The Property Appraisal Adjustment Board met on Thursday, September 27, 1990, at 9:00 a.m., in the Board of County Commissioner's Meeting Room, Lake County Courthouse, Tavares, Florida. Commissioners present at the meeting were: Michael J. Bakich, Chairman; and Don Bailey. School Board members present were: Anna Cowin. Others present were: Annette Star Lustgarten, County Attorney; Ed Havill, Property Appraiser; Gaylord A. Wood, Jr. and Jordan Stuart, Attorneys representing the Property Appraiser; and Toni M. Austin, Deputy Clerk.
COMMISSIONERS
At this time, it was noted that Dr. Jerry Smith was unable to attend the meeting.
HOMESTEAD EXEMPTIONS
Petition #1990-752 Evelyn Griffin
Mr. Havill informed the Board that the applicant filed the application for homestead on September 11, 1990.
A representative for Ms. Griffin addressed the Board on this particular issue stating that Ms. Griffin lives in Orange Blossom Gardens, and is legally blind and not able to walk. The representative stated that she received her tax notice, which was extremely higher than the neighbors and questioned the amount.
Mr. Havill stated that he spoke with Ms. Griffin on the phone and, at this time, he encouraged the Board to grant the homestead and disability exemptions.
On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Ms. Cowin and carried, the Board approved the application for homestead and the $500.00 disability exemption.
Commr. Swartz was not present for the vote.
Petition #1990-502 - #1990-628 Lakeview Terrace Retirement
Mr. Havill informed the Board that the above numbered petitions were denied by his office. At this time, he introduced
Mr. Gaylord A. Wood, Jr. and Ms. Jordan Stuart, Attorneys for his office.
Mr. Jerry Knight, Attorney representing Lakeview Terrace Associates Ltd., and a number of the residents, appeared before the Board to discuss the issue. Mr. Knight stated that the Property Appraiser has denied the application made by the residents for homestead exemption based on the issue that the residents did not have legal or beneficial title to their units as of January 1, 1990.
Mr. Knight stated that his argument on this issue is basically legal, and at this time, discussed Section 196.041 of the Florida Statutes. Mr. Knight went on to discuss the residency agreement signed by the residents of Lakeview Terrace. He stated that his position is supported by a number of Appellate Court decisions and Attorney General's opinions, and basically supported by cases that indicate that you do not need to own legal title to real property in order to be entitled to homestead exemption.
Mr. Kenneth Schultz, Controller of Lakeview Terrace, appeared before the Board and stated that the facility is regulated by the Department of Insurance, under Florida Statute 651. At this time, he described the types of accommodations and services provided by the facility. He also discussed leased communities and endowment communities, with Lakeview Terrace being an endowment community. Mr. Schultz stated that approximately 20 residents have lease contracts, with the remaining having endowment contracts.
COMMISSIONERS
At 9:25 a.m., Commr. Swartz arrived for the meeting.
Petition #1990-502 - #1990-628 Lakeview Terrace Retirement
(Continued)
Mr. Havill stated that the individuals will not benefit from the approval of homestead exemption, but that the "for profit" corporation will benefit.
Mr. Schultz discussed the financial status of Lakeview Terrace. At this time, he also discussed the health and financial
criteria to be met by the individual when applying for an endowment lease. He stated that the residents do not pay property taxes. Mr. Schultz went on to discuss the management agreement held by Lakeview Terrace.
Mr. Gaylord A. Wood, Jr., Attorney, discussed with Mr. Schultz Paragraph 14, No Interest in Real Property, in the lease agreement, and Paragraph 7.
Mr. Knight stated that the residents have a right to occupy the units for life, subject to the conditions in the agreement, and if they meet the conditions, they have a life interest in their unit. He stated that his position involves these conditions being efficient for them to be entitled to the homestead.
Mr. Wood directed the Board's attention to Paragraph 11, which provides that the agreement can be canceled by the owner, the limited partnership, upon 30 days notice, with Mr. Knight stating that the 30 day notice applies when there is just cause.
Dr. Terry Bangs, President and Director of Lakeview Terrace, appeared before the Board to discuss the provisions of the facility, and the savings, in relation to a decrease in expenses, should the homestead be allowed. Dr. Bangs stated that this would allow the facility to redirect its revenue, and would lower the fees for the endowed residents.
Mr. Joe E. Jones, past officer to the Corporation, and present member of the Board, stated that he has resided at Lakeview Terrace for the past eight years, and discussed his thoughts on the advantage of the corporation having the homestead exemption.
Mr. Knight stated that, in summary, it is basically a rental agreement that gives a resident of a unit the right to occupy that unit for life, with the indicated conditions. At this time, Mr. Knight sited several cases relating to this type of issue.
Ms. Jordan Stuart, Attorney representing the Property Appraiser, clarified some of the issues by discussing Chapter 620, Section 685, Florida Statutes, regarding an interest in a partnership, and she further discussed Section 501-C3 of the Internal
Revenue Code, which indicates that Lakeview Terrace would not be exempt. At this time, Ms. Stuart discussed the right of interest in the real property. She stated that the residents at Lakeview Terrace, those with an endowment, or those with a lease, do not have any of those rights. She further discussed the lease agreement presented to the residents.
Ms. Annette Star Lustgarten, County Attorney, stated that the Board will need to determine whether or not there is a possessory right to real properties, based upon an instrument granting a beneficial interest for life, pursuant to the Statutes.
Commr. Bakich stated that it was his understanding that, since the residents do not pay taxes on their property, the corporation is requesting the homestead exemption benefit. He referred to the lease agreement, and the terms and conditions, and therefore, indicated that he does not support the approval of the exemption.
Mr. Wood stated that the best way for the residents of Lakeview Terrace to qualify for exemption would be for them to convert to a 501-C3 corporation and operate this under the provisions of 196.1975, in order for them to receive $25,000.00 off of their value per qualified resident under the homestead exemption Statute. At this time, Mr. Wood discussed the reasons a person can have a homestead exemption in a condominium or cooperative, which applies under legislation presently in effect. Mr. Wood stated, as another factor, is Subsection 5 of the homestead exemption law, which states that the exemption provided in this section applies only to those parcels classified and assessed as owner occupied residential property, or only to the portion of the property so classified and assessed. Mr. Wood stated that the property being discussed is not classified by Mr. Havill's office as this type of property.
On a motion by Ms. Cowin, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board upheld the recommendation of the roperty Appraiser and denied the requests for homestead exemption,
which were applied for by the residents of Lakeview Terrace Retirement.
Petition #1990-369 South Lake Art League, Inc.
Mr. Havill informed the Board that the applicant did not send the renewal card in on time, but that they do qualify for total exemption. The delay in filing was caused by a change of officers, and therefore, Mr. Havill recommended approval.
No one present wished to discuss the issue with the Board.
On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Ms. Cowin and carried unanimously, the Board approved the application for total exemption, based on the information presented by the Property Appraiser.
COMMISSIONERS
At 10:35 a.m., Commr. Swartz had to leave the meeting, due to prior commitments.
Petition #1990-453 VFW Post #5277
Mr. Havill informed the Board that this issue was the same as the above, as to the fact that there was a change of officers, and the card was not filed on time. Mr. Havill stated that, had the card been filed on time, he would have approved the total exemption.
No one present wished to discuss the issue with the Board.
On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Ms. Cowin and carried unanimously, the Board approved the request for total exemption, based on the information presented by the Property Appraiser.
PROPERTY ASSESSMENTS
Petition #1990-758 Robert & Jean Clarke
Mr. Havill informed the Board that the applicant is appealing the land portion of the assessment, which is $48,106.00, and assessed at $10,022.00 per acre. At this time, Mr. Havill presented comparables to this property, and stated that the assessment being made is fair and just.
Mr. Robert Clarke appeared before the Board to discuss the issue and stated that his assessment is $122,728.00, with last year's assessment being $96,742.00. At this time, he discussed adjoining lots and stated that the lots are over priced.
On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Ms. Cowin and carried unanimously, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and approved the assessment, in the amount of $122,728.00.
Petition #1990-759 George and Martha Bull
Mr. Havill informed the Board of comparable sales in relation to the property owned by Mr. Bull. He stated that vacant canal lots adjacent to his property have sold recently for $37,500.00 to $44,500.00, with the patio homes in Waterwood selling in the high $90,000.00 range, and the Waterwood Townhouses selling in the $140,000.00 range. Mr. Havill stated that the assessed value on Mr. Bull's property is $120,548.00, and he feels that this is fair and just. Mr. Havill stated that there has been an increase over the last year, due to the re-evaluation of waterfront property.
Mr. George Bull appeared before the Board and stated that he would like a compromise, due to his taxes increasing 35%.
Mr. Havill stated that, if the assessed value is lowered, it will be out of the market, and that the assessment value should have been higher in the past years.
On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Ms. Cowin and carried unanimously, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and approved the assessment, in the amount of $120,548.00.
Petition #1990-753 Lloyd Atkins, Jr.
Mr. Havill informed the Board that Mr. Atkins has the property described listed at a price of $89,900.00. The parcel is assessed at $50,278.00. At this time, Mr. Havill discussed comparables to this property, and stated that the assessed value is fair and just.
Mr. Atkins appeared before the Board and stated that this is a sloping lot, and at this time, he presented other comparables to
the property. He had the Board review the information he presented to them in regards to drawings and comparables. Mr. Atkins stated that an equitable adjustment would be in the amount of $36,000.00 - $38,000.00.
Mr. Havill stated that the problem involves the adjacent properties in the area being under assessed, and which will be adjusted next year.
Mr. Frank Driggers, Property Appraiser's Office, discussed the procedure he used in determining the assessment on this property, and stated that the property is under assessed.
Discussion occurred regarding assessing the same types of property all at the same time, in order to be fair to everyone.
Mr. Havill recommended lowering the assessed value on Mr. Atkins' property.
On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Ms. Cowin and carried unanimously, the Board approved to lower the assessed value from $50,278.00 to $40,000.00, based on the information presented to the Board.
Petition #1990-754 Lloyd Atkins, Jr.
Mr. Havill informed the Board this request involves the subdivision called Chautauqua Overlooking Mount Dora. It consists of 51 building lots, 30 lots for smaller patio homes, and 21 are single-family lots, in which nine front on a navigable canal. Eleven acres have been set aside for wetlands and the preservation of nature. The patio home lots start at $29,900.00; $42,900.00 for the single-family lots; and $45,000.00 for the canal lots. At this time, he reviewed the lots that have been sold in the subdivision. Mr. Havill informed the Board of the following assessments: $20,000.00 for patio lots; $30,000.00 for single-family lots; and $40,000.00 for canal lots. He further stated that the assessment, in the amount of $1,071,750.00 is fair and just.
Mr. Buddy Atkins appeared before the Board to appeal the assessed value of the property.
Mr. Larry King, Real Estate Appraiser, appeared before the Board and stated that he prepared the initial appraisal for Mr. Atkins in January, 1989, with the value being $775,000.00, with the purpose being for financing. He felt that the $1,071,750.00 should not be a market value assessment, but a gross sellout. Mr. King discussed the number of lots sold and the average sellout being in three years. In the addendum presented, Mr. King stated that he has now adjusted that sellout to four years, for 41 lots, with a gross sellout being in the amount of $1,041,000.00. He further stated that, with the deducted and discounted figures, the market value estimate is $600,000.00, for a period of four years sellout.
Mr. Gaylord A. Wood, Jr., Attorney representing the Property Appraiser, discussed the discounted cash sellout used by Mr. King, with Mr. Wood stating that this technique does not give a retail value of any one item in the aggregate. He stated that the Property Appraiser is appraising this parcel lot by lot at retail, and that it is unfair to assess the same parcel of property right next to another one differently based on who owns it. Mr. Wood stated that the discount sellout method is inappropriate, and at this time, reviewed case law pertaining to this issue.
Mr. King stated that there are 41 remaining lots that are contiguous, with one owner, and stated that the Board needs to look at the market value for the lots.
Mr. Atkins stated that the lots are grouped as an aggregate. At this time, he presented information from Mr. Fred Kurras, a member of the American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers. Mr. Kurra states that the assessed value should be approximately $525,590.00. Mr. Atkins stated that he has received complaints from the owners of the ten lots that were sold about their taxes.
Mr. Frank Driggers, Property Appraiser's Office, presented comparable to this property.
Discussion occurred regarding a possibility of the assessment on the patio lots being reduced by $1-2,000.00 each. It was noted that 26 patio lots are left to be sold. Mr. Havill stated that the
Board would be considering approximately a $26,000.00 reduction in the total assessment.
Mr. King discussed the subdivision The Meadows, and the price being advertised for the lots, with Mr. Robbie Ross, Property Appraiser's Office, stating that the lots in The Meadows are not on a canal.
Commr. Bailey made a motion to uphold the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and approve the assessment, in the amount of $1,071,750.00.
The motion died for the lack of a second.
Ms. Cowin stated that she would like to see a reduction in the assessment of the homes on the canal, based on the comparable around the County, and at this time, questioned Mr. Havill as to a fair amount of reduction.
Mr. Havill stated that, if adjustments are made for this particular case, other requests will be made, and will need to be considered on a case to case basis.
On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Ms. Cowin and carried unanimously, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and approved the assessment, in the amount of $1,071,750.00.
RECESS & REASSEMBLY
At 12:10 p.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess for five minutes.
GREEN BELT EXEMPTIONS
Petition #1990-747 Bryan G. Anderson, Jr.
Mr. Havill informed the Board that the agricultural classification was removed from the property, due to this not being a bonafide commercial agricultural operation.
Mr. Mort Aulls, Attorney, appeared before the Board to discuss the issue and stated that this is a bonafide agricultural use. Mr. Aulls presented a statement from Mr. Anderson for the Board's review.
Mr. Havill stated that the parcel has 1,120 feet of frontage on Highway 441 and 1,185 feet of frontage on Dora Avenue. The 1990 assessed value is $375,038.00, or $22,730.00 per acre. In 1990, 1/16 interest of this property sold for $75,000.00. Prior to 1990, this parcel was zoned agricultural, with the main crop being hay. In 1989, this property was rezoned to CP with C-1 and C-2 uses, and under Florida Law, if the property is rezoned at the owner's request to some other higher density, this would justify the removal of the green belt exemption.
Mr. Aulls stated that the courts say that you have to look at whether or not it is a good faith commercial agricultural use. Mr. Aulls further stated that the Supreme Court has said that the use of the land, which owner purchased it for more than three times its agricultural assessment, with the intention of developing it as commercial property, which the owner has obtained a rezoning change from classification from agricultural to nonagricultural use, which owner leased to farmers who intend to use the land exclusively for agricultural uses, and which did not return a return on their investments, satisfied the requirements of the green belt law, that there be a good faith commercial agricultural use of the land, thus the owner was entitled to have the agricultural classification, which entitles him to preferential tax treatment.
Mr. Gaylord A. Wood, Jr., Attorney representing the Property Appraiser, stated that the property was used continually for citrus up until 1985, and now it is a new claimed agricultural use, with agricultural uses not being listed under the CP zoning.
On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Ms. Cowin and carried unanimously, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and denied the green belt exemption.
PROPERTY ASSESSMENTS
Petition #1990-736 Dolly Young Garnto
Mr. Havill informed the Board that the assessed value on this property is $385,644.00. At this time he discussed, as a comparable, the property owned by Mr. Francis Berens, which consists of a
22 1/2 acre parcel that contains 1 1/2 acres of dry land and 21 acres of wetland. The 1 1/2 acres is assessed at $45,404.00, which is $28,919.00 per acre, with the remaining 21 acres being assessed at $25.00 per acre, due to the fact that it is unusable waste land. The total assessment is $45,929.00. Mr. Havill stated that Ms. Garnto has her property listed with a real estate broker for one million dollars, and therefore, he stated that her assessment is fair and just.
Ms. Dolly Young Garnto appeared before the Board and presented the history of the property, which goes back to 1937. Ms. Garnto stated that she has now taken the property off of the market, and it is not for sale. She stated that her taxes have been raised 1,000 percent.
Mr. Mike McLain, Property Appraiser's Office, appeared before the Board to discuss the procedures he used in determining the assessment on this property.
Ms. Garnto stated that the property is four feet lower than the property next door, and that the appraisal made by the bank three years ago was $108,000.00.
Mr. Frank Driggers, Property Appraiser's Office, appeared before the Board and stated that he feels the property is over assessed, and would like to look at the survey.
Mr. Havill stated that he would like for the Board to continue this case, in order for his staff to review the property once again, and come back with a recommendation.
Ms. Garnto stated that this is not highway frontage property because of the railroad property.
On a motion by Ms. Cowin, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board approved to continue the case until the next PAAB meeting to be held October 16, 1990, at 8:45 a.m.
Petition #1990-757 William J. and Maryann Brett
Mr. Havill informed the Board that Mr. Brett is stating that, in 1987, he purchased the land for $100,000.00, on which an old barn and storage building had a value of $25,000.00, therefore
making the land valued at $75,000.00. Mr. Havill stated that his property records show that there was no building ever assessed to the land. The property is assessed at $865.00 per front foot on the water. At this time, Mr. Havill discussed comparables to this property. The total assessment for this property is $122,813.00.
Mr. and Mrs. Brett were present to discuss the request for adjustment to their assessment.
Commr. Bailey stated that he felt this property is under appraised, and that the Board should take into consideration the Property Appraiser's comparables.
On a motion by Ms. Cowin, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and approved the assessment in the amount of $122,813.00.
Petition #1990-755 Nancy K. Fraser
Mr. Havill informed the Board that Ms. Fraser owns Lot 1, in Chautauqua Overlooking Mount Dora. He stated that her residence is assessed at $56,008.00, and the land is assessed at $25,618.00, with the total assessment being $81,626.00. Mr. Havill discussed comparables and stated that the assessment is fair and just.
Ms. Nancy K. Fraser appeared before the Board and discussed the surrounding acreage, which detracts from her property, and stated that she purchased the patio home and lot, in the amount of $86,080.00, with the lot being in the amount of $29,900.00. She further stated that most of the properties in the County are appraised at 85% of the value.
Mr. Havill recommended that the Board lower the assessment to $73,160.00.
On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Ms. Cowin and carried unanimously, the Board approved to lower the assessment on this property to $73,160.00, based on the recommendation made by the Property Appraiser.
GREEN BELT EXEMPTIONS
Petition #1990-742 BELC Enterprises, Inc.
Mr. Havill informed the Board that Mr. Larry Lopez did not file for the green belt exemption.
Mr. Larry Lopez appeared before the Board and stated that he was in litigation involving storm damage at the nursery, and all of his records were being used for this purpose. The nursery has been rebuilt, and therefore, Mr. Lopez requested that the Board grant him green belt exemption, due to the fact that he had the exemption for the previous years, but failed to file his renewal card in a timely fashion.
On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Ms. Cowin and carried unanimously, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and approved the green belt exemption.
On a motion by Ms. Cowin, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board upheld the recommendations of the Property Appraiser and approved the following assessments:
Petition #1990-739 Lady Lake, Inc. - $2,348,465.00
Petition #1990-751 Strong Properties - $80,000.00
Petition #1990-723 Assessment Valuations Inc./Annette R. Lackman
$190,010.00
Petition #1990-724 John F. Beck - $192,197.00
Petition #1990-731 Royal American Management - FHA Division
$946,030.00
Petition #1990-756 Leland & Corinne J. Oster - $35,670.00
Included in the motion was the denial of homestead exemption for the following:
Petition #1990-641 Ralph Connor
It was the consensus of the Board to schedule the next PAAB meeting for October 16, 1990, at 8:45 a.m.
There being no further business to be brought before the Property Appraisal Adjustment Board, the meeting adjourned at 1:20 p.m.
MICHAEL J. BAKICH, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
JAMES C. WATKINS, CLERK
TMA/10-26-90/PAAB/boardmin/9-27-90