/09
Page 2
Findings of Fact, continued
Comparable Sale # 6 is the most recent sale, occurring near the end of the statutory period under consideration and is a larger
dwelling.
All of the comparable sales are either two or three -story dwellings, bracketing the subject improvement in terms of size. The
subject is located Gulfside, as are Comparable Sales # 1,2,3,4 and 5. Value appears well documented and the MCPAO retains the
Presumption of Correctness.
Conclusions of Law, continued
I have utilized F.S. 194.301 Challenge to ad valorem tax assessment, which states:
(1) In any administrative or judicial action in which a taxpayer challenges an ad valorem tax assessment of value, the property
appraiser's assessment is presumed correct if the appraiser proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the assessment was
arrived at by complying with s. 193.011, any other applicable statutory requirements relating to classified use values or assessment
caps, and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate
(
Z
DR -485V
F L V R I U 1
DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD N. 12/09
VALUE Rule 120- 16.002
ALUE 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. EIThese 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 # R119 -2011 Parcel ID 00073871 -001900
Petitioner name TERRY C PELLEGRINI Address UNIT 1 -208
The petitioner is: taxpayer of record taxpayer's agent CASA CLARA
D other, explain: KEY COLONY BEACH, FL 33050
Decision Summary
ri Denied your petition EIGranted 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 FA.C.
1. Market value, required $ 299,268 $ 299,268
2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable $ $
3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none $ $
4. Taxable value,' required $ 299,268 $ 299,268
*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.
SEE ATTACHED
Conclusions of Law Use page 2, if needed.
SEE ATTACHED
Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Findings and conclusions above are recommendations.
REGINA E CORCORAN 1/23/12
Signature peaal magistrate Print name Date
(.7 A/4 ' %41-1 `"'"' w11
rQw4 (? , r14hGt 1/24112.. 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 3° 1 •• 298. 313 or visit our web site at
n Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board
Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision
Cinn *,,ro 1 /AR niorie nr ronrocon4a4ivo Print names r1.340 moilo.i 4n n•rtioc
R119-2011
FINDINGS OF FACT
PAO
SARAH SANDNES
UNIT 208
201 E OCEAN DR, KCB
SCOTT RUSSELL
PETITIONER
CRITERIA 6
CONDITION OF PROPERTY
SANDNESS - APPROPRIATE ADJUSTMENTS FOR CONDITION AS COMPARED WITH
SUBJECT
JAN 2011 CONDITION SIMILAR TO SUBJECT
COMPARABLES IN SPRING OF 2010
2008 AND 2009 REPLACED BALCONIES DUE TO SPALLING
SEP 2010 BALCONIES WERE DONE INCORRECTLY AND DIDN'T MEET CODE.
RICK SLIDER OCT 14 REPORT OF 2010
BLDG INSPECTOR THAT BALCONIES COULD NOT BE OCCUPIED.
SHORING POLES WERE PUT UP
CONTRACT TO REPAIR 2,323,000
97K PER UNIT
KNOWLEDGE OF CONDITION NOT KNOWN AT TIME OF SALE
CONDITION IMPAIRED AT THAT TIME
ROBERT HUBBARD PAO
IS THE CONTRACT SIGNED?
PET SAYS IT IS NOT SIGNED
LIST PRICES CURRENT
206 $440K
BOUGHT IT FOR $350
104 $298K LIST PRICE
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
PETITIONER PRESENTED HIS POSITION THAT THE COST TO CURE THE BALCONIES
IS $97K AND THAT THE IMPAIRMENT CAME TO LIGHT APPROXIMATELY OCT 2010.
SO THE RELEVANT COMPARABLES WERE NOT AWARE OF THE CONDITION WHEN
THEY BOUGHT THEIR UNITS.
HOWEVER, THESE UNITS, THE COMPS AND SUBJECT ALL SUFFER FROM THE
SAME IMPAIRMENT AND THEREFOR ARE LEGITIMATE COMPS
PETITIONER AGREES THAT SPALLING COULD BE SEEN WHICH IT WHAT BROUGHT
THE CONDITION TO EVERYONE'S ATTENTION. CONDO LETTER REFERS TO
ONGOING QUESTION AS TO THE INTEGRITY OF PRIOR REPAIRS
Z
IF AN ASTUTE BUYER ORDERED AN INSPECTION FROM A LEGITIMATE BUILDING
INSPECTION FIRM PRIOR TO BUYING IT IS POSSIBLE THAT SPALLING MIGHT HAVE
BEEN NOTICED.
ALSO PETITIONER HAS NOT ESTABLISHED THE EFFECT ON MARKET VALUE BY
PRESENTING EVIDENCE SUCH AS AN APPRAISAL. APPRAISAL PRINCIPALS TEACH
US THAT COST TO CURE IS NOT THE SAME AS THE EFFECT ON VALUE.
FINALLY ACCORDING TO THE PAO THERE ARE CURRENTLY 2 UNITS LISTED FOR
SALE IN THE COMPLEX. ONE IS THE SAME UNIT THAT IS NEXT TO PETITIONER'S
UNIT THAT SOLD FOR $350K IN 2010 AND IS NOW LISTED FOR $440K. THE OTHER
HAS AN INFERIOR LOCATION AND IS LISTED FOR $298. LIST PRICE IS CONSIDERED
TO REPRESENT THE UPPER LIMITS OF VALUE. IF THE LISTINGS WERE FOR $300K
OR LESS THE PETITIONER'S CASE WOULD BE MORE COMPELLING.
PAO STIPULATES IT CONSIDERED ALL 8 CRITERIA AND THEREFOR HAS
ESTABLISHED THAT IT IS ENTITLED TO THE PRESUMPTION OF CORRECTNESS.
PETITIONER HAS NOT OVERTURNED THAT PRESUMPTION.
THEREFOR I RECOMMEND THAT THE PETITION BE DENIED AND PAO ESTIMATE
OF VALUE BE RETAINED.
3
FLORIDA DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR -485V
VALUE PETITION N. 12/09
■ ,• Rule 12D- 18.002
DEPARTMENT County /1 (\-°''Z--
Florida Administrative Code
OF REVENUE ty
/ l
The ctions below were taken on your petition.
hese 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 # K ISO ). p 1 f Parcel ID OO / /.2 6 4 —/ ®- 00 060 o
Petitioner name Pitt/ I LA./. 8 0 1 j A Address 2/ /f O pier co tom-, 12—ea d
The petitioner is: [expayer of record [] taxpayer's agent y Z
other, explain:
? (j �� , / i� 33
Decision Summa
enied your petition J Granted your petition 0 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 $ 10 � X -7 $ 7 Z 1 u
2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable $ $
3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none $ /3 $
4. Taxable value,* required $ 7 _.(_ j, 1./ g-7 $ ---7 L� eV-7
*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 1 Use additional sheets, if need d.
p -e ±, 4 of e-r of i 4 d s h o � . I re l.r t - N, 0 116 ' ra ( 4- -4 -K" I,- a ►-- Tsu coo s TPo
Jas k veil Ji-
conclusions of Law , Use additional sheets, if needed.
,� cr' D 4/7 c—, o 4 4 e-v (cLe4 t o r e r arc( a r e.
P , C— S S / 2430/ (► -L, 4ifeSS ytn- + ,j
� � d_
Recommended De ion of Special Magistrate Findings and conclusions above are recommendations.
ignat s •ecial "a .. /A law
C Vii n ' // /42-- /�
Print name ate
1 � r:1nv, G. q, 1/,7/,2.-
Signature, 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 3�j 2.1 S 3 1 3 o 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 mailed to parties
` L U ; u ^ DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR -485V
VALUE PETITION N. 12/09
Rule 12D- 16.002
Florida Administrative Code
DEPARTMENT County Monroe
OF REVENUE
The actions below were taken on your petition.
® These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB
If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit
in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(k), 194.036, 194.171(2), and 196.151,
Florida Statutes.)
Petition # R141 -2011 Parcel ID AK 9080136
Petitioner name Julie Schwartz, Esq. Address 1688 Overseas Highway
The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record ® taxpayer's agent Marathon
❑ other, explain:
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 $33,101,482 $33,101,482
2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable
3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none
4. Taxable value,* required $33,101,482 $33,101,482
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 (Fill - in fields will expand as needed.)
Findings of Fact
The Hammocks is a timeshare condominium containing 58 units or, in the altemative, 2,958 unit/weeks or,
"VOI's (see below). The Special Magistrate's understanding is that a weekly estate is known as a "unit week ".
This condominium was constructed in 2004 and is located in Marathon. This hearing was conducted
telephonically and proceeded smoothly, especially considering the complicatetd evidence presented by both
parties and evolving issues inherent in timeshare or "interval ownership" appraisal, appeals and existing
statutes and their interpretation.
The MCPAO indicates 133 unit week sales have occurred during the statutory timeframe under consideration.
These sales indicate an average value range per unit/week of $11,000 to $35,000. After adjustment, the Just
value range is from $9,185 to $13,987. The PAO corrects, at the hearing, their document containing two
graphs demonstrating Absorption Rate /Accumulated Absorption Rate and Net New Sales /Accumulated new
sales and indicates the graph applies to the data gathered for The Hammocks - NOT Winward Pointe.
The Petitioner offers the following, either verbally or within her evidence package:
Basically, a purchaser buying a "VOI" (vacation ownership interest), receives a deed - which is then conveyed
to a trust, wherein it appears the "value" of their "VOI" is measured in terms of "points ". The Petitioner has
requested consideration be given in assessment for the "point" system, however, point value is assigned by an
internal method which may or may not equate to "dollars ", leading to the question: How would one "look to the
resale market" if there are no recorded public records /deeds to reflect the "value" of this intemal point system?
Chapter 192.037 of the 2011 Florida Statutes — Fee timeshare real property;taxes and assessments;escrow,
Subjection (10) In making his or her assessment of timeshare real property, the property appraiser shall look
first to the resale market.
(11) If there is an inadequate number of resales to provide a basis for arriving at value conclusions, then the
property appraiser shall deduct from the original purchase price "usual and reasonable fees and costs of the
sale." For purposes of this subsection, "usual and reasonable fees and costs of the sale" for timeshare real
property shall include all marketing costs, atypical financing costs, and those costs attributable to the right of a
timeshare unit owner or user to participate in an exchange network of resorts. For timeshare real property,
such "usual and reasonable fees and costs of the sale" shall be presumed to be 50 percent of the original
purchase price; provided, however, such presumption shall be rebuttable.
The statute is clear that resales should be considered first, and suggests that a 50% cost of sale be applied,
which the PAO has complied with, in agreement with the Petitioner. The Petitioner suggests, however, that as
the property reaches "sell out ", the units have a greater than 50% cost of sale, yet has provided no verbal or
written testimony that would substantiate the assertion. While the Bluegreen owned units may incur greater
than a 50% COS, no evidence has been presented to that effect.
3. Petitioner further cites 12D -6.006 Method of Assessment and Valuation Fee Time -Share Real Property
Section 3 (Method of Assessment and Valuation) which gives methodology regarding the eight factors as they
apply to timeshare units and COS, as indicated in (193.011(1) -(8) inclusive. Petitioner has entered several
pages of sales in the evidence package, by "tier". However, the petitioner has entered no direct evidence that
would indicate a greater than 50% COS for either the resales OR the Bluegreen owned units.
Due to the number of resales available in 2010, sales occurring before or after 2010 are felt not to be reliable
indicators of value for this statutory valuation period. The Petitioner's evidence package pages 43 -48 indicates
the following
Sale # 3 - Page 43 (2 intervals) - 52% COS
Sale #8 - Page 44 (1 interval) - 66% COS
Sale # 11 - Page 44 (3 intervals) - 28.5% COS
Sale # 2 - Page 45 (1 interval) - 42.5%
Sale # 5 - Page 45 (2 intervals) - 21.5% COS
Sale # 2 - Page 46 (2 intervals) - 52% COS
Sale # 4 - Page 47 (1 interval) - 65% COS
Sale # 6 - Page 47 (3 intervals) - 28% COS
Sale # 1 - Page 48 (1 interval) - 42.5% COS
Sale # 2 - Page 48 (2 intervals) - 21.5% COS
Petitioner further cites 12D -6.006 Method of Assessment and Valuation Fee Time -Share Real Property
Section 3 (Method of Assessment and Valuation) which gives methodology regarding the eight factors as they
apply to timeshare units and COS, as indicated in (193.011(1 -8) inclusive. Petitioner has entered several
pages of sales by "tier". However, the petitioner has entered no direct evidence that would indicate a greater
than 50% COS. See above.
Conclusions of Law
The Petitioner has not offered sufficient evidence that would overcome the Presumption of Correctness
enjoyed by the MCPAO
F.S. 194.301 Challenge to ad valorem tax assessment
(1) In any administrative or judicial action in which a taxpayer challenges an ad valorem tax assessment of
value, the property appraiser's assessment is presumed correct if the appraiser proves by a preponderance of
the evidence that the assessment was arrived at by complying with s. 193.011, any other applicable statutory
requirements relating to classified use values or assessment caps, and professionally accepted appraisal
I practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate.
Z
►� Recom ►ended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations.
K Patricia P. McGrath 3/13/2012
Si. e, spec :I agistrate Print name Date
Signature, VA: clerk or special representative Print name Date •
If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at ❑ AM ❑ PM
Address
If the line above is blank, 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 e t 301. 741", i30
❑ 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
3
FLORIDA DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR -485V
VALUE PETITION N. 12/09
\-.1 Rule 12D- 16.002
D F lorida Administrative Code
OF REVENUE County Monroe
The tions below were taken on your petition.
1 These actions are a recommendation only, not final. 1 1 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 # R160 -2011 Parcel ID 1032735
Petitioner name David eenberg & Emily Sorkin Address 1212 Packer Street
The petitioner is: taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's agent Key West FL 33040
❑ other, explain: Oa ✓,d &v",eevi la Grc�
Decision Summ ,J
Denied your petition 1 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 $ -2.4g, D y $ 261, 0 y6
2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable $ $
3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none $ .2S, 000 $ ,,2._S t7 '--
4. Taxable value,* required $ __ Z � ~ i ��-+���� '
*AII values entered should be county taxable values. School and other " authority values may differ (section 196.031(7)(d), F.S.).
Reasons for Decision
Findings of Fact Use additional sheets, if needed. ,
--ixe prof:4.4y 0 st4,- 444 provid¢4A S tfPpor+- 1-4,-- 411 eA r ..C/4 Wkip. 'Ai c plesi 414s4-/- £ Yi/cePA c.e_ r.JJi al t,+1RiL eole��r 9a fr4J Picd - ,, 4 a. J LQd)no,k1,
F O A-. Its c euich, - cattokeh.,a (4 -Weir— aAa ( 3-Sid
Conclusions of Law B� I - .1 a4 04_442_ 0,Vtcee.B Use a ditional sheets, if needed.
led a t�eJ i a-r' - carre-een
/00)- p '�
ebb 7 G- eSSM.ef rd lip .
Recom , - nde • , • cision of Special Magistrate Findings and conclusions above are recommendations.
/ / /Lir Kevin Talbott 12/6/11
;•-
Signat - � 1 ' .' state — Print name Date
4 , 9 i �„ /
.. Pamela G. Hancock 12/6/11
Signat e, 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 305 - 295 - 3130 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 mailed to parties
FLORIDA DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR -485V
VALUE PETITION N. 12/09
\-1 Florida 12D- 16.002
DEPARTMENT
Administrative Code
OF REVENUE County NOVO C
The actions below were taken on your petition.
® These actions are a recommendation only, not final. I 1 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 con est our assessment (sections 193.155(8)(k), 194.036, 194.171(2), and 196.1 1 S } .
Petition # i" F Parcel ID j(4,/ �T Petitioner name ) LeorY.0 Address
P ,
The petitioner is: Q/{axpaye(of record ( I taxpayer's ageittf
n other, explain: /fin ,p
Decision Summa ' "'
enied your petition I I Granted your petition 1 I 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 t Z3 (c)4-(4a $ /� 4-Z4 404-g
2. Assessed or classified use value," if applicable $ $
3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none $ $
4. Taxable value,* required $ I / 42 % j 4' 4 La $ 1 L}?_ 3
'All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxifig authority values may differ (section 19 L 31(7)(d), F.S.).
Reasons for Decision
Findings of Fact . Use additio 1 sheets, if needed.
PAD a ' , / - 5 t 5 40-0/) mac r th -grow u;90
(A, , 041 t s IP yk d 0-...atraeAct,
C of Law ' Use additio al sheets, if needed. D
f't(.t ► - ( _ml w h..iJ .�,Y d e f" f is JO
G +(, PV,p i t 1 la 0 P A jx\-(OLOA_OL I 1 J1 ' / dr
Reco ;if ended Decision of Special Magistrate Findings and conclusions above are recommendations.
' ; o r�� �/ /
Sign- ur -,(.._ al m. •i tr- e C C�/ �� ` 17�
5i
9 Print name Date
\ i 'v. -..emu ' w, ."1-4_,, l c( ,-3,- e l 4 (, N , , L.. C, /`— /1? o ii L
Signature, VAB c 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 d -, • 17 S -3 1 0 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 mailed to parties
1
FLORIDA DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR -485V
VALUE PETITION N. 12/09
Rule 12D- 16.002
\ Florida Administrative Code
DEPARTMENT County n n
l N / .
OF REVENUE COU11 � �' I
The actions below were taken on your petition.
n.These actions are a recommendation only, not final. I 1 These actions are a final decision of the VAB.
If you are not sati 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 y r assessment (sections 193.155(8)(k), 194.036, 194.171(2), and 196.151, F.S.).
Petition # 1 Iq —, p 1 j Parcel ID f vf z
Petitioner name l el t ad y Ai-ho Address U g4 0 way- 64
The petitioner is: taxpayer of record I I taxpayer's agent
other, explain:
� �����
Decision Summary
Denied your petition I !Granted your petition n 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 $ q6)/ /'7 $ of p/ Is
2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable $ 1 $
3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none $ $
4. Taxable value,* required $ 9 (A /q $ cib/l ,A/1
*AII values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ (secti6n 196.031(7)(d), F.S.).
Reasons for Decision
F' dgs y in of Fa p .�ilct Use n M �r 4 � n ,, n � cam' p� r ^ ad nh s, if n eded.
FA 1+- i 1 U 0 12 c- a ► I Y d . al s � i- i 017 e --
(Ali i
Conclusions of Law ) U e additional sheet if needed. ,.....,evu,,,,,,,,j}
Wzit: OppiatklifT5 P i , -- J I 0 VIC" Ogideittiei O' skrikek
..f. : t , A .
.4
Recom - nded Decision of Special Magistrate Findings and conclusions above are recommendations.
/: LAAr i l (. y�
Signature, s�.ecia ate Print name a e
,-L -7. -4--- F e.1 << C l-14 u K i/ l/ z
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 '5 -S 2. / `; 31- C 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 mailed to parties /