LAKE COUNTY VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD MEETING

OCTOBER 1, 1992

This meeting of the Lake County Value Adjustment Board, held on Thursday, October 1, 1992, at 9:00 a.m., in the Board of County Commissioner's Meeting Room, Lake County Courthouse, Tavares, Florida, was a continuance from the meeting of September 30, 1992, at 9:00 a.m. Commissioners present at the meeting were: Michael J. Bakich, Chairman; Don Bailey; and Catherine Hanson. School Board members present were: Phyllis Patton and Sandra Green. Others present were: Annette Star Lustgarten, County Attorney; Ed Havill, Lake County Property Appraiser; and Sandra Carter, Deputy Clerk.

Commr. Bakich, Chairman, opened the meeting.

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, introduced Ms. Jordan Stewart, Attorney, with the law firm of Wood & Stewart, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, stating that she would be representing the Property Appraiser's Office at this meeting.

HOMESTEAD EXEMPTIONS (CONT.D)

PETITION NO. 1992-66 - TERRY & MARIBETH FOGLESON

Ms. Jordan Stewart, Attorney, representing the Property Appraiser's Office, stated that she had been contacted by them and informed that they had denied the petitioners, Mr. and Mrs. Fogleson, a request for homestead exemption and questioned whether they were proper in doing so. She stated that, according to documents she received regarding the case, Mr. and Mrs. Fogleson had a Memorandum of Lease, for the property in question, which included an option to purchase, with no consideration involved. She stated it was her understanding that neither the option nor the purchase took place until well after January 1, 1992. She stated that a lease does not qualify one for homestead exemption.

Mr. Gary Cooney, Attorney, representing the petitioner, Ms. Fogleson, who he noted had recently separated from her husband, appeared before the Board stating that Ms. Fogleson was the owner of the property in question prior to January 1, 1992, and that,

according to the Constitution of the State of Florida and the Florida Statutes, his client was eligible for homestead exemption.

It was noted that Ms. Fogleson became the equitable owner of the property on June 21, 1991, subject to an executory contract (lease purchase agreement).

Ms. Stewart, Attorney, stated that one of the problems with this case is the fact that it involves a lease, not a contract, which it was noted in no way becomes a contract for purchase and sale until, and unless, a contract for purchase and sale is executed, with consideration.

Mr. Cooney, Attorney, stated that his client was told that she was being denied the homestead exemption because the contract was neither recorded, nor recordable - not that she did not have an equitable interest in the home. He noted that Ms. Fogleson had the contract recorded on February 21, 1992.

Considerable discussion occurred regarding whether or not Ms. Fogleson claimed equitable ownership of the property in question prior to January 1, 1992, which it was noted she would have had to do in order to be eligible for homestead exemption.

A motion was made by Commr. Bailey to grant Ms. Fogleson homestead exemption on her home, however, the motion died for lack of a second.

A motion was made by Commr. Hanson and seconded by Ms. Patton to uphold the Property Appraiser's recommendation for denial of homestead exemption for Ms. Fogleson.

The motion was defeated by a 3-2 vote, with Commr. Bailey, Commr. Bakich, and Ms. Green voting "No".

A motion was then made by Commr. Bailey and seconded by Ms. Green to overturn the Property Appraiser's recommendation for denial and approve the request for homestead exemption for Petition No. 1992-66 - Terry and Maribeth Fogleson.

The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried.

Commr. Hanson and Ms. Patton voted "No".

MAYNARD SIMMONS - NO PETITION NUMBER

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, explained this case, stating that he was requested by Mr. Simmons to have his case heard, even though no petition had been filed. He informed the Board that this case involved a request for homestead exemption, noting that Mr. Simmons has a 99 year campsite lease and had filed for homestead exemption, however, was turned down, due to the fact that eligibility for homestead exemption, under Florida law, states that the property must be used as a permanent residence of the homesteader, and in this case was not.

Mr. Simmons was not present to discuss the case.

On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, the Board upheld the Property Appraiser's recommendation for denial of homestead exemption for Mr. Maynard Simmons.

PROPERTY ASSESSMENTS (CONT'D.)

PETITION NO. 1992-212 - SCRIPPS HOWARD CABLE COMPANY D/B/A LAKE COUNTY CABLEVISION

Mr. Paul SanGiovanni, Attorney, representing the petitioner, appeared before the Board stating that the primary issue this date was whether or not an evaluation of the cable property by the income approach was proper, as opposed to the cost approach, which he noted is what is typically used.

Mr. Jim Scott, Controller, Lake County Cablevision, appeared before the Board stating that he was present to appeal the assessed valuation of tangible personal property owned by Scripps Howard Cable Company d/b/a Lake County Cablevision. He distributed a handout containing various paperwork involving the case, which he reviewed with the Board, explaining the cable company's position on three separate issues.

Ms. Jordan Stewart, Attorney, representing the Property Appraiser's Office, informed the Board that the Property Appraiser's Office is presently involved in litigation with this petitioner from the prior year's Value Adjustment Board, however,

noted that each year stands on its own and what occurred for the prior year is not relevant this date. She noted that methodology, however, is relevant, stating that there are three methods for evaluating property and that, when the Property Appraiser is trying to find the market value for a piece of property, he is required to consider each and every one of those approaches. She stated that, as long as the Property Appraiser considers all three approaches, and the other eight criteria in Section 193.011 of the Florida Statues, he is free to choose the method which he feels is most appropriate and that is what was done in this case.

Considerable discussion occurred regarding the methodology that was used in evaluating the property in question and as to whether or not the property was properly assessed.

Mr. Scott, Lake County Cablevision, stated that Lake County Cablevision is not the only cable company in Lake County, yet, the other cable companies are being valued on cost approach and they are not, to which Ms. Stewart, Attorney, responded, stating that a lot depends on what is reported. She stated that the Property Appraiser considers the size of the organization and how they go about reporting information to the Property Appraiser's Office.

Mr. Havill, Property Appraiser, stated that Lake County Cablevision has been very uncooperative with his office, noting that they give his office information that they want them to have rather than information that is requested of them. Due to this fact, the Property Appraiser's Office has had to make assumptions over the last three years. He stated that the other cablevision companies give his office information that is requested of them, therefore, his office is able to make fair assessments. He stated that Lake County Cablevision is presently assessed at approximately $630 per subscriber, which he stated is a low figure, as other systems like theirs sell for $2,000 and up, per subscriber. He felt that his office was very conservative in their assessment.

Mr. Scott objected (for the record) to Mr. Havill's comments regarding his firm not presenting the Property Appraiser's Office

with necessary information, stating that the statement was incorrect.

Further discussion occurred regarding the request.

On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, the Board upheld the Property Appraiser's assessment of $21,590,748 for Petition No. 1992-212 - Scripps Howard Cable Company d/b/a Lake County Cablevision.

PETITION NO. 1992-191 - J. FRED KURRAS

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, explained this case, stating that it involves a 36 acre parcel of land located on the west side of new Hwy. 441, in Mt. Dora (across from Renniger's Flea Market). He stated that his office reevaluated all properties along Hwy. 441 and made necessary adjustments, as directed by the Department of Revenue. He stated that they found the asking price of property along Hwy. 441 ranges from $27,000 to $150,000 per acre. He stated that the property in question has three different zoning districts within its boundaries, with 18 acres having approximately 730 feet of highway frontage and a C-3 zoning, which he noted is highway commercial. He stated that the 36 acre parcel of property in question is assessed at $17,150 per acre, with a total assessed value of $617,725, which he feels is fair and just.

Mr. Fred Kurras, Petitioner, and a local property appraiser in Mt. Dora, appeared before the Board stating that he felt his property, which contains 36 acres, but only 30 that are buildable, was assessed too high, as it comes out to $20,590 per acre, and he did not feel that anyone would pay this much for low density residential acreage, which is how his property is zoned. He distributed a handout containing various documents pertaining to his property, which he reviewed with the Board.

Considerable discussion occurred regarding this case and various problems that Mr. Kurras is faced with, due to the County's Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use Map, as well as the Comprehensive Plan that has been adopted by the City of Mt. Dora,

where his property is located. He stated that his property is residential land and should be assessed that way.

Ms. Jordan Stewart, Attorney, representing the Property Appraiser's Office, noted a problem Property Appraisers throughout the State are faced with, due to the new Comprehensive Land Use Plans and stated that Mr. Havill has to go with two things, what properties are selling for and what the market value is. She stated that he cannot speculate, as he is bound by law to deal with what the property is at a given day, unless he can show that the market is, indeed, being affected by it. She stated that it cannot be based on what might happen - it has to be based on what is actually happening.

Mr. Frank Royce, Property Appraiser's Office, recommended that the Board approve 30 acres, of the property in question, at $12,000 per acre and the remaining 6 acres (which is considered swampland) at $25 per acre.

On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, the Board approved the Property Appraiser's recommendation for a reduced assessment of $12,000 per acre, for 30 of the 36 acres in question and $25 per acre for the remaining 6 acres, for a total assessment of $360,150, down from the original assessment of $617,725.

PETITION NO. 1992-215 - COLE WHITAKER

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, explained this case, stating that it involves a 45 acre parcel of land located at the intersection of Hwy. 441 and Hwy. 46, in the Mt. Dora city limits. He stated that approximately 10 acres are wetlands, however, the remaining acreage is high and dry, with approximately 1,200 feet of highway frontage on Hwy. 441 and approximately 1,350 feet of highway frontage on Hwy. 46. He stated that it is classified as

C-3 zoning, which is highway commercial. He stated that the Property Appraiser's Office has the property assessed at $1,650 per acre, for a total assessment of $742,810.

Mr. Cole Whitaker, Petitioner, appeared before the Board and reviewed the Future Land Use Map with them, concerning his parcel of property, stating that he was going to develop half of his property as low density residential, because that is the only thing that is selling in the area, and leave approximately 12 to 14 acres of road frontage for commercial use.

Ms. Annette Star Lustgarten, County Attorney, informed the Board of various factors that they should take into consideration, concerning the assessed value of this property.

Commr. Bailey made a motion to set the appraised value of the property in question at $12,000 per acre for the 36.14 acres that is high and dry, and $25 per acre for the remaining 9.26 acres that is considered wetlands, for a total assessment of $433,911.50.

Commr. Hanson stated that she could not second the motion, and noted the reason why.

Commr. Bailey then withdrew his motion.

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Ms. Green and carried unanimously, the Board overturned the Property Appraiser's assessment of $742,810, for the property in question, and reduced the assessment to $16,500 per acre for 36.14 acres and $25 per acre for 9.26 acres, for a total assessment of $596,541.

PETITION NO. 1992-206 - DARYL M. CARTER, CHESTER C. FOSGATE COMPANY C/0 MAURY L. CARTER & ASSOCIATES, INC.

Mr. Frank Royce, Property Appraiser's Office, explained this case, at which time he reviewed an aerial map with the Board showing various other parcels around the property in question, indicating the assessed value of each. He stated that this case involves 22 acres, assessed at $20,000 per acre for 17 acres and $4,950 per acre for the remaining 5 acres, for a total assessment of $364,750. He noted that the property is zoned A (Agricultural), however, due to the fact that the land does not have a bona fide agricultural use, it is not being appraised as agricultural property.

Mr. Daryl M. Carter, representing the petitioner, Chester C. Fosgate Company, appeared before the Board stating that his firm had submitted four petitions to be heard by the Board this date, pertaining to the property in question, which involves a total of 1,250 acres.

Discussion occurred regarding whether to hear the four cases together or whether to hear them separately, petition by petition, at which time Ms. Jordan Stewart, Attorney, representing the Property Appraiser's Office, stated they would prefer that the four petitions be heard separately, since each of the properties were purchased separately and are considered separate entities.

It was the consensus of the Board to hear the cases separately.

Discussion occurred regarding the case, at which time Mr. Carter answered questions regarding same.

On a motion by Ms. Patton, seconded by Ms. Green and carried, the Board upheld the Property Appraiser's assessment of $449,750 for Petition No. 1992-206 - Daryl M. Carter, Chester C. Fosgate Company, c/o Maury L. Carter & Associates, Inc.

Commrs. Bailey and Hanson voted "No".

PETITION NO. 1992-207 - DARYL M. CARTER, CHESTER C. FOSGATE COMPANY, C/O MAURY L. CARTER & ASSOCIATES, INC.

Mr. Frank Royce, Property Appraiser's Office, explained this case, stating that it involves 73.7 acres, assessed at $20,000 per acre for 33.7 acres and $5,000 per acre for the remaining 40 acres, for a total assessment of $1,042,500.

Mr. Larry Lender, a professional appraiser from Orlando, representing the petitioner, appeared before the Board and questioned the methodology that was used in appraising the property in question, at which time a brief discussion occurred regarding same.

On a motion by Ms. Patton, seconded by Ms. Green and carried, the Board upheld the Property Appraiser's assessment of $1,042,500

for Petition No. 1992-207 - Daryl M. Carter, Chester C. Fosgate Company, c/o Maury L. Carter & Associates, Inc.

Commr. Bailey voted "No".

PETITION NO. 1992-208 - DARYL M. CARTER, CHESTER C. FOSGATE COMPANY, C/O MAURY L. CARTER & ASSOCIATES, INC.

Mr. Frank Royce, Property Appraiser's Office, explained this case, stating that it involves 522.8 acres, assessed at $3,450 per acre for 2 acres; $25 per acre for 12 acres (considered wetlands); and $230 per acre for 520.8 acres, for a total assessment of $2,210,184. He noted that the property is zoned RR (Rural Residential).

Mr. Daryl M. Carter, representing the petitioner, Chester C. Fosgate Company, noted that he had no comments other than what was stated for the other two cases he represented, being Petition Nos. 1992-206 and 1992-207.

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Ms. Patton and carried unanimously, the Board upheld the Property Appraiser's assessment of $2,210,184 for Petition No. 1992-208 - Daryl M. Carter, Chester C. Fosgate Company, c/o Maury L. Carter & Associates, Inc.

PETITION NO. 1992-209 - DARYL M. CARTER, CHESTER C. FOSGATE COMPANY, C/O MAURY L. CARTER & ASSOCIATES, INC.

Mr. Frank Royce, Property Appraiser's Office, explained this case, stating that it involves 102 acres, assessed at $24,950 per acre for 12 acres and $5,000 per acre for the remaining 90 acres, for a total assessment of $749,400. He noted that said property is zoned RR (Rural Residential).

A brief discussion occurred regarding this case, at which time it was noted that, in keeping with the properties involving Petition Nos. 1992-206 and 1992-207, they should go with the $20,000 per acre that was quoted for them.

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Ms. Patton and carried unanimously, the Board overturned the Property Appraiser's assessment of $749,400, for the property in question, and approved

an assessment of $20,000 per acre for 12 acres and $5,000 per acre for the remaining 90 acres, for a total assessment of $690,000 for Petition No. 1992-209 - Daryl M. Carter, Chester C. Fosgate Company, c/o Maury L. Carter & Associates, Inc.

PETITION NO. 1992-278 - CLAUDE E. SMOAK, JR. & R. E. OSWALT

Mr. Frank Royce, Property Appraiser's Office, explained this case, stating that it involves 9.30 acres, assessed at $20,000 per acre, for a total assessment of $186,000.

Mr. Claude Smoak, Jr., Petitioner, appeared before the Board stating that an active clay/sand mine is located on the property in question and noted that it will not be useful for anything else until it is reduced to road level, which he and his partner are in the process of doing, however, it will take approximately 10 years to do so. He reviewed with the Board a plat, a topographic survey, and an aerial of the property in question, as well as some photographs, pointing out the fact that the project involves three phases, which he discussed. He requested the Board to not assess the property at a value beyond what is a reasonable price that a willing buyer would pay today, noting that a willing buyer would not buy the property in its current condition, for commercial purposes.

Ms. Jordan Stewart, Attorney, representing the Property Appraiser's Office, stated that, based on what she had heard this date, concerning the case, felt the assessment may have been a bit high. She noted, however, that the assessment last year was too low.

Mr. Frank Royce, Property Appraiser's Office, stated that, considering the circumstances, the condition of the property, the bond, and the reclamation monies that are going to have to be spent, he suggested reducing the assessment to $5,000 per acre, for the entire 9.30 acre parcel. He noted that, with all that has to be done to the property, it will not be available for commercial use for a number of years.

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board upheld the Property Appraiser's reduced assessment of $5,000 per acre, for the entire 9.30 acre parcel, for a total assessment of $46,500 for Petition No. 1992-278 - Claude E. Smoak, Jr. and R. E. Oswalt.

PETITION NO. 1992-279 - CLAUDE E. SMOAK, JR.

HIGHLANDS GROWTH PROPERTIES, INC.

It was noted by the Petitioner, Mr. Claude Smoak, Jr., that this piece of property has the same circumstances and use as the above stated case, Petition No. 1992-278, which is also his property, at which time it was recommended by Mr. Frank Royce, Property Appraiser's Office, that the assessment be set at $5,000 per acre for the 42.6 acre parcel.

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board upheld the Property Appraiser's reduced assessment of $5,000 per acre for the 42.6 acre parcel, for a total assessment of $213,000 for Petition No. 1992-279 - Claude E. Smoak, Jr./Highlands Growth Properties, Inc.

AGRICULTURAL CLASSIFICATION (CONT'D.)

PETITION NO. 1992-1 - MICHAEL BLOCKER

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, explained this case, stating that it involves a 21.5 acre parcel of land that the petitioner had applied for an agricultural classification on, for bees and grazing land, however, noted that the petition had been filed 8 days late. He stated that the pasture land would not meet the requirements for an agricultural classification, under the Florida Statutes, however, the bees would, but only for three acres.

Ms. Jordan Stewart, Attorney, representing the Property Appraiser's Office, stated that the law is blatantly clear, when it comes to agricultural exemptions, in that the petition must be filed by the target date of March 1, 1992, for an agricultural exemption to be granted.

Mr. Michael Blocker, Petitioner, appeared before the Board stating that he has owned the property in question since 1984 and always assumed that he had an agricultural exemption, however, when his taxes reached $2,000, and he questioned it, he found that he did not have an agricultural exemption on his property, as he thought. He filed for the exemption, however, filed too late.

Mr. Mike Bryie, Property Appraiser's Office, informed the Board that Mr. Blocker has six parcels, at 1.5 acres each, on the front portion of his property, up for sale, at $20,000 per parcel.

On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Ms. Patton and carried unanimously, the Board upheld the Property Appraiser's recommendation for denial of an agricultural exemption for Petition No. 1992-1 - Michael Blocker.

COMMISSIONERS

At this time, the Chairman turned the chairmanship over to Commr. Bailey.

PROPERTY ASSESSMENTS (CONT'D.)

PETITION NO. 1992-9 - RICHARD S. COHEN

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, explained this case, stating that it involves the old Pioneer Bank Building, located at Hwy. 19 and Old Hwy. 441, in Mt. Dora (the old K-Mart Shopping Center). He stated that it sold, at auction (distress sale), last month for $287,500. He stated that his office has it assessed for $775,323, however, it is valued at $436,037, which is supported by a depreciated reconstruction cost of $543,446. He stated that the land value is comparable with other land values of bank properties in the vicinity, which his office has assessed at $315,846. He stated that he feels the sale was not a valid sale, due to the fact that it was an auction.

Mr. Richard Cohen, Petitioner, appeared before the Board and discussed the auction, at which time he read into the Minutes a letter he had received from the General Manager of the Southeastern Realty Group (the listing agent), regarding the bank building and the fact that, due to a very limited rental market in Lake County,

felt that the $287,500 selling price was the top dollar that could be received for the building.

Mr. Havill questioned why Mr. Cohen had $500,000 worth of insurance on the building, if he felt that it was only worth $287,500, to which Mr. Cohen responded.

Mr. Del Potter, Attorney, representing Mr. Cohen, appeared before the Board and answered questions regarding the case.

Mr. Jack Pease, a gentleman who will be renting a portion of the building in question from Mr. Cohen and using it for an office, appeared before the Board and answered questions regarding the case.

Further discussion occurred regarding this case.

Ms. Jordan Stewart, Attorney, representing the Property Appraiser's Office, stated that nothing had been established this date, by the petitioner, to indicate a major reduction in value, therefore, felt that the Property Appraiser's figures should be upheld.

Discussion continued regarding the case, at which time it was noted that the building is located in a depressed area of Mt. Dora.

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Ms. Green and carried, the Board overturned the assessment of the Property Appraiser and reduced the assessment to $700,000 for Petition No. 1992-9 - Richard S. Cohen, due to the fact that the building is located in a depressed area of Mt. Dora.

Ms. Patton voted "No".

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

PETITION NO. 1992-13 - AGNES JOHNSON & NONA JOHNSON RAWLS

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, explained this case, stating that it involves 12 acres on Lake Minnehaha, in Clermont, with approximately 80 citrus trees that survived the freeze, assessed at $382,609. He stated that the petitioner had applied for an agricultural exemption, however, with the property only having 80 trees, only one acre would qualify for an exemption.

Ms. Agnes Johnson, Petitioner, appeared before the Board stating that the property in question was appraised last year for $74,454, at which time Mr. Havill interjected that said figure was based on a green belt exemption, noting that his office does not take market value into consideration when appraising agricultural property. Ms. Johnson stated that the property has always been agricultural and noted that she and her husband had recently planted some papayas and guava on the property and plan to replace the citrus trees that were killed by the freeze, as soon as some good stock is available.

Discussion occurred regarding what the property in question, particularly the lots on the lake, would sell for in today's market.

Further discussion occurred, at which time it was requested that the case be postponed, until later in the day, in order to allow staff to research some particulars concerning the case.

On a motion by Ms. Patton, seconded by Ms. Green and carried unanimously, the Board approved a request to postpone this case until later in the day, in order to allow Mr. Mike Bryie, with the Property Appraiser's Office, to research some particulars regarding the case.

AGRICULTURAL CLASSIFICATION (CONT'D.)

PETITION NO. 1992-19 - ROBERT LAWRENCE SIMPSON

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, explained this case, stating that it involves 9 acres, located at the intersection of Hwy. 441 and 44B, in Eustis, which is presently in the process of being developed into a shopping center. He stated that Mr. Simpson had applied for an agricultural exemption, however, had filed late. He stated that the property was cleared in August of 1992, but, as of the assessment date of January 1, 1992, it still had citrus on it. He stated that, due to the fact that the property in question has always been agricultural and since this is the last year that it will be classified as agricultural, recommended that the Board approve it as such.

On a motion by Ms. Patton, seconded by Ms. Green and carried, the Board upheld the Property Appraiser's recommendation for an agricultural exemption for Petition No. 1992-16 - Robert Lawrence Simpson.

Commrs. Hanson and Bakich were not present for the discussion or vote.

PROPERTY ASSESSMENTS (CONT'D.)

PETITION NO. 1992-169 - KENNETH R. BOWEN

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, explained this case, stating that it involves five acres, assessed at $4,160 per acre, for a total assessment of $20,176.

Mr. Kenneth Bowen, Petitioner, appeared before the Board stating that the assessment this year is a 70% increase over last year's assessment.

Mr. Peter Peebles, Property Appraiser's Office, informed the Board that the assessment on the property in question, for 1991, was a cut-out, which means that it was cut out of a larger piece of property and did not exist last year, therefore, was not assessed. The assessment was created for the 1992 tax roll. He noted that the property is zoned A (Agricultural).

On a motion by Ms. Patton, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried, the Board upheld the Property Appraiser's assessment of $20,176 for Petition No. 1992-169 - Kenneth R. Bowen.

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

COMMISSIONERS

Commr. Bailey, acting as Chairman, returned the chairmanship to the Chairman, Commr. Bakich.

AGRICULTURAL CLASSIFICATION (CONT'D.)

PETITION NOS. 1992-9; 1992-10; AND 1992-11 - JULIUS B. CHAMBERS

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, explained these cases, stating that, due to the fact they all pertain to the same thing, he was combining them. He stated that the petitioner has 36 acres of pine trees on one parcel; 9.5 acres of pine trees on the second

parcel; and 32.5 acres of pine trees on the third parcel, however, had failed to file for an agricultural exemption by the deadline date of March 1, 1992.

Mr. Julius Chambers, Petitioner, appeared before the Board stating the reason he was late in filing for an exemption and answered questions from the Board regarding same.

On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Ms. Patton and carried unanimously, the Board upheld the Property Appraiser's recommendation for denial of an agricultural exemption for Petition Nos. 1992-10, 1991-11, and 1991-12 - Julius B. Chambers.

PROPERTY ASSESSMENTS (CONT'D.)

PETITION NO. 1992-172 - HFC COMMERCIAL REALTY, INC.

C/O FELLERS, SCHEWE & SCOTT - RICH SCHEWE

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, explained this case, stating that it involves the Lakeside Inn, in Mt. Dora, and that HFC (Household Financial Corporation) Commercial Realty, Inc. is appealing the assessed value which has been placed on the Inn. He stated that the land involved consists of 4.3 acres and that the Inn was completely renovated between 1985 and 1987, from top to bottom, at a cost of approximately $3.5 million. He stated that, in 1991, his office had the property assessed at $2,106,980, however, it was adjusted this year to $1,934,007. He noted that the Inn sold in August of 1992 for $1,350,000.

Mr. Rich Schewe, representing Fellers, Schewe & Scott, appeared before the Board, distributed a handout which he reviewed with the Board, and answered questions regarding the case.

Considerable discussion occurred regarding this case, at which time the Property Appraiser stated that he would be willing to reduce the assessment to $1,215,000, which he noted would be 90% of the selling price of the Inn, a difference of $700,000.

On a motion by Ms. Patton, seconded by Ms. Green and carried unanimously, the Board upheld the Property Appraiser's reduced assessment of $1,215,000 for Petition No. 1992-172 - HFC Commercial Realty, Inc. c/o Fellers, Schewe & Scott - Rick Schewe.

PETITION NO. 1992-174 - CARL L. & LOIS M. HUBNER

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, explained this case, stating that it involves a lot in Fox Run Mobile Home Park, in Tavares, assessed at $21,698.

Mr. Carl Hubner, Petitioner, appeared before the Board and answered questions regarding the case.

Mr. Frank Royce, Property Appraiser's Office, stated that the property in question consists of a package deal, which includes a lot and mobile home, in the amount of $67,900; however, the assessment is for the lot alone, due to the fact that the mobile home was not on the lot as of January 1, 1992.

Further discussion occurred regarding the case, at which time Mr. Royce recommended reducing the assessment to $18,000.

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Ms. Patton and carried unanimously, the Board upheld the Property Appraiser's reduced assessment of $18,000 for Petition No. 1992-174 - Carl L. and Lois M. Hubner.

PETITION NO. 1992-180 - PHYLLIS E. DEMPSEY, TST & JOHN W. DEMPSEY, TST

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, explained this case, stating that it involves a lot in Fox Run Mobile Home Park, in Tavares, assessed at $61,175.

Mr. John Dempsey, Petitioner, appeared before the Board and answered questions regarding the case.

On a motion by Ms. Patton, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, the Board upheld the Property Appraiser's assessment of $61,175 for Petition No. 1992-180 - Phyllis E. Dempsey, TST and John W. Dempsey, TST.

PETITION NO. 1992-186 - HILDEGARD SENDER

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, explained this case, stating that it involves two lots, with a single family dwelling on each, in the Springs Bath & Yacht Club Subdivision, which he noted are currently being rented for $475 and $490 per month. He stated that the property in question is assessed at $96,988.

Ms. Hildegard Sender, Petitioner, appeared before the Board stating that her two lots are the cheapest lots in the Springs Bath & Yacht Club Subdivision, noting that they back up to the railroad bed and to Hwy. 48. She stated that she built the houses strictly to produce income, therefore, they are not fancy in any way - they are basic houses. She then answered questions regarding the case.

On a motion by Ms. Patton, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, the Board upheld the Property Appraiser's assessment of $96,988 for Petition No. 1992-186 - Hildegard Sender.

PETITION NO. 1992-13 - AGNES JOHNSON & NONA JOHNSON RAWLS

(CONT'D.)

This case was postponed earlier in the day, in order to allow Mr. Mike Bryie, from the Property Appraiser's Office, to research some particulars regarding the case.

Mr. Bryie appeared before the Board stating that, due to some information he obtained during the postponement of this case, earlier in the meeting, he would recommend reducing the assessment from $382,609 to $300,000.

On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried, the Board upheld the Property Appraiser's reduced assessment of $300,000 for Petition No. 1992-13 - Agnes Johnson and Nona Johnson Rawls.

Commr. Bakich voted "No".

RECESS & REASSEMBLY

At 2:45 p.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess for 15 minutes, for lunch, and reconvene at 3:00 p.m.

COMMISSIONERS

Ms. Phyllis Patton, School Board Member, was not present for the remainder of the meeting, due to other commitments.

PROPERTY ASSESSMENTS (CONT'D.)

PETITION NO. 1992-204 - GREGORY O. THOMAS

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, explained this case, stating that, in March of 1992, his office received a phone call from the petitioner stating that he owned numerous buildings that

were not being assessed. He stated that, at no time, was Mr. Thomas told that he would have immunity from any taxes that were due, noting that Mr. Thomas felt he was going to receive immunity for the past years' taxes, however, he was assessed for them.

Mr. Gregory Thomas, Petitioner, appeared before the Board and answered questions regarding the case.

Discussion occurred regarding the case, at which time Ms. Annette Star Lustgarten, County Attorney, stated that the Property Appraiser legally has the authority to bill for back taxes.

Ms. Jordan Stewart, Attorney, representing the Property Appraiser's Office, stated that once the Property Appraiser has been advised of escaped taxation, or that an error has been made, he must go back and correct it, within the limits of the Florida Statutes.

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board upheld the Property Appraiser's recommendation to collect back assessments on Petition No. 1992-204 - Gregory O. Thomas.

HOMESTEAD EXEMPTIONS (CONT'D.)

PETITION NO. 1992-224 - ERIKA M. JELSMA

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, explained this case, stating that the petitioner's husband passed away, however, had total military service connected disability exemption before he died and did not pay any property taxes on their homestead. He stated that Mrs. Jelsma has a life estate, however, does not have title to the homestead, therefore, only has use of the property while she is alive. He stated that, at the time of her death, the home will go to the heirs of the property. He stated that she was present to contest the fact that the Department of Revenue advised his office that she is not entitled to the total exemption that her husband had, due to the fact that it involves a life estate, rather than free title to the property.

Ms. Erika Jelsma, Petitioner, appeared before the Board stating that the taxes on her home are $6,000, which she noted is

almost the total pension she receives from her husband's death. She stated that she cannot sell the home because it is a life estate, however, her stepchildren cannot sell the home either, because she is entitled to live in the home for the rest of her life, so she is caught with her back against the wall. She then answered questions regarding the case.

Ms. Jordan Stewart, Attorney, representing the Property Appraiser's Office, read a statement into the Minutes regarding the widow's right to total military disability exemption, noting that Ms. Jelsma is only entitled to the $25,000 homestead exemption. She stated that the only thing she could recommend to Ms. Jelsma would be to give up the life estate under the prenuptial agreement, and the Will that references it, and have her stepchildren convey a new life estate to her.

On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, the Board upheld the Property Appraiser's recommendation for denial of a military exemption, with the petitioner being granted only homestead exemption.

PROPERTY ASSESSMENTS (CONT'D.)

PETITION NO. 1992-235 - WILLIAM K. & D. LYNN DUNWOODY

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, explained this case, stating that it involves a lot in the Squirrel Point Subdivision, in Tavares, assessed at $278,090. He stated that he would be willing to reduce the assessment to $261,370.

Mrs. Lynn Dunwoody, Petitioner, appeared before the Board and answered questions regarding the case.

On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Ms. Green and carried unanimously, the Board upheld the Property Appraiser's reduced assessment of $261,370 for Petition No. 1992-235 - William K. and D. Lynn Dunwoody.

PETITION NO. 1992-193 - MARCELLA VOGELMANN-PEPER

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, explained this case, stating that it involves a lot in Lake Ridge Club Subdivision, assessed at $21,200.

Ms. Vogelmann-Peper, Petitioner, appeared before the Board and answered questions regarding the case. She stated that she felt there were inequities involved.

On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Ms. Green and carried unanimously, the Board upheld the Property Appraiser's assessment of $21,200 for Petition No. 1992-193 - Marcella Vogelmann-Peper.

COMMISSIONERS

The Chairman turned the chairmanship over to Commr. Bailey.

PETITION NO. 1992-273 - CENTER LAKE PROPERTIES, LTD.

CATHY ALLISON

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, explained this case, stating that it involves 386.1 acres, zoned Agricultural, located near the Apshawa Groves Subdivision, north of Cherry Lake, with three homes on it - one being a three bedroom, two bath and the other two being one bedroom, one bath homes. He stated that the property is assessed at $29,094 per acre, for a total assessment of $1,156,158, however, with the cost of improvements made to the homes, in the amount of $32,389, and miscellaneous improvements made, in the amount of $2,275, it brings the total assessment, overall, to $1,190,820.

Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, Attorney, representing the petitioner, and Mr. R. E. Oswalt, Pineloch Management Corporation, appeared before the Board stating that she had submitted an estimate of what her clients felt was a fair market value of the property in question, being $2,000 per acre. She then discussed land use, noting that one of the determining factors in both of the comparables that Mr. Havill submitted to the Board, at a higher value, was that they were prior to the 1991 adoption of the Comprehensive Plan and that, at that time, there was not a Land Use Map for Lake County and anything that was one unit per acre was seen as compatible and consistent with agricultural zoning. She further discussed the property in question, noting that it is in a remote location and that there are no central services to it, nor

recreational facilities. She stated that, due to the fact that it is not served by any urban infrastructure and is outside of any municipality, it would have a very low density rating, according to the County's own criteria, based on the Comprehensive Plan. She stated that, due to the fact that DCA found the County's Comprehensive Plan in non-compliance, the County passed a new Land Use Map which gives the property in question the classification of rural, or one dwelling unit per five acres. She stated that a PUD would not be palatable and the County could not, as it did in the past, issue a development order for a PUD at densities such as the one in the two comparables, at one dwelling unit per one acre, or higher. She stated that her clients feel the actions that have been taken by the local government, mandated by the State, have lowered the property values and would result in something around the $2,000 per acre range.

Commr. Bailey, acting as Chairman, passed the gavel to Commr. Hanson in order to allow him to make a motion regarding the case.

On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Ms. Green and carried, the Board upheld the Property Appraiser's assessment of $1,190,822 for Petition No. 1992-273 - Center Lake Properties, Ltd./Pineloch Management Corporation, General Partner.

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

COMMISSIONERS

Commr. Bailey, acting as Chairman, returned the chairmanship to the Chairman, Commr. Bakich.

PETITION NO. 1992-19 - MARIANNE A. ALLEN

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, explained this case, stating that it involves a home the petitioner purchased from the Salvation Army, from an estate sale of a man who was deceased, which she paid $70,000 for and is appraised at $75,768. He stated that, in his opinion, the sale was not an arm's length sale, therefore, was an unqualified sale and did not represent current market value. He noted sales of comparable homes in the area of the home in question.

It was noted that the home sold in 1986 for $78,000 and the assessed value of the home in 1991 was $77,901.

Mr. Martin Campbell, Attorney, and father of the petitioner, Ms. Allen, appeared before the Board representing his daughter, stating that the sale was an arm's length sale. He stated that he felt the true value of his daughter's home was $70,000 - the amount she paid for it, noting various reasons why he felt the value was such. He stated that the assessment is $5,700 more than what his daughter paid for the home, noting that her home was assessed at $75,768, only 7 days after the sale.

Further discussion occurred regarding the case.

On a motion by Ms. Green, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, the Board upheld the Property Appraiser's assessment of $75,768 for Petition No. 1992-19 - Marianne A. Allen.

PETITION NO. 1992-204 - CURTIS SINGLETON

HIGHLAND REALTY CORPORATION OF LAKE COUNTY

Mr. Frank Driggers, Property Appraiser's Office, explained this case, stating that it involves 20 individual parcels of property within the City of Mt. Dora, with 15 of the parcels comprising the Magnolia Place Subdivision, which the petitioner purchased in 1983 for $644,000. He stated that the Property Appraiser's Office has said subdivision assessed at $614,332.

Mr. Driggers stated that three other parcels involved are located on Old Hwy. 441, across from the entrance to the Highlander Pool & Tennis Club. He stated the first of said parcels fronts Highland Street and contains three structures, all built in 1953, which are used for retail sales, with service shops and apartments in the rear, which the petitioner purchased in 1987 for $79,500 and has since undergone some extensive remodeling. He stated that the Property Appraiser's Office has said lot assessed at $73,467. The second of the three parcels is located on the east side of Highland Street and contains a two story wood frame residence built in 1875. He stated that improvements had been made to the lots, being asphalt paving and a 7 foot high stucco privacy wall extending 100

linear feet. He stated that this lot is currently assessed for $81,442. The last of the three parcels is a larger tract located on Highland Street, which contains a 2,400 square foot structure that was built in 1953, which has been remodeled extensively and is presently used for office space. Other improvements include asphalt paving and a 7 foot high stucco privacy wall extending 400 linear feet. He stated that the petitioner purchased this lot in 1988 for $120,000 and the Property Appraiser's Office has it assessed for $112,335.

Mr. Driggers stated that the last two parcels of property dealing with this case deal with a luxury resort known as Club Ed, after the President of Highland Realty Corporation, which is known as the Highlander Pool & Tennis Club, made up of several buildings varying in use, age, and condition, which he elaborated on. He stated that the assessed value of the resort is $2,111,565, with a total assessment overall set at $2,992,937.

Mr. Rick McGee, Appraiser, representing the petitioner, appeared before the Board and discussed the methodology used in an appraisal he had done on the property in question. He distributed a handout pertaining to the case, which he discussed with the Board.

Considerable discussion occurred regarding this case, at which time Ms. Jordan Stewart, Attorney, representing the Property Appraiser's Office, stated that, in looking at the appraisal submitted by Mr. McGee and hearing his testimony, she felt that a resort is not the highest and best use for the property in question. She stated that, if they had other uses that would be permitted under the zoning in that area, they would come to a much higher value, which is how the Property Appraiser's Office came up with their appraisal.

Further discussion occurred, at which time Mr. Driggers, Property Appraiser's Office, suggested having the Board add a 25% economical obsolescence on the entire property.

At this time, a postponement was granted to the petitioner, in order to enable him to confer with his appraiser regarding Mr. Driggers' suggestion.

AGRICULTURAL CLASSIFICATION (CONT'D.)

PETITION NO. 1992-14 - JAMES L. O'BERRY

Mr. Mike Bryie, Property Appraiser's Office, informed the Board that the petitioner, Mr. James L. O'Berry, had requested him to act in his behalf, due to the fact that he could not stay for the duration of this meeting. He stated that Mr. O'Berry had requested him to withdraw his petition, as he had come to an agreement with the Property Appraiser's Office.

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Ms. Green and carried unanimously, the Board approved the request for withdrawal of Petition No. 1992-14 - James L. O'Berry.

PROPERTY ASSESSMENTS (CONT'D.)

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Ms. Green and carried unanimously, the Board upheld the Property Appraiser's assessment on the following petitions:

PETITION NO. 1992-203 - WILDER CORP. OF DELAWARE D/B/A MOLOKAI

PETITION NO. 1992-210 - JACK ECKERD CORPORATION

PETITION NO. 1992-217 - U.S. COMMUNICATIONS OF WESTCHESTER

C/O R. E. MCELROY, INC.

PETITION NO. 1992-236 - RINKER MATERIALS CORPORATION

C/O OMNI TAX SERVICE, INC.

PETITION NO. 1992-252 - ADT SECURITY SYSTEMS MID-SOUTH, INC.

THROUGH 1992-267 BY THOMAS CONCITIS

PETITION NO. 1992-5 - MICHAEL H. CHAPIN

PETITION NO. 1992-7 - CLEVELAND KUHARSKE

PETITION NO. 1992-170 - WILLIAM D. SEIDLE, ET AL

PETITION NO. 1992-171 - WILLIAM D. SEIDLE, ET AL

PETITION NO. 1992-181 - JAMES E. BECKER

PETITION NO. 1992-189 - LAKELAND PROPERTIES COMPANY

PETITION NO. 1992-190 - DENNIS GENE & CLARE RAE BEBBER

PETITION NO. 1992-197 - LEESBURG SUPER 8 MOTEL, INC.

C/O KNIGHT & ASSOCIATES, INC.

PETITION NO. 1992-211 - ROBERT K. & HELEN J. ATKINSON

PETITION NO. 1992-221 - DAVID ZACHEM/SUN STATE TAX





PETITION NO. 1992-200 - CURTIS SINGLETON

HIGHLAND REALTY CORPORATION OF LAKE COUNTY (CONT'D.)

Mr. Curtis Singleton, Petitioner, representing Highland Realty Corporation of Lake County, had requested a brief postponement, earlier in the meeting, to confer with his appraiser, regarding a

recommendation that was made by Mr. Frank Driggers, Property Appraiser's Office, concerning the assessed value of the property in question and discussion regarding the case was now being continued.

Mr. Singleton appeared before the Board stating that no matter how one looked at the property in question, it was an income producing piece of property, with mixed use. He stated that, in light of the fact that the Board would recognize some type of an agreement between the petitioner and the Property Appraiser's Office, he requested the Board to postpone action for one day, in order to enable him to have a Lake County Certified MAI Appraiser review the appraisal which was submitted by his appraiser, Mr. Rick McGee, due to the fact that there was such a large discrepancy between Mr. McGee's appraisal and the appraisal submitted by the Property Appraiser's Office. He requested the Board to postpone action regarding this case until they meet again, on October 6, 1992, and allow him the time to either resolve the issue with the Property Appraiser's Office or have a local Certified MAI Appraiser look at the appraisal submitted by Mr. McGee.

Mr. Havill, Property Appraiser, stated that he did not have a problem with the request.

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Ms. Green and carried, the Board approved a request to postpone action regarding Petition No. 1992-200 - Curtis Singleton, Highland Realty Corporation of Lake County, until Tuesday, October 6, 1992, at

8:45 a.m.

There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Value Adjustment Board, this meeting was adjourned at

5:30 p.m. and continued until October 6, 1992, at 8:45 a.m.



_______________________________

G. RICHARD SWARTZ, CHAIRMAN

ATTEST:





_______________________________

JAMES C. WATKINS, CLERK

sec/10-1-92/11-5-92/vab