Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Development Land Valuation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Developer disputes multi-parcel valuation at Grand Lakes Country Club, cites wetlands and gopher tortoises
Summary
A representative for the Grand Lakes Country Club buyer told Special Magistrate Colleen Millett the county overvalued several parcels (petitions 24-266, 24-267, 24-268 and 24-269), arguing that extensive wetlands, required permitting and gopher tortoise mitigation make the properties costly to develop and reduce 'as-is' market value. The Property
A managing partner for the private equity firm that purchased Grand Lakes Country Club and adjacent acreage told Special Magistrate Colleen Millett on Jan. 9, 2025, that four county parcels used in the acquisition are overvalued in the 2024 assessment roll because they are largely wetlands, contain gopher tortoises and require substantial permitting and infrastructure investment.
The petitioner (identified in the hearing transcript by the surname Arrighi and described as a managing partner) said the firm paid an allocation for the parcels as part of a larger purchase and expects it will require $2.8 million to $3 million or more in permitting and predevelopment costs to make the land buildable. “To get it permitted in any fashion, it’s gonna be about 2,800,000 or more,” the petitioner said. He described widespread wetland constraints and gopher tortoise mitigation work that must be undertaken to develop the land, and said comparable nearby parcels used by the appraiser did not face the same constraints.
The Property Appraiser’s Office presented sales-based analyses for four petitions (24-266 through 24-269). Among the figures entered into the record: petition 24-266 had a 2024 just/assessed/taxable value of $1,990,913; petition 24-267 was listed at $1,150,676; petition 24-268 at $2,660,551 (assessed/taxable $1,831,223); and petition 24-269 was originally listed at $397,323 but the office later reduced the 2024 value to $247,040 after an internal review.
The appraiser’s packet for the parcels used multiple sales reports and cost-of-sale adjustments; the appraiser noted some recorded sales were large-acreage transactions or subdivision sales and that sites vary in permitting status. The petitioner supplied evidence and comparable listings showing other land parcels for sale at materially lower asking prices and emphasized additional development costs tied to turtles, wetlands and required lakes/roads.
The petitioner said the acquisition was part of a multi-parcel transaction that included a golf course and clubhouse and that on the purchase allocation roughly $1,000,000 was associated with the parcel in question. He told the magistrate the firm expected this to be a long, expensive multi-year project and asked that the parcels be revalued “as is,” without assuming heavy infrastructure already in place.
Millett told the parties she would examine the submitted evidence and issue recommendations to the Value Adjustment Board within a few weeks. For petition 24312 (a separate docketed petition on the same agenda), the transcript notes the petitioner did not appear; the magistrate said the property appraiser confirmed the parcel’s values and a recommended decision denying relief would be issued to preserve the petitioner’s circuit-court rights.
No final determination on the Grand Lakes parcels was made at the hearing; the magistrate’s recommendations to the Value Adjustment Board will follow.
