HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 01.23.2024LUIl
EROSION DISTRICT
AGENDA
ST. LUCIE COUNTY
Regular Meeting
Tuesday, January 23, 2024
1:00 PM
St. Lucie County Commission Chambers
2300 Virginia Avenue
3rd Floor of Roger Poitras Building
Fort Pierce, FL 34982
BOARD MEMBERS
District No. 1, Chair
CHRIS DZADOVSKY
District No. 4, Vice -Chair
JAMIE FOWLER
District No. 2
LARRY LEET
District No. 3
LI N DA BARTZ
District No. 5
CATHY TOWNSEND
Mission Statement
St. Lucie Works to deliver superior service that enhances our quality of life
*Final on 1/17
Page 1 of 110
Regular Meeting Tuesday, January 23, 2024 1:00 PM
WELCOME
All meetings are televised.
All meetings provided with wireless internet access for public convenience.
Please turn off all cell phones and pagers prior to entering the commission chambers.
Please mute the volume on all laptops and PDAs while in use in the commission chambers.
GENERAL RULES AND PROCEDURES —Attached is the agenda, which will determine the order of business conducted at today's Board
meeting.
INVOCATION -PLEDGE —To bring order and decorum to its meeting, the Board begins its meetings with an invocation followed by the
Pledge of Allegiance. Participation is voluntary.
CONSENT AGENDA — These items are considered routine and are enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of
these items unless a Commissioner so requests.
REGULAR AGENDA — Proclamations, Presentations, Public Hearings, and Department requests are items, which the Commission will
discuss individually, usually in the order listed on the agenda.
PUBLIC HEARINGS — These items are usually heard on the first Tuesdays at 6 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible. However, if a
public hearing is scheduled for a meeting on the third Tuesday, which begins at 9 a.m., then public hearings will be heard at 9
a.m. or as soon thereafter as possible. These time designations are intended to indicate that an item will not be addressed prior
to the listed time. The Chair will open each public hearing and asks anyone wishing to speak to come forward, one at a time.
Comments will be limited to five minutes, and must be pertinent to the agenda item being considered by the Board.
As a general rule, when issues are scheduled before the Commission under department request or public hearing, the order
of presentation is: (1) County staff presents the details of the Board item (2) Commissioners comment (3) if a public hearing, the
Chair will ask for public comment, (4) further discussion and action by the Board.
ADDRESSING THE COMMISSION — Please state your name and address, speaking clearly into the microphone. If you have backup
material, please have eight copies ready for distribution.
NON -AGENDA ITEMS — These items are presented by an individual Commissioner or staff as necessary at the conclusion of the
printed agenda.
PUBLIC COMMENT — Time is allotted at the beginning of each meeting for general public comment. Please limit comments to three
minutes. Comments may pertain to any matter related to the Board's duties as the County's governing body. Comments in support or
opposition to candidates for public office are not pertinent to the Board's duties. This includes any speaker identifying himself or herself as a
candidate for public office.
DECORUM — Please be respectful of others' opinions.
MEETINGS — All Board meetings are open to the public and are held on the first Tuesdays of each month at 6 p.m. and on the third
Tuesdays at 9 a.m., unless otherwise advertised. Meetings are held in the County Commission Chambers in the Roger Poitras
Administration Annex at 2300 Virginia Ave., Fort Pierce, Fla. 34982. The Board schedules additional workshops throughout the year
necessary to accomplish their goals and commitments. Notice is provided of these workshops. Anyone with a disability requiring
accommodation to attend this meeting should contact the St. Lucie County Human Resources Department at 772-462-1456,
HumanResources@stlucieco.org or TDD 772-462-1428 at least 48 hours prior to the meeting.
z1P,:
Page 2 of 110
Regular Meeting Tuesday, January 23, 2024 1:00 PM
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. Board of County Commissioners minutes for the Erosion District Meeting of December 12, 2023.
4. CONSENT AGENDA
A. WARRANTS
1. Warrant Lists 10 - 15
S. REGULAR AGENDA
/_�iLiivj ► I roil% i %] :T ► [:'1
1. Acquisition of Permanent Beach Storm Damage Reduction Easement - Parcel 100 - Resolution
No. 24-020
Staff recommends that the Board adopt Resolution No. 24-020 and authorize the Chair to
sign the Resolution and to authorize the District to offer compensation to the owner in the
amount of $180,000.00.
6. MOTION TO ADJOURN
3 1 P, :
Page 3 of 110
3ro LUCK
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA
Erosion District Meeting
December 12, 2023
1. CALL TO ORDER
Convened: 1:01 PM
Adjourned: 1:02 PM
The meeting was called to order at 1:01 PM by Chair Chris Dzadovsky, District No. 1.
Commissioner Cathy Townsend District 5, Commissioner Linda Bartz District 3, Commissioner Chris
Dzadovsky District 1, Commissioner Larry Leet District 2, Commissioner Jamie Fowler District 4
Also Present
Dan McIntyre, County Attorney
Katherine Barbieri, Assistant County Attorney
George Landry, County Administrator
Mayte Santamaria, Deputy County Administrator
Jason Davis, Deputy County Administrator
Chris Craft, St. Lucie County Tax Collector
Michelle R. Miller, St. Lucie County Clerk and Comptroller
Adolfo Covelli, Transit Director
Kori Benton, Planning & Development Services Planning Manager
Benjamin Balcer, Planning & Development Services Director
Thad Crowe, Planning & Development Services Senior Planner
Grant Chambers, Planning & Development Services Senior Project Engineer
Barbara Guettler, Public Works MSBU Coordinator
Katrina Slay, Agenda Coordinator
Vera Smith, Deputy Clerk Recording Secretary
2. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT
Chair Dzadovsky opened the meeting for public comment at this time. With no one wishing to
address the Board, Chair Dzadovsky closed public comment.
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A motion was made to approve all minute sets, and it passed unanimously.
RESULT: APPROVE
MOVER: Commissioner District 3 Linda Bartz
SECONDER: Commissioner District 4 Jamie Fowler
AYES: Cathy Townsend, Linda Bartz, Chris Dzadovsky, Larry Leet, Jamie Fowler
Page 4 of 110
Erosion District Meeting Tuesday, December 12, 2023 1:01 PM
NAYS: None
EXCUSED: None
A. Board of County Commissioners minutes for the Erosion District Special Meeting of November 7,
2023.
B. Board of County Commissioners minutes for the Erosion District Meeting of November 14, 2023.
C. Board of County Commissioners minutes for the Erosion District Reorganization Meeting of
November 14, 2023.
4. CONSENT AGENDA
A motion was made to adopt the consent agenda, and it passed unanimously.
RESULT:
APPROVE
MOVER:
Commissioner District 4 Jamie Fowler
SECONDER:
Commissioner District 2 Larry Leet
AYES:
Cathy Townsend, Linda Bartz, Chris Dzadovsky, Larry Leet, Jamie Fowler
NAYS:
None
EXCUSED:
None
A. WARRANTS
1. Warrant Lists
New Year: 4, 7, 8, 9
Adopted by Consent Vote
5. REGULAR AGENDA
There were no items scheduled.
6. MOTION TO ADJOURN
With no other information to be brought for consideration before the Board, the meeting was
adjourned at 1:02 PM.
Please note: Final minutes are recorded in the official minute books filed with the Clerk of the
Circuit Court and available for inspection upon request.
2 1 p„
Page 5 of 110
12/08/23 ST. LUCIE COUNTY - BOARD
FZABWARR WARRANT LIST #10- 02-DEC-2023 TO 08-DEC-2023
FUND SUMMARY- EROSION
FUND TITLE EXPENSES
184 Erosion Control Operating Fund 296.84
GRAND TOTAL: 296.84
PAGE 1
PAYROLL
5,177.20
5,177.20
Page 6 of 110
12/15/23 ST. LUCIE COUNTY - BOARD
FZABWARR WARRANT LIST #11- 09-DEC-2023 TO 15-DEC-2023
FUND SUMMARY- EROSION
FUND TITLE EXPENSES
184 Erosion Control Operating Fund 466.12
GRAND TOTAL: 466.12
PAGE 1
PAYROLL
0.00
0.00
Page 7 of 110
12/21/23 ST. LUCIE COUNTY - BOARD
FZABWARR WARRANT LIST #12- 16-DEC-2023 TO 21-DEC-2023
FUND SUMMARY- EROSION
FUND TITLE EXPENSES
184 Erosion Control Operating Fund 5,750.00
GRAND TOTAL: 5,750.00
PAGE 1
PAYROLL
5,327.20
5,327.20
Page 8 of 110
12/29/23 ST. LUCIE COUNTY - BOARD
FZABWARR WARRANT LIST #13- 22-DEC-2023 TO 29-DEC-2023
FUND SUMMARY- EROSION
FUND TITLE EXPENSES
184 Erosion Control Operating Fund 296.84
GRAND TOTAL: 296.84
PAGE 1
PAYROLL
0.00
0.00
Page 9 of 110
01/05/24 ST. LUCIE COUNTY - BOARD
FZABWARR WARRANT LIST #14- 30-DEC-2023 TO 05-JAN-2024
FUND SUMMARY- EROSION
FUND TITLE EXPENSES
184 Erosion Control Operating Fund 0.00
GRAND TOTAL: 0.00
PAGE 1
PAYROLL
5,177.20
5,177.20
Page 10 of 110
01/12/24
ST. LUCIE COUNTY - BOARD
PAGE 1
FZABWARR
WARRANT LIST #15- 06-JAN-2024
TO 12-JAN-2024
FUND SUMMARY- EROSION
FUND TITLE
EXPENSES
PAYROLL
184 Erosion
Control Operating Fund
296.84
0.00
GRAND TOTAL:
296.84
0.00
67 Page 11 of 110
5.A.1.
TO:
PRESENTED BY
SUBMITTED BY:
SUBJECT:
BACKGROUND:
2023-62218
DATE: 1/23/2024
AGENDA REQUEST
Erosion District
Daniel McIntyre, County Attorney
County Attorney
Acquisition of Permanent Beach Storm Damage Reduction Easement - Parcel 100 -
Resolution No. 24-020
In November 2002, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) completed a "Section 905(b) analysis for a "St.
Lucie County, Florida - Hurricane and Storm Damage Reduction Study" including the Study Area - from just
south of Blind Creek (R-77) to the Martin County Line (R-115). This reconnaissance report recommended that
the "study proceed into the feasibility phase", which was eventually initiated in 2004. Shortly afterwards, the
USACE re-scoped the Federal project (reducing the proposed project area) and approved it as part of their
3x3x3 Plan; eventually receiving federal funding to move the study forward.
While in the feasibility phase, storm events (including Hurricane Sandy) impacted South County Beaches. The
storm damages experienced after these events warranted quick/specific action. St. Lucie County, with
support from the State of Florida and local stakeholders, initiated construction of a one-time, non-federal
beach restoration project in April 2013 while federal feasibility efforts continued. The project consisted of the
nourishment of 3.4 miles of FDEP designated "critically eroded" Atlantic shoreline from FDEP monument R-98
(Normandy Beach) to the Martin County line (R-115). The project included placement of approximately
635,164 cubic yards of beach compatible sand from the St. Lucie Shoal and was partially funded through a
Special Assessment District (SAD) created for the project. A nearshore limestone boulder mitigation reef was
also completed to offset project related hard -bottom impacts. As part of preparations for the 2013 project, in
2012, the County obtained Temporary Easements from each property owner in the project area. These
Temporary Easements authorized a limited use of the seaward portion of each property by the County to
construct, repair, nourish, rehabilitate and replace a beach and dune over the limits of construction ... from the
landward toe of the dune to mean high water line; these project specific Temporary Easements expired on
March 1, 2016.
Eventually, the South St. Lucie County, Florida Coastal Storm Risk Management (CSRM) Project Feasibility
Study was completed and approved; receiving a signed Chief's Report (December 15, 2017) and federal
Congressional authorization (2018 Water Resource and Development Act Bill - WRDA). In addition, Erosion
District Staff diligently pursued and secured approximately $6.4 million in state grant funds from the Florida
Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) for the initial federal beach project (FDEP Grant 19SL4 and
20SL3) and unilaterally increased the level of federal participation by 7% by creating additional public beach
access at County owned beach parks. To help fund future construction efforts associated with this federal
Page 12 of 110
project, the St. Lucie County BOCC drafted and subsequently approved the South Hutchinson Island Municipal
Service Taxing Unit (MSTU). To effectuate future federal renourishment projects (of which there could be
multiple over the 50-year federal project life), current Corps policy requires that the County obtain permanent
beach and storm damage reduction easements from all adjacent landowners. These easements encompass
specific areas within privately held parcels that are reasonably susceptible to future beach erosion. The
acquisition of these easements is necessary for the proper planning of these large and complicated projects
and securing them provides the USACE/County/Congress with reasonable assurance that future projects will
not be hindered by changes in ownership and/or willingness to participate (which could stall and/or derail
project funding and project implementation). The perpetual easements are comparable to the easements
obtained for the 2013 project, but with a longer duration to cover all future USACE and County efforts to
construct and maintain the federal CSRM project. USACE regulations relative to Real Estate Acquisition (ER
405-1-11) include provisions for Perpetual Construction Easements so as to avoid property rights interference
with operations of the project by the USACE and County and include additional public access provisions.
In response to the Corps requirement that the County obtain permanent beach store damage reduction
easements from the 50 property owners owning property within the scope of the project, the County's
Property Acquisition Division acquired 49 of the 50 required easements. A location map depicting the
location of 49 parcels where easements were acquired along with the location of the only parcel where an
easement was not acquired is attached. The parcel where an easement was not acquired is identified as
"Parcel 100".
Proposed Resolution Authorizing the Acquisition of Parcel 100
Attached to this memorandum is a copy of draft Resolution No. 24-020. The draft resolution, if adopted,
would authorize and directs the appropriate County/District staff to acquire a permanent beach storm
damage reduction easement over Parcel 100. As indicated in the draft resolution, the Board is required to
consider certain factors when determining whether to acquire property including Safety, Costs, Alternate
Routes or Methodologies, Long Range Plans and the Environment. Those factors are described in "Exhibit B"
and will be further discussed by the County's Director of Port, Inlet and Beaches at the meeting.
Presuit Negotiation
Florida law provides that before the District files an eminent domain proceeding, the District must attempt to
negotiate in good faith with the owner of Parcel 100, must provide the owner with: (1) a written offer, and (2)
if requested, a copy of the appraisal upon which the offer is based. In addition, the District must attempt to
reach an agreement regarding the amount of compensation to be paid for the parcel.
In this regard, the District contracted with Daniel D. Fuller, MAI to provide an appraisal of Parcel 100. Mr.
Fuller has determined that the value of Parcel 100 is $180,000. A copy of the appraisal is attached. Given this
information, District staff recommends that the District's offer of compensation to the owner should be
$180,000.
PREVIOUS ACTION:
October 2, 2012 - Board approved the 2013 South County Beach and Dune Restoration Project.
January 23, 2018 - Board action to ratify and approve the extension of federal and state permits associated
with the previously completed 2013 South County Beach and Dune Restoration Project; permits extended
through 2028.
Page 13 of 110
December 17, 2019 - Public Hearing advertised and subsequent Board approval of Resolution No. 2019-286
establishing the definitions and physical boundaries for a proposed South Hutchinson Island Municipal
Services Taxing Unit (MSTU).
September 2020 - Board approved the South Hutchinson Island MSTU during final FY-20/21 budget meeting.
November 10, 2020 - Board approved the St. Lucie County, Florida Coastal Storm Risk Management Project,
Project Partnership Agreement (PPA).
December 9, 2020 - St. Lucie County received a USACE official Project Land's Request, including a specific
request for Perpetual Construction Easements along the proposed federal beach project area.
December 15, 2020 - Board approved the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) as co -applicant on St. Lucie
County's existing FDEP Permit No. 0154626-001 and pre -authorize minor USACE permit modification requests
needed to develop plans and attain state permits consistent with the project's congressional authorization.
February 15, 2022 - Board approved an interlocal agreement with the County.
April 9, 2022 — Initial federal beach project dredging begins with a one-time real estate exemption for the
remaining outparcel (Parcel 100).
May 17, 2022 - Initial federal beach project completed, with approximately 387,165 cubic yards of sand placed
during construction. No fill placed adjacent to Parcel 100 per a one-time exemption provided to the County,
based on current (at that time) Corps policy guidance.
November 7, 2023 - Board approved Amendment No. 1 to the Project Partnership Agreement (PPA).
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Funds will be made available in account string 194-3710-561000-370000 in the amount of $180,000.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board adopt Resolution No. 24-020 and authorize the Chair to sign the Resolution
and to authorize the District to offer compensation to the owner in the amount of $180,000.00.
COMMISSION ACTION:
RESULT:
MOVER:
None
SECONDER:
None
AYES:
None
NAYS:
None
EXCUSED:
None
Coordination/Signatures
Page 14 of 110
'i
Date: January 11, 2024
Joshua Revord, Port, Inlet & Beaches Director
.Date: January 12 2024
Jennifer Hill, Office of Management & Budget Director
r' Date: January 15, 2024
Daniel McIntyre, County Attorney
Date: January 15, 2024
Mayte Santamaria, Deputy County Administrator
Page 15 of 110
RESOLUTION NO. 24 - 020
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
OF THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY EROSION CONTROL
DISTRICT DECLARING THE ACQUISITION OF A
PERMANENT BEACH STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION
EASEMENT ON AND OVER A PARCEL OF LAND
DESIGNATED AS PARCEL 100 AS NECESSARY FOR THE
PUBLIC PURPOSE OF RESTORING THE ADJACENT
BEACH AND DUNE AND PREVENTING DAMAGE TO
UPLAND PROPERTIES AS PART OF THE
IMPLEMENTATION OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA
COASTAL STORM RISK MANAGEMENT PROJECTS;
AUTHORIZING THE EMPLOYMENT OF APPRAISERS
AND OTHER EXPERTS AND THE FILING OF EMINENT
DOMAIN PROCEEDINGS; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
WHEREAS, the St. Lucie County Director of Port, Inlet & Beaches has recommended the
acquisition of a permanent beach storm reduction easement on and over Parcel 100 to the Board
of Commissioners of the St. Lucie County Erosion District, as being necessary for the
implementation of future St. Lucie County, Florida Coastal Storm Risk Management Projects
(hereinafter "Project"), in St. Lucie County, Florida; and,
WHEREAS, funds are available for the acquisition of the Parcel designated as Parcel 100
and for the Project; and,
WHEREAS, the Board of Commissioners of St. Lucie County Erosion District
(hereinafter the "Board") is exercising its authority of eminent domain pursuant to Chapters 73
and 74, Florida Statutes, as amended, and Chapter 2004-409, Laws of Florida, as amended; and,
WHEREAS, the Board has considered the required factors pursuant to Florida law
including Safety, Costs, Alternate Routes or Methodologies, Long Range Plans and the
Environment, as applicable to this parcel, as described in Exhibit `B"; and,
WHEREAS, after considering the factors as set forth above, this Board has determined
that the acquisition a permanent beach storm damage reduction easement on and over the real
property identified as Parcel 100 and as legally described in Exhibit "A", is necessary for the
following public use and purpose, to wit: the implementation of St. Lucie County, Florida Coastal
Storm Risk Management Projects, and as such, the acquisition of said property is for a public use
and purpose deemed to be in the best interest of St. Lucie County; and,
1
Page 16 of 110
WHEREAS, the acquisition of Parcel 100 is necessary for the implementation of the
aforementioned Projects. The terms and conditions of the permanent beach storm damage
reduction easement are set forth on attached Exhibit "C"; and
WHEREAS, it is necessary that the beach storm reduction easement be permanent since
it anticipated that future storm events will require the County to periodically perform the work as
set forth in the easement as described in Exhibit "C" in order to protect, preserve and renourish the
applicable beach and dune areas; and
WHEREAS, the Board acknowledges that to the extent permitted by law and the terms of
the U.S. Army Corps required easement herein, landowners may construct and maintain private
dune overwalk structures within the easement area; and
WHEREAS, the Project will renourish the beach and dune abutting approximately 3.4
miles of ocean -front properties on South Hutchinson Island and the St. Lucie County Erosion
District has acquired permanent beach storm damage reduction easements from forty-nine (49) of
the fifty (50) abutting property owners; and
WHEREAS, the real property as described in Exhibit "A" to be acquired through eminent
domain as authorized by this Resolution is not being acquired for the purpose of abating or
eliminating public nuisances, slum or blighted conditions, and is subject to any applicable
conveyance restrictions pursuant to Florida law, to the extent they may apply; and,
WHEREAS, in order to accomplish the acquisition of Parcel 100, the St. Lucie County
Director of Port, Inlet & Beaches, St. Lucie County Attorney and their designees are authorized to
take legal action, including the filing of eminent domain proceedings, and to employ outside legal
counsel, real estate appraisers and other experts deemed necessary to accomplish this purpose.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS OF THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY EROSION DISTRICT THAT:
A. This Board adopts and ratifies those matters set forth in the foregoing recitals.
B. The St. Lucie County Director of Port, Inlet & Beaches, St. Lucie County Attorney
and their designees are authorized and directed to proceed to take all necessary steps, including
the hiring of outside legal counsel, accountants, appraisers, or other experts and witnesses, for St.
Lucie County Erosion District to acquire in its own name by donation, purchase or eminent domain
proceedings, a permanent beach storm damage reduction easement on and over the real property
described in Exhibit "A", and to prepare all papers, pleadings and other instruments required for
that purpose, and to see that all eminent domain proceedings are prosecuted to judgment.
2
Page 17 of 110
C. The St. Lucie County Director of Port, inlet & Beaches, St. Lucie County Attorney
and their designees are hereby further authorized and directed to take such further actions as are
reasonably required to fully accomplish the purposes herein above directed, including the making
of minor changes in the description of any real property described in Exhibit "A" that may be
necessary to fully accomplish those purposes.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the property described in Exhibit "A" is to be used
for the following public use and purpose as set forth on attached Exhibit "C."
After motion and second, the vote on this Resolution was as follows:
Commissioner Chris Dzadovsky, Chair XXX
Commissioner Jamie Fowler, Vice Chair XXX
Commissioner Larry Leet XXX
Commissioner Linda Bartz XXX
Commissioner Cathy Townsend XXX
PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED this
ATTEST:
day of
2024.
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF
ST. LUCIE COUNTY EROSION
DISTRICT
:`
Deputy Clerk Chair
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND
CORRECTNESS:
BY:
3
District Attorney
Page 18 of 110
EXHIBIT A
PROPOSED BEACH STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION EASEMENT
AN EASEMENT OVER AND ACROSS A PORTION OF LANDS DESCRIBED AND
RECORDED IN 3471, PAGE 323, LYING IN SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 37 SOUTH, RANGE
41 EAST, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS
FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE POINT OF INTERSECTION OF THE EASTERLY RIGHT-OF-
WAY LINE OF STATE ROAD A-1-A (100' R/W) AND THE NORTH LINE OF
GOVERNMENT LOT 2 (AS ESTABLISHED BY PLAT RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 15,
PAGE 13); THENCE ALONG SAID EASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE SOUTH 23'56'40"
EAST, A DISTANCE OF 250.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF LAND
DESCRIBED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 3471, PAGE 323 OF THE PUBLIC
RECORDS OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE ALONG SAID NORTH LINE
NORTH 89'49'13" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 368.78 FEET TO THE PLACE AND POINT OF
BEGINNING (SAID POINT ALSO BEING ON THE WEST LINE OF THE CONSTRUCTION
EASEMENT PER SKETCH & DESCRIPTION PREPARED BY MORGAN & EKLUND, INC.
DATED 11/30/2020); THENCE CONTINUE ALONG SAID NORTH LINE NORTH 89'49'13"
EAST, A DISTANCE OF 131.24 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 28'07'54" EAST, A DISTANCE OF
176.82 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 23'34'03" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 9.31 FEET TO A POINT
ON THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LANDS DESCRIBED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK
3471, PAGE 323; THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE SOUTH 89'49'13" WEST, A
DISTANCE OF 148.50 FEET; THENCE NORTH 22'56'21" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 178.65
FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
CONTAINING 0.53 ACRES, MORE OR LESS
Page 19 of 110
EXHIBIT "B"
ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA COASTAL STORM RISK MANAGEMENT
PROJECT
PARCEL 100
SAFETY
The federal St. Lucie County, Florida Coastal Storm Risk Management (CSRM) Project consists
of the restoration and future renourishment of approximately 3.4 miles of beach and dune along
St. Lucie County's southern Atlantic shoreline. Beach compatible sand for the project may be
dredged from permitted offshore borrow areas and/or truck hauled from upland sand mines
(depending on need, quantity and/or cost). Generally, projects are expected to take 30-90 days to
complete and could vary in size/extent depending on specific need (up to and including the entire
3.4 mile project area). Active construction adjacent to any given parcel/property is expected to
last 7-14 days, and during active construction the USACE/County (and their contractors) are
obligated to constantly monitor work to ensure each project is safely executed. All abutting
property owners and visitors to the beach are prohibited from accessing active construction areas.
COSTS
The initial project cost estimate for federal beach nourishment by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE) was to be $20,276,000. Two (2) additional federal renourishments are
anticipated, at 18-year intervals, over the next 50 years. This estimate is subject to change due to
the frequency and impact of future storm events. The anticipated cost of the two (2) additional
renourishment projects is $33,020,000, per the congressionally approved feasibility study (2018).
St. Lucie County has entered into a Project Partnership Agreement (PPA) with the Department of
the Army (USACE), whereby the County (acting as the local project sponsor) was responsible
for approximately 65% of the initial construction cost (approximately 35% federal). The future
periodic renourishment events will include up to 27% federal contribution, or a 73% County
contribution. The total cost of these projects is warranted to provide coastal storm risk
management for the adjacent properties and associated infrastructure.
LONG RANGE PLANNING
Future erosion of coastal beach areas is contemplated due to sea level rise and future storm
impacts. Permanent or perpetual easements on and over lands abutting this segment of Atlantic
Ocean shoreline are necessary for the proper planning and implementation of beach nourishment
projects. Depending on specific needs, the County (acting as the local sponsor) may need to
periodically address erosion to maintain a healthy beach and dune system; ultimately, to mitigate
future storm damage risk. The County has obtained Perpetual Beach Storm Damage Reduction
Easements from 49 of the 50 property owners along the 3.4 miles federal project area. These
easements are necessary for the proper planning of any future beach restoration efforts (per
USACE requirements).
5
Page 20 of 110
ALTERNATE ROUTES
Beach restoration must obviously be accomplished along the oceanfront and dune areas of
abutting properties. The County and the USACE have explored and analyzed optional methods
and procedures to accomplish beach and dune renourishment and have concluded that the
methodology to be utilized, as permitted by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection,
constitutes the most cost-effective and environmentally -friendly manner to accomplish the goals
of the federal project.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The County obtained a permit from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection for the
2022 project. The permit analyzed the environmental impact of the project including, but not
limited to, matters such as marine turtle protection, fish and wildlife protection, project lighting,
fill restrictions and compaction sampling, water quality monitoring, and other environmental
issues. It is anticipated that future renourishment projects can be permitted and will have
minimal negative environmental impacts.
ACQUISITION OF PARCEL 100
The parent tract of Parcel 100 is approximately 1.92 acres and is improved with a waterfront
restaurant with associated amenities such as an outdoor dining deck and bar, beach/dune
walkway and parking areas. Parcel 100 comprises approximately the eastern.53 acres extending
from the mean high-water line of the Atlantic Ocean extending westward 131.24 feet on the
north end of the parent tract and 148.5 feet on the south end of the parent tract. Parcel 100
includes the dune area as well as the sandy beach located between the dune and the mean high-
water line and contains a stairway leading from a walkway at the restaurant leading to the beach
area, as well as vegetation covering the dune. It is anticipated that the walkway, stairway or
existing dune vegetation will not be disturbed or removed as part of any future project. Parcel
100 is necessary for future renourishment projects in order to restore and renourish the beach and
dune areas at this location as well as to avoid having a negative impact on the subject and
neighboring properties.
Page 21 of 110
EXHIBIT C
(Permanent Beach Storm Damage Reduction Easement)
A perpetual and assignable easement and right-of-way in, on, over, and across the land
described in Exhibit "A", which is attached hereto and incorporated herein, for use by the ST.
LUCIE COUNTY EROSION DISTRICT, assignable to other public governmental entities,
permitting access and use by their representatives, agents, and contractors to construct; preserve;
patrol; operate; maintain; repair; rehabilitate; and replace; a public beach and dune system and
other erosion control and storm damage reduction measures together with appurtenances thereto,
including the right to deposit sand; to accomplish any alterations of contours on said land; to
construct berms and dunes; to nourish and renourish periodically; to move, store and remove
equipment and supplies; to erect and remove temporary structures; and to perform any other work
necessary and incident to the construction, periodic renourishment and maintenance of the St.
Lucie County, Florida Coastal Storm Risk Management Project; together with the right of public
use of, and access to, the shores by all on equal terms in a manner compatible with the authorized
purpose of the Project; to plant vegetation on said dunes and berms; to erect, maintain and remove
silt screens and sand fences; to facilitate preservation of dunes and vegetation through the
limitation of access to dune areas; to trim, cut, fell, and remove from said land all trees, underbrush,
debris, obstructions, and any other vegetation, structures and obstacles within the limits of the
easement; reserving, however, to the fee owner(s), (his) (her) (its) (their) (heirs), successors and
assigns, the right to construct dune overwalk structures in accordance with any applicable Federal,
State, or local laws or regulations, provided that such structures shall not violate the integrity of
the dune in shape, dimension or function, and that prior approval of the plans and specifications
for such structures is obtained from the designated representative(s) of the applicable
governmental authorities and provided further that such structures are subordinate to the
construction, operation, maintenance, repair, rehabilitation and replacement of the project; and
further reserving to the fee owner(s), (his) (her) (its) (their) (heirs), successors and assigns all such
rights and privileges as may be used and enjoyed without interfering with or abridging the rights
and easements hereby acquired; subject, however, to existing easements for public roads and
highways, public utilities, railroads and pipelines, if any.
7
Page 22 of 110
South St. Lucie, Florida, Coastal Storm Risk Management (CSRM) Project
Perpetual Beach Storm Damage Reduction Easement Map — Subject Parcel 100
N
W+ E
S
0 0.25 0.5 1 Miles
I I I I I I I I
Mal) Created: 11/20/2023
;�', "`Pa"66"Oro" 10
H Q+
w a'
Mz
z
W in
>w
`Q �
c�
LL- U
ow
w
za
J J
2
(If m
0
z; o
� J
CO
(
a- Q
cn
xd
J�o
z 99.
LL-
co
I
LEI
z
0-0
o I
oa
J
LL.
P1 P
0/
o .00.
A° /
/
/
/
col /
/ woo.
/
0L,
Z O Z~:::
woZ
F
w En w
W
Z d � W /
O U O K In /
d Z d ~ W LLJ En
Z
U moo
/
St. Lucie Co., FL Coastal Storm Risk Management Project
Permit Number 0154626-001-JC (Parcel 100)
Appraisal of the Acquisition of
Perpetual Beach Storm Damage Reduction Easement
located on the real estate at
10900 Highway A1A
St. Lucie County, Florida
PREPARED FOR
St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners /
St. Lucie County Erosion Control District
c/o William P. Doney, Esq.
1555 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 1200
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
DATE OF APPRAISAL — November 28, 2023
Prepared by:
Daniel D. Fuller, MAI
State -Certified General
Real Estate Appraiser RZ567
FULLER-ARMFIELD-WAGNER
Appraisal & Research, Inc.
426 Avenue A
Fort Pierce, Florida 34950
Appraisal No. 20241 — 11/28/2023
FULLER-ARMFIELD-WAGNER
Page 26 of 110
FULLER-ARMFIELD-WAGNER Appraisal & Research, Inc.
426 Avenue A, Fort Pierce, Florida 34950
(772) 468-0787 / dan_faw@bellsouth.net
Daniel D. Fuller, MAI, SRA, State -Certified General Real Estate Appraiser RZ567
January 15, 2024
St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners
c/o William P. Doney, Esq.
1555 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 1200
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
RE: St. Lucie Co., FL Coastal Storm Risk Management Project, Permit Number 0154626-001-
JC, (Parcel 100), appraisal of the acquisition of Perpetual Beach Storm Damage Reduction
Easement on real estate located at 10900 Highway A1A, St. Lucie County, Florida.
Dear Mr. Doney:
Per our contract for appraisal services, on November 28, 2023, 1 completed my final inspection
of the referenced real estate, and I have studied and analyzed the property's market segment to
provide an opinion of the Market Value of a Perpetual Beach Storm Damage Reduction
Easement on Parcel 100 of the project, as referenced above, with the date of acquisition
November 28, 2023, the date of my inspection.
• The appraisal conforms to St, Lucie County Appraisal Standards, and the Uniform
Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP) (with a Jurisdictional exception
regarding exposure time), as the assignment is in compliance with Uniform Standards for
Federal Land Acquisitions, including invocation of USPAP's Jurisdictional Exception Rule,
as described in Section D-1 b of the Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land
Acquisitions, noting that the appraiser shall not link an estimate of market value for federal
land acquisition purposes to a specific exposure time. Also, the Scope of the Project Rule
will apply in that any increase or decrease in the value of the property caused by the
project for which the property is being acquired must be disregarded by the appraiser.
• The appraisal is provided in a USPAP stated "Appraisal Report" format.
• Client: St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners, St. Lucie County Erosion District
or client representatives, and their funding partners.
• The Intended Use of this appraisal is to estimate Market Value of a Perpetual Beach Storm
Damage Reduction Easement on Parcel 100 of the project as referenced above. The
appraisal is not intended for another use.
• The Intended User of this report are the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners,
St. Lucie County Erosion District or representatives of St. Lucie County government, and
representatives of the United States Department of Army. The appraisal report is not
intended for another user.
• The appraisal and report are subject to the Ordinary Limiting Conditions, Extraordinary
Assumptions, Hypothetical Conditions, and Certification included within this report.
Page 27 of 110
Mr. Doney
January 15, 2024
Page 2 of 2
Although initially the effects of the coronavirus pandemic on real estate demand and prices
were largely unknown, upon Florida's opening for business in mid-2020 demand in various
real estate markets moved quickly to historic high levels, followed in some instances with
significant price increases. Thus, it appears rather than a negative effect on demand, the
coronavirus created a positive effect on demand and property values in some market
segments and regions. Although demand appears to be stabilizing the effects of the recent
past high demand market are reflected in my opinion(s) of value within this report.
Because the proposed acquisition consists of an easement encompassing a portion of the
beachfront located at 10900 Highway A-1-A, South Hutchinson Island, Florida, and site
improvements are marginally affected, in brief, the Scope of Work consists of valuing the site
only (Parent Parcel) before the acquisition, followed by valuation of the acquisition as part of
the Parent Parcel, and finally valuation of the (Remainder) as if the easement is in -place with
the contributory value of nominal site improvements considered functionally curable damage.
The valuation analysis addresses the value of the acquisition and damages to the Reminder,
if applicable. Analysis determined there are no damages to the building improvement, and in
the case of the site improvements other than the loss of a portion of the existing dune
walkover, the appraisal is limited in scope in that the building improvement and all other site
improvements are not included in the analysis.
My opinion of the Market Value of the Fee Simple Interest in the proposed acquisition, as of
November 28, 2023, is found within the Summary of Valuation (page 3) of this report, with my
opinion(s) of value subject to Limiting Conditions and Underlying Assumptions, Extraordinary
Assumptions, Hypothetical Conditions, and Certification as found within this report.
I believe you will find my analysis and opinions are supported, and this report is complete, but
if there are questions, please contact me at your convenience.
Sincerely,
Daniel D. Fuller, MAI, SRA
State -Certified General Real Estate Appraiser RZ567
DDF/asf 20241 — 10900 Highway A1A 11-28-2023
FULLER-ARMFIELD-WAGNER
Page 28 of 110
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY OF IMPORTANT FACTS............................................................................................ 1
SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS............................................................................................................. 2
APPRAISAL REPORT FORMAT.................................................................................................... 2
INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................. 4
PROPERTY TYPE AND USE "AS IS"............................................................................................ 5
SCOPEOF WORK.......................................................................................................................... 5
ORDINARY LIMITING CONDITIONS AND UNDERLYING ASSUMPTIONS ............................... 8
EXTRAORDINARY CONDITIONS................................................................................................. 9
HYPOTHETICAL CONDITIONS..................................................................................................... 9
CERTIFICATE OF APPRAISAL...................................................................................................
10
AREADATA..................................................................................................................................
11
NEIGHBORHOODDATA.............................................................................................................
12
NEIGHBORHOOD MAP...............................................................................................................
13
ZONING AND LAND USE CLASSIFICATION............................................................................
17
CONCURRENCY..........................................................................................................................
18
SLC PLANNING DEPARTMENT USES ID LETTER...................................................................
20
UTILITIES.....................................................................................................................................
21
FLOODZONE...............................................................................................................................
21
HIGHEST AND BEST USE...........................................................................................................
21
VALUATION — PARENT PARCEL................................................................................................
22
LEGAL DESCRIPTION, OWNER OF RECORD AND SALES HISTORY ...................................
23
PROPERTY PHOTOGRAPHS.....................................................................................................
24
PARENT PROPERTY DESCRIPTION.........................................................................................
34
SITE MAP / AERIAL PHOTO........................................................................................................
36
SURVEY— PARENT PARCEL EXHIBIT......................................................................................
37
ASSESSED VALUE AND TAXES................................................................................................
38
FULLER-ARMFIELD-WAGNER
Page 29 of 110
11
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
HIGHESTAND BEST USE........................................................................................................... 39
VALUATION.................................................................................................................................. 41
SALES COMPARISON APPROACH........................................................................................... 41
Unitof Comparison.......................................................................................................... 42
Adjustments...................................................................................................................... 42
Adjusting for Physical Differences................................................................................... 43
SALESUMMARY.......................................................................................................................... 44
SALE ANALYSIS........................................................................................................................... 45
COMPARABLE DATA MAP.......................................................................................................... 46
Summaryof Sales............................................................................................................ 47
Conclusion of Value — Parent Parcel............................................................................... 47
VALUATION —Acquisition as Part of the Whole or Parent Parcel ................................................ 50
LEGAL DESCRIPTION, PROPERTY DESCRIPTION................................................................. 50
Improvements within Easements Acquisition.................................................................. 51
PERPETUAL BEACH STORM DMG RISK MNGMNT EASEMENT EXHIBIT ............................ 52
ACQUISTION SURVEY EXHIBIT................................................................................................. 53
PROPERTY RIGHTS RETAINED -PROPERTY RIGHTS TRANS VIA EASMENT .................... 54
EFFECTS OF THE ACQUISITION............................................................................................... 54
VALUATION OF EASEMENT AS PART OF THE WHOLE......................................................... 56
Value of Portion of Dune Crossover/Removed within Easement Acq ............................ 58
VALUATION — REMAINDER AFTER ACQUISITION............................................................ 60
Effects of the Acquisition on the Remainder.............................................................. 61
Loss of Improvements within Easement Acquisition .................................................. 61
Loss of Landscaping within Easement Acquisition.................................................... 62
Highest and Best Use of Remainder.......................................................................... 62
FULLER-ARMFIELD-WAGNER
Page 30 of 110
111
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
VALUATION REMAINDER......................................................................................................64
Cost to Cure Calculations........................................................................................... 64
Replacement of Landscaping Lost within Easement ................................................. 65
Remainder Value "uncured"....................................................................................... 65
SPECIALBENEFITS...............................................................................................................65
SUMMARYOF ANALYSIS...................................................................................................... 66
QUALIFICATIONS OF THE APPRAISER.................................................................................... 67
ADDENDUM A— St Lucie County Area Data...............................................................................Al
ADDENDUM B — SALES DATA.................................................................................................... B1
FULLER-ARMFIELD-WAGNER
Page 31 of 110
Summary of Salient Facts and Conclusions
• Property Type: Oceanfront commercial zoned site improved with a
building designed to support a restaurant, plus support
site improvements.
• Property Use "as is": Oceanfront commercial zoned site improved with a
building designed to support a restaurant plus support site
improvements, leased to and occupied by Kyle "G's"
restaurant.
• Location: 10900 Highway A1A, St. Lucie County, Florida.
• Date of Appraisal:
November 28, 2023
• Date of Inspection:
November 28, 2023
• Date of Appraisal Report:
January 15, 2024
• Appraisal Completed:
September 2021 — November 2023
• Inspected by:
Daniel D. Fuller, MAI, SPA
• Report Format:
USPAP stated "Appraisal Report" format.
• Purpose of the Appraisal:
Estimate Market Value of an easement acquisition.
• Property Rights Appraised:
Fee Simple — subject is leased, but the lessee's use of the
property is not affected by the proposed easement, rather
the easement allows perpetual beach renourishment,
which in my opinion is an enhancement to the tenant to
maintain the useable beach area for the restaurant
patrons, thus the lease is not affected.
• Parent Parcel (site):
1.92 acres (83,635sf) — Parallelogram
Frontage:
180+ ft. (Highway A-1-A —angled frontage)
186.13± ft. (Atlantic Ocean mean highwater line — angled
frontage)
Depth (average):
506.935± ft.
Improvements: 8,501 sf enclosed restaurant building with
support exterior deck, bar and dining seating, plus site
improvements consisting of drive/parking, landscape.
There is also a wood frame dune crossover to the
Atlantic Ocean beach.
Note: Other than a small portion of subject's dune crossover, the property's restaurant
improvement is not within the area of the acquisition, thus the acquisition does not
create a detriment to the building improvements, see Extraordinary Assumption #2.
The easement includes a small portion of the site's dune crossover structure as well
as dune plantings consisting of some 3,000sf of grasses and 1,700sf of seagrape
plants. However, the Restoration Project requires the acquiring participants to replace
vegetation removed as part of the project, thus the affected vegetative improvements
are not included within my valuation.
FULLER-ARMFIELD-WAGNER
Page 32 of 110
• Acquisition: Perpetual easement on the easterly 0.53± acres
(23,087sf) of the Parent Parcel.
Frontage: 186.13± ft. (Atlantic Ocean Mean highwater line)
Depth: 139.87 ± ft.
Improvements: 5.0± linear feet x 4.Oft. wide frame dune crossover, plus
9.33± ft. x 3.Oft. wide frame dune crossover, plus 1.0
linear feet of wooden seating along each side of dune
crossover, plus some 5.Oft. of PVC & copper pipe with
water shutoffs within the acquisition (beach sand wash
station).
• Remainder (un-cured): 1.92 acres (83,635sf) — Parallelogram
Frontage: 180± ft. (Highway A-1-A —angled frontage)
186.13+ ft. (Atlantic Ocean mean highwater line —
angled frontage)
Depth (average): 506.935± ft.
Improvements: 8,501sf enclosed restaurant building
Non-functional dune crossover & seating, plus non-
functional water supply.
Encumbrance: East 0.53± acres is encumbered with Perpetual
Beach Storm Damage Reduction Easement.
• Remainder (cured): 1.92 acres (83,635sf) — Parallelogram
Frontage: 180± ft. (Highway A-1-A —angled frontage)
186.13+ ft. (Atlantic Ocean mean highwater line —
angled frontage)
Depth (average): 506.935+ ft.
Improvements: 8,501sf enclosed restaurant building
Replaced missing portion of dune crossover w/ seating,
plus water supply to functional condition.
Encumbrance: East 0.53± acres is encumbered with Perpetual
Beach Storm Damage Reduction Easement.
• Zoning (St. Lucie Co.): CG, Commercial General
• Land Use (St. Lucie Co.): COM, Commercial
• Flood Zone: Map 12111 C0314K, dated 2/19/20, Zone(s)
VE (el. 1 Oft), AL (el. 1 Oft), AO, (depth 1)
APPRAISAL REPORT FORMAT
Per Uniform Standards of Appraisal Practice (USPAP 2016-2017) — Standards Rule 2-2, each written real property
appraisal report must be prepared under one of the following options and prominently state which
options is used: Appraisal Report or Restricted Appraisal Report
Appraisal report meets the USPAP defined "Appraisal Report" format.
FULLER-ARMFIELD-WAGNER
Page 33 of 110
Because only a portion of the site's dune crossover and beach sand wash station are included
in the acquisition, with no other improvements affected, the Scope of Work consists of valuing
the site only as the Parent Parcel "before" the acquisition, plus the contributory value of the
site improvements affected by the acquisition, followed by valuation of the acquisition as part
of the Parent Parcel, and then valuation of the Remainder site "after" the Acquisition "uncured"
and "cured", "after" the easement is in -place, the appraisal report is formatted in the following
sections:
• Introduction
— Includes general data pertinent to all analysis.
• Valuation —
Parent Parcel, "before" the easement acquisition.
• Valuation —
Acquisition as part of the Whole or Parent Parcel.
• Valuation —
Remainder (uncured & cured) or "after" the easement is in -place.
Summary of Analysis — Easement Acquisition
Parent Parcel — "site as vacant" (before acquisition) - $4,150,000
Part Acquired as Part of Parent Parcel (Whole) - $ 175,652
Remainder as part of Parent Parcel (Whole) - $3,974,348
Remainder "uncured" after acquisition - $3,971,848
Damages - $ 2,500
Special Benefits - $ 0
Net Damages - $ 2,500
Summary of Value
Value Part Acquired -
Damages -
Total Value -
Rounded
$175,652
$ 2,500
$178,152
$180,000
FULLER-ARMFIELD-WAGNER
Page 34 of 110
INTRODUCTION
FULLER-ARMFIELD-WAGNER
Page 35 of 110
Proaerty Tvae & Use "as is"
• Property Type: Oceanfront commercial zoned site improved with a
building designed to support a restaurant, plus support
site improvements.
• Property Use "as is": Oceanfront commercial zoned site improved with a
building designed to support a restaurant, plus support
site improvements, leased to and occupied by Kyle "G's"
restaurant.
• Location: 10900 Highway A1A, St. Lucie County, Florida.
Scope of Work
Ms. JoAnn Riley, Property Acquisition Manager, representing the St. Lucie County Board of
County Commissioners and St. Lucie County Erosion Control District, engaged my services to
provide an opinion of the Market Value of a Perpetual Beach Storm Damage Reduction
Easement to be located on the easterly 0.53 acres of the 10900 Highway A1A property under
the ownership of EFTX, LLC.
MARKET VALUE Defined - Market Value, per Florida case law (State Road Department v. Stack, 231
So. 2d 859 FL 1st DCA 1969) defined as:
The amount of money that a purchaser willing but not obligated to buy the property would pay an owner
willing but not obligated to sell, taking into consideration all uses to which the property is adapted and
might be applied in reason. Inherent in the willing buyer -willing seller test of the fair market value are
the following:
• A fair sale resulting from fair negotiations.
• Neither party is acting under compulsion of necessity (this eliminates forced liquidation or sale at
auction). Economic pressure may be enough to preclude a sale's use.
• Both parties having knowledge of all relevant facts.
• A sale without peculiar or special circumstances.
• A reasonable time to find a buyer.
FEE SIMPLE ESTATE Defined —Source, Appraisal Institute, Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal, 6th ed.
Absolute ownership unencumbered by any other interest or estate, subject only to the limitations
imposed by the governmental powers of taxation, eminent domain, police power, and escheat.
The Parent Parcel is a 1.92 acres site fronting the east side of Highway A1A, and the Atlantic
Ocean.
St. Lucie County is proposing the purchase of a Perpetual Beach Storm Damage Reduction
Easement to be located on the easterly 0.53 acres of the Parent Parcel. The easement also
encumbers a portion of the property's wooden dune crossover structure, plumbing for beach
sand wash station.
The Remainder parcel consists of the Parent Parcel with the Perpetual Beach Storm Damage
Reduction Easement in -place, encumbering the east approximate 0.53 acres of the
Remainder, less a portion of the dune crossover and sand wash station (Remainder
"uncured"), and valuation of the Remainder after replacing the acquired site improvements
(Remainder "cured").
FULLER-ARMFIELD-WAGNER
Page 36 of 110
me
Based on analysis later in this report, and upon review of the location of the acquisition
and my inspection of the Parent Parcel, it is my opinion the acquisition does not conflict
with existing building improvements and a majority of the support site improvements, but
the easement encompasses some 5.0+ linear feet x 4.Oft. wide frame dune crossover,
plus another 9.33± ft. x 3.Oft. wide frame dune crossover, plus 1.0 linear feet of wooden
seating along each side of dune crossover, plus some 5.Oft. of PVC & copper pipe with
water shutoffs for beach sand wash station. Also, while a portion of the property's dune
crossover is included within the easement area, my opinion(s) assume per the easement
language the dune crossover can be reconstructed — see Extraordinary Assumption #2.
Again, the dune plantings of grasses (some 3, 000so and seagrape plantings (some
1, 700so within the acquisition are expected to be replaced as part of the restoration project
thus the value and/or cost to replace are not included in my analysis and opinion of value.
Because the proposed acquisition consists of an easement encompassing a portion of the
beachfront located at 10900 Highway A-1-A, South Hutchinson Island, Florida, and site
improvements are marginally affected, in brief, the Scope of Work consists of valuing the site
only (Parent Parcel) before the acquisition, followed by valuation of the acquisition as part of
the Parent Parcel, and finally valuation of the (Remainder) as if the easement is in -place with
the contributory value of nominal site improvements considered functionally curable damage.
The valuation analysis addresses the value of the acquisition and damages to the Reminder,
if applicable. Analysis determined there are no damages to the building improvement, and in
the case of the site improvements other than the loss of a portion of the existing dune walkover
the appraisal is limited in scope in that the building improvement and all other site
improvements are not included in the analysis.
Valuation via the Cost Approach is not an applicable method of appraising the property as the
Parent Parcel site is appraised as vacant. However, the Cost Approach is utilized to estimate
the contributory value, the dune crossover and sand wash station as part of the Parent Parcel,
and the cost to repair/replace the crossover and sand wash station to maintain access to the
beach after the acquisition.
In the case of the valuation of vacant tracts like the subject, the Income Capitalization
Approach is not applicable in the valuation process as the easement does not affect the
income potential of the Parent Parcel or the Remainder, thus the Income Capitalization
Approach is not employed.
Valuation of the Parent Parcel via the Sales Comparison Approach requires research and
analysis of sales of properties with physical characteristics similar to the subject as well as
highest and best use similar to the subject of this appraisal. Research was conducted using
public records, commercial data services, multiple listing service (MLS), interviews with buyers,
sellers, brokers, investors, etcetera. Data gathered was verified with a knowledgeable
participant of a transaction, followed by analysis of the data to interpret market trends. The
analyzed data was then applied to the Parent Parcel to form an opinion of value.
FULLER-ARMFIELD-WAGNER
Page 37 of 110
Sales of properties with and without dune crossovers in -place were not located for analysis,
thus the contributory value of the dune crossover and sand wash station are estimated utilizing
the Cost Approach method of analysis.
Valuation of the Remainder "uncured" and "cured" is accomplished in essentially the same
manner as valuation of the Parent Parcel, less the property rights acquired via the easement
and the improvements within the area of the acquisition "uncured", as well as the cost to
replace the improvements for valuation as "cured".
• The appraisal conforms to St, Lucie County Appraisal Standards, and the Uniform
Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP) (with a Jurisdictional exception
regarding exposure time), as the assignment is in compliance with Uniform Standards for
Federal Land Acquisitions, including invocation of USPAP's Jurisdictional Exception Rule,
as described in Section D-1 b of the Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land
Acquisitions, noting that the appraiser shall not link an estimate of market value for federal
land acquisition purposes to a specific exposure time. Also, the Scope of the Project Rule
will apply in that any increase or decrease in the value of the property caused by the
project for which the property is being acquired must be disregarded by the appraiser.
• The appraisal is provided in a USPAP stated "Appraisal Report" format.
• Client: St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners, St. Lucie County Erosion District
or client representatives, and their funding partners.
• The Intended Use of this appraisal is to estimate Market Value of a Perpetual Beach Storm
Damage Reduction Easement on Parcel 100 of the project as referenced above. The
appraisal is not intended for another use.
• The Intended User of this report are the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners,
St. Lucie County Erosion District or representatives of St. Lucie County government, and
representatives of the United States Department of Army. The appraisal report is not
intended for another user.
• The appraisal and report are subject to the Ordinary Limiting Conditions, Extraordinary
Assumptions, Hypothetical Conditions, and Certification included within this report.
• Although initially the effects of the coronavirus pandemic on real estate demand and prices
were largely unknown, upon Florida's opening for business in mid-2020 demand in various
real estate markets moved quickly to historic high levels, followed in some instances with
significant price increases. Thus, it appears rather than a negative effect on demand, the
coronavirus created a positive effect on demand and property values in some market
segments and regions. Although demand appears to be stabilizing the effects of the recent
past high demand market are reflected in my opinion(s) of value within this report.
FULLER-ARMFIELD-WAGNER
Page 38 of 110
Ordinary Limiting Conditions and Underlying Assumptions
1. The opinions value given in this report represents the opinion of the signer as of the DATE SPECIFIED. Real
estate is affected by an enormous variety of forces and conditions will vary with future conditions, sometimes
sharply within a short time. Responsible ownership and competent management are assumed.
2. This report covers the premises herein described only. Neither the figures herein nor any analysis thereof, nor
any unit values derived therefrom are to be construed as applicable to any other property, however, similar the
same may be.
3. It is assumed that the title to said premises is good; that the legal description of the premises is correct; that the
improvements are entirely and correctly located on the property; but no investigation or survey has been made,
unless so stated.
4. The opinion(s) given in this appraisal report is gross, without consideration given to any encumbrance, restriction
or question of title, unless so stated.
5. Easements on the subject parcels are unknown. Easements may or may not be recorded or may exist by customary
use or other legal means. The appraiser has not nor is he qualified to search legal records as to the existence of other
easements.
6. Information as to the description of the premises, restrictions, improvements and income features of the property
involved in this report is as has been submitted by the applicant for this appraisal or has been obtained by the
signer hereto. All such information is considered correct; however, no responsibility is assumed as to the
correctness thereof unless so stated in the report.
7. The physical condition of the improvements described herein was based on visual inspection. No liability is
assumed for the soundness of structural members since no engineering tests were made of the same. The property
is assumed to be free of termites and other destructive pests.
8. Possession of any copy of this report does not carry with it the right of publication, nor may it be used for any
purpose by any but the applicant without the previous written consent of the appraiser or the applicant, and in any
event, only in its entirety.
9. Neither all nor part of the contents of this report shall be conveyed to the public through advertising, public
relations, news, sales or other media, without the written consent of the author; particularly as to the valuation
conclusions, the identity of the appraiser or the firm with which he is connected, or any reference to the Appraisal
Institute, or to the SRA or MAI designations.
10. The appraiser herein, by reason of this report is not required to give testimony in court or attend hearings, with
reference to the property herein appraised, unless arrangements have been previously made.
11. The Contract for the appraisal/consulting services is fulfilled by the signer hereto upon the delivery of this
report duly executed.
12. It is assumed that there is full compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local environmental regulations
and zoning laws unless non-compliance is stated, defined and considered in the appraisal report.
13. Unless otherwise stated in this report, the existence of hazardous material, which may or may not be present
on the property, was not observed by the appraiser. The appraiser has no knowledge of the existence of such
materials on or in the property. The appraiser, however, is not qualified to detect such substances. The presence
of substances such as asbestos, urea -formaldehyde foam insulation or other potentially hazardous materials may
affect the value of the property. The value estimate is predicated on the assumption that there is no such material
on or in the property that would cause a loss in value. No responsibility is assumed for any such conditions, or for
any expertise or engineering knowledge required to discover them. The client is urged to retain an expert in the
field, if desired.
14. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) became effective January 26, 1992, we have not made a specific
compliance survey and analysis of this property to determine whether or not it is in conformity with the various detailed
requirements of the ADA. It is possible that a compliance survey of the property together with a detailed analysis of the
requirements of the ADA could reveal that the property is not in compliance with one or more of the requirements of
the act. If so, this fact could have a negative effect upon the value of the property. Since we have no direct evidence
relating to this issue, we did not consider possible noncompliance with the requirements of ADA in estimating the value
of the property.
FULLER-ARMFIELD-WAGNER
Page 39 of 110
a
Extraordinary Assumptions
Extraordinary Assumptions - Defined - source, Appraisal Institute, Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal, 5th ed.
An assumption, directly related to a specific assignment, which, as of the effective date of the assignment results,
which, if found to be false, could alter the appraiser's opinions or conclusions.
Extraordinary assumptions presume as fact otherwise uncertain information about physical, legal, or economic
characteristics of the subject property; or about conditions external to the property such as market conditions or
trends; or about the integrity of data used in an analysis.
1. Parent Parcel, the Acquisition, and Remainder, legal descriptions, site dimensions
and site size are obtained from client provided Draft of St. Lucie County Resolution No. 24
— and a survey Certified by Thomas P. Kiernan, Professional Surveyor & Mapper, Florida
Certificate No. 6199, certified 12/09/2021, Job No. 20-165-011 / Field Book 21-7/Pg. 64,
and the reported survey data is assumed accurate.
2. My opinion(s) assume the dune crossover and sand wash station within thearea of
the easement will be replaced "after" acquisition of the easement.
3. Building area calculations within this report are per County Property Appraiser
Assessment Data and assumed accurate, provided only for information as only a small
portion of the dune overwalk and sand wash station are included in the easement
acquisition.
Hypothetical Conditions
Hypothetical Condition - Defined — Uniform Standards of Professional Practice (USPAP), 2014-2015, ed.
A condition, directly related to a specific assignment, which is contrary to what is known by the appraiser
to exist on the effective date of the assignment results but is used for the purpose of analysis.
Hypothetical conditions are contrary to known facts about physical, legal, or economic characteristics
of the subject property; or about conditions external to the property, such as market conditions or trends;
or about the integrity of data used in an analysis.
1. Valuation of the Remainder is considered Hypothetical because as of the date of
appraisal the acquisition has not occurred.
FULLER-ARMFIELD-WAGNER
Page 40 of 110
10
Certificate of Appraisal
I certify that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:
a) The statements of fact contained in this report are true and correct.
b) The reported analysis, opinions, and conclusions are limited only by the reported assumptions and
limiting conditions, and are my personal, impartial, and unbiased professional analyses, opinions, and
conclusions.
c) I have no present or prospective interest in the property that is the subject of this report, and no
personal interest with respect to the parties involved.
d) I have no bias with respect to the property that is the subject of this report or to the parties involved
with this assignment.
e) My engagement in this assignment was not contingent upon developing or reporting predetermined
results.
f) My compensation for completing this assignment is not contingent upon the development or
reporting of a predetermined value or direction in value that favors the cause of the client, the amount
of the value opinion, the attainment of a stipulated result, or the occurrence of a subsequent event
directly related to the intended use of this appraisal.
g) The appraisal was developed, and the appraisal report prepared in conformance with the Appraisal
Standards Board's Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP).
h) Daniel D. Fuller inspected the property that is the subject of this report.
i) No one provided significant real estate appraisal assistance to the person signing this certification.
j) The reported analyses, opinion, and conclusions were developed, and this report has been
prepared, in conformity with the requirement of the Code of Professional Ethics & Standards of
Professional Appraisal Practice of the Appraisal Institute including the Uniform Standards of
Professional Appraisal Practice.
k) The use of this report is subject to the requirements of the Appraisal Institute relating to review by
its duly authorized representatives.
1) "As of the date of this report, Daniel D. Fuller, MAI, SRA, has completed the requirements under the
continuing education program of the Appraisal Institute."
m) This appraisal assignment was not based on a requested minimum valuation, a specific valuation,
or the approval of a loan.
n) I have not appraised this property or performed any services in any capacity related to this property
in the three years prior to this assignment.
o) My opinion of Market Value of Fee Simple Interest in the easement acquisition that is the subject
of this appraisal, as of November 28, 2023, is *$180,000*
January 15, 2024
Daniel D. Fuller, MAI, SRA Date
State -Certified General Real Estate Appraiser RZ567
FULLER-ARMFIELD-WAGNER
Page 41 of 110
11
Area Data
Detailed St. Lucie County Area Data is located within Addendum A of this report. In brief;
• The subject is located within St. Lucie County's South Hutchinson Island (barrier island)
neighborhood between the Atlantic Ocean and the Indian River.
• The subject is within St. Lucie County governmental jurisdiction with adjacent Jensen
Beach, Martin County mailing address.
• Fort Pierce is the oldest city with a 2010 census population of 41,590 and 2020 US Census
Bureau population estimate of 44,476, an increase of approximately 6.9% for the ten-year
period (0.69%/year).
• Port St. Lucie was incorporated in the early 1960's with population in 2010 of 164,603, and
2020 US Census Bureau population estimate of 202,914, an increase of approximately 23%
for the ten-year period (2.3% per year).
• St. Lucie Village is a mostly residential community with a population of some 600 persons,
and historically very little change in the community thus the community has nominal impact
on the County.
• The 2010 census placed the County's total population at 277,789 with 2020 US Census
Bureau population estimate of 322,265, an increase of approximately 16% for the ten-year
period (1.6% per year).
• Over the past ten years the population growth within the city of Fort Pierce has remained
relatively nominal and expected to continue to grow at a relatively slow pace. A majority of
the near -term growth in St. Lucie County is expected to occur in and surrounding the city of
Port St. Lucie. To a great degree this occurs because the city of Ft. Pierce has little vacant
land for new growth vs. the platted areas of the city of Port St. Lucie approximately 75%
developed, plus large acreage tracts in the southwest environs of the city of Port St. Lucie
remain available for development. Thus, a majority of the County's near -term growth is
expected to occur in and around the city of Port St. Lucie with near term growth in the city
of Ft. Pierce and northerly St. Lucie County expected to continue at its slow pace.
• Finally, prior to the announcement of the coronavirus pandemic real estate conditions
throughout St. Lucie County were strengthening, although depending upon location,
strengthening occurred at different levels. However, post pandemic, demand in residential
and industrial market significantly strengthened, but demand in the retail and office
markets softened but as of the date of appraisal it appears demand in all market segments
is stabilizing, however it is likely long-term trends in all markets will not be clearly defined
for several months, yet overall growth is expected to continue at a steady pace.
FULLER-ARMFIELD-WAGNER
Page 42 of 110
12
Neighborhood Description
Neighborhoods are defined as — Source: Appraisal Institute, The Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal, 6th ed.
1. A group of complementary land uses; a congruous grouping of inhabitants, buildings, or business
enterprises.
2. A developed residential superpad within a master planned community usually having a distinguishing
name and entrance.
Neighborhood Boundaries
The subject's broad neighborhood is defined as a 22-mile corridor along the barrier island
identified as South Hutchinson Island, bordered on the north by the Fort Pierce Inlet within the
Fort Pierce city limits, and bordered on the south by St. Lucie Inlet within neighboring Martin
County. East / west neighborhood boundaries consist of the Atlantic Ocean and the Indian
River with the neighborhood some 1/8 to 1 miles wide. The subject is located within the
southern St. Lucie County portion of the neighborhood, but addressed as Jensen Beach,
Martin County, Florida.
A map depicting neighborhood boundaries comprises the following Exhibit.
Highway Access
Access is via SR A-1-A (a/k/a Highway A1A or South Ocean Drive). On the north end of the
island Seaway Drive (also identified as SR A-1-A) connects the island to the mainland
neighborhoods of the City of Fort Pierce and surrounding St. Lucie County. At the south end
of the neighborhood within northern Martin County the Jensen Beach Causeway and the
Stuart Causeway connect South Hutchinson Island to the north Martin County and south St.
Lucie County mainland neighborhoods.
Property Uses
The primary attraction to the neighborhood is the Atlantic Ocean on the east, and the Indian
River on the west.
The northern approximate 2.5 miles of the neighborhood consists of relatively intense
development associated with the city of Ft. Pierce, including single family and multi -family
homes, low-rise multi -family projects, hotels, and miscellaneous commercial development.
The central portion of the neighborhood, some 8.0 miles, is predominately undeveloped but a
significant land area is owned by Florida Power & Light (FPL) with the approximate center of
the ownership developed with a nuclear power plant. Plus, various governmental agencies,
i.e., St. Lucie County, Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), and the South
Florida Water Management (SFWMD) own large tracts of preservation and/or recreation lands
including developable beachfront tracts was well as undevelopable "wetlands". South of the
Fort Pierce city limits, some 5.5 miles, development within the neighborhood consist of
detached single-family units located within a nominal number of platted oceanfront
subdivisions, or individual oceanfront acreage tracts followed by the FPL and governmental
ownerships.
FULLER-ARMFIELD-WAGNER
Page 43 of 110
13
y j
NEIGHBORHOOD MAP
"k
�17
Ill
dual
A
JLI�
71
FULLER-ARMFIELD-WAGNER
Page 44 of 110
14
The south 5.5± miles of the St. Lucie County portion of the neighborhood consists of a mix of
"high-rise" residential condominium projects fronting the Atlantic Ocean, plus various
detached single-family projects as well as modular home and RV resort projects west of SR
A1A, plus there is also a small amount of convenience commercial development. The subject
and two other oceanfront restaurants are located within the subject's immediate
neighborhood. Plus, west of Highway A1A there are a couple of modest size seafood
restaurants. The "high-rise" neighborhood ends at the south St. Lucie County line.
Development within south St. Lucie County is closely associated with southerly more
economically "upscale" Martin County than St. Lucie County.
South into Martin County residential development is low density with "low-rise" condominium
projects as well as detached single-family projects. There is a commercial node where SR
A1A turns west to cross the Indian River at the Stuart causeway. South of the causeway
neighborhood at the north side of the St. Lucie Inlet there is the upscale private residential
community of Sailfish Point.
Between the "high-rise" area and the south Fort Pierce city limits, historically, development
has moved forward at a slow pace. This occurred for several reasons, including, initially the
FPL plant was a detriment to demand with concerns with plant safety, plus this part of the
island is generally somewhat isolated from retail and employment neighborhoods, also the
FPL power plant ownership separates the neighborhood into "north" and "south" areas with
market participants viewing properties associated with different market segments, i.e. north of
the power plant associated with the city of Fort Pierce vs. properties south of the power plant
more associated with upscale Martin County.
Also, governmental development regulations generally negatively affected development
financial feasibility, including the State of Florida's Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL)
relocation westward from the beach dune line towards SR A1A, negatively affecting
development density on the barrier island. Also, in October 1982, the Federal Government's
Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) was passed in response to concerns of the fragile
nature of undeveloped coastal barriers and their exposure to coastal storms. The intent of the
Act was to remove the Federal government from financial involvement (including subsidizing
flood insurance and federal financing of utilities) associated with development in such areas
so that the government would not be in the position to encourage such development. The
CBRA zone (now identified as a "Designated Undeveloped Coastal Barrier') does not prohibit
development, but it places restrictions on the availability of utilities, flood insurance, and
potentially, financing. Another statute affecting development in the neighborhood is the Indian
River Surface Water Improvement Management Act, enacted by the State of Florida in 1990.
The "SWIM" act or Public Law 92-262 regulates development adjacent to the Indian River.
Historic Development Trends
During the early 1990's economic recession demand for oceanfront and riverfront units on the
barrier island softened to a crawl. However, over the 2003-2005 period demand was at boom
levels including development of the final phases of permitted "high-rise" condominium
projects, plus during the "boom" period, south of the power plant and north of the "high-rise"
portion of the neighborhood the first phase of Diamond Sands, an upscale oceanfront single-
FULLER-ARMFIELD-WAGNER
Page 45 of 110
15
family project, began construction. Also, during the "boom" period north of the FPL plant other
small oceanfront single family projects developed, i.e., Watersong PUD, as well as Shell Cove,
Shell Cove Addition, and Anacostia (a/k/a Sea Oats).
However, with the 2008 economic recession demand in most of the projects mentioned all but
stopped, but with evidence of economic recovery occurring in the neighborhood in 2016-2017
new construction began in the Watersong project and Diamond Sands and continues to the
date of appraisal. There are other projects such as Shell Cove and Shell Cove Addition where
no vertical construction has occurred since initial project development. In March 2008 during
the past economic recession Hutchinson Sands, located within the central portion of the north
neighborhood, received development approvals. The Hutchinson Sands project permits
consists of a 92-units oceanfront condominium project proposed to be developed in buildings
with four -floors above parking. Construction on the project has yet to begin.
North of the FPL ownership in the early 2000's the modest size oceanfront single family Turtle
Nest project initial site plan approval was achieved with an adjacent modest size single family
development, Pelican Reef, initial site plan approval in 2008. With development order
extensions plans have evolved and the Turtle Nest / Pelican Reef development plans received
approvals / extensions in April 2019 with new owners expecting to develop the properties as
one project. Construction on the mentioned project has begun. Beginning in the 4th quarter of
2019, the long term planned Sunset Beach single family project began construction. Sunset
Beach is 43 lot detached single-family oceanfront subdivision located north of the FPL
property. Project construction is complete, and the project is open for sales. There are also
small acreage parcels offered for sale within barrier island neighborhoods, available for single
family residential estate development. A couple sites have been developed with large upscale
homes although demand for these parcels has been soft, caused by development difficulties
associated with land permitting and construction regulations.
Within the subject's immediate neighborhood, fronting the west side of Highway A1A, there is
an approved 28 units upscale townhouse project with easement beach access and 11 boat
docks under construction. Plus, The Alcove four -units townhouse project is under
construction. Also, approvals are in -place for development of the former Majestic Bay project
with 24 townhouse units, and 12 boat docks on the Indian River, and easement access to the
Atlantic beaches, although construction has not started.
Economic Trends
In the recent past high demand in most real estate markets throughout the Treasure Coast
created undersupply conditions and rapidly increasing prices. In the 2003-2005 period demand
drastically strengthened from south Florida population migration. However, in about mid-2005
the residential market transitioned within a very few months to over -supply conditions. With the
transition in demand, the market realized that the past strong demand was less than stable, and
speculative investing was the real market driver, and when the speculators left, market prices
collapsed, and with the economic recession of 2008, prices/value declined and remained flat for
several years. Following the 2008 economic recession, in approximately mid 2011 demand in
the residential markets began to strengthen, and upon the mid-2020 opening from the
Coronavirus lockdown recognizable market strengthening began in the 31 quarter of 2020.
Residential units of all types and development ready lots experienced strong demand and strong
FULLER-ARMFIELD-WAGNER
Page 46 of 110
16
prices increase, but the price of raw land within the neighborhood has moderately increased,
caused by several of the previously discussed negatives including governmental development
restrictions. However, with migration strong demand and significant price increases in the
neighborhood's residential market, demand for raw acreage development tracts should
strengthen, especially considering the neighborhood's appeal to its ocean and river amenities
and the diminishing inventory of available properties, all long-term positives to subject's value.
Finally, because the subject is the only neighborhood oceanfront property with commercial
zoning, as a vacant site, the subject should attract significant demand supporting upper end
pricing.
FULLER-ARMFIELD-WAGNER
Page 47 of 110
17
Zoning / Land Use Classifications
• Authority— St. Lucie County Bord of County Commissioners.
• Administration — St. Lucie County Planning / Zoning Department.
Zoning Designation — CG, Commercial, General
The purpose of this district is to provide and protect an environment suitable for a wide variety
of commercial uses intended to serve a population over a large market area, which do not
impose undesirable noise, vibration, odor, dust, or offensive effects on the surrounding area,
together with such other uses as may be necessary to and compatible with general
commercial surroundings.
The subject "as developed" is an allowed use with the CG zoning district. Complete analysis
of subject's compliance with all zoning criteria was not performed as other than a portion of
the dune walk and sand wash station the improvements are not included within this
appraisal.
The subject includes 63 on -site parking spaces, which may be the zoning allowed number
of spaces at the time of construction. Functionally it appears there is inadequate parking as
valets double park vehicles, plus it appears employees park on a vacant site on the west
side of Highway A1A, indicating parking may be functionally limited although parking may
be adequate for other than a restaurant use of the building.
It appears past zoning codes required between 13 and 17 spaces per 1,OOOsf of gross floor
area, plus subject provides outside bar and food service seating. Based on subjects gross
building area (not including outdoor seating areas), and the estimated minimum number of
parking spaces there is the potential 110 to 144 spaces are required indicating new
restaurant construction on the site will result in a much smaller building than the current
structure.
Land Use Classification — COM, Commercial
The Commercial (COM) land use designation is applicable to areas of future commercial
development, in addition to those existing developed commercial areas. Future commercial
areas should be located at points of high transportation access, with specific action taken to
prevent the development of new linear commercial strips. Although this plan supports the
location of higher intensity commercial uses at the intersection of arterial roadways, it should
not be interpreted to mean that every intersection should be designated for commercial
activities. Unless otherwise designated on the future land use maps, applications for
commercial use should be done in conjunction with a detailed review of the impacts of such
development on adjacent property, specifically noting what, if any, negative neighborhood
impacts could result from a map amendment. The Commercial (COM) designation is intended
to accommodate all commercial zoning districts as identified under St. Lucie County's Land
Development Code. Office and general retail uses are considered the principal uses within
the COM designated areas.
South Hutchinson Island Overlay Zone
Within the South Hutchinson Island Overlay Zone subject is allowed building height of 125 feet.
FULLER-ARMFIELD-WAGNER
Page 48 of 110
11111100,
Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL
The Parent Parcel is encumbered with the CCCL. Per available CCCL maps, the original line
established in 1978, lays along the approximate east elevation of the restaurant building with the
current and CCCL located some 170 feet west of the original line running northwest / southeast
through the parking lot. In brief, east of the current CCCL to the original CCCL line there are
specific construction requirements for development. Per the available CCCL map the restaurant
building and attached structures are located east of the current CCCL and mostly west of the
original CCCL. Other than a small portion of the dune crossover the mentioned construction is
not included in the area of the easement thus not included in valuation of the Parent Parcel or
the Remainder.
The dune crossover affected by the easement acquisition lays east of the CCCL, but dune
crossovers are permitted east of the CCCL, thus repair or replacement of the dune crossover
affected by the acquisition is expected to be permitted. Also, included in the dune crossover there
is a sand wash station, with a portion of the structure included in the acquisition area.
Conclusion — Zoning / Land Use Classifications
The subject is the only oceanfront site within the neighborhood with commercial zoning and
future land use classification. The commercial classifications allow development with almost
any improvement type and use, except residential, subject to meeting all zoning regulations,
i.e., setbacks including the CCCL setbacks, building heights, parking, etc. While "as
developed" the improvements may not meet all current zoning criteria, it appears the
improvements are allowed to operate "as is" with a restaurant occupant. As a vacant site, as
appraised, the use may be different, or a building is expected to be significantly smaller to
meet all current zoning criteria.
CONCURRENCY
Concurrency is the comparison of any proposed development's impact on public facilities and the capacity of the
public facilities that are, or will be, available to serve the proposed development. Compliance with Concurrency is
required of all proposed new development in St. Lucie County. Concurrency is determined when a site plan is
submitted to the County Commission for approvals.
The subject is an improved site and as such subject is expected to have complied with Concurrency.
St. Lucie County Planning Department staff opinion of subject's development potential
To assist in forming an opinion of the highest and best use of the subject site, appraised "as
vacant" St. Lucie County Planning Department personnel were consulted with an opinion of use
letter authored and provided by the past Planning Director, Mayte' Santamaria, now Deputy
County Administrator, see the following Exhibit, providing guidance with the site's legal use.
In brief, subject is within CG, Commercial General zoning, and COM, Commercial Future Land
Use classification, and per Ms. Santamaria - "These designations permit most development
identified as non-residential and/or commercial but do not permit residential development, other than
an accessory on -site security dwelling unit. Proposals for residential development would require a
FULLER-ARMFIELD-WAGNER
Page 49 of 110
19
change in zoning/future land use classifications, and the potential for changes in zoning/land use
classifications is uncertain. That said, there is potential to develop the property as a hotel or motel,
pursuant to a Conditional Use approval."
Although a majority of the oceanfront sites within the neighborhood are developed in the
residential market, per Planning Director Santamaria, the subject is not permitted residential
development. However, a restaurant improvement is allowed, and like the adjacent property to
the south of subject, hotel development is permitted. The subject's developable area is modest
thus any improvement is expected to be modest in area to meet setbacks, parking, landscape
regulations, etc., and as mentioned, it is likely the current building size may not be permittable
because of required parking. Regardless, as appraised as a "vacant" site, the subject's
development potential is considered when forming an opinion of value.
FULLER-ARMFIELD-WAGNER
Page 50 of 110
1
a A
r ,
ST �,A E
October 27, 2022
Board of County
Daniel D. Fuller, MAI
Commissioners
Fuller-Armfield-Wagner
Appraisal & Research, Inc'
426 Avenue A
Fort Pierce, FL 34950
Sean Mitchell
D1LS 1 R)II[CIF 2
RE: 10900 Highway Al A, St. Lucie County, FL — tax parcel #4512-331-0002-000-5
Dear Mr. Fuller:
Frannie Hutchinson
1S1fli 1 111(""1" 4
Per our meeting of October 24, 2022, and your inquiry relating to the development potential per
wryµ Chailur
zoning/future land use criteria for the referenced real estate. The property's zoning classification is
CG, Commercial General, and the property's Future Land Use classification is COM, Commercial.
Chris Dzadovsky
isS
1 1"11VIIS;°'�L" 1
The COM Future Land Use classification, per Comprehensive Plan Policy 1.1.1.2, is applicable to
areas of future commercial development, in addition to those existing developed commercial areas.
Future commercial areas should be located at points of high transportation access, with specific
Linda Bartz
action taken to prevent the development of new linear commercial strips.
lfil[S1"11VIIf"IF 3
The purpose of the CG z oning c lassification, per L and D evelopment Co de S ection 3. 01.00,
paragraph S, is to provide and protect an environment suitable for a wide variety of commercial
Cathy Townsend
uses intended to serve apopulation over a large market area, which do not impose undesirable noise,
llilN 1 I )IIK "1" S
vibration, odor, dust, or offensive effects on the surrounding area, together with such other uses as
may be necessary to and compatible with general commercial surroundings.
These designations permit most development identified as non-residential and/or commercial but
Administration
do not p ermit residential development, other th an an acces sory on -site security dwelling a nit.
Proposals f or residential d evelopment w ould require a change in z oning/future I and us e
classifications, and the potential for changes in zoning/land use classifications is uncertain. That
Howard Tipton
said, there is potential to develop the property as a hotel or motel, pursuant to a Conditional Use
COaI N aI.""L
approval.
A1)I 11INIIIISllll'lllf1A 1'111lit
Any development is required to meet all other zoning code criteria including parking, building
setbacks, building heights, lot coverage, etc.
Dan McIntyre
f'f1UN]" A l""]III.'fl)I177 1IFIX
I believe this summary clarifies your questions relating to the property's development potential
relating to zoning/future land use classifications, but if you have additional questions, please
contact me at your convenience.
Regards,
r
Mayte Santamaria
Planning & Development Services Director
MfA: ° III IIIK SiANTAMA11111'III[A I PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR
m0 I��aIl11 r1<Lpll1(C[),3t111416 6 41.�rg �".3CA) Virginia Avenue nue (IFort ll' erc , II L 4982 k* (771 )d_67 .. 1960 �' w �r �r✓.sll ac ic°a°,os gov
Page 51 of 110
21
UTILITIES
SERVICE
PROVIDER
Electric
Florida Power & Light FPL
Water
Fort Pierce Utilities Authority FPUA
Sewer
St. Lucie County Utilities
Trash
Private carrier
Utility service is typical for the neighborhood and support most potential development types.
FLOOD ZONE DATA
FEMA MAP s
MAP DATE
I FLOOD ZONE(s)
12111CO314K
2/19/2020
1 VE el. 10ft , AE el. 1Oft , AO el. depth 1ft
The VE, AE & AO zones are considered flood hazard, typical for oceanfront properties.
Highest and Best Use is defined as:
The value of real property is related to the use to which it can be put. It follows that a parcel
may have several different value levels under alternative uses. Accordingly, the property
appraised herein is appraised under its Highest and Best Use, which is defined as:
"The reasonably probable of property that results in the highest value. The
four criteria that the highest and best use must meet are legal permissibility,
physical possibility, financially feasible, and maximum productivity".
Generally considered the standards for Highest and Best Use analysis.
Source: Appraisal Institute, The Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal, 6th ed. (Chicago: Appraisal Institute, 2016)
Highest and best use is analyzed within the following Valuation sections.
FULLER-ARMFIELD-WAGNER
Page 52 of 110
22
VALUATION — Parent Parcel
FULLER-ARMFIELD-WAGNER
Page 53 of 110
23
History of Ownership
Owner: EFTX, Inc.
4545 NE Ocean Blvd.,
Jensen Beach, FL 34957
Title Transfers — the most recent known title transfer, OR Book 3471, Page 323, occurred
December 27, 2012. Because the deed included other properties, and because the transaction
is over eleven years old, the transaction is not further analyzed.
Listings / Contracts — To the best of my knowledge the subject is not listed for sale. Also, to the
best of my knowledge there are no sale/purchase contracts on the subject.
Leases — The subject is leased to Kyle "G's" restaurant. The subject is leased, but the lessee's
use is not affected by the proposed easement, in fact the easement allows perpetual beach
renourishment which is an enhancement to the tenant to maintain useable beach area for the
restaurant patrons, thus in my opinion the acquisition does not affect the lease.
Legal Description — Parent Parcel
The following Parent Parcel legal description is compiled by the appraiser from the previously
referenced Deed of purchase dated December 27, 2012, and survey of the Parent Parcel
Certified by Thomas P. Kiernan, Professional Surveyor & Mapper, Florida Certificate No. 6199,
certified 12/09/2021, Job No. 20-165-011.
The south 180 feet of the north 430 feet (as measured along State Road A1A) of Government
Lot 2, Section 12, Township 37 South, Range 41 East, St. Lucie County, Florida. (With surveyor's
note: area surveyed is limited to the property lying east of State Road Al as shown on the St.
Lucie County Property Appraiser's website labeled with parcel ID 4512-331-0002-000/5.)
Easements
Per recording in OR Book 1007, Page 1662 of the Public Records of St. Lucie County, there is
an approximate 10 feet wide easement to St. Lucie County for utility lines lying within the
approximate north/south center of the Parent Parcel, running east from SR Al some 200 feet
into the Parent Parcel which does not affect the proposed easement area.
I am unaware if there are other easements on the Parent Parcel, but your attention is directed to
Ordinary Limiting Conditions #5 addressing easements.
Photographs of the Parent Parcel with location of the proposed easement comprise the following
Exhibit.
FULLER-ARMFIELD-WAGNER
Page 54 of 110
24
Parent Parcel & Acquisition Area Photographed 11/28/2023
Parent Parcel view from Highway Al
Easterly view across easement area identified by approximate red line
FULLER-ARMFIELD-WAGNER
Page 55 of 110
25
Parent Parcel & Acquisition Area Photographed 03/18/2023
Area of acquisition view from approximate MHWL
Easterly view across easement area identified by approximate red line
FULLER-ARMFIELD-WAGNER
Page 56 of 110
26
Northerly view with approx. west line of easement along red line
Southerly view with approx. west line of easement along red line
FULLER-ARMFIELD-WAGNER
Page 57 of 110
27
Parent Parcel & Acquisition Area Photographed 04/30/2022
Parent Parcel view from Highway Al
View of acquisition area east of red line
FULLER-ARMFIELD-WAGNER
Page 58 of 110
NE view of acquisition area east of red line
Parent Parcel & Area of Acquisition Photographed 9/10/2021
Highway Al view of Parent Parcel
FULLER-ARMFIELD-WAGNER
Page 59 of 110
29
Parent Parcel view from water line w/ easement area in foreground &
beyond planted dune line
Beach area within easement
FULLER-ARMFIELD-WAGNER
Page 60 of 110
30
South view along approximate easement west boundary
photographed from dune crossover
North view from south property line along approximate
easement west boundary
FULLER-ARMFIELD-WAGNER
Page 61 of 110
31
North view from dune crossover along approximate easement west boundary
South view from area of Parent Parcel north boundary along
approximate easement west boundary
FULLER-ARMFIELD-WAGNER
Page 62 of 110
32
Dune crossover with red line denoting
approximate location of west easement boundary
Dune crossover structure with red line indicating
approximate easement west boundary
FULLER-ARMFIELD-WAGNER
Page 63 of 110
33
Dune crossover within area of easement acquisition
Dune crossover within area of easement acquisition w/
west boundary denoted by flag in back of dune crossover structure
FULLER-ARMFIELD-WAGNER
Page 64 of 110
34
Parent Parcel Description
• Parent Parcel:
Frontage:
Depth (average):
Shaoe — Corner or Inside Location
1.92 acres (83,635sf) — Parallelogram
180± ft. (Highway A-1-A —angled frontage)
186.13+ ft. (Atlantic Ocean mean highwater line —
angled frontage)
506.935± ft.
• Parallelogram. Physically the subject's shape is adequate for development.
• Interior site.
Topography and Drainage
• Topography — subject site slopes up from street grade to top of the beach dune, then slopes
down to the mean high water.
• Drainage — Drainage "as is" appears to flow towards the street or easterly to the ocean and
is expected to be adequate during normal conditions. During severe storm conditions the site
is likely to be significantly impacted by high tides and wave action.
Access / Exposure
• Ingress / egress — there are two curb cuts / driveways from Highway A1A, one for ingress
and one for egress, providing adequate site ingress / egress.
• Exposure is good but average for an interior site fronting Highway A1A.
Functional Utility of the Site
• Development on the subject, like all oceanfront properties, is expected to require extensive
permitting and specific building design and construction details to meet the effects of storm
water and wind occurrences. The requirements are expected to increase development
time and costs.
• Development on the subject is not permitted east of the 1978 Coastal Construction Control
Line which is an estimated 330 feet east of the east R/W of SR A-1-A, also the subject's
west property line. Based on the estimated location of the 1978 CCCL the west
approximately 1.36 acres of the subject is developable although all of subject can be
utilized to calculate zoned permitted density.
• Overall, physically the subject's functional utility is rated as average for the site's location
and other physical features.
Negative Influences
• None noted.
Adjacent Land Uses
• Improved residential zoned properties including hotel and high-rise residential projects. With
neighborhood commercial properties including retail/office improvements, convenience
stores, etc., west of the subject, west of SR A-1-A. The improved properties are typical for
the neighborhood and do not adversely affect the subject.
FULLER-ARMFIELD-WAGNER
Page 65 of 110
35
Site / Building Improvement
• Site Improvements: Site improvements include asphalt paved driveway / parking area,
landscape, landscape sprinkler system, signage, and dune crossover providing access to
the Atlantic Ocean beach.
• Building Improvement: Commercial building designed to house a restaurant. Enclosed
finished area is an approximate 8,501 square feet, plus there is an exterior deck utilized for
dining, along with an exterior bar with seating, totaling some 2,181 square feet. There is also
a port a cache and covered walk to the building entrance totaling some 1,822 square feet.
(Note: building area calculations are per County property Appraiser Assessment Data and
assumed accurate, provided only for information as only a small portion of the dune overwalk
and sand wash station are included in the easement acquisition.)
Note: Other than a small portion of subject's dune crossover, the property's restaurant
improvement is not within the area of the acquisition, thus the acquisition does not
create a detriment to the building improvements, see Extraordinary Assumption #2.
The easement includes a small portion of the site's dune crossover structure.
See the following Exhibits for an aerial photo and survey of the Parent Parcel.
FULLER-ARMFIELD-WAGNER
Page 66 of 110
M
I
+;
o cn
0
1/1/2023 ASSESSMENT AND TAX INFORMATION
TAX ID #
"JUST" (MARKET
*TAXES
**Non -Ad
VALUE) / ASSESSED
Valorem
VALUE
Assessments
4512-331-0002-000/5
Land — Market Value
$58,543.01
n/a
(1.73 ac. site assessed)
$3,014,000 = $40.00/sf
(8,501sf bid. assessed)
Improvements -
$1,142,900 (bid. & site
improvements)
$134.44/sf
Assessed Value
$2,365,792
*Taxes are reported prior to discounts for early payments.
**There are no non -ad Valorem Assessments.
The Property Appraiser's opinion of the market (Just) value of $40 per square feet for the subject
site is some 82% of my opinion of Parent Parcel's Market Value of $49 per square feet of total
site area, which is within the range of assessment to market value ratios.
FULLER-ARMFIELD-WAGNER
Page 70 of 110
39
Highest and Best Use — Parent Parcel
Highest and Best Use was previously defined in the Introductory section of this report.
Analysis — "as a vacant site"
Physically Possible Uses
The first limitation in determining the highest and best use of a property is physical — that is, with
what use can a property be physically improved? The following are a summation of the primary
physical considerations:
• The Parent Parcel has adequate access and exposure to support a variety of modest size
improvements including a hotel, restaurant, or other commercial improvement appropriate
for the neighborhood.
• The Parent Parcel is a 1.92 acres site with the approximate east 177 feet east of the State of
Florida 1978 CCCL, which also appears to be the approximate top of the dune line, an area
typically not permittable for development, thus only the approximate west 71 % of the Parent
Parcel is developable or some 1.36 acres, although the Parent Parcel's total size is useable
for zoning density calculations.
• The subject's modest developable area of approximately 1.36 acres will restrict the building
to a modest size improvement.
In summary, physically the subject can accommodate a variety of modest size improvement
types, subject to construction limitations caused by the 1978 CCCL line, and other legal
restrictions discussed in the next section, plus construction is subject to windstorm permitted
construction design and materials.
Legally Permitted Use
The primary legal constraints are zoning and future land use classifications, deed restrictions,
concurrency, plus construction regulations following windstorm permitted construction design
and materials.
• Legally the subject's use is restricted by zoning/land use classifications. The commercial
zoning/land use classifications for the subject allow a variety of improvement types including
restaurants, office, retail, however residential development is not permitted other than special
exceptions, i.e., security residence associated with a development. But hotels or motels are
likely permitted via Conditional Use approval.
• Also, as previously mentioned, the subject's development potential is also controlled by the
CCCL and the dune line. While development is not located east of the 1978 CCCL the site
area can be utilized in density calculations.
• The Parent Parcel is also located within the County's South Hutchinson Island Overlay Zone,
allowing development to a height of 125 feet which can be a development positive for the
subject, assuming all other zoning regulations can be meet with a building height of 125 feet.
• However, any improvement type is required to meet zoning setbacks, parking, drainage
retention, landscaping, regulations, plus windstorm construction design and materials which
as mentioned will limit subject's development potential to a modest size improvement.
FULLER-ARMFIELD-WAGNER
Page 71 of 110
Due,
In summary, any development of the Parent Parcel is expected to be closely permitted to meet
the previously mentioned development regulations.
Financially Feasible/Maximally Productive Use
Economically the ideal improvement of a property is a financially feasible improvements with
positive cash flow to the investor providing the maximally productive use that returns one of the
highest values to the land.
As discussed, the Parent Parcel can be physically and legally developed with a variety of
improvement types, except residential is not an allowed use within subject's zoning. But the
majority of the oceanfront sites within the neighborhood are developed with residential projects
which is typical for similar neighborhoods. However, within the neighborhood the subject is the
only oceanfront site with commercial zoning/land use classifications with all other sites under
high density residential zoning and land use classifications. In most instances the residential
projects are considered high rise, up to 125 feet permitted height, and most with condominium
form of ownership. The last high rise residential project in the neighborhood, Claridge By The
Sea, an 18 unit project located on 2.79 acres site or a density of 16.5 units per acre, was
constructed in 2003.
Subject can be developed with a commercial improvement, however there are few potentially
feasible commercial improvements for the subject, such as a modest size restaurant, or a modest
size hotel is a development possibility for the subject, or other currently unidentified primarily
tourist related use, but the oceanfront location is not expected to be financially feasible for office,
retail, or other typical commercial improvements legally allowed within the zoning and land use
classifications. However, any potential use requires an extensive feasibility study of the industry
as a use relates to the location.
Therefore, it is my opinion, the financially feasible use of the Parent Parcel is likely a restaurant
or a hotel, but a financially feasible use in the "tourist" market may also be discovered. However,
in the case of any potential development, an extensive study is required to determine the
financially feasibility and the maximally productive use, or the use providing the highest return to
the investment.
Conclusion of Highest and Best Use — Parent Parcel "as vacant"
In summary, in my opinion the Highest and Best Use of the Parent Parcel is either a restaurant
or a hotel, or there is potential another presently unrecognized tourist related improvement will
be financially feasible, with all proposed uses subject to extensive feasibility studies.
FULLER-ARMFIELD-WAGNER
Page 72 of 110
41
Valuation— Parent Parcel
The appraisal assignment is to provide the client with an opinion of the Market Value of the
proposed acquisition of a Perpetual Beach Storm Damage Reduction Easement to be located
on the easterly 0.53 acres of the Parent Parcel.
Based on analysis later in this report, and upon review of the location of the acquisition and
my inspection of the Parent Parcel, it is my opinion the acquisition does not conflict with the
Parent Parcel's primary improvements, encumbering only a portion of the site's dune
crossover and sand wash station.
Thus, the valuation process of the Parent Parcel is performed first "as vacant" and "before" the
acquisition, followed by valuation of the proposed Acquisition as part of the Whole or the Parent
Parcel, and then valuation of the Remainder (uncured and cured) "after" the acquisition.
Based on analysis later in this report, and upon review of the location of the acquisition and
my inspection of the Parent Parcel, it is my opinion the acquisition does not conflict with the
existing building improvement and most of the site improvements. The acquisition encumbers
only a portion of the dune crossover and sand wash station, and it appears per the acquisition
document the Remainder will have continued dune crossoverto the oceanfront/beach portion
of the Parent Parcel as well as continued use of the sand wash station, with the cost to cure
considered applicable compensation for improvement acquisition - see Extraordinary
Assumption #2. Thus, initially the Parent Parcel site is valued as if "vacant".
The Parent Parcel "as vacant" is valued via the Sales Comparison Approach, as follows:
Sales Comparison Approach — Parent Parcel "before" the acquisition
SALES COMPARISON APPROACH Defined - Source, Appraisal Inst., Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal, 6th ed.
The process of deriving a value indication for the subject property by comparing sales of similar
properties to the being appraised, identifying appropriate units of comparison, and making appropriate
adjustments to the sale prices (or unit prices, as appropriate) of the comparable properties based on
relevant, market -derived elements of comparison. The sales comparison approach may be used to
value improved properties, vacant land, or land being considered as though vacant when an adequate
supply of comparable sales is available.
Because oceanfront properties with commercial zoning / land use classifications are few,
research extended throughout the Treasure Coast region and northerly into and through
Duval/Jacksonville County. Research also extended into southerly Martin and northerly Palm
Beach County (Jupiter/Tequesta) neighborhoods, although historically demand is stronger within
the Palm Beach County and southeast Florida with sales prices at times at levels well in excess
of value levels within the Treasure Coast. However, in this case the sale of a waterfront property
with commercial zoning allowing development similar to the subject is analyzed with analysis of
the superior Jupiter/north Palm Beach County location recognized when weighing the sales price
as an indication of subject's value.
FULLER-ARMFIELD-WAGNER
Page 73 of 110
42
In total, even with extensive research along Florida's east coast, research located only four very
recent sales for analysis. The properties vary in neighborhood locations, and waterfront amenity,
plus there are various other physical differences including size, upland developable area,
topography, submerged land ownership and leased submerged land, etc. included in the
properties analyzed, but the properties analyzed are the most comparable properties I am aware
of as they are waterfront and they can be developed in the commercial market segment, plus
they all command premiums for their locations, similar to subject.
Unit of Comparison
Within the commercial property markets, predominately properties are analyzed based on sales
price per square feet of developable area, however because the properties are all waterfront,
sales price per waterfront feet unit of comparison is also analyzed.
Adjustment Process
At times adjustments to sales or listing prices may be required for transaction/economic
conditions such as non -cash equivalent financing, non -market sale conditions and/or change in
market conditions. Finally, the properties analyzed for observed physical differences between
the sales properties and the subject.
The following analysis first addresses transaction/economic conditions beginning with cash -
equivalent financing, followed by analysis of conditions of sale, and then analysis of changing
market conditions.
Financing
Three transactions were all cash purchases, with the fourth transaction purchased with private
3rd party financing considered cash equivalent, therefore adjustments for cash equivalent
financing are not required.
Conditions of Sale
Conditions of sale adjustments could be required for a property selling under non -market
conditions. The properties analyzed were researched and verified to be arm's length
transactions, and all transactions occurred under typical market conditions, thus adjustments for
non -market transactions are not required.
Market Conditions (Time)
The closed sales analyzed occurred in September 2020, May 2021, December 2021 and
February 2022.
Sale 3 indicates property appreciation between 2013 and 2021 averaged 1.65% per month.
Further research covering a variety of waterfront properties and other high demand properties
generally support average monthly appreciation of 1.5% and higher from September 2020 to
mid-2022 with demand slowing after mid-2022 and prices beginning to stabilize. The current
listing prices for sales 3 and 4 indicate average monthly appreciation of 5.2% and 2.8% from the
most recent date of sale to the date of appraisal. The final sales prices are likely to be lower than
the asking price plus with additional months of exposure indicating the final change in market
conditions extracted from sales 3 and 4 will most likely be lower than 5.2% and 2.8%.
FULLER-ARMFIELD-WAGNER
Page 74 of 110
43
In my opinion, considering overall demand in the waterfront markets the applicable appreciation
between the sale dates and mid-2022 is within the range of 2.0% per month. Sales prices are
not further adjusted for changing market conditions after mid-2022 because as mentioned, prices
appear to be stabilizing.
Finally, sales 3 and 4 are re -listed for sale. Sale 3 is listed at $50M or $143 per square feet of
buildable site area or 225% price increase with sale 4 is listed at $3,995,000 or $158 per
square feet of buildable site area or 60% price increase. In my opinion, market research
suggests the asking prices represent significant above market projected price increases, likely
unachievable even in the recent past 2021-2022 high demand market. Thus, the asking prices
are given cursory consideration when forming my opinion of the average price appreciation.
Adjustments for Physical Differences
After considering adjustments for transaction/economic conditions, physical differences between
the properties analyzed and the subject are addressed. The primary physical differences
between the properties analyzed and the subject are location with waterfront amenity, exposure,
ingress/egress, size (gross and net developable acres), topography, etc. While physical
differences are recognized, the sales are not adequately identical to abstract from the sales
prices the market's perceived value for each physical feature. Therefore, quantitative
adjustments for physical differences are not applied, rather a qualitative analysis is applied with
the differences discussed in narrative format utilizing similar, superior and inferior notations, for
observed physical differences, and when forming my opinion of value each sale is weighed
based on the cumulative recognized differences between each property and the subject.
A Sales Summary and Analysis, and maps locating the sales comprise the following Exhibits. A
summary discussion of the comparability of the sales to the subject is included within the Sales
Summary with my conclusion of value following the Exhibits.
FULLER-ARMFIELD-WAGNER
Page 75 of 110
WE
a
N O
p_
N O
p
m M
W
m
C w
10
@
m
y
M m
M =
@
N
@
�
E
J
T O
N
O U
N
T
C
w
z
3
Oa
a
c
D1
O
N
C
O
Z
Z
r )
a
o0
u m
3
2
ll
co
N
Y
O
Z
M M O L
O N N O O p
Na NOE
O
Q C N L L
J J
N A MO
@
N
S
z
N0E LL
U
LL N
T 'Q
13 W
- m
�
N
Z
N
O
)
x
m
C 3
c
V
@ �
o
VN
@p
J
U
ry
cQ
G
@ r11
ti C)
oM
M N
N@@
c C
cn
:2
m 2 o
uj
@
C
m
Qya
tl7 m
a m
O
') y
O/
c
m
u
z
W
Q
Q C
@
V@
@ j
J @
N M@@@
G C
@@
Z
@ C
3 0
m
N V)
F
LL
N N
y
JO
L N
�
W
'S
E
E
n
F
Q
o �O s
N J O
V
N
O
Z
U
d
mrp
5o
N
a
u
o
o
z
2
s
o
O
m
L mmu��o
jQ ^co �O
N
NM
0.. ono om
ITv.0 inm
o000
-0-0
� ornn
OOr
U O O N 0
❑ U N
LO
N CO
O
O M A V3 �- N m
O
O
O
0
000 N (DO
mzfA
O
O r
N
fH
7 3 0
O
r r
L' Mm -
h
N
a
c
9
o
�
�
'fl
a ?
U
6
@ N
9
n
(13
7
@
p
z) O
N
Z
@
o
E
� 3
L
3
@
N
a
z)
s
n
n
�
p
�p
r
n
�
-
o
�
a
1
g
U
L mo�� o
�p
o mg m�
L
m
a�N
om�oam �a
o
o000
0
o�N
ffl (9
Vr OJ
c6 In
d
N I�
O M 'r O 1p
of
O
O
O
O
O
M
M
@ E 3> N
N
N-6
o N N
LOMM
O U3
.L O O-
y
N
N O N-
a
r
r
'
U=@x
U a n
a
O r
m
c @
a
3 Y
M j
N
c
N
x
N
N
@
a
�
a
=
J
N m m� o
o o
o
O N
O
U2E
U
vM
O M(")E,9r
O
O
O
o
OU3 cco
r 0 Or N
C� O O
.�
E I
O ONJ LL^'i Mr
O
O
OJ N
@ fH
E O
f0 r r O fA
(p
(p
E N
3
g
cm
U -c@a
y
�
N
@ = O
@
@
m
E c
E c)o c
O
rn
c
c)
u=v
a
UU
L OOOo Oa'O
j U@@
�� @
U
N N
N
O MM of W N0
CW
oo o
o o
O oo
O h 0
❑c) N
N
r
O a 77 M
o r rfAN M
fAOfAO
O
O
O
OfA�
MO N
oP om
?Ni .=
n
N
O
O V
N
N
4�N
EE
aai9�
@O
roi
5;
N
N
@ 3 i
Y
m N
13/i
as
O O
a❑
@
a
�N
N N
C
O N
m
N
L
N
0
3
af
ro
a
s
rn
_
a
N
a
m
N
Q
y
(L
J
N O N o O
m m N W
@@ a N@
�' C C
.%
@
@@@@@@@
Z Z Z
C U
o
O
.6
@
E p
N p a
L
O
.6
W
N
L U C
@
@
@ E
E U c
y
y
U Q
U
O O
U a
9
x
O
N
W
U @
c
L
_rn
@
N
E
N
O
E
N V)
m a f9
U
�` Q
m Q li m p ii
E
a
O @
o
aLLN
c uNi
O �a�iac
Q°UJ >°
�❑
@a£
co >
c❑ C7
y.. > m �m
..
m OQ d
NZ n
0
�'
ga`
Q
U) c
m a c
a
= p m= N
N
N a N W Z N N m
a N .� @
m 0@
c
o
c a` m
0
u
O ui
n
@ O @ :�
@ N@
.@. ❑ m m LL
N Y1 @ m
!0
m n n n n
J N N O@@@@
Q
m U c
J=
O c
p
N m U
@@
Nn
L
6: R a a a
`m o��=o
( j @ ❑ �-
m o a `m
U
w
a U) U U U U U
z a a a` a` a` a` a`
a 0 a
��
d o
o
U
a m N
O(OCo
Ua=o
c
v p
@ a@
N N
c 3U
U 0@@
c L m
Naas E
E
@
>
a s
y a�
E m 3
-o o a
` m
y,>>-
c V o@
O�
W W o
m❑ N c
a o c E O
y
W o__
==
J @@@@@@
ii Q U Q
Y
y Q Q
.:.:
m p
O.NJ
O @ N@@
UU C7 C7 ❑a'U)25
as a`
LL ,R_'H
V!
U
NJUaa
@
❑
Q @U)U)U)ul V)V)
N�
b
Q
O
N
LL
WE
Ln
T
W
J
Q
Z
w
J
Q
C
o u�u�rnaom
o000 0 Door �'
- £
g`i
5
y
h cw_"oa co x o m m E
o m m E m y .
a o E O m o wo g' m aui
O m c� U3 N of
O O lt0') pN
O O O
O O r 2
Cn
Cn
N
9
Y� o @
Lj Ip > .� @ N m@ > m y a Q N
O
y
N
@ L
V O r@ �
6N4
N
O
Oi 3@ Q m m Q U Z O
Nn U
Q
L
n
it
a
N
>
C O y N N E p y O\ o @ U C Ql
yl >y a d N O QO O O L
O
N
@
Oi
N o O_ a O o d d d O o
o
yl
m
a L
U� E
U
o
ar
3r
n
—
o v y a c m a6 o cyi or t? m
N
(n
U
N
O@>
L C O E@@ N nN @ L N N Eo
O
N
zXO N E O. E
d
O
Q
U E N N Q N N U m >
CO
coU
(0
omcoam2�
O V (O CO N
o000 0 00�� 3
EA O V3 O O O V3 (D "
m
s
`m
Ul
ai
@
° ms'B `o E mr �� O°� o0
L N N a H '.2
O CO i0 EA W O
O O O M O
YO
On
y
N
0 3 O U Od E N n N N N
O N mN
O) EA EA
O O
r
y
N
Ol �
E C a�
l0
H3 U3
O
N
N AE
O
@
i
C@
@ L l6 Q OU N O (6 N n (6 @
E2 �' K 2 o m E
d L O @
N p o O N N E
NI
U
p
w
in
E c n E y g o c E m- n n E y
Ct)
O
E
G
(UO d n C Q 2 O y �_
Ol
O
E
N
>
O 0 a y s O N U O)
cn
N
w
£ U@ C Q U @ C y U N L U
U N T O
E
jET
J N W V vJi to o
y a
r
E C N
Z d Z 'n ._ o ._ @
r
o a
n
o NN mm�°o
omm�v co
0000 o p�� o
<novao 0 oe»u�
.�
.�
-�
os m
m LL
m N 0
(n
(n m
u
n
y
5 e m@ @
c c @ Q d a d
to V3 H3
69 69 N
�n
U
a
O
y @ y 0 y a a U a p
C
o
SpL�
J
4
J
O
@
O
9> m N O Q
9 Ul > S r N
dl
O
U
c
a
o
U
L
�_
Q
o I C@@
@
M
N
3
2y
d
@ C@
O
Q
m
pNpy
O N O ry O
N
y C U 2 y@ J y N
@
co
m
o
.> o a' a o.
o
�o�o
E U C O O yO U
o��<»N
O O
U76 �o �� E�� n o
Or
N .0
—
O
L
@
(/J O 2 J O y d N N y
3 U
to
V3 N3 ❑
m
N
E
c6
0 U a a
`o u wL. `o o y � m in ' mow N a
U
j
M
y
@
O
n
N
O] O d N N Q a N w U@ Q O a
O
co
E
r 1
d 3 p —0
MI
`°
a
N�
c- d Q o r s
3 m m E F� N O >i
y
-Em o U L O d w j C
>`— O
y
o
w
N
a
O C@@
O J
o c d m @ 2
Q
U
C@@ y m E U
`m
m
o
c
m' " y E 16 E > 3 oo
E
Ul
N
d D =1 Q @ n o O d y
o O 3 0 = o
in
a
a o E
_ N
Ol ry
L
o ch
(D r
o
Q
o
O
c
9
o
V7
W s p
4
o
❑
a
s
y
�
Q
o
Q
@
Z
w
3
y
Q
SQ
O
N
Q
U
m
o
@
E
n
s
>
Q
@
N
@
N
N
a
W
U
O
❑
0
ms
O
N
O
E
0
U)
N
m
U Q j
d
E
a z
m
tY/1 a k a
Q
co .2 U
N
-o a� a>
c
c d 2
u
y
a
a
L
E5
IL
a�
E
3 UQ
x
<
yQ
R m
U
Q
Q J
Q V
m �
a
N d
O t N
U
N > C
o d ❑ o E Q
w _ z a z
I A
U-
0
W
C-
LU
,J
0
LL
X
onw-1 0
Ir
vt
'
a
�ti� %M� 6" �' 1 "' A �'4 . IBC M1
tg
,.f
,9
co
M
6
TrF
ryry
LL
LU 011
�'v".�` � r ,.,r` � ... „. �a.4...� .,, it �� �� �Fy
00
C6,
f
j
J14
cc)
it
:z
N
U11
woo
8
3 8
47
Summary of Market Condition Adjusted Data
Sale #
1
2
3
4
Market
Adjusted
Gross Sales
$21,240,000
$5,888,000
$17,670,000
$2,750,000
Price
Sales Price /
$70
$94
$50
$109
Sq. Ft.
Sales Price /
$23,600
$23,552
$33,657
$22,917
Water FF
Overall
Superior—
Superior—
Inferior - sale 3 is
Neighborhood
Comparability
property has
although there are
somewhat inferior
is different
development
physical features
to subject
from subject's
potential w/
inferior to the
primarily with
location,
potential for
subject, overall,
inferior location &
including
variety of
because of Palm
significantly
superior boat
improvement
Beach Co. location
larger size
dock potential.
types within
& superior
downward
Development
commercial
functional
influencing sales
approvals in -
markets.
development
price per sf.
place for
potential, the
modest density
property is
development
superior to
although value
subject.
contribution
undefined.
With
differences in
location, etc.
considered,
demand is
estimated to be
similar to
demand for
subject, if
vacant &
offered for
sale, although
sites 55%
smaller size
increases
rice/sf.
Value Conclusion — Parent Parcel
Although the volume of sales of comparable properties is limited, the properties analyzed provide
a reasonable range of value indications as all command price premiums related to locations and
development potential.
In brief, as discussed in the previous Sales Summary Grid, sale 1 has a different waterfront
location South Fork St. Lucie River vs. subject's Atlantic oceanfront, however the sale 1 location
provides the opportunity for a wider range of income producing improvement types, including the
FULLER-ARMFIELD-WAGNER
Page 79 of 110
W-
owned and leased submerged land, thus although the site is larger than subject which likely exerts
downward pressure on the per square feet sales price, the property's upland area is 100%
developable, thus in my opinion with the positives and negatives considered, the subject's value
is likely somewhat lower than the sale 1 market condition adjusted sales price of $70 per square
feet of buildable site area.
Sale 2 includes physical features inferior to subject's various physical features, however, the
location within north Palm Beach is superior to the subject's south St. Lucie County location with
a relatively significant difference, plus the property is functionally superior to the subject's
functional utility, thus in my opinion subject's value is most probably significantly lower than the
market conditions adjusted sales price of $94 per square feet of buildable area.
Sale 3 has a somewhat inferior location, plus the property is some 6+ times larger than the subject,
features exerting down pressure on the sales price per square feet unit of comparison. Thus, the
subject's value is most probably somewhat higher than the sale 3 market condition adjusted sales
price/value indication of $50 per square feet of buildable site area.
Finally, sale 4, with differences in location, etc. considered, demand is estimated to be similar to
demand for subject, if vacant & offered for sale, although the sites 55% smaller size increases
price/sf.
In summary, the subject is a 1.92 acres gross area, but with an estimated 1.36 developable acres
or 71% of the site. The unbuildable site area contributes to increasing density over the
developable area, but because of building setbacks, drainage retention, parking, etc. regulations,
the buildable area does not significantly benefit from density transfer. Therefore, although sale 3
has a similar ratio of buildable area to total site area, the larger buildable area and inferior location,
it is my opinion, indicate the subject's upland value is higher than market condition adjusted $50/sf
as indicated by sale 3. Further it is my opinion, the subject's value is significantly lower than
$109/sf as indicated from sale 4, where in this case the 55% smaller size upwardly affects the per
square feet sales price. Also, sale 2 with value indication of $94 per square feet is upwardly
affected by location and superior functional utility, thus sale 2 is superior to the subject with value
indication of $70 per square feet, indicating subject's value is lower than $70 per square feet.
The previous summary indicates subject's value is between $50 per square feet and $70 per
square feet of buildable area, essentially indicating the value indications of $94 and $109 per
square feet (sales 2 and 4) are not applicable to the subject's value, however, it is my opinion
because the properties are comparable enough to analyze, the value indications from sale 2 and
4 should be given some consideration when forming my opinion of the subject's value.
Therefore, with subject's value indication between $50 and $70 per square feet of buildable area,
plus with some weight considered for sales 2 and 4 value indications of $94 and $109 per square
feet, it is my opinion, subject's value is within the range of say, $70/sf x 59,242sf (1.36 acres) of
buildable area, subject's value indication calculates to $4,146,912 or $49.58 per square feet of
total site area of 1.92 acres (83,635sf) (rounded) *$4,150,000*
FULLER-ARMFIELD-WAGNER
Page 80 of 110
W.
Finally, sale 3, an oceanfront site with buildable area ratio similar to subject, but with a property
with an inferior neighborhood location, its market adjusted sales price per gross square feet of
site area is $34 or approximately $15/sf or 30% lower than subject's estimated value, which
appears reasonable considering the physical differences of location and size between sale 3 and
the subject.
Additionally, sales 3 and 4 are re -listed for sale. Sale 3 is listed at $50M or $143 per square feet
of buildable site area or 225% projected price increase, and sale 4 is listed at $3,995,000 or $158
per square feet of buildable site area or 60% projected price increase. In my opinion, market
research suggests the asking prices represent significant above market projected price increases,
likely unachievable even in the recent past 2021-2022 high demand market. Thus, the asking
prices are given cursory consideration when forming my opinion of the market value of the fee
simple interest in the Parent Parcel.
Therefore, in my opinion, the Market Value of the Fee Simple Interest in the Parent Parcel of
some 1.92 acres, as of November 28, 2023, is (rounded): *$4,150,000*
FULLER-ARMFIELD-WAGNER
Page 81 of 110
50
VALUATION — Acquisition (Parcel 100) as part of Whole or Parent Parcel
Leaal Descriation and Phvsical Descriation of the Acauisition
Legal Description
The following legal description is from client provided Draft of St. Lucie County Resolution No. 24
— A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY EROSION
CONTROL DISTRICT DECLARING THE ACQUISITION OF A PERMANENT BEACH STORM DAMAGE
REDUCTION EASEMENT ON AND OVER A PARCEL OF LAND DESIGNATED AS PARCEL 100 AS
NECESSARY FOR THE PUBLIC PURPOSE OF RESTORING THE ADJACENT BEACH AND DUNE
AND PREVENTING DAMAGE TO UPLAND PROPERTIES AS PART OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF
ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA COASTAL STORM RISK MANAGEMENT PROJECTS; AUTHORIZING
THE EMPLOYMENT OF APPRAISERS AND OTHER EXPERTS AND THE FILING OF EMINENT
DOMAIN PROCEEDINGS; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
AN EASEMENT OVER AND ACROSS A PORTION OF LANDS DESCRIBED AND RECORDED IN 3471,
PAGE 323, LYING IN SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 37 SOUTH, RANGE 41 EAST, ST. LUCIE COUNTY,
FLORIDA MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE POINT OF INTERSECTION OF THE EASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF
STATE ROAD A-1-A (100' R/W) AND THE NORTH LINE OF GOVERNMENT LOT 2 (AS ESTABLISHED
BY PLAT RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 15, PAGE 13); THENCE ALONG SAID EASTERLY RIGHT-OF-
WAY LINE SOUTH 23'56'40" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 250.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE
OF LAND DESCRIBED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 3471, PAGE 323 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS
OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE ALONG SAID NORTH LINE NORTH 89'49'13" EAST, A
DISTANCE OF 368.78 FEET TO THE PLACE AND POINT OF BEGINNING (SAID POINT ALSO BEING
ON THE WEST LINE OF THE CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT PER SKETCH & DESCRIPTION
PREPARED BY MORGAN & EKLUND, INC. DATED 11/30/2020); THENCE CONTINUE ALONG SAID
NORTH LINE NORTH 89'49'13" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 131.24 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 28'07'54" EAST,
A DISTANCE OF 176.82 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 23'34'03" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 9.31 FEET TO A
POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LANDS DESCRIBED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 3471, PAGE
323; THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE SOUTH 89'49'13" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 148.50 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 22'56'21" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 178.65 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
CONTAINING 0.53 ACRES, MORE OR LESS
The following Acquisition Parcel 100 description is from a client provided Alta/NSPS Land title
Survey prepared for St. Lucie County, compiled by Thomas P. Kiernan, Professional Land surveyor
& Mapper, Florida Certificate No. 6199, Job No. 20-165.011 / Field Book 21-07/Page 64, certified
12/09/2021 (see the following Survey Exhibit), and on -site inspection.
FULLER-ARMFIELD-WAGNER
Page 82 of 110
51
Size — Easement area
• Acquisition: 0.53 acres (23,087 square feet)
Waterfront: 186.13 ft. (Atlantic Ocean)
Depth: 139.87± feet (average)
• Site Map: See the following Survey Exhibit for a sketch of the acquisition.
Shape
• Irregular parallelogram.
Topography
• Dune area with seagrape and grass planting, and sand beach area.
Current Use
• Physical access to the Atlantic Ocean.
Improvements within Easement Acquisition
• As previously discussed, there is a portion of a wooden dune crossing structure within the area
of the acquisition. The dune crossover within the acquisition is "L" shaped including a portion of
the crossover approximately 5 linear feet x 4 feet wide, plus an approximate area 9.33 linear feet
x 3 feet consisting of stairs and landing to beach level. Also, approximately 1 linear foot of the 4
feet wide portion of the crossover includes wooden built-in seats on each side of the crossover.
There is also water service to a sand wash station with water supplied by PVC piping to a shutoff
and water dispersant head. Separating the acquired portion of the dune crossover from the
structure will require either installation of pilings etc. to support the end of the crossover or there
will be additional loss of walkway to the nearest set of pilings. However, replacing the end of the
walk and sand wash equipment is expected as beach access etc. are an amenity for the
restaurant tenant patrons.
FULLER-ARMFIELD-WAGNER
Page 83 of 110
52
Perpetual Beach Storm Damage Reduction Easement Exhibit
(Permanent Beach Storm Damage Reduction Easement)
A perpetual and assignable easement and right-of-way in, on, over, and across the land
described in Exhibit "A", which is attached hereto and incorporated herein, for use by the ST.
LUCIE COUNTY EROSION DISTRICT, assignable to other public governmental entities,
permitting access and use by their representatives, agents, and contractors to construct;
preserve; patrol; operate; maintain; repair; rehabilitate; and replace; a public beach and dune
system and other erosion control and storm damage reduction measures together with
appurtenances thereto, including the right to deposit sand; to accomplish any alterations of
contours on said land; to construct berms and dunes; to nourish and renourish periodically; to
move, store and remove equipment and supplies; to erect and remove temporary structures; and
to perform any other work necessary and incident to the construction, periodic renourishment and
maintenance of the St. Lucie County, Florida Coastal Storm Risk Management Project; together
with the right of public use of, and access to, the shores by all on equal terms in a manner
compatible with the authorized purpose of the Project; to plant vegetation on said dunes and
berms; to erect, maintain and remove silt screens and sand fences; to facilitate preservation of
dunes and vegetation through the limitation of access to dune areas; to trim, cut, fell, and remove
from said land all trees, underbrush, debris, obstructions, and any other vegetation, structures
and obstacles within the limits of the easement; reserving, however, to the fee owner(s), (his)
(her) (its) (their) (heirs), successors and assigns, the right to construct dune overwalk structures
in accordance with any applicable Federal, State, or local laws or regulations, provided that such
structures shall not violate the integrity of the dune in shape, dimension or function, and that prior
approval of the plans and specifications for such structures is obtained from the designated
representative(s) of the applicable governmental authorities and provided further that such
structures are subordinate to the construction, operation, maintenance, repair, rehabilitation and
replacement of the project; and further reserving to the fee owner(s), (his) (her) (its) (their) (heirs),
successors and assigns all such rights and privileges as may be used and enjoyed without
interfering with or abridging the rights and easements hereby acquired; subject, however, to
existing easements for public roads and highways, public utilities, railroads and pipelines, if any.
FULLER-ARMFIELD-WAGNER
Page 84 of 110
0
�0
E
`
pP py pP(F
^� (ADCCIO
°O
00
3
A
M
�
O�
a
m
00
J
U
V
Z -H
Q F
LLJ H N
Ul Uww
w
N
d�wv
N
o cl� WQ
z<po
M
(L
dowu�
U O
`
W
A
�
m
a
M
a
m
Of
�
�
�
�•
Z
N
F
�E�ES P1�pN / ,
w
5 n.
QEcK
Lo
/
z
o Z o z
~
O16
/ o¢
�
oo
Z wc>:
Z� ~�
�Q wN
Ir
0
41
O J Q }
0
Y w
i
�
K
m
I
11
O
i
As
x
Oo
k
� I
Np J O w
p
w
Lj
N•, Z Z M co p
w J Y N
iR L
M
ui
4-
0
LO
w
m
a_
54
Effects of the Acquisition
The acquisition consists of an easement providing "perpetual and assignable easement and right of
way on, over, and across" the east 0.53 acres of the Parent Parcel.
See page 52 Exhibit of the language to be included in the Perpetual Beach Storm Damage Reduction
Easement.
The purpose of the easement is to provide St. Lucie County Erosion District as the Local Sponsor
for Florida Coastal Storm Risk Management project developed by the Department of the Army,
permanent access for current and future beach renourishment projects.
Also discussed, within the proposed easement area there is a portion of the owner's dune crossover
structure, plus sand wash station equipment within the area of the easement.
While St. Lucie County Environmental Department personnel report the dune crossover wash station
there is a chance the items mentioned will not be disturbed, the value contribution of these items are
included in my opinion of the market value of the acquisition.
Proaerty Riahts Retained and Property Riahts Transferred via Easement
As stated, the acquisition encumbers the east 0.53 acres (23,087sf) of Parent Parcel. The
acquisition acquires an easement (partial) interest in the encumbered area. Briefly, the easement
language limits the easement holders use of the area for beach renourishment projects, to include
replenishing sand, construction of berms and dunes, planting of vegetation on dune areas, the
use of equipment on the encumbered area only during the refurbishment projects, plus "together
with the right of public use and access" of the encumbered area.
Before the acquisition the encumbered dune and beach area were not legally developable
portions of the subject, but the area can be utilized for beach activities, either open for the public
use as now exists or the owner can maintain exclusive use. The area can also be included in
density calculations for the developable area of the subject. Also, the encumbered area includes
a limited portion of the owner's dune crossover providing tenant customers with beach access
across the dune. The easement allows the underlying fee owner the right to construct dune
crossovers, subject to the Sponsor (St. Lucie County) typical building permit process.
The easement acquires a portion of the owner's bundle of rights consisting of use of the area for
beach renourishment projects and/or beach renourishment maintenance. The easement also
allows public use within the whole easement area, subject to disturbing vegetated dune cover.
But, with the easement in -place the owner retains the right to use the area, yet the owner cannot
restrict public use of the area, subject to periods when renourishment is in process at which time
the easement holder can restrict use of the area.
FULLER-ARMFIELD-WAGNER
Page 86 of 110
55
The rights transferred via the easement and rights retained are summarized as follows:
Fee Owner Rights Before Easement
Easement Holder Rights Before Easement
100% bundle of rights.
No encumbrance or rights of use by others
Fee owner can place restrictions on use by
within any of the Parent Parcel.
others on any part of the Parent Parcel.
Fee Owner Rights After Easement In -Place
Easement Holder Rights after Easement
In -Place
Fee owner retains legal use of encumbered
The easement holder obtains permanent
area, including density transfer & physical
access for only dune/beach repair and/or
use of the encumbered area, but fee owner
renourishment projects, plus the easement
loses right of exclusive use over the
obtains for the public, legal & physical use of
encumbered area.
the encumbered area.
Fee owners are mostly relieved of
Easement holder manages storm damage
management and costs of dune / beach
repair and/or renourishment of encumbered
storm damage repair and/or renourishment
dune and/or beach area which can result in
within encumbered area.
significant savings to the fee owner.
Note: Easement holder does not hold rights
of access across fee owner's unencumbered
site area.
As previously summarized, it appears the most significant fee owner right transferred by the
easement is the right of exclusive use with the encumbered area open for public use, subject to
disturbing vegetated dunes areas. Again, the area to be encumbered is not legally buildable
before the encumbrance and remains legally unbuildable after the easement is in -place, but the
fee owner is relieved from physical and financial responsibility of repair and/or renourishment of
the dune and beach area, which can result in a significant cost savings to the fee owner.
In my opinion, the previous summary comparisons of ownerships, and use before the easement
and after the easement provides positives to both the easement holder in the form of ease of
renourishment and/or repair of the dune and "sandy beach" area and provides guaranteed
permanent access to the public with no negatives to for the purposes of the easement.
In the case of the fee interest holder, before the easement, per county and state development
criteria the area to be encumbered with the easement is not permitted for development, but the
area can be included in density calculations transferred to the buildable area of the Parent Parcel.
Also, before the easement the fee owner can restrict others use of the proposed easement
encumbered area, although it does not appear the owner has placed use restrictions within the
proposed easement area, but also before the easement repair of storm water erosion within the
easement area, is the responsibility of the fee interest holder, which could result in significant
costs to the owner. With the easement in -place the fee interest owner can continue to include the
area in density calculations for development of the buildable area of the Parent Parcel, plus after
the easement is in -place repair of storm damage, etc. is no longer the responsibility of the fee
interest owner. The fee interest can maintain the existing dune crossover providing uninterrupted
access to the beach area. But, after the encumbered easement area is open to public use.
FULLER-ARMFIELD-WAGNER
Page 87 of 110
56
In the case of use restriction, as mentioned, it does not appear the fee owner has placed use
restriction within the area of the proposed easement as it appears beach users from the
neighboring hotel use the beach at their will. Further, in my opinion, restricting use of the beach
area to only restaurant patrons or any future occupant of the existing building, will negate
restaurant business good will, which is not a positive to a tenant or other user of the improvements
on the Parent Parcel.
Valuation of Easement as part of Parent Parcel (Whole property)
There are no clear guides to the value of the fee owner's bundle of rights transferred via the
easement. The previous summary outlined my primary observations of the separation of rights.
In my opinion the most significant right transferred is the right to exclusive use of the encumbered
area, but the easement also provides the fee owner relief from the management and cost of dune
and beach repair / renourishment projects within the encumbered area which is a positive to the
fee owner.
Analysis
Analysis to form an opinion of the value of the rights transferred begins with research for sales of
properties without similar easements in -place and sales of properties with similar easements in -
place, allowing direct comparison of sales prices (paired sales analysis) with the difference in
sales prices providing indications of the value acquired by the easement.
However, research within the Treasure Coast region did not locate sales of similar properties with
easements in -place, or other adequate local data to provide a paired sales analysis. Lacking
regional data for paired sales analysis, an empirical analysis, consisting of estimating the effects
of rights transferred on the Remainder via "before" and "after" analysis. It is noted "before" the
easement the encumbered beach area is essentially physically open to the public, and it appears
the area has been historically open to the public, although this is the owner's choice as "before"
the easement the owner has the right of exclusive use of the encumbered area. But, in the case
of the restaurant occupant, in my opinion, the open beach area is likely a positive to the restaurant
business patrons. Plus, based on my observations during inspection of the Parent Parcel, and
patronization of the restaurant, it appears persons from the southerly adjacent hotel enter and
openly use subject's "sandy beach" area without the property owner or the restaurant tenant
restricting their use, but it is likely the restaurant occupant will not want to be labeled with the
reputation of restricting beach access.
Also, while based on the previous analysis it appears the most significant loss to the fee owner is
the loss of exclusive use, because the Remainder is the only commercial zoned oceanfront site
in the neighborhood, an open market offering of the encumbered Remainder will likely still
command a premium sales price, improved "as is" or as a vacant site, particularly because the
highest and best use of the Remainder is a service related improvement, i.e. restaurant, hotel or
other beach attraction use, where excluding potential users is very unlikely, therefore it is my
opinion it is unlikely market participants will view the easement as a significant negative to the
Remainder value.
FULLER-ARMFIELD-WAGNER
Page 88 of 110
57
Further, research was conducted for opinions from other real estate experts beginning with
research for articles on valuation of easements, with results from market research. Research
found the most cited expert in the field of easement valuations is Donald J. Sherwood, SR/WA,
MAI, FRICS, appraiser, appraisal instructor, Senior Right of Way Agent, MAI, and author of The
Valuation of Easements where after analysis of a broad pair sales exercise Mr. Sherwood
developed of a matrix of his findings of the effects on Remainder value. See the following
Sherwood Matrix as found within the mentioned Sherwood article.
Percent of Fee Comments
90% - 100% • Severe impact on surface use
• Conveyance of future uses
75% - 89% • Major impact on surface use
• Conveyance of future uses
51% - 74%
• Some impact on surface use
• Conveyance of ingress/egress rights
50%
• Balanced use by both owner and
easement holder
26% - 49%
• Location along a property line
location across non -usable land area
11% - 25%
• Subsurface or air rights with
minimal effect on use and utility
• Location with a setback
0% - 10%
• Nominal effect on use and utility
Potential Types of Easements
Overhead electric, flowage easements,
railroad right of way, irrigation canals,
exclusive access easements
Overhead electric, pipelines, drainage
easements, railroad right of way, flowage
easements
Pipelines, scenic easements
Water or sewer lines, cable lines,
telecommunications
Water or sewer line, cable lines
Air rights, water or sewer line
Small subsurface easement
Mr. Sherwood's data is best considered for support of a conclusion in each specific easement
valuation, as in the subject's case the potential types of easements are not ideally comparable to
the easement encumbering the Remainder.
Per Mr. Sherwood's parameters the easement holder's restricted use to repair and/or
renourishment of the encumbered area appears to fall within the 0% to 10% of fee interest with
the easement encumbering legally unbuildable area of the Remainder, but with some impact on
surface use considered (loss in exclusive use), the percentage of fee value could move into Mr.
Sherwood's 11 % to 25% category, although as discussed, it does not appear the loss in exclusive
use will be a significant negative to potential site occupants, in my opinion the effect on value for
the encumbered easement area leans to the 11 % to 25% category of the value of the rights
acquired via the proposed easement.
Further, I engaged in conversation with real estate Broker, Hoyt C. Murphy, Jr. with Coldwell
Banker Paradise Realtors, formerly Hoyt C. Murphy Realty, seeking his opinion of the effect of
the proposed easement on Remainder value. Mr. Murphy has extensive experience in the local
markets including residential and commercial markets, thus he was an obvious professional to
seek an opinion.
FULLER-ARMFIELD-WAGNER
Page 89 of 110
Mr. Murphy reported he has never experienced a buyer seeking an oceanfront vacant or improved
property with in -place restricted beach access or the potential to restrict beach access. Mr.
Murphy is of the opinion in the local market buyers recognize others use the sandy beach in front
of their potential ownership. Mr. Murphy also stated within the Fort Pierce Paradise Coldwell
Banker agency he has never experienced an associate bringing forth such an issue. Mr. Murphy
asked if property owners adjacent to the subject objected to the easement and I reported all have
signed the easement without compensation, and he stated, "I expect they would sign to retain the
beachfront". Thus, in summary, Mr. Murphy opined the easement does not create value loss to
the Remainder.
In summary, the proposed easement does not allow the fee owner exclusive use of the
encumbered area, although it appears public use of the area has been the norm, and private
access remains in -place via dune walkover, and the fee owner no longer is responsible for storm
repair/renourishment to the encumbered area, again, potentially a significant financial relief for
the fee owner. Finally, the subject is exclusive because of its commercial zoning which is expected
to attract investors regardless of the easement as the buildable area physically and legally
remains as the same as "before" the easement of the Parent Parcel which is likely to temper
perceived negative created by the easement. Therefore, it is my opinion, the loss of the exclusivity
of the encumbered area does not equate to a significant negative to the value of the Remainder.
At most, as indicated by previous data, in the range of 15% of the value of the fee simple interest
in the encumbered area.
Value Conclusion
The Parent Parcel (100% fee simple ownership) was previously valued at $4,146,912 or $49.58
per gross square feet or say $50 per square feet. The easement is proposed to cover some 0.53
acres or 23,087 square feet and x $50.00 per square feet the average value of the fee simple
interest in the proposed encumbered acquisition area calculates to value indication of $1,154,350.
As part of the whole, the estimated say 15% interest in the encumbered area calculates to value
indication of $173,152.
Plus:
Value of portion of dune crossover within easement acauisition
As previously identified, a portion of the owner's dune crossover, plus sand wash station is within
the acquisition. The wooden dune crossing structure within the area of the acquisition is "L"
shape, constructed in two sections as follows: a portion of the structure is approximately 5 linear
feet x 4 feet wide, plus an approximate area 9.33 linear feet x 3 feet consisting of stairs and
landing to beach level. Plus, approximately 1 linear foot of the 4 feet wide portion of the crossover
includes wooden built-in seats on each side of the crossover. There is also water service to a
sand wash station with water supplied by PVC piping to a shutoff and water dispersant head.
Separating the acquired portion of the dune crossover from the remainder of the structure will
require either installation of pilings etc. to support the end of the crossover or additional loss of
walkway to the nearest set of pilings will occur. However, replacing the end of the walk and sand
wash equipment is expected as beach access etc. are an amenity for the restaurant tenant
patrons.
FULLER-ARMFIELD-WAGNER
Page 90 of 110
59
I am unaware of sales of properties with or without similar improvements where the value of the
improvements can be abstracted from a sales price, thus first the cost of the area of the dune
crossover and sand wash station equipment within the acquisition is estimated via Marshall and
Swift Cost Service, less estimated depreciation for an "as is" value.
The estimated value of the dune crossover "as is", plus the sand wash station equipment, within the
acquisition is $2,500.
Total value of acquisition — Easement rights acquired - $173,152
Dune crossover "as is" - $ 2,500
Total $175,652
Value of Acquisition as part of Whole (Parent Parcel) = *$175,652*
FULLER-ARMFIELD-WAGNER
Page 91 of 110
'we,
VALUATION — Remainder "after" the acquisition
Legal Description of Remainder — Same as Parent Parcel, less the Acquisition — as follows:
The south 180 feet of the north 430 feet (as measured along State Road Al A) of Government Lot 2,
Section 12, Township 37 South, Range 41 East, St. Lucie County, Florida. (With surveyor's note:
area surveyed is limited to the property lying east of State Road A1A as shown on the St. Lucie
County Property Appraiser's website labeled with parcel ID 4512-331-0002-000/5.)
Less: Easement rights acquired
AN EASEMENT OVER AND ACROSS A PORTION OF LANDS DESCRIBED AND RECORDED IN 3471,
PAGE 323, LYING IN SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 37 SOUTH, RANGE 41 EAST, ST. LUCIE COUNTY,
FLORIDA MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE POINT OF INTERSECTION OF THE EASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF
STATE ROAD A-1-A (100' R/W) AND THE NORTH LINE OF GOVERNMENT LOT 2 (AS ESTABLISHED
BY PLAT RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 15, PAGE 13); THENCE ALONG SAID EASTERLY RIGHT-OF-
WAY LINE SOUTH 23'56'40" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 250.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE
OF LAND DESCRIBED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 3471, PAGE 323 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS
OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE ALONG SAID NORTH LINE NORTH 89'49'13" EAST, A
DISTANCE OF 368.78 FEET TO THE PLACE AND POINT OF BEGINNING (SAID POINT ALSO BEING
ON THE WEST LINE OF THE CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT PER SKETCH & DESCRIPTION
PREPARED BY MORGAN & EKLUND, INC. DATED 11/30/2020); THENCE CONTINUE ALONG SAID
NORTH LINE NORTH 89'49'13" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 131.24 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 28'07'54" EAST,
A DISTANCE OF 176.82 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 23'34'03" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 9.31 FEET TO A
POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LANDS DESCRIBED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 3471, PAGE
323; THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE SOUTH 89'49'13" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 148.50 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 22'56'21" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 178.65 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
CONTAINING 0.53 ACRES, MORE OR LESS
The following analysis values the Remainder "after" the acquisition.
• Remainder: 1.92 acres (83,635sf) — Parallelogram
Frontage: 180+ ft. (Highway A-1-A —angled frontage)
186.13+ ft. (Atlantic Ocean mean highwater line —
angled frontage)
Depth (average): 506.935± ft.
Shape — Corner or Inside Location
• Parallelogram. Physically the subject's shape is adequate for development.
• Interior site.
Topography and Drainage
• Topography — subject site slopes up from street grade to top of sand dune, then slopes down to
the mean high water.
• Drainage — Drainage "as is" appears to flow towards the street and easterly to the ocean,
adequate during normal conditions. During sever storm conditions the site is likely to be severely
impacted by high tides and wave action.
FULLER-ARMFIELD-WAGNER
Page 92 of 110
61
Access / Exposure
• Ingress / egress — there are two curb cuts / driveways from Highway A1A, one for ingress and
one for egress, providing adequate site ingress / egress.
• Exposure is good but average for an interior site fronting Highway A1A.
Functional Utility of the Site
• Development on the subject, like all oceanfront properties, is expected to require extensive
permitting and building design and construction details to meet the effects of storm water and
wind occurrences. The requirements are expected to increase development time and costs.
• Overall, physically subject's functional utility is rated as average for the site's location and
other features.
Negative Influences
• None noted.
Adjacent Land Uses
• Improved residential zoned properties including high-rise residential projects and hotel
properties. With neighborhood commercial properties including retail/office improvements,
convenience stores, etc., west of the subject and a hotel south of the subject. The improved
properties are typical for the neighborhood and do not adversely affect the subject.
Site / Building Improvement
• Site Improvements: Site improvements include asphalt paved driveway / parking area,
landscape, landscape sprinkler system, signage, and dune crossover providing access to the
Atlantic Ocean beach.
• Note: after the acquisition the dune crossover on the Remainder stops at the acquisition, and
structurally, to function in its capacity, finishing the east end of the crossover as previously
existed is required, especially because the beach access is an amenity to the restaurant
tenant's business.
• Also, within the easement there is potential the dune area plantings will be removed for the
renourishment project. The value of the plants was previously estimated as part of the
compensation for the acquisition.
• Building Improvement: Commercial building designed to house a restaurant. Enclosed finished
area is an approximate 8,501 square feet, plus there is an exterior deck utilized for dining, along
with an exterior bar with seating, totaling some 2,181 square feet. There is a port a cache and
covered walk to the building entrance totaling some 1,822 square feet. The building improvement
and dining decks are not affected by the acquisition.
Effects of the Acquisition on the Remainder
The Acquisition encumbers the east 0.53 acres of the Remainder.
Loss of Improvements within Easement Acquisition
• Partial wooden dune crossing structure, as previously identified, is missing the east approximate
5 feet, plus stairs and stair landings to the beach, and water service to beach wash station
supplied by PVC piping stopping at the acquisition. Total value "as is" $2,500.
FULLER-ARMFIELD-WAGNER
Page 93 of 110
62
Highest and Best Use — Remainder
Highest and Best Use was defined in the previous valuation of the Parent Parcel.
Physically Possible Uses
The first limitation in determining the highest and best use of a property is physical — that is, with
what uses can a property be physically improved? Following are a summation of the primary physical
considerations:
Physically the remainder site has adequate access and exposure to support a variety of
improvement types including a commercial improvement and/or a residential project as
developed in the neighborhood.
The remainder, like the Parent Parcel, is a 1.92 acres site with a high level of development
regulations for construction east of the State of Florida CCCL, but historically no development
has been permitted east of the dune or the original CCCL. The Remainder includes the subject
easement encumbering the east 0.53 acres, a portion of the site area historically not permitted
for development. Thus, physically the development potential for the Remainder is the same as
the Parent Parcel or within the buildable area the Remainder can accommodate a variety of
improvement types, subject to zoning and construction regulations relating to storm conditions
construction.
Legally Permitted Use
The primary legal constraints are zoning and land use classifications, deed restrictions, concurrency,
etc. In the subject's case:
• Legally the subject's use is restricted by zoning/land use classifications. The commercial
zoning/land use classifications for the subject allow a wide variety of improvement types,
however residential development is not permitted other than special exceptions, i.e., security
residence associated with a development.
• The Remainder's development potential is also controlled by the CCCL and the dune line plus
numerous other zoning regulations.
• The remainder is, however, located within the County's South Hutchinson Island Overlay Zone,
allowing development to a height of 125 feet which can be development positive for the subject.
• The Remainder is encumbered with an easement on the easterly 0.53 acres. The easement
encumbers an area which historically was not legally buildable before the easement acquisition,
but as in the case of the Parent Parcel the encumbered area can be used for density calculations
for development of the Remainder buildable area.
• The primary legal issues affecting the owner's use of the acquired easement on the Remainder
include the easement holder's ability to repair or renourish the easement area at any time and
when renourishment and/or repair occur use during refurbishment is not allowed. Also, within the
area of the easement public use is permitted. However, the owner can also continue the current
use as a beach amenity for the restaurant patrons and while this area is not legally developable
either before the acquisition or after the acquisition, the owner loses some control of the area or
loses some of the fee simple ownership bundle of rights to the easement holder.
FULLER-ARMFIELD-WAGNER
Page 94 of 110
63
In summary, legally the Remainder can be developed with a wide variety of improvement types other
than residential, but subject to briefly mentioned increased level of permitting and development
regulations for safety and environmental concerns, which is the same development potential as the
Parent Parcel. However, within the area of the acquisition the owner loses some control of the use
of the property, thus losing some level of the fee simple ownership bundle of rights.
Financially Feasible/Maximally Productive Use
Economically the ideal improvement of a property is a financially feasible improvements with positive
cash flow to the investor providing the maximally productive use that returns one of the highest values
to the land.
As discussed, the Remainder, like the Parent Parcel, can be physically and legally developed with a
variety of improvement types. However, residential is not an allowed use within the zoning
classification covering the Remainder, although the majority of the sites within the neighborhood are
developed with residential projects which is typical for oceanfront properties. Within the subject's
neighborhood the Remainder is the only oceanfront site with commercial zoning/land use
classifications with all other oceanfront sites under residential zoning/land use classifications. Within
some neighborhood residential projects restaurants are included but the primary improvements are
residential types. In most instances the residential projects are considered high rise, up to 125 feet
permitted height, and most with condominium form of ownership. Because of the lack of developable
oceanfront sites, the last high rise residential project in the neighborhood was constructed in 2003.
Subject can be developed with a commercial improvement, however, there are few potentially
feasible commercial improvements for the subject, such as the current restaurant, or potentially a
modest size hotel, or other unidentified primarily tourist related use, otherwise the oceanfront location
is not expected to be financially feasible for office, retail, or the other potential wide variety of
commercial improvements legally allowed within the zoning and land use classifications covering the
Remainder. However, any potential use requires an extensive feasibility study of the industry as a
use relates to the location.
Therefore, it is my opinion, the potentially financially feasible use of the Remainder is most likely a
restaurant or a hotel, but a currently unidentified use in the "tourist" market also may be financially
feasible. However, in the case of any potential development, an extensive study is required to
determine the financially feasibility and the maximally productive use, or the use providing the highest
return to the investment.
Conclusion of Highest and Best Use — Remainder "as vacant"
In summary, in my opinion, the Highest and Best Use of the Remainder site is either a restaurant or
a hotel, or there is potential another presently unrecognized tourist related improvement is financially
feasible, with all proposed uses subject to extensive feasibility studies.
FULLER-ARMFIELD-WAGNER
Page 95 of 110
Valuation Remainder Site (Uncured)
With the acquired easement in -place the primary effect on the Remainder is the owner's loss of some
control of the east 0.53 acres of the remainder, although historically development has not been
allowed in the area of the easement, beach renourishment and/or renourishment repair by the St.
Lucie County Erosion Control department, plus public use of the easement area is allowed vs. in the
case of the Parent Parcel where the owner can exclude public use. However, as in the case of the
Parent Parcel, the encumbered easement area can be utilized for density calculations upon
development of the Reminder. Thus, as previously discussed and analyzed, the fee simple owner's
rights lost within the easement area, in my opinion, are in the range of 15% of the value of the fee
simple interest in the area. Plus, also as previously discussed, relatively minor site improvements
are included within the easement, consisting of a portion of the dune crossover.
Research into sales of similar properties with an easement in -place, similar to the Remainder
conditions, proved fruitless. In fact, no additional sales of similar properties were located, other than
properties previously analyzed to form an opinion of the value of the Parent Parcel. Plus, the sale
properties do not include dune crossovers and/or formal dune plantings as found in the case of the
Parent Parcel or the Remainder. Therefore, the following analysis of the available data is performed
beginning with valuation of the Remainder as a vacant site but with the easement in -place.
Valuation first requires review of the average value of the fee simple interest (100% ownership)
in the Parent Parcel, previously valued at $4,146.912, equating to $49.58 per square feet, say
$50.00 per square feet of gross site area. At $50.00 per square feet the average value of the fee
simple interest in the proposed encumbered acquisition area (23,087sf) calculates to value
indication of $1,154,350 with the loss of 15% of the interest in the encumbered area equating to
$173,152, the value of Remainder (Uncured) is: (rounded) $4,150,000 — $173,152 = *$3,976,848*
Cost to Cure Calculations
In summary, in my opinion, the loss of the use of the dune crossover is greater than the cost to cure,
thus the cost to cure is calculated as follows. (Note: the combined payment for the lost portion of the
bundle of rights, plus payment for the lost site improvements plus the cost to cure should put the
owner into the pre -acquisition condition.)
Repairs/remodeling required to connect the dune crossover to the beach
• Separating the acquired portion of the dune crossover from the structure will require either
installation of pilings etc. to support the end of the crossover, plus replacing stair landings and
stairs to the beach and replacing water connections, etc.
The cost to complete connection of the dune crossover to the beach is an estimated $5,000, of
which some $2,500 is included in the previous valuation of the part acquired.
Summary of Value "after" the acquisition, site: $3,976,848
Less: Cost to replace/repair Remainder: $ 5,000
Value conclusions Remainder "uncured" _ $3,971,848
FULLER-ARMFIELD-WAGNER
Page 96 of 110
65
Remainder— value "uncured"
In summary, it is my opinion the market value of the fee simple interest in the Remainder site, prior
to curing severance damages, (a Hypothetical Condition), as of November 28, 2023, is:
Three Million Nine Hundred Seventy -One Thousand Eight Hundred Forty -Eight Dollars *$3,971,848*
Special Benefits
In my opinion, there are no Special Benefits to the Remainder created by the acquisition.
FULLER-ARMFIELD-WAGNER
Page 97 of 110
Summary of Analysis — Easement Acquisition
Parent Parcel — "site as vacant" (before acquisition) -
Part Acquired as Part of Parent Parcel (Whole) -
Remainder as part of Parent Parcel (Whole) -
Remainder "uncured" after acquisition -
Damages -
Special Benefits -
Net Damages -
Summary of Value
Value Part Acquired -
Damages -
Total Value -
Rounded
$175,652
$ 2,500
$178,152
$180,000
$4,150, 000
$ 175,652
$3,974, 348
$3,971,848
$ 2,500
$ 0
$ 2,500
FULLER-ARMFIELD-WAGNER
Page 98 of 110
67
QUALIFICATIONS OF THE APPRAISER
DANIEL D. FULLER, MAI
Professional Memberships
Member Appraisal Institute (MAI) #7876 -Appraisal Institute
Senior Real Property Appraiser (SRPA) - Appraisal Institute
Senior Residential Appraiser (SRA) - Appraisal Institute
Florida - State Certified General Real Estate Appraiser RZ567
Registered Florida Real Estate Broker
Work Experience
1992 - Pres.
President, Fuller-Armfield-Wagner Appraisal & Research, Inc., Fort Pierce, FL
1987 - 1992
Vice President & Partner, Armfield-Wagner Appraisal & Research, Inc., Fort Pierce, FL
1983 - 1987
Staff Appraiser, Armfield-Wagner Appraisal & Research, Inc., Vero Beach, FL
1981 - 1983
Salesman/Appraiser, Florida Licensed Realtor -Associate, Procino Realty, Ft Pierce, FL
1979 - 1983
Staff Appraiser, Harbor Federal Savings and Loan Association, Fort Pierce, FL
1974 - 1979
Staff Appraiser, St. Lucie County Property Appraiser's Office, Fort Pierce, FL
Real Estate Appraisals made for the following:
Accountants
Attorneys
Dept. of Natural Resources
Federal Deposit Ins. Corp.
Federal Home Loan Bank Board
Federal National Mortgage Corp.
Florida Community Bank
Fort Pierce, City of
Centerstate Bank nka SouthState Bank
Iberia Bank
Indian River County
Martin County
Types of Appraisals Completed
Airplane Hangars
Automobile Dealerships
Car Washes
Commercial
Groves
Industrial
Insurable Value
Land Locked Parcels
Mini -Warehouses
Motels
Multi -Family
Qualified as Expert Witness
Circuit Court -
St. Lucie County
Martin County
Indian River County
Okeechobee County
Palm Beach County
U.S. Bankruptcy Court -
West Palm Beach District
PNC Bank
Port St. Lucie, City of
Regions Bank
Resolution Trust Corporation
Seacoast Bank
St. Lucie County
South Florida Water Management District
SunTrust Banks nka Truist Bank
TD Bank
TITF
Vero Beach, City of
Wells Fargo
Offices
Packing Houses
Ranches
Recreational Vehicle Parks
Residential
Restaurants
Retail Shopping Centers
Service Stations
Subdivision
Warehouses
Wetlands
Vacant Lands
Accomplishments
Past President - Society of Real Estate Appraisers - Indian River Chapter 211 (1989 - 1990)
Past Instructor- Indian River Community College - Appraising Income Producing Real Estate
Past Board Member - East Florida Chapter of Appraisal Institute
FULLER-ARMFIELD-WAGNER
Page 99 of 110
RAW
ADDENDUM A
ST. LUCIE COUNTY AREA DATA
St. Lucie County is located on the east coast of Florida some 120 miles north of the City of Miami and 220
miles south of the City of Jacksonville. St. Lucie County is within the center of the Treasure Coast region
with Indian River County to the north, Martin County to the south, and although not typically included with
the region, Okeechobee County to the west, and the Atlantic Ocean to the east. St. Lucie County
encompasses land area of approximately 581 square miles.
St. Lucie County ranks 21st in state population. St. Lucie County combined with Martin County is an U.S.
Census Bureau Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA).
With nearly 74% of the state's population within a 150 miles radius of St. Lucie County, Fort Pierce
maintains a position as the transportation hub of the area with its easy accessibility to 1-95, Florida's
Turnpike, U.S. 1 and the Treasure Coast (St. Lucie Co.) International Airport. The distance from Fort Pierce
to other Florida cities are as follows:
NORTH
SOUTH
Vero Beach
15 miles
Port St. Lucie
6 miles
Melbourne
50 miles
Stuart
17 miles
Orlando
120 miles
West Palm Beach
55 miles
Daytona Beach
140 miles
Miami
123 miles
Jacksonville
220 miles
Kev West
250 miles
St. Lucie County
St. Lucie County enjoys a central Florida east coast location which can be a long-term positive for regional
development as Martin County to the south has limited westward expansion as Lake Okeechobee forms
the county's west boundary, and to the north, Indian River County's westerly expansion is blocked by the
headwaters of the St. John's River. St. Lucie County, however, has the ability of almost unrestricted
physical expansion to the west to Okeechobee County in Central Florida.
St. Lucie County ranks in the mid to upper range of Florida counties in the State of Florida Office of Planning
and Budgeting 2018 Florida Price Level Index. The local index is at 99.81 with the state average at 100
representing the state average. This index is computed from the price of an identical market basket of
goods and services across the state. Most counties with higher indexes (higher costs of goods) are heavily
populated metro areas.
The area's economic base was historically dominated by agricultural operations of citrus and cattle
production. The citrus industry and economy are contracting with tree diseases, etc. and with no eminent
cure, and no other dominate crops, cattle ranching is growing, but in 2018 demand for cattle range land
appears to be stabilizing. In the recent past the construction industry gained to an economic mainstay, but
demand in building can severely fluctuate with economic change. Tourism is also considered a very
important part of the local economy. Trends indicate that winter residents occupying long term rental or
retirement homes eventually become full-time residents. This trend helps build a strong economic base,
indicating that tourism is no longer only a transient, seasonal business. Plus, several small to mid -size
manufacturing businesses have been attracted to the area in the last ten years, ranging from boat builders
to plastic water pipe production, metal parts production, and a Tropicana juice plant, etc. Additionally, in
recent years the county developed more aggressive recruitment methods to a variety of industries to
provide more stable employment for all county residents.
FULLER-ARMFIELD-WAGNER
Page 100 of 110
R
ST. LUCIE COUNTY AREA DATA (continued)
The County Commission also succeeded in receiving approval of the Central Florida Foreign -Trade Zone
(CFFTZ) within various industrial parks, the port and airport. The CFFTZ exempts duties on some
manufacturer's imports/exports if the industry is located a CFFTZ.
Fort Pierce/St. Lucie County has one of the few deep -water inlets on the east coast of Florida. The County
Commission to some degree controls development of the port with the County Commission gradually
purchasing various ownerships within the port neighborhood including purchasing some 12 acres on the
port's deep water. In the 4t" quarter of 2018, the Commission is expected to choose a luxury yacht
refurbishing firm as a tenant on the County's 12 acres ownership. The Commission is of the opinion luxury
yacht refurbishment is a business suited for the port. There is also a small investment group entertaining
opening a similar business on property the investment group purchased mid-2018.
Also, although in recent years the Count Commission let the Treasure Coast International Airport run on
idle but beginning in 2017 the Commission began investing in new facilities such as total redevelopment
of the passenger terminal and new U.S. Customs facility, plus a runway extension to accommodate larger
aircraft and construction of a larger hangar is underway to lease to an attract aircraft repair businesses.
In addition to the St. Lucie County International Airport and Port facilities, previously discussed, St. Lucie
County is served by several other major forms of transportation.
St. Lucie County is served by Federal Highway U.S. 1 serving as a major inter and intra-county route. The
area is also served by five primary state highways including the Florida Turnpike, plus Interstate 95. St.
Lucie County has the distinction of being the only area where the Florida Turnpike and Interstate 95 have
closely located interchanges.
Fort Pierce is also served by Florida East Coast Railway, (freight only) and is the terminal point for the
railroad cut-off to the Lake Okeechobee area. Community delivery service is by Federal Express, United
Parcel Service (UPS), Greyhound, and several common carriers. There are several trucking terminals
in St. Lucie County including AAA Cooper, and Gator Freightways. There are also several locally owned
taxicab companies and Community Transit, a division of Council on Aging of St. Lucie, Inc., and the
Treasure Coast Connector operated by Council on Aging with financial support thru St. Lucie County Board
of County Commissioners of St. Lucie County.
Service and professional fields also compose a large part of the area's economic base. Among the
professional fields, real estate has played an important part in the area's growth with some 240 brokers in
the county and over 900 MLS members.
Although the local economy is supported by agriculture, construction, and tourism, other employment
centers include manufacturing, retail trade, finance, insurance, real estate, services and governmental jobs.
Total percentages listed below are based on the total non-agricultural labor force*.
Other EmDlovment - Non-aaricultural*
NATURAL RESOURCE & MINING
1.3%
CONSTRUCTION
15.2%
TRADE, TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC UTILITIES
19.4%
INFORMATION ,;
0,9%
FINANCE, PROFESSIONAL & BUSINESS SERVICES
27.4%
EDUCATION. & HEALTH SERVICES
13.0%
LEISURE & HOSPITALITY
8.2%
OTHER SE„ VICES',
&6%,
GOVERNMENT JOBS
1.5%
Estimated by the Enterprise Florida/Florida County Profile (2017)
FULLER-ARMFIELD-WAGNER
Page 101 of 110
ST. LUCIE COUNTY AREA DATA (continued)
The County's top ten largest employers are listed below:
Laraest EmDlovers
SCHOOL BOARD - ST. LUCIE COUNTY
5,471
INDIAN RIVER STATE COLLEGE
2,338
LAWNINOOD REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER (HCA)
1,455
TELEPERFORMANCE (Aegis Communications)
1,200
CITY OF PORT ST. LUCIE
1 #1,57
WAL-MART DISTRIBUTION CENTER
890
MARTIN HEALTH SYSTEM
80
ST LUCIE MEDICAL CENTER (HCA)
850
T LUCIE COUNTY
778
FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT
774
*Per employers to Economic Development Council of St. Lucie Co. — 12/21/17
Historically unemployment was generally higher in St. Lucie County than in neighboring counties,
historically the main contributor to high employment was the large number of seasonal workers in
agriculture, and seasonally oriented tourist businesses. However, with a now more diversified workforce
unemployment rate generally parallel rates for neighboring counties, except Fort Pierce tends to carry
somewhat higher unemployment than many of the state's cities within the size class of Fort Pierce.
Below is a summary of unemployment rates for recent years and as can be seen from the data, the boom
year of 2006 unemployment rate of 4.2% average for the County is an all-time low with unemployment
spiking after the end of the 2008 economic recession followed by gradual declines to 2017 with the average
annual rate of 5.1 %.
Year
Total Labor Foracie
Unemployment Rate
2006
119,477
4.2%
2007
123;851
5.8%
2008
124,487
898%
2009
123,665
13.4%
2010
128,690
13.8%
2011
128,670
12.6%
2012
129,176
11 %
2013
129,131
10%
2014
130,594
8.0%
2015
131,1,14
6.3%
2016
135,255
5.8%
2017
138;067
5.1 %
o da D e p a r t m e n t o f E, conomic Opportunity
St. Lucie County government operates as a five -member commission with a professional county
administrator as mandated by the state. The City of Fort Pierce operates as a five -member commission
presided over by a mayor and city manager. Port St. Lucie operates as a five -member commission
presided over by a mayor and city manager. St. Lucie Village has a five -member board of aldermen and
a mayor however generally only limited city business is transacted by the group.
Each city provides its own law enforcement department along with a County Sheriff's Department for the
unincorporated areas. Fire protection is provided by a county wide district.
The school system is operated under one county wide five -member board. The system has seventeen
elementary schools (grades K-6), eight K-8 schools, four middle schools, 1 — 6th-12th school, five high
schools, one virtual school, and two alternative schools.
FULLER-ARMFIELD-WAGNER
Page 102 of 110
ST. LUCIE COUNTY AREA DATA (continued)
Also, there are several private schools including St. Anastasia elementary and John Carroll High Schools.
Plus St. Edwards grades K-12. Higher education facilities consist of Indian River State College, plus Florida
State University offers medical school courses at the Indian River State College campus in Fort Pierce and
St. Lucie West. Also, the University of Florida Institute of Food and Agriculture Science offers bachelor's
and master's degree programs at its OF Indian River Research and Education Center local campus. There
are also private colleges such as Kaiser college. Plus, Florida Atlantic University (FAU) maintains a campus
on the Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institute (HBOI) campus for marine studies in undergraduate and
graduate degree programs.
There are three hospitals within the county. Lawnwood Regional Medical Center, located in Fort Pierce,
and St. Lucie Medical Center located within the City of Port St. Lucie, operated by HCA corporation, plus
Martin Memorial Health system operates a hospital within the Tradition DRI of westerly Port St. Lucie,
soon to be affiliated with the Cleveland Clinic. Additionally, there are two in -patient psychiatric hospitals,
Lawnwood Pavilion located in Fort Pierce, and Savannas Hospital located in Port St. Lucie, plus a regional
publicly funded mental health facility, New Horizons of the Treasure Coast. There are also several
privately -operated walk-in medical clinics, plus assisted living facilities and nursing homes spread
throughout the county.
Fort Pierce, the oldest city in the county, is located on the eastern edge of the county adjacent to the Indian
River - Intercoastal Waterway and the Atlantic Ocean. In addition to Fort Pierce there are two other
incorporated communities within St. Lucie County, Port St. Lucie and St. Lucie Village. Plus, the county
government oversees a large portion of unincorporated area, also providing support to the cities in the area
of court systems, criminal detention facilities, fire protection, etc., along with the Treasure Coast Regional
Planning Council, providing input on large scale growth / planning issues.
Population statistic is as follows:*
1960*
1970*
1980'
1990*
2000*
2010
.... .... y*.294
S t.Lucie County** 39;
50,83...
6
87,182
150,171
1,90,677
277,789
Fort Pierce 25 256
29,721
33,802
36,830
38,683 '
41,590
Port St. Lucie
330
14�,690 '
55,866
85,751
164.603
St.........Lucie Village
593
584
638
590„
* U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 census
**Total including all unincorporated areas.
The greatest population growth from 2010 census to 2020 occurred within the City of Port St. Lucie
with an average annual increase of some 2.3%. The City of Fort Pierce experienced a modest increase,
partially accredited to annexations, with an average annual increase of approximately 0.69%, during
the same period. The total average annual percentage population growth for the County for the same
period was 1.6%. Per the U.S. Census Bureau, the state's average annual growth for the same period
was approximately 1.5%. Thus, the County's overall growth has paralleled the state average.
A majority of the growth between 2000 and 2010 occurred between 2003 and 2007. In 2008 growth
slowed with the national economic recession. Population growth was modest from 2008 to mid-2011
when the economy and demand in the real estate markets began to strengthen.
Long term growth is expected to follow past patterns with a majority of the County's growth occurring in the
City of Port St. Lucie with the City of Fort Pierce and St. Lucie County overall achieving a lesser but steady
growth. Limited growth can be predicted for the beachfront areas caused primarily by stringent
development regulations imposed by county, state, and federal governments, plus environmental and
concurrency regulations combining to create a general negative affect on development.
FULLER-ARMFIELD-WAGNER
Page 103 of 110
RAW,
ST. LUCIE COUNTY AREA DATA (continued)
0-18
20%
18-24
7%
25-44
22%
45-64
27%
65-84
21 %
85 & up
3%
"US Census 7/11/2018 estimates.
Population age distribution is about equal in age groupings, except significantly lower in the 18-24 years
age group which is likely caused by the age group attending out of County colleges, military service, etc. It
is expected that the age levels will remain relatively the same with a stronger increase in the over 65 group
as people continue to move to Florida at retirement.
Along with the St. Lucie County population growth, household growth and size are reported as follows. The
summary indicates while households are growing, household size is slightly declining, but a better picture
will be available after the 2020 census.
YEAR NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS HOUSEHOLD SIZE
1980 32,506 2.65
1990 58,174 2.54
2000 76,933 2.47
2010 136,800 2.03
2017 141,028 2.22
"US Census 7/11/2018 estimates.
City of Fort Pierce
Fort Pierce, incorporated in 1901, is the oldest city in the County and covers approximately 29 square
miles. Because the city is approximately 80%+ developed, new growth is expected to be minimal unless
annexation continues and/or gentrification occurs. The City Commission is on an annexation track to bring
developments adjacent to the city limits and serviced by city utilities into the city for an expanded tax base.
Also, because of the age of the city, the City's Redevelopment Agency has been in a redevelopment
phase including infrastructure and community service facilities such as restoration of the historic
Sunrise Theater.
Although the City of Ft. Pierce is the oldest community in the County, the City has many advantages such
as one of the best Florida east coast inlets to the Atlantic Ocean providing access to some of the best
boating waters along Florida's east coast.
The City of Fort Pierce is also adjacent to a good transportation network including central access to
Interstate 95, the Florida Turnpike, State Road 70 crossing the state, and the Treasure Coast (St. Lucie
Co.) International Airport and the Port of Fort Pierce. However, because the city is older, the City of Ft.
Pierce also has a large inventory of older residential and commercial properties and a lower income base,
thus attracting name brand retailers, chain restaurants, etc. has slowly moved forward. But new residential
and commercial projects located adjacent to the city are annexing into the city to receive utility service, thus
long term the city's economic position should improve.
City of Port St. Lucie
The City of Port St. Lucie is located at the southern end of St. Lucie County some two to six miles south of
Fort Pierce. The City of Port St. Lucie has surpassed Fort Pierce in population and is now the largest city
in the county.
FULLER-ARMFIELD-WAGNER
Page 104 of 110
ST. LUCIE COUNTY AREA DATA (continued)
Port St. Lucie was incorporated in 1960, originally developed by Mackell Brothers and continued by
General Development Corporation (now Atlantic Gulf Communities). Port St. Lucie originally encompassed
approximately 120 square miles with development predominately in single family residences of moderate
price ranges with areas of high-priced homes concentrated around the community's golf courses and the
North Fork of the St. Lucie River. Within the original General Development plats of Port St. Lucie
approximately 30% of the lots remain to be improved.
Although housing in the cities of Fort Pierce and Port St. Lucie, as well as St. Lucie County overall is
generally considered to be very affordable compared to neighboring counties to the north and south,
although the area has attracted large generally upscale developments within the St. Lucie West, Tradition
and the Reserve DRIs.
The St. Lucie West development is a mixed -use community opening for sales in 1988. St. Lucie West lays
west of the Florida State Turnpike, east of Interstate 95, and north and south of the original city limits of
Port St. Lucie. The location, because of the major road boundaries, provides defined boundaries that
maintain the integrity of the project. The project is an approved Development of Regional Impact (DRI).
Residential projects within St. Lucie West are essentially built -out with the commercial and industrial
neighborhoods 75% to 90% developed. Residential population totals approximately 14,000, plus the
community was proposed to include 500 acres of industrial development, 426 acres of
commercial/retail/office development, along with 90 acres of college campuses and over 100 acres of
public parks and recreational facilities including the Tradition Stadium (the spring training facilities for the
New York Mets). Plus, within the St. Lucie West development is a Jim Fazio -designed championship
18-hole golf course. The golf course was purchased in 1995 by the Professional Golfers Association (PGA)
but is presently offered for sale as PGA is consolidating their operations in a location west of 1-95.
West of Interstate 95 there is a modest size luxury residential community, The Reserve. The Reserve is
an upper price range; golf course -oriented community on 2,700 acres of land approved for 4,100
residences. The central amenity of the development was originally a private 18-hole George Fazio
designed championship golf course. Within The Reserve, PGA of America owns two Tom Fazio and
one Pete Dye designed 18-hole PGA golf courses. The PGA courses are supported by a 12,000 square
foot clubhouse with pro -shop, etc. Also, a PGA complex includes a "Learning Center". The PGA's winter
headquarters is presently in Palm Beach County some 25 miles south of The Reserve.
In addition to the existing Reserve PUD, the Reserve developers completed permitting for a DRI covering
a 3,000 acres tract of land lying immediately south of the existing Reserve, Verano. The DRI is permitted
for 6,500 residential units, plus 50K square feet of specialty retail and a total of three golf courses to be
developed by PGA, 100K square feet of golf course maintenance, etc. facilities, and 250K square feet of
non-residential space associated with the golf courses, i.e., clubhouse. Also, located on the north parcel in
the area of its southeast corner, the DRI will be permitted for 200K square feet of commercial use, plus a
350 rooms hotel.
The St. Lucie West developer began development on another community lying west of Interstate 95, at the
1-95 / Gatlin Boulevard interchange, Tradition. Tradition is a community created under a DRI process with
plan approval in September 2003. Tradition covers some 3,000 acres, projected to be developed in
four phases with a total 7,245 residential units with a projected build -out date of 2022.
Adjacent to Tradition three other DRIs are permitted, Southern Grove, Riverland / Kennedy, also in the
initial development stages, and the Wilson Groves DRI, both covering some 6,300 acres with potential of
60,000 population. Southern Grove DRI is predominantly planned for commercial / industrial multi -family,
plus there is an area developing with detached residential projects. A residential project within the Riverland
/ Kennedy DRI is in the initial development stage, plus a builder is seeking approvals for some 4,000 homes
to be constructed west of the Tradition / Western Grove DRI.
FULLER-ARMFIELD-WAGNER
Page 105 of 110
Rkk
ST. LUCIE COUNTY AREA DATA (continued)
Initial development, 2003 — 2008, within the Tradition DRI includes the Town Square consisting of some
125,000 square feet of commercial space anchored by a Publix grocery store. Plus, the Landings at
Tradition; a 500,000 square foot retail center anchored by a Target store, including out parcel
development. The center could total 600,000 square feet.
The Tradition developers also achieved DRI approval in 2008 for the Southern Groves project covering
another 3,200 acres lying southeast of the Tradition development, Southern Groves, is approved for a total
of 4,000 residences and 4 million square feet of non-residential uses. Initially, within southern Grove DRI,
the "Tradition Center for Innovation Research Park", initially developed within two bio-tech firms, the
headquarters of the Torrey Pines Institute of Molecular Studies, plus VGIT gene research facility. The
VGIT project, however, has closed.
Long term, the eventual impact of St. Lucie West / Tradition and The Reserve on Port St. Lucie and St.
Lucie County is expected to be substantial. The St. Lucie West / Tradition and The Reserve developments
also spawned several smaller developments within the City of Port St. Lucie. These new PUD's either
feature golf course amenities or nature preserve amenities. New or proposed developments include River
Place on the St. Lucie, St. James Golf Club, Waterville Golf and Country Club, and Sawgrass Lakes.
Within southeastern Port St. Lucie the Ginn Company purchased a 1,200+ acre tract of land developed
under the Tesoro PUD. Tesoro was a planned very upscale golf course community home to a grand
Italianate Clubhouse, and Arnold Palmer and Tom Watson signature golf courses for Tesoro owners.
Tesoro initially experienced strong demand, demand significantly retracted following general real estate
trends and in 2009 the project mortgage was foreclosed with assets purchased by a Palm Beach County
developer, with demand in 2018 returning at a very slow pace. Also, southeast of Tesoro a tract of land
is being developed by DiVosta Homes with a mid -price range residential community.
St. Lucie Village
Adjacent to the northerly city limits of Fort Pierce there is St. Lucie Village, the third incorporated community
within St. Lucie County. St. Lucie Village is operated by city council with a mayor, but the city maintains a
steady population base in the range of 600 people and imposes only a minimal tax, offering minimal
services to its residences. St. Lucie Village is primarily a residential community with many residents with
deep St. Lucie County roots, and the population does not desire further expansion of its community, thus
St. Lucie Village is not expected to change, at least for the near -term years.
Summary
In the near term, demand in the various real estate markets throughout the County ranges from modest to
very strong with new projects experiencing the highest demand levels. Long term the overall economic
outlook for St. Lucie County is good. Projections show the most rapid expansion will be in the City of Port
St. Lucie. However, all incorporated or unincorporated areas should, by all forecasts, show a steady growth
rate.
With governing and private forces vigorously working toward industrial expansions, new stable industries
should add a great deal to the overall employment picture. Along with new industrial employment, growth
will create many new jobs in the service and professional fields again adding to the overall economic
strength for the area. Thus, the area should continue to be attractive to new residents as well as continuing
to offer existing residents an attractive place in which to live and work.
Of course, the pace of economic growth will depend upon national trends. As in the past, economic highs
and lows brought about by national economic policies affect the local economy thus real estate values.
FULLER-ARMFIELD-WAGNER
Page 106 of 110
SALES DATA
Property Locations
Sale Details
Location
City
County
Grantor
Grantee
Date of Sale
Recorded (OR Book/Page)
Sale date to appraisal date - months
Market Condition Months
Previous sale
Previous Sales Price
Price Change
Financing
Site Characteristics
Total Gross Acres
Estimated Upland or Buildable Acres
Estimated Buildable Sq. Ft.
of Buildable area vs. Total Site Area
Waterfront Feet +-
Zoning
Land Use Classification
Gross Potential Zoned Density
Planned Units
Permitted Density per Gross Acre
Comments
Data Verification
SALE ANALYSIS
Recorded Sale Price
Sales Price per Gross Acre
Sales Price / Est. Net Dev. Acre
Sales Price / Net Dev. Sq. Ft.
Sales Price per Zoned Legal Units
Sales Price per Approved or Planned Units
Sales Price per Waterfront Feet
Adjacent to Stuart CBD
Sale 1
75 NW Flagler Ave
Stuart
Martin County
BRP US, Inc.
Middle Island Management
and Development, LLC
9/01 /2020
3155/643
39
22
No recent previous sales
n/a
n/a
Cash
7.00
7.00
304,920
100.0
900.00
Plus 2.147ac owned submerged land
Plus 0.8ac leased submerged land
UPUD, Urban Planned Unit Dev.
Downtown & C RA
Zoning allows 30 units / ac
n/a
n/a
Property sold with older bulkhead in -place,
Listing/Selling Realtor Boyd Bradfield (772)
215-2538 - 2/17/22
Sale 1
$14,750,000
$2,107,143
$2,107,143
$48
$70,238
n/a
$16,389
FULLER-ARMFIELD-WAGNER
Page 107 of 110
Prooerty Locations
Sale Details
Location
City
County
Grantor
Grantee
Date of Sale
Recorded (OR Book/Page)
Sale date to appraisal date - months
Market Condition Months
Previous sale
Previous Sales Price
Price Change
Financing
Site Characteristics
Total Gross Acres
Estimated Upland or Buildable Acres
Estimated Buildable Sq. Ft.
of Buildable area vs. Total Site Area
Waterfront Feet +-
zoning
Land Use Classification
Gross Potential Zoned Density
Planned Units
Permitted Density per Gross Acre
Comments:
Data Verification
SALE ANALYSIS
Recorded Sale Price
Sales Price per Gross Acre
Sales Price / Est. Net De, Acre
Sales Price / Net Dev. Sq. Ft.
Sales Price per Zoned Legal Units
Sales Price per Approved or Planned Units
Sales Price per Waterfront Feet
Jupiter FL
Sale 2
18265 N. HwyA1A
(channel front east of present intra-
coastal waterway, immediately south
of Jupiter Inlet)
Jupiter, Palm Beach co.
J & T Capital US, LLC
Love Street Property Group, LLC
5/10/2021
32483/1494
30
14
No recent previous sales
Cash
1.440
1.440
62,709
100.0
250.00
CS, Commercial Specialized & CG, General
CH-5, Commercial High w/ underlying MR-5
(Marine Waterfront Commercial Overlay)
n/a
(Residential density 5 units / acre.)
Previous use marine sales/repair facility &
Listing/Selling Realtor Robert Hamm (561)
346-2310 - 4/3/23
Sale 2
$4,600,000
$3,195,332
$3,195,332
$73
$657,143
n/a
$18,400
FULLER-ARMFIELD-WAGNER
Page 108 of 110
ETV!V Locations
Sale Details
Location
City
County
Grantor
Grantee
Date of Sale
Recorded (OR Book/Page)
Sale date to appraisal date - months
Market Condition Months
Previous sale
Previous Sales Price
Price Change
Financing
Site Characteristics
Total Gross Acres
Estimated Upland or Buildable Acres
Estimated Buildable Sq. Ft.
of Buildable area vs. Total Site Area
Waterfront Feet +-
Zoning
Land Use Classification
Gross Potential Zoned Density
Planned Units
Permitted Density per Gross Acre
Comments
Data Verification
SALE ANALYSIS
Recorded Sale Price
Sales Price per Gross Acre
Sales Price / Est. Net Dev. Acre
Sales Price / Net Dev. Sq. Ft.
Sales Price per Zoned Legal Units
Sales Price per Approved or Planned Units
Sales Price per Waterfront Feet
North Hutchinson Island
Sale 3
2600 N Highway Al
(Ft. Pierce N. Hutchinson Isl.)
North Hutchinson Island
St. Lucie
Ruffin Properties, LLC
2600 N. Highway A1A, LLC
12/22/2021
4743/2875
23
7
12/2013
$6,000,000
+158 % = 1 .65 % / month
Cash
11.78
8.05
350,658
68.4
525.00
CR, Commercial Resort
COM, Commercial
Max 36 units/ac density = 424 units, but
unlikely to physically achieve w/ est.
max 176 units = 15/ac
Property sold unpermitted. Past site plan
Listing/Selling Realtor Bob Lowe (772) 559-
1676 - 6/7/21 & 4/27/22
Sale 3
$15,500,000
$1,316,348
$1,925,466
$44
$88,068
n/a
$29,524
FULLER-ARMFIELD-WAGNER
Page 109 of 110
IC �
Prooertv Locations
Sale Details
Location
City
County
Grantor
Grantee
Date of Sale
Recorded (OR Book/Page)
Sale date to appraisal date - months
Market Condition Months
Previous sale
Previous Sales Price
Price Change
Financing
Site Characteristics
Total Gross Acres
Estimated Upland or Buildable Acres
Estimated Buildable Sq. Ft.
of Buildable area vs. Total Site Area
Waterfront Feet --
Zoning
Land Use Classification
Gross Potential Zoned Density
Planned Units
Permitted Density per Gross Acre
Comments
Data Verification
SALE ANALYSIS
Recorded Sale Price
Sales Price per Gross Acre
Sales Price / Est. Net Dev. Acre
Sales Price / Net Dev. Sq. Ft.
Sales Price per Zoned Legal Units
Sales Price per Approved or Planned Units
Sales Price per Waterfront Feet
Stuart CBD
Sale 4
311 E. Osceola St.
(marketing as 313-315 Osceola)
Stuart
Martin County
313 East Osceola L.C.
Medalist Building Group, LLC
2/15/2022
3293/1827
21
5
No recent previous sales
ri/a
n/a
3rd party private mortgage - considered cash
0.58
0.58
25,265
100.0
120.00
UPUD, Urban Planned Unit Dev.
Downtown & CPA
15 up to 30 w/ bonus units (8 to 17 units)
16
27.6
Property sold with site plan approval for 12
Current listing Realtor Nik Schroth (772) 6292 -
11 /28/23
Sale 4
$2,500,000
$4,310,345
$4,310,345
$99
$147,058 to $312,500
$156,250
$20,833
FULLER-ARMFIELD-WAGNER
Page 110 of 110