26-8679_Appraisal_Review.pdf

Collier County

TRANSPORTATION

MANAGEMENT SERVICES

Appraisal Review for

Port of the lslands Parcel 12323 Union Road Naples, Florida 34'114

Operations and Performance Management Division

2585 Horseshoe Drive South, Suite 103, Naples, FL 341(H ' Phone: 12391252'8192

%l fltr-t!

I

L

I

I

I

'l

-l l*:

-a fr L t-

IIA

tr. \

I

II:l i!

I

LSX&

I

L -.t-l^ ttL t

Appraisal report scope of work

The purpose of the appraisal report is to estimate the market value of the fee simple interest in the subject property. The intended users for the assignment are Collier County Board of Commissioners, and the intended use of the appraisal is to assist with the Collier County Board of Commissioners in its determination of market value for a possible sale.

The subject property is a vacant residential parcel of land containing an area of 6.86 acres, or 298,734 square feet. The subject is zoned Residential Tourist District (RT) and located within the Urban Residential Subdistrict. The site is recommended for development of 171 units using the Live Local Act based on Florida Statute 125.01055(7)(a).

The maximally productive use is that the site be developed with affordable housing multi-family residential use maximizing the development potential. The site is recommended for development at a density of 25 units per acre, or 17'1 units (6.86 acres x 25 units) using the Ltve Local Act based on Florida Statute 125.01055(7)(a)

VALUATION METHODOLOGY

Three basic approaches may be used to arrive at an estimate of market value. They are:

1 . The Cost Approach

2. The Sales Comparison Approach

3. The lncome Approach

The Sales Comparison Approach compares sales of similar properties with the subject property. Each comparable sale is adjusted for its inferior or superior characteristics. The values derived from the adjusted comparable sales form a range of value for the subject.

By process of correlation and analysis, a final indicated value is derived. This approach is most reliable in an active market, and is least reliable when valuing a property for which no direct comparable sales data is available.

Two independent real estate appraisers procured for the appraisal assignment.

Highest and best Use

Lantl Surrunrrr

Parrel ID Grlss LaDd -{Fa

(-{crr 5 )

Gross Laud -fura (Sq Ft)

0l0ss9:0500 6.36 :93.7-il

. 4 52 28 A PARCEL OF LANO IN THE SEI'4 AS DESC IN OR 3844 PG 2978 ANDL{"1

*=ranerceo As paRcEL -a-

SUbJCONdO 1OO . ACREAGE HEADER

86 . COUNlIES INCLUDING NON.

Usc Code milhgc Area 219 Municipality UNTNCORPORATEO

MUNICIPAL GOV.

zoja'G Zoning Code Zonrng AuthonS' Zomng Descriptron Pennitted Uses

Current Use Legally Couforning Zonrng Change Likel.v Mininuur Lot Area (SF) Mlrimum Floor Area (SF) Mirxmurn Sheet Frontage (Feet) Frout Sel Back Dstaoce (Feet)

Rear Set Back DrstaDce (Feel) Side Yard Distarce (Feet) Parking Requrrcmmt Maxiuun Density,TAR Maxlntuu Burldrng Herglrt (Feet)

Future Land Use Desipration

RT

Colher County Resldmtial Tourist Dlstnct Iuclude hotels ard motels. nrulh-fanrily dwellinpp, faluly care facfities. tinpshate fac ities. to$ltouses. and s'ireless coouuunicatiou facilitres The subject is legal and confomring use.

A zorung change rs unlikeh.

43.560 300 SF (Ma-\. for hotel uorts is 500 SF) 50% of the burldog hetgfit. bur not less than 30 feet 50% of dre building heig&t. but not less than 30 feet 507o of t[e building hei!&t. but not less than 15 feet Dependent ou specific use

Noue 10 stones. not lo exceed 100'

Urban Resi&rtial Subdrstnct

Affordable Housing According to the "Lirc Local Act" (Scnatc Bill 101.7(a)). 'A counq urust atlthodzc nnlti-taruily and ruixcd-rtse residcrllial as allorvable rtscs in any area zotrcd fot' conuuercial. industrial. or tuised-tlsc if at lcast 40 petcetlt of the tesidartial rurits in a proposcd multi-fautily rcntal developutettt. fot a pcriod ofat least 30 years as defured iu 1t0.0004.-

SrrE ANALYSTS

Thc follou ing dcsctiption is based ou oru plopcrty inrpcctiou and public rccords.

RECONCILIATION

The process of reconciliation involves the analysis of each approach to value. The quantity and quality of data applied the significance of each approach as it relates to market behavior and defensibility of each approach are considered and weighed. Finally, each is considered separately and comparatively with each other. As discussed, previously we used only the sales comparison approach in developing an opinion of value for the subject. The cost and income approaches are not applicable and are not used.

\-.rLt'f C o}-( Lt'sro\s ..l,ppIaisrl Pr'€mise

Market Valtre. As Is

Inl?rest .{ppt aised

Fee Srople

Date of \.alue

July 26. 2026

\-alue ( onclusion s3.250_000

Lrnd.{!rhrir Gid (ory: (oEp!

NE D.nof6.Ltoa

,tdd,E : l:i:, uu. &d .ra'ro sall &lD lrtd !l$ 3d ,r?r l'&doiO &.4 &rd

,' t6 r0t6 9 ta.:ot $r. 0_@

Jtl t{u0

6 t0 t0tr t9!0.m r:

'l!.191

Ir,t0:6 l5?J.O ia ${rtr

69?05 !!.t@.0d, tr $4.9, lr30:05 lr.aJo.oll, lt0 Ifl.@

Ire:*dd.|4!,& :

tr!.llo tl-r.ltr s.rl.:'- !6r0!

\ld.l Tud: It !.4 I I :!:-<

!!,1 i. - s-ist_'

Su!:au.!t ltud, t d.r i:6l0-5 !:. .: $s:-

!l r,al6 !:0:

Appraiser One (RKL)

RECONCILIATION OF DATA

To arrive at a conclusion regarding the value ofthe subject, the comparable sales and their indications of value should be weighed according to the quality of each as a value indicator.

The range of unit value indications is from $1 1,304 to $25,500 per developable unit. The arithmetic means of the six sales is 919,839 per developable unit and the median is $21,194 per developable unit. The weighting process discussed above indicates a unit value of $20,708 per developable unit, ESTIMATE OF VALUE

510,000 per der.elop.rtrle unit results in an indication ol ralue of 53,420,000 (510,000 per developatrle unit , l7l units).

The indication of value of the fee sinrple inlerest as of Jrrly 31, 2025 is 53,420,000.

LA\D S.\LES AD ST}IENT GRID

:l| et :Lstzt l\ A( RLt StlAtli( ():{tl(;uRA I l()\

PllISt( At( lL{RA('! tllls-rl(\ t'ta(,,'ur I-t lt \ llt l( A ll()\ s^tt mK1 ttat ?toPErrl' rrcrrs cl)xrm() sor sltt lt,[otNG LvtaorE$E \Ts fiNllioli(;

'.:.i , U tl!,l5otm o alrlu5IfD SaLt I'tat( t

I .:,.

Mdrhr frior I. Lit.(rhr D.r.

uARXtr (ltAN(;t ADlL|SnlUir

, -'r I :' ar,usrrus Lr yroLL

7,D lt5 35ii ll.lt l1lrr7l ll.et

1:r llu( L l[n ACX[ trtr,t t0 jla (-si lulLrJ\tL\I t\l)t( Illr\(x r \r \ArLL

Appraiser Two (Carroll) t.85 tl)

Appraisal Reviewers Comments

The market data used by both appraisers is reasonable although two comps used by appraiser two is located in Lee County, an adjustment was made in the market grid for location. The market data was presented in density with units for development. The subject property is valued according to the Live Local proposed density of 171 units. The market data comparables used were MPUD in the two appraisal reports also two comparables used by RKL were indicated as sold as Live Local intended use. The comparable 3 and 5 are most similar to the subject property.

Appraiser one estimated value is $3,250,000 and appraiser two estimated value is $3,420,000 The average of the two appraisal reports is $3,335,000 dollars.

8t11t26 R. Leonard R/1/V-AC

Review Appraiser ll

Collier County Government

APPRAISAL REVIEW File No.

Case No, Address:12323 Union Rd les 34114 state:

Cou COLLIER zi 34774 ised Assessor's Parcel No.: 0105a970500 Client: Housins

For 8CC / RPM

SEf: RKL & CARROLL Reviewer: R. LEONARD Effective Oat€ of al & Review: 7 6 6 r.ised valu€i AVERAGE OF TWO APPRAISALS

Das.ription

1. Neighborhood

2. LegalDescription

3. Sit€

4, Census Tract

Ac.3plable a a a tr tr tr n

N/A a a n n tr tr tr Z a tr n tr n

Llnacceplable lJnacceplabl€

ORTSEVACANT IAND APPRAISAI R

5.lmprovements

6. Subject tine

7. Comment Section

8. FEMA Map lnfo

Cost Appro.ch

9. Physical Oepreciation

10. Functional Depreciation

11. Ext€rnal Depreciation

Z Z a

N/A

Z a tr D tr!

u

Remarks NOT USED

12. Land to lmprovements Ratio

13. Comments

Marlet sedions 14- Documentation Nos.

15. Lo€ation Adjustments

16. Site & View Adjustments

17. Quality & Design and

Appea I Adjustments

18. Room Count Adjustments

Aacedade tr ag tr

Unedrde tr tr tr tr tr a n a a

Aq*

19. Other Adlunments l!)

20. Gross/Net Adiunments E

21. Comp sa le Selectlon Z

22. AreAdjustments Reasonable E and.lustifiable

23. comments A n tr tr tr a tr tr

Remarks: UNITS TO DEVELOPMENT SAIES APPROACH TO VALUE n tr tr tr tr n tr tr tr!

tr tr tr

28. Limiting Conditions

29. Cenification

30. Other Attachments lncome Approach, Seconciliation, Attachments

24. lncome Approach n

25. Reconciliation and Comments

26. Euilding sketch

27. Maps Rema.ks: NOT USED n accept when reviseal,see ilem(s)fl-

Extant o, R€view:

E 1. Desk Review on Iy, no inspection of sublect n 3. lnterior & e)derior inspection of su bject, exterior

! 2. Exterior on ly inspection of su bject and compara bles inspeation of compa rables

Ce.tifration

RD3287

rsFR TWO EST 3.420.000

Date of Expiration 11130126

Appraised Value S AVERA6E OF 2 APPRAISALS Reviewe/s Recommendation S 3.335,000

APPRAISER ONE EST 3,25O,OOO APPRA

E ottrer:

above, that no o.€ p.ovjded theoerson rianing tiis report.

Signature NARDName oate Report Signed

! Have anotherappraisalprepared by someone else state certification f or state License # state

Appraisal Report was: Good Recommendation;

E Accept as-is nature Date

REVIEWANALYSIS

REVIEWER'S SUMMARY

CLIENT UsE ONIY- REVIEW UNDERWRITER'S COI\,lMENTS tr tr