Snover Wa
terway
72
75
E Price Blvd
W Price Blvd
SR-93
Walton Ranch
Cocoplum Waterway
E Hil
l
sboro
ugh B
l
vd
N
W Pine Leve
l St
NW Highway 70
769
SW
Count y
R
oa
d 76
9
SW Cou
nty R
oad
76
0
SW Cou
nty Road 761
S
W Highway 72
SW
Hig
hway 72
Fort Ogden
Platt
Southfort
Hull
Lake Suzy
Myakkahatchee
Creek Conservation
Easement
Lewis Longino
Preserve
Walton Ranch
Longino Ranch
Conservation
Easement
RV Griffin
Reserve
(GDC)
Myakka Prairie
Conservation
Easements
Myakka
Mitigation
Bank
Peace River
State Forest
Boran Ranch
Mitigation Bank
Candy Bar Ranch
Agricultural and
Conservation
Easement
Deep Creek
Preserve
(SWFWMD)
Horse Creek
Mitigation Bank
Orange Hammock
Ranch Wildlife
Management Area
Rawls Ranch
Conservation
Easement
Peace River
Preserve
Conservation
Easement
Myakka River
State Park
Big
Slough
Preserve
Panning
Conservation
Easement
Gant
Conservation
Easement
Hall Conservation
Easement
Howe Conservation
Easement
Flint
Conservation
Easement
Myakka Ranchlands
Florida Forever BOT
Project
Myakka Ranchlands
Florida Forever BOT
Project
Peace River Refuge
Florida Forever
BOT Project
Myakka Ranchlands
Florida Forever
BOT Project
Myakka Ranchlands
Florida Forever
BOT Project
Myakka Ranchlands
Florida Forever BOT
Project
"
SITE
Date Saved: 11/2/2023 11:02 AM
File Location: \\FLDEP1\
Map Created By: T. Barnes
´
0 10,000 20,0005,000
Feet
17
DeSoto County, Florida
Owner: 4L's Ranch, LLC
Myakka Ranchlands
F:\SURVEY\Myakka Ranchlands\4L's Ranch, LLC
SW Hi gh
way 7 2
SW Hi gh way 1 7
SR-93
SR-93
SW Hi gh way 7 2
E Pric e B l v d
Snover Waterway
SW Cou n t y R o a d 7 6 1
SW
County
Road
769
NW Pin e L e v e l S t
769
72
NW Hi gh way
70
DESOTO
MANATEE
SARASOTA
Private Managed Conservation Lands
City/County Managed Conservation Lands
Federal Managed Conservation Lands
State Managed Conservation Lands
Florida Forever Project Boundaries
Under Contract/Delegation
Subject Parcel
ATTACHMENT 2
PAGE 1
Snover Wa
terway
Cocoplum Waterway
Snover Wa
terway
72
S
R
-9
3
Cocoplum Waterway
70
72
72
661
761
769
769
SW Highway 17
769
SR
-93
Myakkahatchee
Creek Conservation
Easement
Lewis Longino
Preserve
Walton Ranch
Longino Ranch
Conservation
Easement
RV Griffin
Reserve
(GDC)
Myakka Prairie
Conservation
Easements
Myakka
Mitigation
Bank
Peace River
State Forest
Boran Ranch
Mitigation Bank
Candy Bar Ranch
Agricultural and
Conservation
Easement
Deep Creek
Preserve
(SWFWMD)
Horse Creek
Mitigation Bank
Orange Hammock
Ranch Wildlife
Management Area
Rawls Ranch
Conservation
Easement
Peace River
Preserve
Conservation
Easement
Myakka River
State Park
Big
Slough
Preserve
Panning
Conservation
Easement
Gant
Conservation
Easement
Hall Conservation
Easement
Howe Conservation
Easement
Flint
Conservation
Easement
Myakka Ranchlands
Florida Forever BOT
Project
Myakka Ranchlands
Florida Forever BOT
Project
Peace River Refuge
Florida Forever
BOT Project
Myakka Ranchlands
Florida Forever
BOT Project
Myakka Ranchlands
Florida Forever
BOT Project
Myakka Ranchlands
Florida Forever BOT
Project
DeSoto County, Florida
Owner: 4L's Ranch, LLC
Myakka Ranchlands
"
SITE
Subject Parcel
Florida Forever Project Boundaries
Under Contract/Delegation
State Managed Conservation Lands
City/County Managed Conservation Lands
Private Managed Conservation Lands
F:\SURVEY\Myakka Ranchlands\4L's Ranch, LLC
Date Saved: 11/2/2023 12:54 PM
File Location: \\FLDEP1\
Map Created By: T. Barnes
´
0 10,000 20,0005,000
Feet
DESOTO
MANATEE
SARASOTA
ATTACHMENT 2
PAGE 2
ATTACHMENT 2
PAGE 3
ATTACHMENT 2
PAGE 4
ATTACHMENT 2
PAGE 5
ATTACHMENT 2
PAGE 6
ATTACHMENT 2
PAGE 7
ATTACHMENT 2
PAGE 8
ATTACHMENT 2
PAGE 9
ATTACHMENT 2
PAGE 10
ATTACHMENT 2
PAGE 11
ATTACHMENT 2
PAGE 12
ATTACHMENT 2
PAGE 13
ATTACHMENT 2
PAGE 14
ATTACHMENT 2
PAGE 15
ATTACHMENT 2
PAGE 16
ATTACHMENT 2
PAGE 17
ATTACHMENT 2
PAGE 18
ATTACHMENT 2
PAGE 19
ATTACHMENT 2
PAGE 20
ATTACHMENT 2
PAGE 21
ATTACHMENT 2
PAGE 22
ATTACHMENT 2
PAGE 23
ATTACHMENT 2
PAGE 24
ATTACHMENT 2
PAGE 25
ATTACHMENT 2
PAGE 26
ATTACHMENT 2
PAGE 27
ATTACHMENT 2
PAGE 28
ATTACHMENT 2
PAGE 29
APPR
AISAL REVIEW
4L’S RANCH,
LLC
CONSE
RVATION EASEMENT
DESOT
O COUNTY, FLORIDA
BURE
AU OF APPRAISAL FILE 23-8561
Prepared by
Thomas G. Richards, MAI
Richards Appraisal Service, Inc.
ATTACHMENT 2
PAGE 30
Appraisal Review Memorandum
To: Stephanie Baker, Sr. Appraiser
Florida Department of Environmental Protection
Bureau of Appraisal
Client of Review: Bureau of Appraisal, Division of State Lands of the Florida
Department of Environmental Protection.
Intended User of Review: The State of Florida, Bureau of Appraisal, Division of State
Lands of the Florida Department of Environmental
Protection.
Intended Use of Review Compliance with USPAP & SASBOT
From: Thomas G. Richards, MAI
Richards Appraisal Service, Inc.
Date: September 8, 2023
Project Information:
BA File Number 23-8561
Parcel Name 4L’s Ranch, LLC-CE
Project Name Myakka Ranchlands
Location DeSoto County, Fl.
Effective Date of Appraisals July 19, 2023
Summary of Review
Pursuant to your request, I have reviewed two individual appraisal reports on the 4L’s
Ranch, LLC Ranch Conservation Easement parcel located in DeSoto County, Florida.
One appraisal report was prepared by Mr. Joseph S. String, MAI of String Appraisal
Services, Inc. The other report was prepared by Mr. Riley Jones, MAI, SRA of Florida
Real Estate Advisors, Inc. I have determined after review of the reports and some minor
changes to each appraisal that they are acceptable as submitted.
The String report is dated September 7, 2023. The Jones report is dated September 8,
2023. Both appraisals have a valuation date of July 19, 2023. The value indications for
the proposed conservation easement reflected by each appraiser were:
(1) Joseph S. String, MAI $5,700,000
(2) Riley Jones, MAI, SRA $5,350,000
ATTACHMENT 2
PAGE 31
In the reviewer’s opinion the appraisal reports were completed substantially in
conformance with USPAP, were well documented, and reflected a reasonable value
indication for the subject property. Both firms submitting appraisals consider their report
to be appraisal reports according to USPAP. Both appraisals are considered sufficient to
satisfy the requirements of Standard 2 of USPAP as it is applied to this type of report.
The appraisals are also in substantial conformance with the Supplemental Appraisal
Standards for the Board of Trustees, Division of State Lands, Bureau of Appraisal,
Florida Department of Environmental Protection, March 2, 2016.
The intended users of this appraisal assignment are the Board of Trustees, Division of
State Lands, Bureau of Appraisal, Florida Department of Environmental Protection. The
intended use is for DEP for consideration in determining the effect on value of the
proposed conservation easement on the subject property.
Both Mr. String and Mr. Jones utilized the Sales Comparison technique to estimate the
value of the subject tract which is essentially vacant ranch land utilizing the “before and
after” technique which is deemed by the reviewer to be the most appropriate method. The
appraisers utilized meaningful data, appropriate adjustment procedures and therefore, the
resultant conclusions are well supported.
It is important to note that the Hypothetical Condition is made by the appraisers in
assuming that the proposed conservation easement is in place on the date of the
appraisal. Hypothetical Condition is defined as that which is contrary to what exists
but is assumed for appraisal purposes. Uniform Standards dictate that these type
assumptions are prominently disclosed. This Hypothetical Condition is prominently
disclosed and treated appropriately by both appraisers and is necessary for a credible
assignment result. An Extraordinary Assumption was made by both appraisers
regarding relying upon the “Draft Copy” of the easement which is not yet executed by the
parties. The appraiser’s each stress the importance of the final agreement being exactly
like the draft. This is also a common and reasonable procedure for this property type.
In addition, Mr. String utilized an extraordinary assumption that that there are no
additional encumbrances after the somewhat dated title policy that could impact value.
Mr. Jones did not use this Extraordinary Assumption regarding the dated title policy,
however, the use by Mr. String is reasonable and acceptable. These Extraordinary
Assumptions are also prominently disclosed and treated appropriately by both appraisers
and are reasonable for a credible assignment result.
The appraisers and the reviewer are in agreement that the highest and best use for the
subject parcel is for continued agriculture and recreational use for the foreseeable future.
More details regarding the highest and best use is included in a later section of this
review report.
The valuation problem consists of estimating the impact on value of a proposed
“Conservation Easement” which will encumber the subject property. The significance of
the conservation easement is that it is proposed to assure that the property will be retained
ATTACHMENT 2
PAGE 32
forever in its natural, scenic, wooded condition to provide a relatively natural habitat for
fish, wildlife, plants or similar ecosystems and to preserve portions of the property as
productive farmland and forest land that sustains for the long term both the economic and
conservation values of the property and its environs, through management.
In order to value the subject property, the appraisers have applied the traditional appraisal
methods and have arrived at a supportable opinion of the impact on Market Value of the
proposed conservation easement.
Statement of Ownership and Property History
The subject is currently vested to:
4L’s Ranch, LLC C/O Steven Liebel
7812 DeSoto Memorial Highway
Bradenton, FL 34209
The property has been owned by this entity in excess of ten years with no listings or
contracts to report.
Property Description
This appraisal assignment encompasses a portion of the 4L’s Ranch located
approximately 3 miles south of State Road 72, in a rural area of West Central DeSoto
County, Florida. The property abuts the east side of the DeSoto-Sarasota County line.
The appraisal problem encompasses estimating the impact on value of a proposed
conservation easement on 1,531 acres of the larger subject ranch holding containing
approximately 1,591.64 acres. According to mapping provided by the client the subject
contains approximately 962 acres of uplands (63%) and approximately 569 acres of
wetlands (37%). Otherwise, the ranch contains a mosaic of improved and unimproved
pasture areas, piney woods, woodland pasture, oak and cabbage hammocks along with
intermittent wetland sloughs, native creeks, hardwood and forested wetlands.
The surrounding area is typically comprised of larger cattle ranches and/or recreational
tracts and large government land holdings. Residential development is rural and very
limited in the immediate area and typically only in support of larger agricultural holdings.
The subject is accessed by virtue of a 50 foot wide ingress/egress easement that connects
State Road 72 to the northeast corner of the subject property. This is a winding partially
graded road and a partially non-graded trail and extends a distance of approximately 3
miles.
The subject parcel has a nearly flat topography as is common in this area of DeSoto
County Florida. The property generally slopes from northeast to southwest. Elevations
are approximately 35 to 38 feet above sea level.
ATTACHMENT 2
PAGE 33
The title insurance policy was silent on oil, gas and mineral rights leading the appraisers
and the reviewer to believe that these rights are intact on this parcel.
The subject property is found on FEMA Flood Map 12027C0145C dated November 6,
2013. According to this map the majority of the described subject property (Approx.
60%) is located within Flood Zone A which is an area that is determined to be within the
0.2% annual chance floodplain. The balance of the property is located in Zone X, which
is an area determined to be outside the 0.2% annual chance floodplain.
The subject ranch is improved with typical ranching improvements such as fencing,
cross-fencing, gates, ditches, culverts, ranch roads, Etc. In addition, there is a 2021
modular home which contains 2,594 square feet with attached porches and an 1,800
square foot metal barn built in 2022.
While electrical and telephone services are readily available to the area a municipal
source for potable water or sewage disposal is not. Wells and septic systems are typical in
the region.
The subject has an Agriculture (A-10) zoning and future land use Rural Agriculture
classification both by DeSoto County. These classifications are generally associated with
rural areas of the county and are typically committed to open space and agricultural
activities. The permitted residential density is one dwelling unit per ten acres of land area.
Highest and Best Use
Highest and best use is defined as the reasonably probable and legal use of vacant land or
an improved property which is physically possible, appropriately supported, financially
feasible, and that results in the highest value. The four criteria the highest and best use
must meet are legal permissibility, physical possibility, financial feasibility, and
maximum profitability.
Before
Mr. String concluded that the Highest and Best Use for the subject would be for
continued agriculture and recreation use, with long-term potential for rural residential
subdivision.
Mr. Jones concluded that the Highest and Best Use for the subject would be for continued
agricultural and recreational use with limited potential for future residential development.
After
Mr. String concluded that the Highest and Best Use for the subject, as encumbered,
would be essentially limited agricultural and passive recreational uses subject to the
conservation easement limitations.
ATTACHMENT 2
PAGE 34
Mr. Jones concluded that the Highest and Best Use for the subject would be continued
agricultural and recreational use subject to restrictions under the proposed Conservation
Easement.
Both appraisers recognize the limited development potential of the property in the before
scenario. The two most significantly impacting criteria of the proposed conservation
easement are the loss of development rights and/or the loss of most of the rights to
subdivide the property.
Overall, the highest and best use conclusions of both appraisers are reasonably similar.
Each has made a convincing argument and has provided adequate market evidence to
support these conclusions. Each of the appraisers have adequately addressed the issue of
highest and best use for the subject property and more importantly the reviewer is
convinced that the sales data utilized is that of a basically similar highest and best use.
Reviewer Comments
The reviewer found the reports to be very comprehensive and informative as to the
relative components of a typical complete appraisal report. The physical characteristics
and site descriptions were also found to be typical as were the details and documentation
of the comparable sales expected in an appraisal for this property type. The reports have
also conformed to the reporting standards expected by FDEP and are substantially in
conformance with the Uniform Standards of Appraisal Practice (USPAP).
In the valuation of the Subject property the appraisers have applied the sales comparison
approach to value which is deemed to be the traditional and most appropriate method to
value a vacant agricultural parcel. Considering that the subject of the appraisal is to
estimate the impact on value of the proposed conservation easement it was necessary to
apply the before and after methodology.
In the before scenario the appraisers contrasted the subject property to a set of
unencumbered comparable sales within the subject market area. In estimating the value
for the subject, the appraisers analyzed sales of agricultural properties offering similar
locational attributes and highest and best use characteristics. Mr. String analyzed four
comparable sales in his effort and Mr. Jones analyzed four comparable sales to contrast to
the subject. The appraisers had two commonly utilized sales in this effort.
In the after scenario the appraisers contrasted the subject property to a set of comparable
sales encumbered with conservation easements. Due to the limited number of sales
meeting these criteria the sale search had to be expanded for this property type. In
estimating the value for the subject as encumbered the appraisers analyzed sales of
agricultural properties offering similar locational attributes and highest and best use
characteristics similarly encumbered by conservation easements. Mr. String analyzed
four comparable sales in his effort and Mr. Jones analyzed four comparable sales to
contrast to the subject. The appraisers had three commonly utilized sales in this effort.
ATTACHMENT 2
PAGE 35
The appraisers demonstrated a very thorough analysis of the comparable data and adapted
a very straightforward and reasonable valuation process. Both Mr. String and Mr. Jones
utilized a qualitative adjustment process to contrast the sale properties to the subject. This
method is widely accepted, well supported and reasonable.
Analysis of Appraisers’ Sales
String Appraisal
The following sales were utilized by Mr. String in the valuation of the subject before the
proposed conservation easement.
Sale No.
Subject
Sale 1
Sale 2
Sale 3
Sale 4
County
DeSoto
Hardee
Glades
Osceola
Highlands
Sale Date
N/A
5/23
10/22
5/22
11/21
Price/Ac
N/A
$7,220
$7,124
$6,900
$6,800
Size/Ac
1,531
260.39
625.12
2,287.71
498.00
Upland %
63%
75%
93%
78%
96%
Overall
Rating
N/A
Slightly
Superior
Similar
Slightly
Superior
Similar
Mr. String analyzed the four tabulated sales above for the purpose of estimating the value
of the subject before placing the conservation easement on the property. The sales are
located in Hardee, Glades, Osceola and Highlands Counties in Florida.
The sales analyzed for the subject parcel have sale dates ranging from November 2021 to
May 2023. The comparables selected are all agricultural properties with similar highest
and best use characteristics. The comparable sales selected and analyzed by Mr. String
are considered to be good indicators of value for the subject. These sales reflect a range
from $6,800 to $7,220 per acre.
Mr. String has elected to apply a qualitative adjustment process to the comparable sales
for comparable factors such as Conditions of Sale, Financing, Motivation, Market
Conditions, Location, Access, Size, Upland Percentage, Electric Service, and
Improvements. Overall, the entire process of contrasting the sales to the subject property
seems reasonable. The appraiser utilized sound logic and reasoning in contrasting the
comparable sales to the subject property and, overall, the analyses and qualitative
adjustment process is well supported and adequately discussed.
In his final analysis Mr. String recognizes a more refined range of from about $6,800 to
$7,200 per acre and reconciles that there is “no more reason to believe it near the higher
or lower end of the range”. Mr. String concludes at a value of $7,000 per acre; or 1,531
acres times $7,000 per acre equals $10,717,000 which is rounded to $10,700,000.
ATTACHMENT 2
PAGE 36
The following sales were utilized by Mr. String in the valuation of the subject after the
proposed conservation easement.
Sale No.
Subject
Sale 1
Sale 2
Sale 3
Sale 4
County
DeSoto
Hendry
Manatee
Lake
Lake
Sale Date
N/A
6/22
12/21
7/21
8/22
Price/Acre
N/A
$2,622
$3,405
$3,599
$4,134
Size/Acres
1,531.00
1,022.00
1,248.33
825.27
1,282.00
Upland %
63%
71%
73%
65%
67%
Overall
Rating
N/A
Significantly
Inferior
Slightly
Inferior
Superior
Significantly
Superior
Mr. String analyzed the four tabulated sales above for the purpose of estimating the value
of the subject after placing the conservation easement on the property. The comparables
are located in Hendry, Manatee and Lake Counties in Florida.
The sales analyzed for the subject parcel have sale dates ranging from July 2021 to
August 2022. The sales selected are all agricultural properties with similar highest and
best use characteristics and encumbered by perpetual conservation easements. The
comparable sales selected and analyzed by Mr. String are considered to be reasonably
good indicators of value for the subject. These sales reflect a range from $2,622 to $4,134
per acre.
Mr. String has elected to apply a qualitative adjustment process to the comparable sales
for comparable factors such as Conditions of Sale, Financing, Motivation, Market
Conditions, Location, Access, Size, Upland Percentage, Electric Service, Percent
Encumbered, Improvements and Conservation Easement. Overall, the entire process of
contrasting the sales to the subject property seems reasonable. The appraiser utilized
sound logic and reasoning in contrasting the comparable sales to the subject property and,
overall, the analyses and qualitative adjustment process is well supported and adequately
discussed.
In his final analysis Mr. String recognizes a refined range of from $3,000 per acre to
$3,500 per acre. He reconciles at a value indication of $3,250 per acre “with no more
reason to believe the index price should be near the lower or higher end of the range.”
The value is tabulated as 1,531 acres times $3,250 per acre equals $4,975,750 which is
rounded to $5,000,000.
Mr. String’s value estimate for the conservation easement is the difference between the
value of the property before, minus the value of the property as encumbered. This
summary follows:
Total Value Before $10,700,000
Total Value Af
ter $ 5,000,000
Value of Easement $ 5,700,000
ATTACHMENT 2
PAGE 37
Jones Appraisal
The following sales were utilized by Mr. Jones in the valuation of the subject before the
proposed conservation easement.
Sale No.
Subject
Sale 1
Sale 2
Sale 3
Sale 4
County
DeSoto
Okeechobee
Hendry
Glades
Osceola
Sale Date
N/A
10/22-2/23
10/22
10/22
5/22
Price/Ac
N/A
$7,058
$6,591
$7,124
$6,900
Size/Ac
1,531.00
802.07
1,100.00
625.12
2,287.71
Upland %
63%
77%
90%
93%
78%
Overall
Rating
N/A
Superior
Similar
Similar
Similar
Mr. Jones analyzed the four tabulated sales above for the purpose of estimating the value
of the subject before placing the conservation easement on the property. The comparables
are located in Okeechobee, Hendry, Glades and Osceola Counties, Florida.
The sales analyzed for the subject parcel have sale dates ranging from May 2022 to
February 2023. The comparables selected are all agricultural properties with similar
highest and best use characteristics. The comparable sales selected and analyzed by Mr.
Jones are considered to be good indicators of value for the subject. These sales reflect a
range from $6,591 to $7,124 per acre.
Mr. Jones has elected to apply a qualitative adjustment process to the comparable sales
for comparable factors such as Property Rights Conveyed, Financing Terms, Conditions
of Sale, Market Conditions, Location, Size, Wetlands, Utilities, Zoning/Land Use and
Improvements/Character. Overall, the entire process of contrasting the sales to the subject
property seems reasonable. The appraiser utilized sound logic and reasoning in
contrasting the comparable sales to the subject property and, overall, the analyses and
qualitative adjustment process is well supported and adequately discussed.
In his final analysis Mr. Jones reflects on the fact that all four sales are recent transactions
and reflective of current market conditions. Reference is made to the overall average
indication of $6,918 per acre and he brackets the subject between Superior rated sale 1 at
$7,058 per acre and Similar rated sale 4 at $6,900 per acre. As such, a conclusion is
reached at $6,900 per acre. This equates to a final indication of 1,531 acres times $6,900
per acre equals $10,563,900 which is further rounded to $10,550,000.
ATTACHMENT 2
PAGE 38
The following sales were utilized by Mr. Jones in the valuation of the subject after the
proposed conservation easement.
Sale No.
Subject
Sale 1
Sale 2
Sale 3
Sale 4
County
DeSoto
Lake
Manatee
Hendry
Lake
Sale Date
N/A
8/22
12/21
6/22
3/21
Price/Ac
N/A
$4,134
$3,405
$2,622
$3,781
Size/Ac
1,531.00
1,282.00
1,248.33
1,022.00
429.80
Upland %
63%
67%
73%
71%
57%
Overall
Rating
N/A
Superior
Similar
Far Inferior
Superior
Mr. Jones analyzed the four tabulated sales above for the purpose of estimating the value
of the subject after placing the conservation easement on the property. The sales are
located in Lake, Manatee and Hendry Counties in Florida.
The sales analyzed for the subject parcel have sale dates ranging from March 2021 to
August 2022. The comparables selected are all agricultural properties with similar highest
and best use characteristics and all sales are actually encumbered by perpetual
conservation easements. The comparable sales selected and analyzed by Mr. Jones are
considered to be good indicators of value for the subject. These sales reflect a range from
$2,622 to $4,134 per acre.
Mr. Jones has elected to apply a qualitative adjustment process to the comparable sales
for comparable factors such as Property Rights Conveyed, Financing Terms, Conditions
of Sale, Market Conditions, Location, Size, Wetlands, Utilities, Easement/Encumbrances,
and Improvements. Overall, the entire process of contrasting the sales to the subject
property seems reasonable. The appraiser utilized sound logic and reasoning in
contrasting the comparable sales to the subject property and, overall, the analyses and
qualitative adjustment process is well supported and adequately discussed.
In his final analysis Mr. Jones reflects on the overall range from $2,622 to $4,134 per
acre. He recognizes a refined range between the similar rated Sale 2 at $3,405 per gross
acre and the far inferior rated Sale 3 at $2,622 per acre. He recognizes sale 2 as being the
most “similar” sale among those analyzed and as such, has placed “significant
consideration” on the indication from this sale in the final reconciliation. He concludes at
a final value of $3,400 per acre. This equates to a final indication of 1,531 acres times
$3,400 per acre equals $5,205,400 which is rounded to $5,200,000.
Mr. Jones’ value estimate for the conservation easement is the difference between the
value of the property before, minus the value of the property as encumbered. This
summary follows:
Total Value Before $10,550,000
Total Value After $ 5,200,000
Value of Easement $ 5,350,000
ATTACHMENT 2
PAGE 39
Conclusions
Overall, the reviewer found both reports to be well supported and reasonable leading the
reader to similar conclusions. The reports reflected a reasonable range of conclusions to
value offering a variance of 6.54%. The appraisers both arrived at similar conclusions
regarding the highest and best use of the subject in both the before and after scenario.
Each has adequately analyzed and assessed the impact of the proposed conservation
easement on the subject. As such, both reports are considered acceptable and approvable
as amended.
The purpose of the appraisals was to estimate the market value of the subject property
before and after acquisition of the proposed conservation easement to be placed on the
subject property to estimate its impact on value. The intended use of the appraisals was to
serve as a basis for potential acquisition of a conservation easement by the State of
Florida, Bureau of Appraisal, Division of State Lands of the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection.
The reviewer has completed a field review of the above referenced appraisals. The
Purpose of the Review is to form an opinion as to the completeness and appropriateness
of the methodology and techniques utilized to form an opinion as to the value of the
subject property.
The Scope of the Review involved a field review of each of the appraisal reports
prepared on the subject property. The reviewer inspected the subject of these appraisals
and is familiar with all of the data contained within the reports. The reviewer has not
researched the marketplace to confirm reported data or to reveal data which may have
been more appropriate to include in the appraisal report. As part of the review assignment
the reviewer has asked the appraisers to address issues deemed relevant to the
assignment. I have also analyzed the reports for conformity with and adherence to the
Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP) as promulgated by the
Appraisal Foundation and that of the Appraisal Institute as well as the Supplemental
Appraisal Standards for the Board of Trustees, Division of State Lands, Bureau of
Appraisal, Florida Department of Environmental Protection, March 2, 2016.
Acceptance of Appraisals
The appraisal reports referenced herein are considered acceptable and approvable by the
signed reviewer subject to the attached certification.
ATTACHMENT 2
PAGE 40
Aerial Map
ATTACHMENT 2
PAGE 41
Documentation of Competence
ATTACHMENT 2
PAGE 42
Certification
I certify that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:
1. The facts and data reported by the review appraiser and used in the review process are
true and correct.
2. The analyses, opinions, and conclusions in this review report are limited only by the
assumptions and limiting conditions stated in this review report, and are my personal,
unbiased professional analyses, opinions and conclusions.
3. I have no present or prospective interest in the property that is the subject of this review
and I have no personal interest or bias with respect to the parties involved.
4. My compensation is not contingent on an action or event resulting from the analyses,
opinions, or conclusions in, or the use of this review report.
5. My analyses, opinion, and conclusions are developed and this review report was prepared
in conformity with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice.
6. My analyses, opinion, and conclusions are developed and this review report was prepared
in conformity with the Code of Professional Ethics and Standards of Professional
Appraisal Practice of the Appraisal Institute and with the Supplemental Standards for the
Board of Trustees Division of State Lands, Bureau of Appraisal, Florida Department of
Environmental Protection, March 2016.
7. The appraisals reviewed are in substantial compliance with USPAP, SASBOT, as well as
Rule 18-1.006, Florida Administrative Code (FAC).
8. I did personally inspect the subject property.
9. No one provided significant professional assistance to the person signing this review
report.
10. As of the date of this report, Thomas G. Richards, MAI has completed the requirements
of the continuing education program for designated members of the Appraisal Institute.
11. The
use of this report is subject to the requirements of the Appraisal Institute relating to
review by its duly authorized representatives.
12. I have not appraised or performed any other services for any other party in regard to this
property.
___________ _______________ Sept
ember 8, 2023
Thomas G. Richards, MAI Date
St. Cert. Gen. Appraiser RZ 574
ATTACHMENT 2
PAGE 43
November 1, 2023
Callie DeHaven, Director
Division of State Lands
Florida Department of Environmental Protection
3900 Commonwealth Blvd., MS 140
Tallahassee, FL 32399
RE: Florida Conservation Group Letter of Support for the 4 L’s Ranch-Myakka
Ranchlands Florida Forever Project
Dear Ms. DeHaven,
The Florida Conservation Group is providing this letter in support of the acquisition of the
conservation easement on the 4L’s Ranch. This ranch is part of the Myakka Ranchlands Florida
Forever Project and located within the Florida Wildlife Corridor.
Four L’s Ranch is also located within the Myakka Island Conservation Complex and would add
approximately 1,542 acres to the over 100,000 acres of public and private conservation lands that
buffer the Myakka River and provide critical habitat for the area’s abundant wildlife. This
project would increase connected habitat for federally and state listed species such as the eastern
indigo snake and wood stork as well as provide critical lands for panther range expansion.
As a local rancher, I can tell you that development is rapidly encroaching upon this historically
rural landscape. A conservation easement on 4 L’s Ranch would protect the ecosystem services
provided by working ranch lands: water filtration, wetland protection, carbon sequestration, and
habitat protection. Conservation easements on working ranches is part of the solution for
protecting Florida’s agricultural and natural lands and keeping Florida’s watersheds intact.
Overall, this is an ideal opportunity to add critical conservation lands within one of Florida’s
major growth regions and to provide significant ecological benefits to the Myakka watershed and
the Charlotte Harbor Estuary.
Thank you for your support of this important project.
Sincerely,
Jim Strickland
Vice-Chairman
ATTACHMENT 2
PAGE 44
November 1, 2023
Callie DeHaven, Director
Division of State Lands
Florida Department of Environmental Protection
3900 Commonwealth Blvd., MS 140
Tallahassee, FL 32399
RE: National Wildlife Refuge Association Letter of Support for the 4L’s Ranch Conservation
Easement – Myakka Ranchlands Florida Forever Project
Dear Ms. DeHaven,
Please consider this a letter of support for the acquisition of the 4 L’s Ranch conservation easement. This
property is part of the Myakka Ranchlands Florida Forever Project and located within the Myakka Island
Conservation Complex. Protection of this approximately 1,542 acres builds upon decades of work by
local counties, the Southwest Florida Water Management District, and the State of Florida to conserve
over 100,000 acres of public and private lands in this unique region.
Located on the boundary of the Myakka and Peace River Watersheds, a perennial stream connects this
property to Charlotte Harbor. Protection of this site and its surface waters will protect downstream water
resources. Additionally, this property contains priority ground recharge areas that are critical to the
aquifer and water supply.
This property is within the Florida Wildlife Corridor, and it contains excellent native habitat that supports
biodiversity. Threatened species such as the Eastern Indigo Snake and Wood Stork are likely to be found
on this property. However, this property lies within a historically rural area that is facing impacts from
rapid land use changes; it is less than 1 mile northeast of the North Port city limits.
Conserving this property provides us with the unique opportunity to contribute to the Myakka Island
Conservation Complex, protect the health of the Myakka watershed, further protection of the Florida
Wildlife Corridor, and protect a historically rural region that is rapidly undergoing change.
With kindest regards,
Julie Morris
Florida and Gulf Program Manager
National Wildlife Refuge Association
ATTACHMENT 2
PAGE 45
