PROPERTY APPRAISAL ADJUSTMENT BOARD MEETING

SEPTEMBER 26, 1989

The Property Appraisal Adjustment Board met on Tuesday, September 26, 1989, at 9:00 a.m., in the Board of County Commissioner's Meeting Room, Lake County Courthouse, Tavares, Florida. Members present at the meeting were: Commr. C. W. "Chick" Gregg, Chairman; Commr. Richard Swartz; Commr. Don Bailey; C. A. "Chip" Deems, Lake County School Board; and Phyllis Patten, Lake County School Board. Others present were: Ed Havill, Property Appraiser: Robbie Ross, Property Appraiser's Office; Annette Star Lustgarten, County Attorney; and Linda Springston, Deputy Clerk.

PROPERTY APPRAISER - HOMESTEADS

PETITION 1989-400 Robert L. Valentine

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the Board that on Monday, September 25, 1989, the Board approved a Homestead Exemption, due to the fact that Parcel Number 1654688 was the applicant's old home and they have the Homestead Exemption on the new home, therefore, the old home should have been denied.

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Mr. Deems and carried, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Property Apprariser and denied the Homestead Exemption, due to the fact that the homestead was not his permanent residence as of January 1.

Commr. Bailey was not present for the discussion or the vote.

PROPERTY APPRAISER - PETITIONS

PETITION 1989-657 Verda A. Clause

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, noted that the petitioner is appealing the assessed value of her homestead property in Tropical Shores Subdivision, which consists of 98 feet of lakefront on Lake Eustis, and on a canal that leads to Lake Eustis. Mr. Havill described the home and the comparables to the Board, and stated that the assessed value is $102,273.00.

Mrs. Verda A. Clause", petitioner, appeared before the Board and stated that her home is a one bedroom home, and feels that her house is small in comparison to the surrounding homes. She feels that her home is worth $85,000.00, and that on her proposed property tax it reads an assessment amount of $111,804.00.

Mr. Havill stated that the amount of $102,273.00, is an adjustment, by the Property Appraiser's Office, from the $111,804.00 assessed amount which was on her tax bill.

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Mr. Deems and carried, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and accepted the Property Appraiser's adjusted assessed value of the property, in the amount of $102,273.00.

Commr. Bailey was not present for the discussion or the vote.

PETITION 1989-625 Ralph V. Renn

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the Board that this petition is concerning personal property, which is a cabin on Lake Dorr. He then described the cabin to the Board, and noted that it is assessed at $8,433.00. The cabin is held on the tangible tax roll and is located on land leased from the United States Forest Service. He described the comparables to the Board, and stated that his office feels the assessment is fair and just.

Mr. Ralph V. Renn, petitioner, appeared before the Board and stated that the Forest Service has also raised their annual fee 100 percent and the fire district also has a $35.00 fee. He does not feel that the assessment is indicative of the real value of the cabin since he can only live in it 50 weeks out of the year. He then described the restrictions placed on the property by the Forest Service.

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Mrs. Patten and carried unanimously, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and denied the adjustment of the assessed value, retaining the assessed amount of $8,433.00.

Mr. Renn stated his feelings regarding the definitions of fair and discriminate with the Board.

PETITION 1989-626 Ralph V. Renn

Mr. Ralph V. Renn, petitioner, informed the Board that he does not object to the assessed value of this petition, but feels that it is not fair, based on what is allowed other people.

On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Mr. Deems and carried unanimously, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and denied the adjustment of the assessed value, retaining the assessmed amount of $57,973.00.

PETITION 1989-627 Ralph V. Renn

Mr. Ralph V. Renn, petitioner, informed the Board that he does not object to the assessed value of the petition. On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Mr. Deems and carried unanimously, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and denied the adjustment of the assessed value, retaining the assessed amount of $157,199.00.

PETITION 1989-560 Nicholas Boychuk

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, stated that the petitioner is appealing the assessment value of his waterfront homestead property, and described the property, which is bordered by 128 feet of Lake Harris, with a canal to the north. He noted that the assessed value is $98,713.00, and described the comparable property.

Mr. Nicholas Boychuk, petitioner, appeared before the Board and stated that, ten years ago, he paid $50,000.00 for the property, and have made some improvements to the outside. He stated that, three years ago, he attempted to sell the home for $85,000.00, but was unable to do so.

Mr. Havill noted that, if the home was put on the market today, Mr. Boychuk would probably get approximately $120,000.00 for it. Ms. Lucille Ortner, a friend of Mr. Boychuk's, appeared before the Board and questioned what is appraised when the Property Appraiser comes out to the property. To which Mr. Havill responded that the home, land, and any outbuildings are appraised. He added that, the Property Appraiser must value residential property by the current market value and the current cost of rebuilding.

Mr. Havill stated that it would take $66,000.00, today, to reproduce the home, and that the land itself is worth $80-100,000.00.

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and denied the adjustment of the assessed value, retaining the assessed amount of $98,713.00.

PETITION 1989-658 Estes P. Morrow

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, noted that this petitioner was requesting agricultural classification on the property, and described the property to the Board. He stated that, he has assessed the property at $11,160.00, which includes the agricultural classification. He further stated that, originally, his office picked up a mobile home as a residence which is on the property, then was contacted by the petitioner. The Property Appraiser's office reinvestigated the mobile home and determined it was only used for storage, because it had no well or septic system and approved the agricultural classification.

It was noted that the petitioner was not present for the meeting.

On a motion by Mr. Deems, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Property appraiser and accepted the assessed amount of $11,160.00, which includes the agricultural classification.

PETITION 1989-575 Mary L. Beers

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the Board that the property is located on Lake Harris, with 100 feet of lake access. He described the comparable property to the Board, and noted that the assessed value is $60,306.00.

It was noted that the petitioner was not present for the meeting.

On a motion by Mr. Deems, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and retained the assessed amount of $60,306.00.

Mrs. Patten was not present for the discussion or the vote.

PETITION 1989-617 Morris A. Campbell

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, noted that the assessed amount on the petition for the property is $38,640.00, which the Property Appraiser's Office has already lowered to $33,120.00, and the petitioner feels that the property is worth only $20,000.00. He then described the comparable properties to the Board.

It was noted that the petitioner was not present for the meeting.

On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Mr. Deems and carried, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and accepted the assessed amount of $33,120.00. Mrs. Patten was not present for the discussion or the vote.

PETITION 1989-618 Morris A. Campbell

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, noted that the assessment on the petition for the property is $28,056.00, which the Property Appraiser's Office has already lowered to $25,768.00, and the petitioner feels that the property is only worth $20,000.00.

It was noted that the petitioner was not present for the meeting.

On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Mr. Deems and carried, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and accepted the assessed amount of $25,768.00.

Mrs. Patten was not present for the discussion or the vote.

PETITION 1989-624 G. B. & Winifred Galbreath

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, noted that the petitioner is appealing the assessed value of his waterfront homestead property located on Lake Harris, and described the property to the Board. He noted that the Property Appraiser's office had previously assessed the property at $185,556.00, but after reviewing the property, it is now assessed at $173,930.00, which they feel is fair and just, and the petitioner feels that it is only worth $150,000.00.

Mr. C. A. "Chip" Deems, Lake County School Board, questioned Mr. Havill whether there was any adjustment made regarding the a ten foot ingress/egress to the property. To which Mr. Havill responded that it has been taken into consideration.

It was noted that the petitioner was not present for the meeting.

On a motion by Mr. Deems, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and accepted the assessed amount of $173,930.00.

Mrs. Patten was not present for the discussion or the vote.

PETITION 1989-646 Norman C. Cummins

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, noted that this petition is regarding the Knowles property, and that the petition was filed to reinstate the agricultural classification on the property.

Mr. Havill stated that the reapplication notice was sent to Mr. Knowles at Post Office 8, Leesburg, Florida, but the Property Appraiser's Office never received the notice back to their office on the property. If the card had been returned to the office, the property would be entitled to the continuation of greenbelt.

Mr. Norman C. Cummins, Attorney, representing Sun Bank, Trustee of the Knowles property, appeared before the Board and stated that the notice was not received by the Knowles'.

Mr. Havill questioned Ms. Annette Star Lustgarten, County Attorney, whether the Post Office exception, such as in the Statute concerning Homestead Exemptions, would apply in this situation. To which Ms. Lustgarten responded that, the language in the statute regarding agricultural classification, does not have any exceptions from the requirement that it be filed on time.

Mr. Havill questioned Mr. Cummins whether he had checked with the Leesburg Post Office as to the possibility of the notice being delivered to another Knowles address. To which Mr. Cummins responded that he had not, but if that had happened the recipient would have brought it to the Sun Bank Trust Department.

Mr. C. A. "Chip" Deems, Lake County School Board, declared a conflict of interest regarding this petition, due to the fact that, he is on Sun Bank's Administrative Board, and refrained from voting.

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and denied the appeal of the disapproval of application for agricultural classification, due to the renewal notices not being returned.

Mr. Deems did not vote due to conflict of interest, as stated and Mrs. Patten was not present for the discussion or the vote.

PETITION 1989-647 Fred Breuche

Mr. Fred Breuche, petitioner, appeared before the Board to discuss his petition seeking adjustment of the assessed value of his property. He noted that he disagrees with the Property Appraiser's assessment of $608,618.00, due to the home's depreciation.

Mr. Breuche stated that he had an independent appraisal done by Chevalier Appraisal Service, Master Senior Appraiser and Master Farm and Land Appraiser, which indicates an assessment of $67.51 per square foot, not the $134.74 per square foot that the Property Appraiser's office indicates. He further stated that, he had contacted local builders on the telephone and they have quoted him amounts of $50.00 per square foot, for heat and air, and $20.00 per square foot, for under roof, which he feels is the average price for building a home in the Lake County area.

Mr. Breuche stated that an error exists on the floor area on his Property Record card, in the Property Appraiser's office, which states that there is 8,135 square feet under roof. He further stated that the actual square footage under roof is 6,728. The card does not breakdown the assigned values for the dwelling, as it does for miscellaneous improvements. Therefore, he does not know the values assigned by the Property Appraiser to the main dwelling, and refers to his personal appraisal for calculations.

Mr. Breuche noted that he used two different methods of calculations to come up with assessment values of $510,802.00 and $600,944.00. He also calculated his estimate of the fair market value at $340,058.00.

Mr. Breuche stated that, referring to the appraisal done by Mr. Chevelier, he has used square foot costs of excellent quality from the Marshall and Swift Company Handbook, which is the recognized authority in the construction business. He noted that Mr. Chevalier has calculated that the replacement cost, per square foot, for a one story home of excellent quality, is $67.51.

Mr. Breuche reviewed with the Board the insurance, since it was constructed, he has held and currently holds with State Farm Insurance, on his home, which is currently $308,100.00.

Commr. Swartz questioned what the insurance rate is on the utility building. To which Mr. Breuche responded that it is approximately $45,000.00, which is carried under a separate insurance policy. The utility building is included on his personal appraisal under the category of Estimated Site Improvements.

Mr. Breuche informed the Board that it cost him $240,000.00 to build his home, in 1986.

Mr. Breuche stated that he feels that he has been over assessed since he moved into his home. He noted that he was told by an assistant at the Property Appraiser's office that, on new homes, they take the actual cost of building, times 85 percent, to arrive at the first year's assessment. He further noted that he feels that he was assessed at over 100 percent of his actual costs in 1987, and also in 1987, he had the assessment reduced, through Mr. Jim Loflin, of the Property Appraiser's Office.

Mr. Breuche informed the Board that his home is off of the main road, and has a 1,200 foot easement over old grove property, which is a dirt/clay road for access to the home, which is almost impassable in rainy weather.

Commr. Gregg questioned Mr. Breuche as to his acreage of the property, which is approximately 13 acres and that Mr. Chevalier documents it as being worth $53,200.00, or $4,000.00 an acre. To which Mr. Breuche responded that that statement is correct.

Mr . Havill stated that he is unaware of the qualifications of Mr. Chevalier, as an appraiser, and that, in Florida, all that is needed to appraise real estate is a realtor's certificate.

Mr. Havill noted that, as Property Appraiser, he must consider cost, market, and income approaches to value, under state law, and he may choose which approach to utilize. He further noted that, cost is the most accurate approach to value. He then discussed markup in relation to different types of homes and the money invested.

Mr. Havill stated that, when reviewing Mr. Breuche's assessment, his property had been listed with a local realtor for $895,000.00, and it is assessed this year at $608,618.00.

Mr. Havill discussed the appraisal approaches that Mr. Chevalier used to arrive at his appraisal, those being, the cost approach and the market approach. According to Mr. Chevalier the total cost to reproduce the estate is $482,700.00. Therefore, adding 25 percent, which is the value created by the actual cost, the Property Appraiser's office feels that the assessed value for ad valorem tax purposes of $608,618.00 is fair and just.

Mr. Frank Driggers, Property Appraiser's Office, evaluated this property and stated that he feels that this asessment value is fair.

Mrs. Carolyn Breuche, petitioner's wife, appeared before the Board and stated that the home was up for sale because they have a "wish list".

Mr. Breuche stated that, when Mr. Driggers was at his home he had made a 1,407 square foot error. Mr. Driggers had indicated that there is 1,407 square foot under roof, which does not exist, because it is under screen. He also stated that, Mr. Chevalier has excellent qualifications.

Mr. Havill informed the Board that he is not familiar with Mr. Chevalier's credentials or professional background.

Mr. Breuche noted that, according to his attorney, what he has asked for a piece of property, and what he would sell it for, is irrelevant to the the issue. He further noted that, the Property Appraiser should only assess property at the fair market value or based on resales, not based on the multiple listing service, because his home did not sell for that price, and explained the reason why it was on the market.

Mr. Driggers noted that the Property Appraiser's Office had the value of $608,618.00 prior to the knowledge of the listing with the realtor.

Considerable disagreements ensued between Mr. Havill and Mr. Breuche.

Ms. Annette Star Lustgarten, County Attorney, reviewed with the Board the Statute factors to be considered by the Property Appraiser in arriving at the value of the property. She quoted Section 193.01, factors to consider in deriving just valuation, which are required under Section 4, Article VII, of the State Constitution.

The Property Appraiser shall take into consideration the following factors:

1. The present cash value of the property, which is the amount a willing purchaser would pay a willing seller, exclusive of reasonable fees and costs of purchase, in cash or the immediate equivalent thereof in a transaction at arm's length;

2. The highest and best use to which the property can be expected to be put in the immediate future and the present use of the property, taking into consideration certain court orders or restrictions imposed by government;

3. The location of said property;

4. The quantity or size of said property:

5. The cost of said property and the present replacement value of any improvements thereon;

6. The condition of said property:

7. The income from said property: and

8. The net proceeds of the sale of the property, as received by the seller, after deduction of all of the usual and reasonable fees and costs of the sale, including costs and expenses of financing, and allowance for unconventional or atypical terms of financing arrangements. When the net proceeds of the sale of any property are utilized, directly or indirectly, in the determination of just valuation of realty of the sold parcel or any other parcel under the provisions of this section, the Property Appraiser, for the purposes of such determination, shall exclude any portion of such net proceeds attributable to payments for household furnishings or other items of personal property.

Mr. Breuche again stated that the question of what he would sell his home for is not relevant or fair.

Mr. Breuche previously discussed a parcel of burned out orange groves, with Mr. Robbie Ross, of the Property Appraiser's Office, which was assessed at $16,000.00.

Mr. Breuche stated that he had talked with Mr. Jim Loflin, Assistant Property Appraiser, earlier and was told that the Property Appraiser's Office would lower the assessment to $410,295.00, which Mr. Breuche did not accept at that time. He further stated that, he was willing to compromise but the Property Appraiser's office used a figure of $482,700.00 multiplied by 85 percent, not taking into consideration the depreciation. Mr. Chevalier's appraisal indicates a fair market value of $460,000.00, and if that figure were depreciated by 85 percent, he would have been acceptable to that.

Mr. Havill noted that, as Lake County's Property Appraiser, he must approve all assessments in the County, and something like this, with Mr. Loflin, should not have been negotiated for without his knowledge.

Commr. Gregg stated that, he is not familiar with Marshall and Swift, but is familiar with other services, and that a problem exists with houses varying, as far as the finishes are concerned. A house could be built for $20.00 per square foot, or $150.00 per square foot. He noted several items in Mr. Chevalier's appraisal which he felt were somewhat low.

Mr. Havill stated that, in his opinion, with an agressive real estate company, a buyer could be found to purchase the home for approximately $750,000.00.

Mr. Breuche noted that, in comparing the two appraisals, the Property Appraiser's Office has Miscellaneous Depreciated Value valued at $38,935.00, and Mr. Chevalier has almost doupled that amount. The Property Appraiser valued the land at $36,563.00, and Mr. Chevalier went lower on that item.

Commr. Swartz commented that Mr. Breuche's $67.50 per square foot amount could not be the fair and just value, because of the quality of the home.

Mr. Breuche stated that he could build that house in any fashion for $67.50 per square foot, and that any higher amount is too much.

Considerable discussion occurred regarding the methods in which Mr. Breuche arrived at his figures which support his petition, and his insurance costs.

Each of the Board members calculated their own figures and discussed the methods which they used, arriving at compromising amounts between $511,000.00 and $536,000.00.

Mr. Havill informed the Board that, in this case, his assessment of $608,618.00 should remain as is, but, as a Board, they are entitled to do whatever they feel is necessary.

On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried, the Board overturned the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and adjusted the assessed value amount to $511,000.00.

Mrs. Patten was not present for the discussion or the vote.

Mr. Breuche noted that, according Florida Statute 194, he will need the Board's decision in writing within 20 calendar days of the last day the Board is in session, which is to include findings of fact and conclusions of law, showing good cause for upholding or overtuning the determination of the Property Appraiser.

PETITION 1989-649 Clarence Curbow

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, noted that this petition is concerning Lake Chrysler Plymouth Dodge, Inc., which Mr. Curbow is the President. He described the property to the Board, and noted that, since the citrus freezes of 1983 and 1985, all of the groves are gone and the land is being developed for commercial purposes. The Property Appraiser's assessed value of the property is $438,075.00, and based on other sales in the area, they feel that the assessment is fair and just. He then described the comparables to the Board.

Mr. Larry Smith, Attorney for Lake Chrysler Plymouth Dodge, Inc., appeared before the Board and stated that their concerns are that the property was purchased for $500,000.00 in October, 1988, and they have planned to use the property for a car dealership. It was necessary to secure the proper zoning for the dealership, and part of the zoning restrictions are for 15 feet of frontage to be set aside for the dedication of a right-of-way, and that a 25 foot vegetative buffer be installed along all of the residential property boundaries. With these restrictions in mind, not as much of the property can be used for the dealership, and that the assessment of the Property Appraiser did not take those restrictions into consideration.

Mr. Smith stated that a prior appraisal, for 1987, was $138,431.00, and the current appraisal is $438,075.00, which is a 216 percent increase of the assessed value of the property.

Mr. Havill questioned Mr. Smith whether the restrictions were placed on the property when they bought it. To which Mr. Smith responded that the restrictions were placed on it prior to the closure of the sale.

Mr. Havill noted that they knew what the restrictions were when they purchased the property, and they still paid $500,000.00 for the property.

Mr. Smith stated that they felt that the property would be worth $500,000.00, when the car dealership was on the property.

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Mr. Deems and carried, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and denied the adjustment of the assessed value, retaining the assessed amount of $438,075.00.

PETITION 1989-659 Royal A. Brown, III

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the Board that he had received this petition on September 25, 1989, which concerns an uncleared vacant 100 foot waterfront lot on Lake Dora, and the petitioner does not agree with the the assessed value of $54,700.00, because he paid $27,000.00 in April, 1980. He described the comparables and the market values in the area to the Board.

It was noted that the petitioner was not present for the meeting.

On a motion by Mr. Deems, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and retained the assessed amount of $54,700.00.

PETITION 1989-574 Maria E. Delgado

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the Board the the petitioner is appealing the assessed value of her homestead property, and described the property and a comparable to the Board. He further noted that, the assessment, of $229,082.00, is fair and just.

Ms. Maria E. Delgado, petitioner, appeared before the Board and stated that she does not feel that her home is worth the assessed value, because of it being in the flight pattern of the Leesburg Airport, which she feels has decreased the value of the home. She distributed pictures of the damage low flying planes have caused the home. She also noted that, the surrounding properties are not kept in good condition, up, causing a decreased value of her home, also because her home is located behind a sinkhole.

Commr. Bailey questioned Ms. Delgado whether she has talked to her builder about these problems. To which Ms. Delgado responded that she had talked with him and he informed her that there are no problems with the construction of the home, and that she should take her case to the City of Leesburg, since her home is the only residence that has sustained such damage.

Commr. Gregg stated that, being a pilot, he is aware that the jet airplanes do not pass over Ms. Delgado's home, and that the damage seen in the pictures is not caused by airplanes.

Mrs. Phyllis Patten, Lake County School Board, noted the Ms. Delgado paid $243,000.00, including her lot and home, and questioned her why this assessment of $229,082.00 is not agreeable, since she paid that much for it. To which Ms. Delgado responded that an independent appraiser informed her that her home could not sell for that amount of money, because of the damage sustained and the location to the airport.

Ms. Delgado maintained that her home is overassessed and the Property Appraiser's assessment is not the true value of the home.

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Mrs. Patten and carried unanimously, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and denied the adjustment of the assessed value, retaining the assessed amount of $229,082.00.

Ms. Pamela Thompson, a friend of the petitioner, appeared before the Board and stated that there has been a language barrier between Ms. Delgado and the Board, and that Ms. Delgado meant to say that the builder has not experienced this problem prior to this.

RECESS & REASSEMBLY

At 11:52 a.m. the Chairman announced that the Board would recess for lunch and reconvene at 1:30 p.m.

PETITIONS 1989-536 through 1989-546 Leesburg Regional Medical

Center, Inc. (C~NT'D. FROM SEPTEMBER 25, 1989)

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, noted that these petitions are continued from Monday, September 25, 1989, and that the County Attorney and himself have determined that Leesburg Regional Medical Center, Inc. (LRMC) does fall under a governmental agency because of the reverter clause in their contract, which states that, should the hospital go out of business, the property would revert to the City of Leesburg. Therefore, they should have been relieved of the taxes from the time it was purchased in 1988, until December 31, 1988. Also, the property should be tax exempt for 1989, and recommends that the Board approve their request to rebate their taxes back from 1988.

Ms. Annette Star Lustgarten, County Attorney, discussed the provision of the code exempting governmental property, leased by the government, and used as a non-profit municipal corporation. She noted that this particular piece of property does meet the criteria set forth in the Florida Statute 190.199.

On a motion by Mr. Deems, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and approved the tax exempt status for 1989, and to refund the property taxes, held under protest, for the portion of 1988, for Petitions 1989-536 through 1989-546.

PETITION 1989-559 McLeod Bleakley

Mr. Havill informed the Board that the petitioner is appealing the assessed value of his property, and described the property to the Board. He noted that the assessed value for 1989 is $192,046.00, due to the reassessment of all waterfront property in the County. He then described the comparables to the Board.

Mr. McLeod Bleakley, petitioner, appeared before the Board and stated that the Property Appraiser's assessment does not take into consideration the right-of-way that is between his property and the lake, which he feels makes his property less valuable. He noted that he has been trying to obtain that right-of-way. He feels that because he is not an attorney, he cannot bargain for the right-of-way. He further noted, that several years ago, he had the same problem and came before the Board and succeeded in having his assessment lowered.

Mr. Havill noted that the comparables he had previously described have the same right-of-way problems as the petitioner's property.

Mr. C. A. "Chip" Deems, Lake County School Board, questioned Mr. Bleakley what he feels his home is worth. To which Mr. Bleakley responded that he feels that it is worth $166,516.00, which is the assessed amount in 1988.

Mr. Bleakley stated that he would like the Property Appraiser to delete the value of the right-of-way from his property. Mr. Havill explained that the value of the right-of-way is not deleted from of the comparable lots, and that if that right-of-way was not there, people would pay more for those properties, therefore, the assessment would be higher.

Commr. Swartz commented that, after reviewing the figures, Mr. Bleakley is being appraised at less than 85 percent of the fair market value for the land and house, based on recent sales of comparable properties.

Commr. Swartz noted that, if Mr. Bleakley purchases the right-of-way, he will have a larger and more valuable lot, which would be assessed at a higher value next year.

Mr. Havill stated that he could research his records and have the bills compared between his and the properties which own the right-of-way. To which Mr. Bleakley chose not to have that done.

On a motion by Mrs. Patten, seconded by Mr. Deems and carried unanimously, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and denied the adjustment of the assessed value, retaining the assessed amount of $192,046.00.

PETITION 1989-637 Wylania W. Miller

Mr. Havill informed the Board that the petitioner is appealing the assessed value of an improved commercial tract of land, assessed at $154,056.00, which the Property Appraiser feels is on the low side and should be revalued next year.

Mr. Steve Vaughn, Jr., representing his mother-in-law, Wylania W. Miller, appeared before the Board and noted that a third party lease is involved on the property. He further noted that it is an income producing property, and described the leases involved.

Mr. Vaughn stated that he feels that the fair market value of the property is $96,000.00.

Mr. Vaughn noted that the improvements the Miller's actually own, are the land, paving, shell building, and the canopy. The other improvements, pumps, tanks, fixtures, and the mini-mart equipment, were all installed after the lease agreement was in effect.

Mr. Havill questioned Mr. Vaughn whether they could market the property for $175-200,OOO.OO today on the market. To which Mr. Vaugh responded that, all of the tanks would need to be removed to meet Environmental Protection Agency guidelines, and that would be a discountable factor to the selling price.

Mr. Havill noted that, the income approach to value for this property is not applicable, it had to be valued by the market or cost.

Mr. Frank Driggers, Property Appraiser's Office, noted that there were no comparables in the immediate area, but if it were to be put on the market today, it would retail at approximately $250,300,OOO.OO

Mr. Robbie Ross, Property Appraiser's Office, stated that, using the income approach, it would be valued at $140,000.00.

Mr. Havill stated that, the income approach to value is not applicable in this case, because of the voluntary lease which they had entered into five years ago, and based on the real estate occurrences in the Mt. Dora area since 1984.

Commr. Swartz stated that he would be willing to grant a lower assessment, if the property owner would agree that, at the end of the five year lease, for every bit of value that is in excess, it be made up.

On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and denied the adjustment to the assessment, retaining the assessed amount of $154,056.00.

PETITION 1989-638 Wylania W. Miller

Mr. Steve Vaughn, Jr., representing the petitioner, informed the Board that he would like to withdraw this petition.

On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously, the Board accepted the withdrawal of the petition and upheld the Property Appraiser's recommendation of the assessed value in the amount of $54,737.00.

PETITION 1989-578 David F. Neubauer

PETITION 1989-579 David F. Neubauer

Mr. Havill described the property in the petitions to the Board, which equal approximately 13 acres combined. He also described the comparables in the area to the Board. Mr. Mez Birdie, representing the petitioner, David F. Neubauer, The Charles Wayne Group, Ltd., appeared before the Board and stated that the use of the land has not changed since the parcels were purchased. He stated that they knowingly overpaid for the purchase of the property because they were offered favorable financing terms by the seller, and since the previous year's assessment, the taxes have escalated considerably.

Commr. Gregg noted that this Board has to review what the property is worth now.

Mrs. Phyllis Patten, Lake County School Board, commented that Lake County has, traditionally, extremely low taxes, which caused the County to fall behind in their revenue, therefore, taxes had to be raised to provide various services for the citizens.

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser, and denied the adjustment of the assessed value, retaining the assessed value of Petition 1989-578, in the amount of $412,761.00, and Petition 1989-579, in the amount of $145,882.00.

PETITION 1989-591 Sivita Gotsis

Mr. Havill noted that the petitioner is appealing the assessed value of her homestead, in the amount of $84,026.00, and described the property to the Board.

Ms. Sivita Gotsis, petitioner, appeared before the Board and stated that she feels the home is overassessed, because the home is old, and in bad shape needing considerable repair. She feels that the home is worth not more than $65,000.00.

Mr. Frank Driggers, Property Appraiser's Office, noted that there are no current sales in Lake County to compare with in that area, but it is on the Orange/Lake County line, and if they could view the Orange County records, they could obtain sales for comparison.

Mrs. Phyllis Patten, Lake County School Board, noted that people want to buy the older homes in Mt. Dora and fix them up, which causes the real estate market value to rise in Mt. Dora.

On a motion by Mrs. Patten, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser, denied adjustment of the assessed value, retaining the assessed amount of $84,026.00.

PETITION 1989-632 Louis C. George

Mr. Havill noted that the petitioner is appealing the assessed value of the property, which is North Lake Apartments in Lady Lake. This petition concerns the substantial completion clause in regards to Florida Statute 192.042, due to the fact that the final completion was not received until January 3, 1989. The petitioner does not feel that the apartments were substantially complete for 1989. Mr. Havill reviewed the days of the calendar during which this date occurred. Mr. Havill feels that the assessment is valid for this year, because of the fact that it was substantially complete on January 1.

Mr. Louis C. George, petitioner, contends that the building was not substantially complete until January 3, because the inspecting architect did not substantially sign off on the project until that time. He stated that all documentation and closing requirements were completed on the 3rd. Between December 30, 1988 and January 3, 1989 the kitchen equipment was installed, and the landscaping completed, pursuant to the requirements of Farmer's Home Administration, before they would allow for occupancy.

Mr. George stated that two weeks after that time he began moving occupants into the complex.

Ms. Annette Star Lustgarten, County Attorney, stated that the definition in the Florida Statute that relates to assessment occurring on January lst, which states substantially completed as being, the improvement or some self-sufficent unit within it can be used for the purpose for which it is intended.

Mr. Havill noted that the bathrooms and kitchens were in before the 1st of January.

Mr. George stated that those items were in place but the apartments could not be occupied until the Certificate of Occupancy was issued.

Commr. Swartz informed Mr. George that Certificate of Occupancy is not in the definition of substantially complete.

Mr. George stated that Farmer's Home Administration did not issue their final inspection approval until two weeks later.

Ms. Lustgarten, County Attorney, reread the definition of substantially complete to the Board.

On a motion by Mrs. Patten, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and denied the adjustment of the assessed value, retaining the assessed amount of $738,569.00.

PETITION 1989-593 Helen W. Smith, Trustee

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, stated that the petitioner is appealing the assessed value of her property, and described the property and comparables to the Board.

It was noted that the petitioner was not present for the meeting.

On a motion by Mr. Deems, seconded by Mrs. Patten and carried unanimously, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and denied the adjustment of the assessed value, retaining the assessed amount of $65,620.00.

COMMISSIONERS

Commr. Gregg turned the chairmanship over to Commr. Bailey until Commr. Bakich arrives, due to Commr. Gregg's having to go out of town, along with Commr. Swartz. He noted that Commr. Bakich would be arriving at 4:30 p.m. to replace them in the meeting.

RECESS & REASSEMBLY

At 3:05 p.m. the Chairman announced that the Board would recess until 4:55 p.m. for the next scheduled petition.

PROPERTY APPRAISER - PETITIONS

PETITION 1989-598 Richard E. & Janis R. Conrad

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the Board that the petitioner's property is located on Lake Eustis. He described the property and the comparables to the Board. He stated that it is currently assessed in the amount of $137,900.00.

Mr. Richard E. Conrad, petitioner, appeared before the Board and stated that he feels that his assessment is too high and that it is not totally on the lake, because half of it is on a canal. He stated that there are properties adjacent to him that were assessed, in 1988, less than his property.

Commr. Bakich questioned Mr. Conrad whether his water frontage was more or less than his neighbors. To which Mr. Conrad responded that they are the same, except his property has lake and canal frontage, and they have only lakefront.

Mr. Conrad noted that, in terms of land values, he has been overassessed the entire time he has owned the property, and that his house is in deteriorating condition and with considerable repair needed. He distributed photographs to the members of the Board showing the conditions of the home, seawall, dock, and pool.

Mr. Havill stated that Mr. Conrad bought the home 1983 for $82,000.00, as a true fixer-upper, and that the comparables Mr. Conrad used with the 1988 figures and have also been reassessed. He further stated that the Property Appraiser's office is not assessing Mr. Conrad for his seawall and dock. If his home were put on the market today, Mr. Havill feels that $137,900.00 is on the low side, and that the residence could be sold for more than that amount.

Mr. Havill noted that when people compare their homes to their neighbors, upon researching the properties you may find that the neighbors home is older, or has less square footage, and the conditions of the homes are different.

Mr. Conrad felt that if his home were on the market, he may get $127,000.00.

Mr. Havill reviewed the comparable properties again for Mr. Conrad, and Mr. Conrad noted that those properties are in excellent condition.

Mr. Havill explained the co-effision of dispersion to Mr. Conrad and the Board, which occurs because of the sales in the area.

Mr. Deems noted that he feels that the assessment is somewhat high, because of the the excessive crack in the floor, and other conditions that Mr. Conrad has shown the Board in the pictures.

On a motion by Mr. Deems, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board overturned the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and adjusted the assessed value of the property to an assessed amount of $120,000.00.

PROPERTY APPRAISER - HOMESTEADS (CONT'D.)

PETITION 1989-603 Robert E. Kegan, Jr.

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the Board that this petition was submitted due to late filing of their Homestead Exemption, which was not applied for until September 18, 1989.

It was noted that the petitioner was not present for the meeting.

On a motion by Mr. Deems, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and denied the Homestead Exemption, due to late filing.

PROPERTY APPRAISER - PETITIONS (CONT'D.)

PETITION 1989-604 Glenn J. Straus

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the Board that the petitioner is seeking adjustment of the assessment of their property in the Mid-Florida Lakes Mobile Home Park, which is assessed in the average amount of $7,537.00, for 19 parcels.

It was noted that the petitioner was not present for the meeting.

On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Mr. Deems and carried unanimously, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and denied the adjustment of the assessed value, retaining the assessed amount of $7,905,914.00, for the total of the 19 parcels.

There being no further business to be brought before the Board, the meeting adjourned at 5:30 p.m.

C.W. "CHICK" GREGG, CHAIRMAN

ATTEST:

JAMES C. WATKINS, CLERK

LS/WP-4/10/05/89 l0:12