One Park

Both parcels sit in the plain city code, which is the cheaper of the downtown options. Total 14.8815 mills across twelve authorities: the school board at 6.0950 across three lines, the city at 3.2730 plus 0.1348 of debt, the county at 3.2273 plus 0.0667, emergency medical services at 0.7300, the public hospital board at 1.0420, and small lines for water management, mosquito control, a trail debt levy and the inland navigation district. The downtown improvement district, which would add a flat two mills, does not reach here.

Two downtown designations get confused constantly and only one costs money. This site is inside the downtown community redevelopment area and outside the downtown improvement district. The redevelopment area is a tax increment district: it changes where the money goes and adds nothing at all to your bill. The mapped layer carries a currency date well over a decade old, so we report it as a mapped designation rather than a live finding.

On the assessment cap, test rather than assume, because this is the second page in a week where the answer flipped. At a bayfront site four hundred metres away the ten per cent cap on non homestead assessments is worth about $675,100 a year. Here it is worth nothing: the assessed value equals the just value equals the taxable value on both parcels, in both roll years, because the assessor reset the land to market after the 2023 purchase and there is no lag to accumulate. The sponsor currently pays about $364,200 a year across the two blocks.

The land valuation is where this site looks genuinely cheap, and the comparison is sharp. The assessor prices Quay land per entitled dwelling unit rather than per square foot, and carries both One Park parcels at $152,000 a unit. Two blocks south, a bayfront Quay parcel is carried at $554,800 a unit, which is 3.65 times more, on the same roll in the same quarter mile. Per square foot the spread runs from about $305 here to about $584 there, against about $163 on a downtown Main Street site eight blocks inland.

Against what was actually paid, the roll sits below. The single 2023 deed covering both blocks was $32 million against a current combined assessed value of about $24,472,000, or about 76.5 per cent, three January firsts later. Across the entitled units that is about $198,800 paid per unit against $152,000 carried. That is a development site rather than a finished unit, so it does not track the unit assessment curve and should not be read as one.

On build cost, the permit on the live tower is specific. About $115,250,000 declared across roughly 541,100 square feet. Neither figure exists for the second tower, because its permit was cancelled before it issued. That is a real asymmetry in what you can know about the two halves of one purchase.

The homestead exemption does very little at these values. It saves a flat $591.70 a year at any assessed value at or above $75,000, which at the median unit in the nearest completed tower is about three per cent of the bill and at the median in the nearest luxury tower under one per cent. Neither One Park parcel carries a homestead flag today and neither could, because both are vacant commercial land held by a company.

The practical version: the tax code here is the cheaper downtown one with no district surcharge, and the land is carried well below its bayfront neighbours. The association budget is the unknown, and on an eighteen storey tower inside a master planned district with shared common areas, what the master association charges on top of your own association is the question nobody asks early enough. Non ad valorem assessments in this county sit behind a tax collector that blocks automated retrieval, so every figure above is the ad valorem bill only, and this county has no ad valorem community development districts at all.

The hazard finding here is really a warning about method, and it matters for anyone checking a parcel themselves. At ten points across the two blocks the county's own flood layer returns the special flood hazard area with a base flood elevation of eight feet everywhere. The federal layer, queried at the same coordinates, returned nothing at all at three of those ten points. A single point query against a single layer is not a flood determination for a parcel this size, and the silence is not an all clear.

Ground is low and two official records disagree about how low. Lidar runs about 4.6 to 6.1 feet across the first block and about 4.4 to 5.8 across the second, all of it below the eight foot base flood. The city's own permit records an existing grade more than a foot above what the lidar reads. Both are official and unreconciled. The finished floor elevation is the number to ask for.

The evacuation answer is clean and it is the same as the rest of the bayfront. Level A, a category one zone, modelled for a ten foot surge, at all ten points with no gaps. That is the coastal high hazard area on the statutory definition, and it is the first address ordered out in the weakest storm. Worth knowing: at two other bayfront sites the county's evacuation layer stopped at the waterline and returned no polygon at a shoreline point. It does not do that here.

On the postcode claim record, the usual caveat applies and is worth stating plainly. This postcode has recorded about 1,179 federal flood insurance claims and roughly $108.4 million paid across the life of the programme, with 744 claims and about $100.2 million in 2024 alone, which is 92.5 per cent of every dollar ever paid. Those claims come from a postcode that also contains ground sixteen feet higher and a Gulf front island, so they are not attributable to this parcel.

Within that year the damage came from the storm that missed rather than the one that landed. The September 2024 storm produced 514 claims and about $93.7 million here; the October storm that actually made landfall in this county produced 210 and about $5.0 million, so the one that missed out-paid the landfall nearly nineteen to one. The 2022 hurricane that dominates Florida insurance conversation produced eight claims in this postcode in the whole year.

On schools both parcels return the same set. The elementary and middle layers return the same kindergarten through eighth campus, so a child here changes buildings once rather than twice, and the high school is a third school again. Eight blocks south, in the same postcode and the same downtown, three entirely different schools apply. Confirm with the district before you contract.

The best read on who buys on this street is the two completed towers a few hundred metres away. The larger runs 149 units with 44 per cent homesteaded, 148 distinct owners and a largest single holding of two units. The luxury one runs 73 units with 67 per cent homesteaded and 73 distinct owners for 73 units, so not one person holds two. The sponsor has retained nothing in either. That is essentially zero ownership concentration, and it inverts the assumption that the pricier building is the more speculative one.

One last caution about a number that gets quoted as a rule. The idea that the assessor carries newly sold units at about two thirds to three quarters of sale price is not a constant. Measured across four buildings it runs from about 67 per cent to about 95 per cent, ordered by how many January firsts have passed since the sales, with individual units between 53 and 109 per cent. Quote it with the reassessment lag attached or it means nothing.