BCC BOARD MEETING

LAKE COUNTY VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD MEETING

SEPTEMBER 30, 1993

The Lake County Value Adjustment Board met on Thursday, September 30, 1993, at 9:00 a.m., in the Board of County Commissioner's Meeting Room, Lake County Administration Building, Tavares, Florida. Commissioners present at the meeting were: G. Richard Swartz, Jr., Chairman; Rhonda Gerber; and Welton Cadwell. School Board members present: Judy Pearson. School Board members not present: Sandra Green. Others present were: Ed Havill, Lake County Property Appraiser; Jordan Stuart, Wood and Stuart, P.A.; Robbie Ross, Tangible Personal Property Supervisor; Frank Royce, Senior Appraiser; Mike Bryie, Deputy Appraiser; Annette Star Lustgarten, County Attorney; Neil Kelly, Chief Deputy, Administrative Services; and Toni M. Riggs, Deputy Clerk.

ASSESSMENTS

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, introduced Ms. Jordan Stuart, Wood & Stuart, P.A., who represents the Property Appraiser for Lake County. Mr. Havill explained tangible personal property, and reviewed the requirements of law. He stated that his office uses a schedule as a guideline from the Department of Revenue to determine tangible valuation.

PETITION 1993-150 John C. Martin

Mr. Robbie Ross, Tangible Personal Property Supervisor, informed the Board that, on Mr. Martin's 1993 Tangible Personal Property Tax Return, he reported that the original cost of the machinery and equipment was approximately $120,000.00. Mr. Ross discussed the confidentiality of the Tax Return. He then discussed the guidelines that the Department of Revenue gives to the Property Appraiser to follow, as to depreciation of office equipment. The Department of Revenue also provides a worktable, which was provided to the VAB members by Mr. Ross, which contained the percentage amounts. Mr. Ross stated that the guidelines state that laundry mat equipment is depreciated on an eight year life. He stated that a physical inspection was conducted, with it being noted that several items were not reported on the Tax Return. There were miscellaneous items, and a sign, that was not reported. The current assessment is in the amount of $86,716.00, which does not include the items that were found and not reported. Mr. Ross stated that, based on the information, he feels the assessment amount is fair and just. He stated that the issue involves Mr. Martin's indication that he completed the Tax Return in error, and he feels the amount of assessment should be $61,480.68. It was noted that Mr. Martin informed Mr. Ross that he has comparables, which Mr. Ross explained could not be considered, because he did not submit them within the required time established by the Property Appraiser's Office. Mr. Ross stated that Mr. Martin never filed an amended Tax Return to reflect the assessment value he feels the business is worth.

Mr. John C. Martin appeared before the VAB and stated his reasons for not filing an amended Tax Return. He explained that, when the business was purchased by his corporation, he filled out the estimate in error, because he used the full price when the original owners purchased it. Mr. Martin explained how he arrived at the amount of $61,480.68, and stated that he is paying 10% more than his competitors.

Ms. Jordan Stuart explained the age life tables that the Department of Revenue strongly recommends that the Property Appraiser use, which establish a life for the property, and which she reviewed with the VAB. She stated that what the market indicates the property is selling for is an indication of value, and the condition of the actual property is a factor in how it is depreciated.

Mr. Martin explained that he completed the Tax Return incorrectly, and Mr. Ross stated Mr. Martin reported, for 1991, 1992, and 1993, the same amount, which was the original installed costs. Mr. Ross stated that the assessment has continued to drop over the years, due to depreciation.

Ms. Stuart explained that Mr. Martin could have filed an amended Tax Return, which would have been helpful to staff, but he was not required to do this, but he was required to come before this Board with some evidence that the Property Appraiser's presumption of correctness should be overcome.

Mr. Havill stated that staff had requested information from Mr. Martin to review, but none was provided, and therefore, he cannot submit it today, because he was to provide it five days before the hearing.

Discussion occurred regarding the assessed value being presented by the Property Appraiser, and the formula that Mr. Martin used in calculating his figures for the assessment. It was noted that Mr. Martin felt he had over estimated the costs reported on the Tax Return, and he was before the VAB to explain his errors.

Commr. Swartz questioned whether the previous owners supplied Mr. Martin with Tangible Tax Returns. Mr. Ross stated that staff would have considered the information had it been supplied, and an adjustment would have been made, if it was determined to be relevant, but the information was never supplied.

Ms. Stuart stated that Mr. Martin has until the tax roll is certified, to get the permission of the previous owners to have their returns reviewed, because the returns are confidential, so that he can make an argument with the Property Appraiser's Office.

Mr. Martin clarified that he was instructed not to file an amended form, and to come to the VAB hearing.

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by School Board Member Pearson and carried unanimously, the VAB upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and approved the tangible assessment for Mr. John C. Martin, in the amount of $86,716.00, based on the information presented to the VAB.

PETITION 1993-19 Prophecy Countdown - Patricia Edwards

Mr. Havill stated that the petitioner is requesting the tax exemption for religious uses for the past two years. It was noted that the tax exemption has been granted for this year.

Ms. Patricia Edwards, representing the Prophecy Countdown, appeared before the VAB and stated that her Board had requested her to check into the tax exemption for religious entities, which has been approved this year, and once her Board realized it was tax exempt, it requested that she appeal for the years 1991 and 1992.

Ms. Stuart explained that, in 1990, the Property Appraiser's Office received an application for exemption by Prophecy Countdown. Mr. Havill referred the application to her office, and in turn, a letter was sent to him stating that there was not enough information for them to make a determination. He requested additional information from Prophecy Countdown, but received no response. She stated that, in 1993, he reviewed the file and determined that there was a basis for religious exemption for the property, and granted the exemption. Ms. Stuart stated that, pursuant to Florida Statute 196.011, an application for an exemption must be filed every year by March 1. She explained that, once the tax roll is certified, the Property Appraiser may not make any changes.

Ms. Edwards stated that, after reviewing the information presented to her by Ms. Stuart, she was of the understanding that the information was sent to the attorney for Prophecy Countdown, and she was not aware of it. Therefore, she will contact the attorney.

On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by School Board Member Pearson and carried unanimously, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and denied the exemption for the years 1991 and 1992 for Prophecy Countdown.

PETITION 1993-163 City of Leesburg

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the VAB that the City of Leesburg is requesting total exemption for the lots in its industrial park. Mr. Havill explained that County government is immune from taxes, whereas cities can be exempt, if they meet the exemption qualifications.

Ms. Stuart stated that the body of law requires that any property that is eligible for exemption be owned and used by the exemption entity. The City of Leesburg owns the property, which is not being disputed. However, the actual use of the property, whether or not it is a governmental or public purpose, is the issue in this case. The Property Appraiser's Office is questioning the holding of property for sale to private entities at market value. Ms. Stuart stated that the use of the property is the issue, and the property is not being used by the public entity for the good of the public.

Mr. Fred Morrison, Attorney representing the City of Leesburg, appeared before the VAB and stated that this is a municipal industrial park purchased by the City in 1984, and developed with roads, water and sewer improvements. He stated that the City is basing its claim for the exemption on Article VII, Section 3(a) of the Florida Constitution, which says that all property owned by a municipality and used exclusively by it for municipal, or public, purposes shall be exempted from taxation. Mr. Morrison stated that there was a City of Sarasota case decided by the Florida Supreme Court in 1979 that dealt with a property appraiser's attempt to assess taxes against vacant land owned by the City of Sarasota. Mr. Morrison read the following from the court case City of Sarasota v. John W. Mikos, as Property Appraiser for Sarasota County:

"We hold that vacant land held by a municipality is

presumed to be in use for a public purpose if it is

not actually in use for a private purpose on tax

assessment day. This holding eliminates the need for

a city to designate a use and prove a public purpose

for all vacant land each year, as demanded by the

property appraiser."

Mr. Morrison stated that the property in question is vacant land, and it is owned by a municipality, and there is no use currently made of it, in the sense of a physical use. Therefore, the City of Leesburg is entitled to the exemption based on the holding of the Sarasota case.

Mr. Rex Taylor, City Manager, City of Leesburg, appeared before the Board and stated that the City bought the property in 1984. He discussed the 1983 and 1985 citrus freezes, and the economic affiliation the cities had with the citrus industry. Mr. Taylor stated that it has been established that jobs creation is a very important aspect of municipal and county purposes, and for the State of Florida. He further stated that this was the motivating factor for the City of Leesburg to create a municipal industrial park.

Mr. Morrison stated that information was included with the application, which included a financial analysis of the park showing that the total costs, including land and infrastructure improvements, amount to $743,886.00. He stated that the total revenues projected to $737,314.00, which would leave the City with about an $8,000.00 loss overall on the property before you even get to the deduction of any real estate commissions, title insurance, and closing costs which are typically paid by the seller of real property.

It was noted that the assessment valuation on the property is $212,631.00, with Mr. Morrison stating that they do not have a problem with the valuation. It was noted that last years taxes are pending on the outcome of this hearing.

Ms. Stuart addressed the City of Sarasota case, and stated that the Supreme Court determined whether an exemption for a municipality would apply on land that had no use. She stated that there was no designated use on the land, it was not dedicated to any purpose, there was no infrastructure, there was nothing but a fallow piece of property. She stated that this is distinct from the circumstance here in that the City has designated a use for the property by the infrastructure that is in place, by $743,886.00 that has been spent to develop property for a profit making purpose, for permitting, for the designation of land use and the zoning that exists there. There is no other purpose for the property but the non-exempt use. Until and unless that is changed, the Property Appraiser is bound by the requirement in Florida Statute 193.011 to value the property in terms of its highest and best use. She stated that the highest and best use is limited in this case, and is not an exempt use. Ms. Stuart discussed the Supreme Court case Brandis v. The City of Deerfield Beach, 1966, which is most analogous to the case today. She stated that this involved plans for a spring training ball park, and all of the infrastructure was in place, even though there was nothing on the property at the time. The Supreme Court determined that the planned activities for which the land was limited, was not a municipal purpose, and that the property should not be exempt on that basis.

Discussion occurred regarding the City of Leesburg selling the properties at market value, with Ms. Stuart suggesting that the VAB look at the actual use of the land, and not their intention. Ms. Stuart stated that another case that is analogous to this case is the one involving Herndon Airport, City of Orlando v. Houseman.

Mr. Morrison addressed the comments made on the Houseman case, and stated that the City has no argument that, if the City either sells, or leases, the industrial lots for a private purpose, it should be taxed. He stated that his concern is over the lots held by the City for sale, which are not being currently put to any active use. He addressed the concern over a flood of tax exempt entities coming in to try and do this, and stated that this concern is somewhat misplaced. Mr. Morrison stated that it has never been the City's claim that the property is being sold to raise money, and if the exemption is denied, the VAB is telling all municipalities that the generation of jobs, and the promotion of economic development for the good of the cities in the County, is not a public purpose.

RECESS & REASSEMBLY

At 10:18 a.m., the Chairman announced that the VAB would take a ten minute recess.

PETITION 1993-163 City of Leesburg (Continued)

Ms. Stuart addressed the Sarasota case and the context of the underlying actual use of the property, and stated that she disputes the jobs creation argument very strongly. She stated that, if you were to bring in any non-exempt business with the agreement that it would create jobs, even if the city, or county, would help them to come into the community, there would be no question that it was still non-exempt. If anyone else turns around and sells property for the purpose of creating jobs in the county, that does not give them an exemption.

Mr. Morrison stated that the question is whether it is a public purpose that is exempt, or if it is not a public purpose, and it is not exempt.

Commr. Swartz discussed the City of Sarasota v. Mikos case and the point in the case that Mr. Morrison continued to stress, as follows: "land held by a municipality is presumed to be in use for a public purpose if it is not actually in use for a private purpose on tax assessment day". He stated that those vacant lots being discussed today are not, on assessment day, in use for a private purpose. He further stated that they are intended to be turned into a private purpose, but it is the public purpose that is trying to be achieved. Commr. Swartz stated that his concern was for the VAB not to do something that would allow other entities that can derive exemptions to fall under this, but he feels the case being discussed is dealing with public purposes related to municipalities. He stated that the case indicates that each of the provisions is designed to assure a fair tax structure for the taxpayers residing in each local governmental jurisdiction, and it seems that it becomes unfair to require the citizens in the City of Leesburg to bear the tax burden when the citizens in the unincorporated area do not. It may be necessary to encourage the City of Leesburg to pursue, through legislation, a Statute that would clarify this. Commr. Swartz stated that he feels this is a public purpose, and that the land on the day of assessment is not in use for a private purpose, and it is intended for public purpose, and he will vote to allow the exemption. He further stated that he does not feel that whether the infrastructure was there or not is relevant.

Commr. Cadwell made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Gerber, to overturn the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and grant the exemption to the City of Leesburg.

Under discussion, Ms. Stuart responded to the motion and stated that final word is that there is use of the property, and that use is in competition with other profit making organizations. In this case, the use of the property is being held for sale for profit making purposes at market value. The property is limited to that use, money has been spent on that use, and the actual use is there, just as there is a use for any developer. In this case, the City of Leesburg is holding the property for sale at market value with the intent of making a profit, and the use exists. Ms. Stuart stated that this is the reason that the Sarasota case does not apply.

The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, with the motion being carried by a 3-1 vote. School Board Member Pearson voted "no".

PETITION 1993-66 and 1993-67 Niversal Housing, LTD

Mr. Robbie Ross explained that the first petition, 1993-66, involves real estate, and the second petition, 1993-67, involves tangible personal property.

Mr. Ross informed the Board that Niversal Housing purchased a rental mobile home park in January, 1993, called Country Life Community, which is located across from Hawthorne at Leesburg. The property consists of 17.29 acres, with 1.34 acres fronting U.S. Highway 27 and being zoned commercial, and .51 acres being zoned Planning Commercial (CP). He stated that 15.44 acres have been approved for 100 mobile home sites, with only 89 being available to produce income. He stated that they have self-imposed obsolescence, in the fact they have not paid impact fees, or had site improvements done, to the remaining lots. It was noted that the lots are in the unincorporated area. The lots are approximately 50x100 and are zoned RMRP, Residential Mobile Home Rental Park, with the rent being $160.00 per month. Mr. Ross discussed the different approaches to the value of cost of market and income, with the figures before them being derived from the income statement provided by the petitioner. At this time, Mr. Ross explained the formula used to calculate the assessment of $820,671.00 being presented by the Property Appraiser's Office, which Mr. Ross stated is more than fair and just. It was noted that the purchase price in 1993 was $594,000.00.

Mr. Jerry Arsenalt, Mirto Vigoa, appeared before the VAB and stated that he is a licensed CPA and real estate agent, and President of Universal Housing, Inc., who is the general partner of Niversal. Mr. Arsenalt informed the Board that 100 pads had been plotted when the park was originally designed, with 89 lots that can produce income. He stated that there are reasons why the impact fees have not been paid, but basically it is because there is no demand for the space. He stated that the two petitions filed are intertwined. He stated that tangible personal property is being assessed at $83,937.00.

Mr. Ross stated that the Property Appraiser's Office did back out of the assessment the waste water and the sewer from the income, due to these items being included in the lot rent that would be paid by the renter, so that the water and sewer would not be double assessed. Mr. Ross indicated that there is a problem with the tangible, because Niversal never filed a Tangible Personal Property Tax Return, and Niversal also indicated that it was seeking review and adjustment of the assessed value of described real property on Petition 1993-67, when it actually involves tangible personal property.

Ms. Jordan Stuart stated that, if an income approach was performed, the procedure is that you do the income evaluation, to come up with the total value of the property, and then you take off from the real property total the amount of estimate for tangible, and you assess the tangible on the tangible roll. She clarified that, if the overall assessment is found to be incorrect, including the real property, then an adjustment can be made, but assuming the overall assessment of the real property is not incorrect, and just the tangible is incorrect, then there is no adjustment made, because the difference goes back on the real property roll. She further clarified that, if the petitioner has not filed a Tangible Personal Property Tax Return, he may not bring any argument regarding his actual figures that would have been on the Tax Return to the VAB at this time. The form is mandatory and must be filed by April 1, and there is no exception in the law to the filing of the return.

Mr. Arsenalt informed the Board that the Tax Return was filed by the seller on time. He stated that the property was purchased on January 22, 1993.

Discussion occurred regarding the filing of the Tax Return, with it being noted that it was filed on time.

Mr. Arsenalt stated that he agrees with the income approach on the park, and at this time, he explained that there are no significant amenities at the park. He stated that the park is connected with the City of Leesburg sewer, and the park pays a flat rate of approximately $20,000.00 per year. There is a well system that is connected throughout the park, and there are no extra fees in the lot rent. He explained that Niversal contracted for the park, in its entirety, in October, 1992, for $594,000.00, and that this was not a distress sale. He discussed the fixed rate financing for commercial real estate, and the vacancy factor for family parks, with Mr. Arsenalt informing the VAB that the adjacent family park has a 33% vacancy. He stated that 79 out of the 89 homes are occupied in the park in question, with a vacancy rate being less that 12%. Mr. Arsenalt informed the VAB that Leisure Meadow in Lady Lake has 127 usable pads, with only 79 being occupied, which calculates to a 38% vacancy rate. He explained that a 5% vacancy factor is not a correct assumption in these circumstances. Mr. Arsenalt stated that no questions were asked of him regarding repairs that have been made to the park, or problems in the park. He discussed the added street lights and the tree planting program that was established. Mr. Arsenalt stated that he submitted to the Property Appraiser's Office information that shows a gross income, in 1992, of $138,000.00, which needs to be compared to their figure, under their approach, of $179,000.00. For 1993, a projection has been made in the $148,000.00 range. He stated that the Property Appraiser shows a 5% vacancy factor, which is not a valid factor. He further stated that $500.00 a month was included in their income for 1992, which was a sewer reimbursement from the park next door, which was determined to be a fraudulent charge, and the company refused to pay it, and discussion has occurred regarding a rebate. At this time, he continued to explain the formula and factors he used in determining the assessment he is presenting.

Mr. Ross pointed out that the Property Appraiser is in the mass appraisal business, and he explained that this office has to determine numbers after reviewing mobile parks as a whole. He stated that the total overall market has to be used in a mass appraisal. Mr. Ross discussed a case, Walker vs. Trunk, which indicated that the sales price does not equal market value in all cases. Therefore, the purchase price of $594,000.00 does not necessarily mean that this was a fair market value of the property. He discussed the deferred maintenance and the requirements for reserve replacement, which has to be indicated on an income statement.

Ms. Stuart noted that the figures provided to the VAB by Mr. Arsenalt would have you consider only those pads that were actually rented, and the Property Appraiser considered all pads that were rentable. She stated that the most favorable terms have been used in determining the assessment.

Mr. Arsenalt explained that he pays to the City of Leesburg a fee of $2,000.00 per month for a sewer fee, which is an considerable amount of expense.

Discussion occurred regarding the average rates that were used by the Property Appraiser's Office to determine assessments for mobile home parks.

Mr. Havill reviewed the Florida Statute pertaining to this issue, and stated that his office can review these two petitions again, and he requested that these cases be postponed until October 1, 1993, at 11:15 a.m., or as soon thereafter as possible.

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously, the VAB postponed Petition 1993-66, and Petition 1993-67, Niversal Housing, LTD, until October 1, 1993, at 11:15 a.m., or as soon thereafter as possible.

PETITION 1993-100 Edmundo Banagale

Mr. Robbie Ross informed the VAB that the petitioner indicates, on his 1993 Tangible Personal Property Tax Return, that the original cost of furniture, fixtures, and computer equipment to be approximately $5,000.00. The Department of Revenue of the State of Florida provides the Tangible Department of Mr. Havill's Office, with guidelines to follow for depreciation. The guidelines state that electronic data processing equipment is to be depreciated on a six (6) year life; office furniture and fixtures on a ten (10) year life. Mr. Ross received invoices from the petitioner indicating the date and purchase price for the computer and software equipment used in his business. After reviewing the information, the Property Appraiser's Office found that he had misstated that his computer and some of the equipment were purchased in 1990, and was actually bought in 1989. Therefore, the assessment was reduced to $2,439.00. The original assessment was $3,119.00, but based on the information received from the petitioner, a reduction has been made. Mr. Ross stated that Mr. Banagale feels the fair market value of his computer and computer and equipment is $1,205.00.

Mr. Edmundo Banagale appeared before the VAB and stated that he is basing the assessment of $1,205.00 on the computer ads attached to his petition. He stated that he is arguing the fair market value.

Discussion occurred regarding the guidelines from the Department of Revenue that the Property Appraiser's Office is required to use in determining the assessment.

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by School Board Member Pearson and carried unanimously, the VAB upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and approved the valuation of personal property, in the amount of $2,439.00, for Edmundo Banagale.

PETITION 1993-131 Richard W. Hennings, Professional Assoc.

Mr. Richard Hennings appeared before the Board to discuss his petition. At this time, discussion occurred regarding the information Mr. Hennings was requesting that he be allowed to distribute to the members of the VAB, as compared to information attached to his petition. Mr. Hennings stated that he was requesting that the VAB consider the Depreciation Schedule, because it was the schedule that was furnished to him by the Property Appraiser's Office, and they are arguing that it was this Depreciation Schedule that justifies the valuations being given today. It was noted that the VAB members had been supplied with the schedule earlier in the meeting.

Mr. Robbie Ross informed the Board that Mr. Hennings states on his 1993 Tangible Personal Property Tax Return that the original cost of furniture, fixtures and computer equipment to be approximately $60,000.00. Mr. Ross reviewed the schedule, once again, with the VAB, and referred to the blank Tax Return, Line 23, Supplies, and stated that Mr. Hennings reported no supplies. He then referred to the back of the form which requests equipment owned by the petitioner, rented, leased, or held by others, with Mr. Hennings requesting that the Property Appraiser's Office do a physical inspection of his office. Mr. Ross informed the VAB of the items that were located at his office, and which should have been reported. It was noted that, because the items were personal ones that were brought into his business, Mr. Hennings was of the impression that they did not need to be reported. Mr. Ross stated that, after using the guidelines set forth by the Department of Revenue, he feels the assessment is fair and just.

Mr. Hennings informed the VAB that the Property Appraiser's Office has assessed the office furniture and computer equipment at $44,764.00, with the valuation being based upon the Depreciation Schedule, which they claim they are mandated to follow by the Department of Revenue. He further informed the VAB that he supplied the Property Appraiser's Office with three valuations, at a fair market approach, which were done by appraisers. He stated that their evaluation of the property from a fair market value standpoint is $13,398.00. Mr. Hennings stressed that he takes very great issue with the Property Appraiser's statement that they are mandated by some kind of law to use this Depreciation Schedule in valuing this type of property. He stated that it is his contention that it is wrong for them to use that kind of valuation method, and his support for this is Florida Statute 193.011. Mr. Hennings also made reference to an Administrative Rule of the Division of Ad Valorem Tax Department, Rule No. 12D-1.001, which gives a definition of just value. He stated that there is no Statute of the State of Florida that says the Property Appraiser has to use a cost approach on valuing tangible personal property. He then referred to the definition provided by the Department of Revenue on just valuation, which defines it as fair market value, because there is nothing in the definition that talks about using a cost approach. He then referred to the manual that the Property Appraiser's Office uses from the Department of Revenue, which indicates that, in determining the fair market value of all property within the County, the Property Appraiser is required to consider eight statutory factors in Florida Statute 193.011, and he stated that the very first factor that the Property Appraiser needs to consider is the market value of the property. It goes on to say that of the three recognized approaches to the appraisal of tangible personal property, comparable sales, cost and income, he is looking at comparable sales, and the Property Appraiser is looking at cost. It further indicates that, of those three factors, the first is preferred provided there is an active market dealing in comparable and reliable data, which can be used to determine the market price of items of like kind, quantity and condition. Mr. Hennings stated that his office is one-half computer equipment and one-half desk, office furniture, etc. From the Property Appraiser's cost approach, they are correct in saying that the valuation is $44,764.00, but if you look at the valuation method established by F.S. 193.011 plus the Department's own definition of just valuation, they should also be looking at the fair market value of the property. Mr. Hennings suggested that there is no relationship at all with respect to such things as computer equipment, or office equipment. He challenged the Property Appraiser's counsel to show him a Statute of the State of Florida that says their cost approach is the approach to valuation of property. He stated that he is not saying the assessment should be $14,000.00, but he is requesting that the VAB take Mr. Havill's cost approach valuation of $44,000.00, and the market value of $13,000.00, and give him some equity and consideration of the fair market value of the equipment.

Mr. Havill explained that the Florida Statutes say that the Property Appraiser must consider, for the appraisal of all property, the three approaches to value, market, cost and income, and it is up to the Appraiser to decide which approach to use. He discussed the number of individuals available in his office to appraise the whole County, and stated that he does not have the people in his office for the uniformity being discussed by Mr. Hennings. He stated that the approach should be uniform, and therefore, he chooses to use the guidelines from the Department of Revenue, and he is within the law to use those guidelines. Mr. Havill stated that he can consider all three approaches, and he chooses to use the cost approach to value for tangible returns.

Ms. Jordan Stuart explained that it is not the methodology used by the Property Appraiser that is at issue, assuming it is a proper methodology, with it being determined that the cost approach is proper. She stated that the cost approach is not only appropriate in the use of tangible personal property, but it has been found to be appropriate by the courts. She referred to Daniel v. Canterberry Towers, 462 Southern 2nd at 497, 1984, a case out of the Second District, and to a 1950 Attorney General's Opinion 233. She also referred to McArthur Jersey Farm Dairy v. Dade County, 240 Southern 2nd 844. She clarified that the Property Appraiser is not mandated to use the tables from the Department of Revenue assuming that he can establish that he can find market value, or a basis for a cost approach, or comparable sales, or even if it is appropriate, an income approach within his market that represents the value of the property. She stated that most of the Property Appraiser's opt for uniformity in assessment at a reasonable rate. She stated that, when you use the cost approach, you will approximate a truer value, and she discussed computer equipment, software and hardware.

Mr. Hennings stressed that the Property Appraiser is not looking at the market value, and stated that his office not having enough employees to go to every office to determine a fair market value is not a problem of the taxpayer. He stated that the Florida Statute states that "he shall" consider the present cash value of the property, which is the amount a willing purchaser would pay a willing seller. He stated that, when a cost approach and the market value approach are so greatly different, as in this case, and when the Statute tells the Property Appraiser by definition that he has got to look and see what the market value is, then he submits that the Property Appraiser is using the wrong assessment method.

Commr. Swartz discussed the usable worth of computer equipment, and stated that, unless a uniform approach is used, there would be a whole host of issues that the Property Appraiser would be asked to value on the tangible roll, which is impossible for his office. He stated that he is of the opinion that, unless in the future Mr. Havill wants to come to the Board and wants to suggest that he needs additional staff to value all of the different tangible personal property, the issue has to be addressed in the manner in which it has been presented by Mr. Havill.

On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by School Board Member Pearson and carried unanimously, the Board approved to uphold the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and approve the valuation of personal property, in the amount of $44,764.00, for Richard W. Hennings, Professional Association.

BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS/BONDS/MEETINGS

Commr. Swartz informed the public that there will be a brief public hearing of the Board of County Commissioners at 1:00 p.m., in which the Chairman will postpone the public hearing until 4:00 p.m. this afternoon.

RECESS & REASSEMBLY

At 12:35 p.m., the Chairman announced that the VAB would recess for five minutes.

PETITION 1993-17 Jacques L. and Violet M. Bossert

Mr. Frank Royce, Senior Appraiser, informed the VAB that Mr. Bossert is appealing his assessment on his home in Fox Run. He has a 1989, 28x62, double wide mobile home. Mr. Royce presented the square footage of living area, and a description of the home, and stated that Mr. Bossert purchased the home and lot in 1989 for $84,600.00. The land is assessed at $18,375.00; the improvements and home, $46,319.00; for a total of $64,694.00. Mr. Royce presented the cost per square foot, and comparables used in determining the assessment.

Mr. Jacques Bossert appeared before the Board and stated that he feels some of the comparables were done prior to Hurricane Andrew, and that the mobile homes have a tendency to collapse, and as a result of this, the property values have declined with respect to mobile homes. Mr. Bossert stated that he lives in a retired senior citizens community, and if you use a comparable approach on the home, consideration needs to be given to the fact that a lot of the homes are sold with all of the furniture and belongings in them. He questioned whether the comparable would exclude the personal items in the home.

Commr. Swartz stated that, if incidences such as a hurricane, or other storms, were to cause the resale of mobile homes to go down, there would be a reflection in the assessment in the future.

Mr. Royce discussed the current sale and resale of mobile homes, and stated that he has not seen the market trend down, because of a hurricane that has happened in the past.

Commr. Swartz stated that the Property Appraiser's Office basically follows the trend of the market, but until there is a reflection of past storms, he does not believe that a determination can be made that the Property Appraiser's assessment in this case is unwarranted or unjust.

Mr. Bossert discussed his past experience in banking and financing, and stated that, after some research, he found that a comparable home is listed at $28,900.00. He feels that a figure of $54,000.00 reflects the worth of his property.

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously, the VAB upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and approved the assessment in the amount of $64,694.00, for Jacques L. and Violet M. Bossert.

RECESS & REASSEMBLY

At 1:00 p.m., the Chairman announced that the VAB would recess, in order for the Commissioners, who were present, to address a special meeting scheduled for a bond resolution.

PETITION 1993-65 James S. Rhodes

PETITION 1993-91 John & Mary A. Kepchar

PETITION 1993-110 Lowell Gene Meisberger

PETITION 1993-130 G. Preston Haworth

PETITION 1993-140 Clyde R. Evans

Mr. Frank Royce, Senior Appraiser, informed the VAB that the five cases all pertain to sales at an auction in one particular subdivision in Lake County.

Commr. Swartz questioned whether any of the petitioners had a problem with the cases being heard together, with it being noted that no one present had an objection.

Mr. Royce stated that the petitioners are appealing the assessed value of the lots that were purchased at an auction during February and March, 1993, in Bright Water Place Subdivision. Pursuant to State of Florida Taxation General Provisions 192.042, all real property shall be assessed on January 1 of each year. The current assessed values represents a fair and just value by market standards as of January 1, 1993. Because of the two auctions, they are not considered to be arms length transactions. Mr. Royce stated that the Property Appraiser's Office realizes that the fair market values will be lower in the future, because of the auctions, and it plans on studying the assessments for the 1994 tax roll. He discussed a letter from the Department of Revenue to the Property Appraiser in Levy County, which was an answer to his request regarding auction sales. The letter indicated that they do not consider auction sales to be arms length transactions, and only market data from arms length transactions can be used in the appraisal of property in Florida. Mr. Royce informed the VAB that there is another auction scheduled for October 2, 1993, and he presented the VAB with a copy of the advertisement.

Ms. Jordan Stuart referred to Walker v. Trunk, 549 Southern 2nd 1098, which stands for the principal that the purchase price is not market value in any case. She further stated that the auctions occurred after the first of the year, and even if there was evidence of market value, the sales occurred after the assessment day, and therefore, the Property Appraiser should not consider them.

Mr. James S. Rhodes appeared before the Board and presented the VAB members with a copy of the plat of the subdivision, which he had color coded, and which had been presented to Mr. Havill's Office within the designated time. Mr. Rhodes explained that the property that he purchased is not water front property. Mr. Rhodes explained the information that was color coded, which separated the lots that were auctioned in February; property that was sold after the auction; and property that is presently for sale and the asking price. He stated that none of the prices on the plat reflect assessed value. He further stated that there were no sales prior to January 1, 1993.

COMMISSIONERS

At 1:09 p.m., Commr. Swartz turned the chairmanship over to Commr. Gerber.

PETITION 1993-65 James S. Rhodes, et al (Continued)

Mr. Rhodes stated that he discussed with the Property Appraiser's Office the assessments of the properties, and the comparables that were used. He stated that he could not get the information regarding the comparables, but Mr. Havill's staff did agree that the assessments were wrong.

Mr. Frank Royce, Senior Appraiser, explained that the auctions occurred after the January 1 assessment date, and the resales were the lots that were bought at the auction and sold after the auction. He then discussed the comparable sales, which included size, location, and view. Mr. Royce stated that $12,000.00 does not represent true market value, and is strictly a discounted sale price at auction. Mr. Royce explained that the auctions have reduced the value of the lots, after January 1, but staff will be looking at them again for 1994.

Mr. Rhodes stated that the Property Appraiser's Office is overlooking a few things, such as the neighboring piece of property, which has more aesthetics and immunities connected to it. He stated that the property in question is strictly a sand pit. He further stated that, when the property reaches the assessment being placed on it, he will be willing to pay the taxes, but right now, it does not reflect the true value of the property.

Mr. John Kepchar appeared before the VAB and stated that he went to the Property Appraiser's Office where he was told that the assessment was high, and that this was the first year the property had been assessed. Mr. Kepchar stated that there is no sewer, and it is a sand pit, and he is willing to pay the taxes on the assessed value, but it is way out of line.

Mr. G. Preston Haworth appeared before the VAB and stated that he did not buy his lot at an auction, but from someone else who bought it at an auction, and therefore, his would have been an arms length transaction.

Discussion occurred regarding the comparables used by the Property Appraiser's Office, which included the lots that were sold on the water front, and the sale price.

Mr. Gene Meisberger appeared before the VAB and stated that he feels the assessment has doubled over what each individual actually paid for the lots. Mr. Meisberger stated that he also was not able to get information on comparables when he went to the Property Appraiser's Office prior to the hearing.

Commr. Gerber explained that the petitioners have the assurance from the Property Appraiser's Office that this property will be considered again for 1994, but their Office has to follow the guidelines of the Florida Statutes, and uphold the January 1 assessment date.

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by School Board Member Pearson and carried, the VAB upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and approved the following assessments:

Petition 1993-65 James S. Rhodes $59,231.00

Petition 1993-91 John & Mary A. Kepchar $29,987.00

Petition 1993-110 Lowell Gene Meisberger $46,582.00

Petition 1993-130 G. Preston Haworth $64,292.00

Petition 1993-140 Clyde R. Evans $23,078.00

It was noted that the motion was carried by a 3-0 vote, with Commr. Swartz not being present for the discussion, or vote.

PETITION 1993-82 Lucille M. Espey

It was brought to the attention of the VAB that Ms. Espey had requested a continuance of her case until tomorrow, October 1, 1993, at 11:15 a.m.

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by School Board Member Pearson and carried, the VAB approved to postpone Petition 1993-82, Lucille M. Espey, per the request of the petitioner, until October 1, 1993, at 11:15 a.m., or soon thereafter as possible.

PETITION 1993-83 Kay Reinking

Mr. Frank Royce, Senior Appraiser, informed the VAB that the petitioner is appealing the assessed value on her large water front lot in Crescent Cove Subdivision. He informed the VAB of the size of the lot, and stated that the current assessment on the lot is $67,263.00, or $415.00 a front foot. Mr. Royce presented comparables for the VAB's consideration.

Ms. Kay Reinking appeared before the VAB and explained that she did not feel that the Property Appraiser's Office should compare Crescent Cove, which is an old subdivision where she lives on the cove, to Crescent Bay, which is a new subdivision and on the lake. She stated that her house is 35 years old, and it is not gaining in value, and she did not feel it could be sold for the assessed value. She further stated that she has no access across her property to the water. Ms. Reining discussed the retaining wall that had to be placed by the water, and the dead end road that she lives on that is maintained by the residents. She indicated that she is a widow on a fixed income.

Mr. Royce informed the VAB that the assessment last year was $106,435.00, with it being noted that the assessment last year on the lot was $26,828.00. The purchase price in 1985 was $125,000.00.

Discussion occurred regarding the insurance coverage Ms. Reinking has on the house.

Ms. Jordan Stuart discussed a future law that will be going into affect, which involves homestead exemption, that will limit the amount of increase to a small percentage, so that an individual will not be assessed at the market value.

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by School Board Member Pearson and carried, the VAB upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and approved the assessment, in the amount of $146,709.00, for Kay Reinking.

It was noted that motion was carried by a 3-0 vote, with Commr. Swartz not being present for the discussion, or vote.

PETITION 1993-88 Richard H. Alshouse

Mr. Frank Royce, Senior Appraiser, informed the VAB that the petitioner has a house in the Crescent Cove Subdivision, just as Ms. Reinking, the previous petitioner. His assessment also increased drastically, because of the land. Mr. Royce presented the comparable sales, and the size of the land in question, and stated that the land has been assessed at $83,281.00, for a total assessed value in the amount of $183,322.00.

Mr. Richard H. Alshouse appeared before the VAB and stated that this is his second home, and that he actually lives in Marion County. He discussed his previous assessments, which were $108,000.00 for 1988; $113,000.00 for 1991; $142,200.00 for 1992; and stated that an additional $40,000.00 this year is obscene. Mr. Alshouse stated that the property is on a private road, with the County offering no services. He discussed the garbage fee increase; the fixed income that he is on; the comparables in Crescent Bay; and the sale of Lot 2 in Crescent Cove, which sold for $140,000.00. Mr. Alshouse stated that he bought a lot in Crescent Bay, in 1990, for $43,000.00, and in 1991, it was assessed at $45,900.00, and in 1992, it dropped back down to $40,000.00. He stated that this year the assessment is $51,000.00. Mr. Alshouse expressed his disapproval in which the County spends its money.

Mr. Royce explained that the petitioner made additions to his house last year, but this year was strictly a land appraisal increase.

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by School Board Member Pearson and carried, the VAB upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and approved the assessment in the amount of $183,322.00, for Richard H. Alshouse.

The motion was carried by a 3-0 vote, with Commr. Swartz not being present for the discussion or vote.

RECESS & REASSEMBLY

At 1:53 p.m., Commr. Gerber announced that the VAB would recess for lunch and reconvene at 2:15 p.m.

PETITION 1993-127 and 1993-128 Jeffrey L. Mandler, Esq.

Mr. Frank Royce, Senior Appraiser, informed the VAB that Mr. Mandler would not be present for the hearing, which was scheduled for 11:15 a.m. It was noted that, at 2:15 p.m., no one was present to represent the case.

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the VAB that the petitioner has a Winn-Dixie Plaza, and the land has been assessed at $219,888.00; the improvements at $83,934.00; miscellaneous at $28,501.00; for a total assessment of $1,082,323.00. Mr. Havill stated that he took the vacancy rate into consideration. He stated that he has three comparables to this piece of property, and recommended upholding the assessment.

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by School Board Member Pearson and carried, the VAB upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and approved the following assessments: $1,082,323.00 in Petition 1993-127, and $43,326.00 in Petition 1993-128.

PETITION 1993-35 James E. Jones, Jr.

Mr. Jimmy Jones appeared before the VAB to discuss the assessment on his lot in the Lake Harris Shores Subdivision. He stated that he has owned the lot since 1963, and was overwhelmed that his assessment went from $19,711.00 to $30,750.00. He discussed the vacant piece of property across the street that had a 14% increase, and stated that his vacant piece of property had a 56% increase. He stated that the one across the street is completely cleared, and his is partially cleared, and he was anticipating a decrease in the assessment.

Ms. Jordan Stuart explained that the law says each year a piece of property stands on its own, and a reappraisal is not done based on the prior year.

Mr. Frank Royce, Senior Appraiser, stated that Lake Harris Shores is a subdivision where the majority of the lots are on canals, or lagoons. It was noted that five lots out of the 100 are directly on Lake Harris, and Mr. Jones owns one of the five lots. Mr. Royce stated that each and every one of them is assessed at $30,750.00. He stated that the assessment is fair and just and represent true market value for lake front property.

COMMISSIONERS

At 2:39 p.m., Commr. Gerber returned the chairmanship to Commr. Swartz.

PETITION 1993-35 James E. Jones, Jr. (Continued)

Discussion occurred regarding the lots owned by Mr. Jones and the lot across the street, with it being noted the lot owned by Mr. Jones is on the lake, and the lot across the street is on the canal.

Mr. Havill stated that all of the lots on the lake are exactly the same size as Mr. Jones, and they are all assessed at the same price. He recommended that the Board uphold his recommendation.

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by School Board Member Pearson and carried unanimously, the VAB upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and approved the assessment in the amount of $30,750.00 for James E. Jones, Jr.

PETITION 1993-121 Crystal Lake Executive Park, Inc.

PETITION 1993-122 Crystal Lake Executive Park, Inc.

PETITION 1993-123 Novelty Crystal Corp.

PETITION 1993-124 Novelty Crystal Corp.

PETITION 1993-125 Crystal Lake Executive Park, Inc.

It was noted that Ms. Sara Michaeli and Mr. Ed Coslett were present to represent the petitioner in the cases.

Mr. Frank Driggers, Review Appraiser, informed the VAB that this property is located at Highway 19/27 turnpike interchange, and is approximately 188 acres. It was noted that there are 64 acres of swamp; 124 high and dry land; and it has 1/2 mile of highway frontage. Mr. Driggers stated that the property includes a 60,000 plus square foot manufacturing plant that was constructed in 1989. He then reviewed other features of the property. The current assessment for the land is $1,233,217.00; the improvements are valued at $1,393,037.00; and the miscellaneous improvements are valued at $10,836.00; for a total assessment of $2,637,090.00. Mr. Driggers stated that Novelty Crystal has inquired about its assessment over the years, and he has requested information from them necessary to review the assessed value, and as of today, there has been no data received from them. He stated that he did receive a State of Florida Department of Transportation Certificate of

Evaluation, which is a condemnation land acquisition appraisal for a portion of the property that fronts the turnpike interchange access. Mr. Driggers stated that the manufacturing plant has been assessed at approximately $23.00 per square foot, which is comparable to similar structures in the County. He further stated that the property is located at Highway 27 and O'Brien Road across the highway from the new Lake County Industrial Center, and the new Convention and Visitor Bureau. Mr. Driggers informed the VAB that the land values in the industrial park are approximately $19,000.00 per acre, and there are sales reflecting $15,000-$25,000.00 per acre on Highway 27. Mr. Driggers stated that Novelty Crystal Corporation and Crystal Lake Executive Park, Inc. are being assessed at approximately $10,000.00 per acre for the dry land, and $25.00 per acre for the wetlands. Based on the information provided, and the location and amount of property, the Property Appraiser's Office feels this is a fair and just assessed value. It was noted that the majority of the property is zoned industrial commercial.

Ms. Sara Michaeli addressed the Board and stated that she has no additional information to what has been presented today, and that all of the paperwork is in New York. She stated that she has no access to the paperwork, and she does not have the final sale and contract on the building, which indicates that it cost $900,000.00 to build four years ago, and today it would cost $14.00 a square foot to build it.

Discussion occurred regarding the assessment on the building, which was noted to be the same as last year. The increase in the amount is in the valuation of the land. Ms. Michaeli stated that the land value has decreased since it was purchased, based on the State's offer for the property, which was $5,400.00 per acre. She stated that she paid $6,200.00 per acre in 1988.

Mr. Frank Royce, Senior Appraiser, informed the VAB that the assessed value has decreased over the last year by $103,655.00, in land alone. Discussion occurred regarding the assessment last year, and the fact that no appeal was made. This is an overall 4% increase, which occurs in the valuation of the land.

Discussion occurred regarding the offer made by the Department of Transportation, which Ms. Michaeli indicated that she did not agree with, but which she is using for the basis of the valuation.

Ms. Jordan Stuart discussed the petition that was filed, which indicated that Crystal Lake feels that the estimated value of $8,500.00 for parcel 9100 is inadequate and does not constitute just compensation pursuant to the Florida United States Constitutions. Ms. Stuart stated that the petitioners are submitting to the VAB an appraisal that they did not agree with, in order to use it as a basis for lowering the value in the property assessment.

Discussion occurred regarding the increases to the assessment, with the majority of the increase being in the valuation of land that fronts on Highway 27, with it being noted that the assessment is approximately a 4% increase over last year.

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously, the VAB upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and approved the following assessments:

Petition 1993-121 Crystal Lake Executive Park, Inc. $ 940.00

Petition 1993-122 Crystal Lake Executive Park, Inc. $ 707,000.00

Petition 1993-123 Novelty Crystal Corp. $ 12,339.00

Petition 1993-124 Novelty Crystal Corp. $1,673,143.00

Petition 1993-125 Crystal Lake Executive Park, Inc. $ 243,668.00

PETITION 1993-154 Arnold Industries, et al

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the VAB that this is a mineral rights case, and the petitioner holds approximately 30,000 acres of mineral rights in Lake County. The petitioner is contesting the fact that the mineral rights in Lake County should be assessed at $3.00 per acre. Mr. Havill stated that his office has the mineral rights assessed at various amounts, as follows: $12.50, $25.00, $50.00 and $62.50 per acre. He stated that he sought guidance from the Department of Revenue, and other appraisers' offices, and established a value of mineral rights as best he could in Lake County. Mr. Havill stated that the contracts being issued for the mineral rights need to be considered, because of various amounts being indicated for mineral rights.

Mr. C. Jeffery Arnold appeared before the VAB and stated that he has been working with the Property Appraiser's Office for the last several months in trying to determine an equitable price for mineral rights. Mr. Arnold corrected the record by stating that he, along with the other entities involved in this case, do not own 30,000 acres of mineral rights in Lake County. He indicated that, as far has he has been able to determine, Lake County has not given a significant study to evaluation of mineral rights. At this time, Mr. Arnold reviewed the ten (10) tax notices attached to his petition, and the various amounts being assessed per acre, and which are not the amounts given by Mr. Havill.

Mr. Frank Royce, Senior Appraiser, stated that the legal descriptions do not cover the full legal on the parcels, but the Property Appraiser's Office has assessed the property on the legals at the figures presented by Mr. Havill, but he would dispute the fact there is a range in assessments.

Mr. Arnold stated that there is not one single comparable sale at $12.50, $25.00, or $62.50 per acre in Lake County, at any time, that he can find. He stated that he has brought seven comparable sales to address, which are the actual contracts on the sale of mineral rights in south Lake County. It was noted that those contracts have been submitted to the Property Appraiser's Office within the time allowed. Mr. Arnold stated that, in each and every single one of them, the mineral rights were acquired by the buyer at $3.00 per acre. He stated that he has included one sale in 1991; three sales in 1992; and three sales in 1993, with the most recent being in September, 1993. Mr. Arnold stated that he would submit that the only comparable sales that he and the Property Appraiser's Office have been able determine are the ones that he has submitted and pending before the VAB. Mr. Arnold explained that the unique argument that he is giving to the VAB is that, if the values are accepted by him in the presentation, the County will not lose one penny of revenue. The only comparables to be presented are at $3.00 per acre.

Discussion occurred regarding the sales contract for September, 1993, with Mr. Havill arguing that this would not be admissible, because of January 1 being the assessment date.

Mr. Arnold stated that he sells the mineral rights for $3.00 per acre, with no easements.

Mr. Havill stated that the six contracts submitted that were prior to January 1, 1993, which the present assessment is based on, indicates $3.00 per acre for mineral rights, plus a fee for ingress and egress per acre.

Commr. Swartz reviewed the Agreement of Purchase and Sale dated August, 1992, and questioned the different rates being charged per acre.

Mr. Arnold explained that the costs depend on what the buyer wants to buy, and the cost negotiation for the release of a particular easement. He explained that some of the agreements do not involve any easements. Mr. Arnold explained the different types of negotiations that can take place between the parties, and stated that, if there is an easement, the individual can buy it, but if there is not an easement, it is $3.00 per acre.

Discussion occurred regarding the Agreement dated August, 1992, and the three different rates being shown in the contact.

Ms. Jordan Stuart explained when mineral rights in land are assessed, and stated that they must be assessed pursuant to Florida Statute 193.481. She referred to a case called Camp Phosphate Company v. Camp, 81 Southern 503, which indicates that, no matter whether the Property Appraiser knows how or not, or how he does it, where record mineral rights exist, the Property Appraiser has to assess them. Ms. Stuart stated that this is a difficult situation throughout the State. She stated that, if there is existing mining going on, the mineral rights can be assessed on an income approach using the capitalized value of the income from the rights. She further stated that, where mineral rights exist of record for whatever purpose, but there is not existing mining, and there is no knowledge that there are any minerals in the ground, and there is no knowledge whether the zoning would permit the mining, the valuation is of no significance. The Department of Revenue provides only informal guidelines, which Mr. Havill sought and got to the extent of their availability, and he also looked to other property appraisers. However, in order for title problems to be resolved, an individual would be required to buy mineral rights; mineral rights with an easement for ingress and egress over the entire property; or mineral rights, ingress and egress easements and the right to develop. She stated that, if a mineral right exists, then it has its own bundle of rights attached to it. Therefore, the contract that the VAB is reviewing would bring the total value on the contract to $150.00. Ms. Stuart stated that, in any event, the contracts do not represent the value of a mineral right in any case, because they are all Mr. Arnold's contracts, which he has created for his market, and has nothing to do with the value of the rights.

Mr. Arnold stated that there are no comparables that can be produced to show the $12.00, $25.00, $50.00 and $62.50 rate that the Property Appraiser is using to assess the property, and the only comparable sales that the VAB could consider are the contracts he has submitted to Mr. Havill. These fees have been found to be across the Board equitable, and are being used in all cases.

Ms. Stuart discussed the possibility of dedicating rights through the purchase of the property.

Mr. Royce informed the VAB that he has in hand field check sheets from the local office of the Department of Revenue. He explained that the office samples property throughout the County, and they look at sales, and at the property, and they reported a 640 acre sale, for $40,000.00, which calculates to $62.50 per acre.

Commr. Swartz stated that he feels the Property Appraiser has made an attempt to try to derive a fair and just valuation of the mineral rights, and he will uphold him in his evaluation, which is the same method that he has used on these properties previously.

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by School Board Member Pearson and carried unanimously, the VAB upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser, and approved the evaluation of the mineral rights for C. Jeffery Arnold, et al.

PETITION 1993-157 ECAD Florida Corp.

PETITION 1993-182 Ali K. Naggar

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the VAB that the corporation owns a subdivision called Garden City, with 28 lots in Phase I and II, and 14 lots are on Lake Stewart. Of the 28 lots, 19 are sold, and the sales price ranges from $55,000.00 for an interior lot, and $106,000.00 for a lake front lot. Mr. Havill stated that the interior lots are assessed in the $40,000.00 range, and the lake front lots are assessed between $65,000.00 and $84,532.00. He stated that, based on the sales, he feels the assessments are correct.

Mr. Frank Royce, Senior Appraiser, referred to a letter attached to the petition, which indicated that the prices were set to establish a high standard for the subdivision, but have not yet fully attained the value given the lots. Amenities have been planned to increase the value of the property from 30%-40%. The amenities include a clubhouse with indoor recreation and social facilities, one park with a playground, another lake front recreational area with a boat dock, and secured entrances. These amenities will be in place by the completion of Phase I and will add value to each lot in the subdivision. Mr. Royce stated that the petitioner contacted him last year, and adjustments were made last year, because the development was new.

Mr. Ahmed ElDifrawi, President of ECAD Florida Corporation, appeared before the Board and explained that the owners in Garden City are also shareholders. Mr. ElDifrawi stated that he submitted copies of the stock certificates to Mr. Frank Royce for review, and he advised Mr. Royce earlier this month that he feels the appraisal for the lots are overestimated. He also explained that the unsold lots in Garden City have been listed with a real estate company for the last 1 1/2 years, and there has not been one offer, or a sale. He discussed the 75 lots in Phase I, which will be divided into five sections. He also discussed the positions of the stockholders, in relation to the financing of the development. Mr. ElDifrawi discussed factors that would help increase the value of the property. The factors included the development of the surrounding area, which will change the environment from rural to suburban, and the completion of all amenities. He stated that the development of the commercial complex and employment center at the intersection of Highways 19 and 27 would also increase the value of the property, but the complex has been completed, and there has been no activity there. Mr. ElDifrawi requested that the assessment be the same as last year.

Discussion occurred regarding the shareholders in the corporation that have bought lots in the subdivision, and the outcome being that the corporation has set the market, because they are the ones establishing the range of values for the market.

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously, the VAB upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and approved the assessment that was established by the Property Appraiser's Office for Petition 1993-157, ECAD Florida Corporation.

On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by School Board Member Pearson and carried unanimously, the VAB upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and approved the assessment in the amount of $63,291.00, for Petition 1993-182, Ali K. Naggar.

PETITION 1993-33 Elbert B. Cousins

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the VAB that the petitioner is appealing the assessment in the amount of $57,581.00. He presented an explanation for the value increase, and provided comparables to the property. Mr. Havill requested that the VAB approve the assessment.

It was noted that no one present wished to discuss the appeal.

PETITION 1993-41 Nelson W. Knode

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the VAB that the petitioner is appealing the assessment in the amount of $47,300.00 He stated that this is prime real estate that is situated on Blue Creek. He then presented comparables to the property, and recommended approval of the assessment.

It was noted that no one present wished to discuss the appeal.

PETITION 1993-42 David J. and Joan E. Rabbitt

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the VAB that the petitioner is appealing the assessment in the amount of $102,122.00. He discussed the square footage of the two duplex buildings, and the structure of each. After review of the property, and the last sale being in December, 1984, his office lowered the assessment to $95,082.00, in order to achieve equity with other comparable properties in the County. Mr. Havill stated that he feels the assessment is fair and comparable.

It was noted that no one present wished to discuss the appeal.

PETITION 1993-43 George W. Fiedler

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the VAB that the petitioner was appealing the assessment in the amount of $27,048.00. Mr. Havill presented a description of the mobile home, and stated that the land is assessed at $12,000.00, and the improvements at $15,048.00, for a total of $27,048.00. At this time, Mr. Havill presented comparables to the property, and requested that the VAB uphold the assessment.

It was noted that no one present wished to discuss the appeal.

On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by School Board Member and carried unanimously, the VAB upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and approved the assessment in the amount of $27,048.00, for George W. Fiedler.

PETITION 1993-44 Joe T. Lee

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the VAB that the petitioner is appealing the assessment in the amount of $118,283.00. Mr. Havill stated that this property borders Lake George, with the front of the lot bordering in Marion County. He presented a description of the property, and three comparables. He stated that portions of the lots are in Marion County, and are not included in the comparables.

Mr. Joe T. Lee appeared before the VAB and discussed the property next door, and stated that it has 113 feet of lake front, and is assessed for $46,000.00, and he has 150 feet of lake front. He further stated that Lake County provides no services for the Yellow Bluff Subdivision.

Mr. Havill stated that a person cannot use a assessment on another piece of property to defend his assessment, unless you can show all comparable properties are under assessed. It was noted that the assessment last year was $76,231.00. This year the land is assessed at $82,440.00.

Mr. Lee explained why he does not have homestead exemption.

PETITION 1993-60 Robert L. Collie

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the VAB that the petitioner is appealing the assessment in the amount of $25,650.00 for five acres. Mr. Collie paid $25,000.00 for the property in 1988. Mr. Havill presented comparables to the property.

Mr. Robert I. Collie appeared before the VAB and stated that this property is a four year old orange grove that he replanted citrus on, and which was destroyed in the freezes.

Mr. Havill explained the process his office used after the freezes of 1983, 1985, and 1989 freezes, where he had to take the groves off of green belt classification. Mr. Havill stated that he believes that the problem with this petition is that the property does not have green belt, and the assessment was based on market value. He stated that the petitioner needs to complete an agricultural application at the beginning of the year, so that his office can determine if Mr. Collie qualifies for the exemption.

PETITION 1993-74 Paul and Elizabeth Wilder

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the VAB that the petitioner is appealing the assessment in the amount of $56,714.00. Mr. Havill stated that there is a letter attached to the petition from Mr. Timothy P. Hoban, Assistant County Attorney, to Mrs. Wilder, in regards to the requirements of the Land Development Regulations. The letter indicated the following:

1. Since Lots 18, 19, 20, and 21 were under common ownership as of the 1982 Lake County Tax Roll and since the aggregation of these lots is less than five (5) acres, only one (1) building permit may be issued to these lots.

2. Since your husband and you only own two (2) of the four (4) lots under common ownership as of the 1982 Lake County Tax Roll, both of your lots were unbuildable lots on February 27, 1993 and are still unbuildable today.

Mrs. Wilder stated that this involves two lots in the Plat of Lake Jem Villa Properties, which are being assessed at $56,714.00 for both.

It was noted that the property owned by Mrs. Wilder is not in the area where the small scale amendment is located; she is in the area that is going to require the larger amendment, which is designed to bring all of Lake Jem into compliance with the Comprehensive Plan.

Ms. Annette Star Lustgarten, County Attorney, stated that, as of January 1, 1993, the lots were buildable, because the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan did not go into effect until March 2, 1993, when the lot of record aggregation language was incorporated.

Mr. Havill stated that, as of January 1 of this year, the property was worth the appraisal price, but next year it may not be, based on any action taken by the Board of County Commissioners on issues pursuant to the Comprehensive Plan.

PETITION 1993-76 Dianan J. Laljie and Sumintra Laljie

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the VAB that the petitioner is appealing the assessment in the amount of $21,889.00. Mr. Havill stated that the property is located on Lake Thomas Cove. At this time, Mr. Havill presented comparables to the property.

It was noted that no one present wished to discuss the appeal.

PETITION 1993-78 Anthony P. Levesque

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the VAB that the petitioner is appealing the assessment in the amount of $42,634.00. He presented a description of the home, and stated that the land is assessed at $12,780.00; the improvements are assessed at $29,854.00; for a total assessment of $42,634.00. Last year the property was assessed at $29,222.00. Due to the reassessment of the whole area, the assessed value was raised. He presented comparable sales at this time, and stated that the assessment is fair and just.

Mr. Frank Driggers, Review Appraiser, stated that he visited and inspected the property owned by the petitioner, and the property next door to him. Mr. Driggers stated that the main thing that adds value to the property is the fact that his side yard is right on Lake Eustis, even though it is not waterfront property, and he has a lagoon in the front yard. He discussed the house that was sold next door in 1975 for $17,500.00. Mr. Levesque bought his property in 1977 for $18,000.00.

Mr. Anthony P. Levesque appeared before the Board and discussed the retaining wall that was built by the city within the last ten years, and stated that the assessment is not fair, and he would not mind a reasonable increase.

PETITION 1993-94 James C. and Janet M. Van Selus

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the VAB that the petitioner is appealing the assessment in the amount of $4,200.00. Mr. Havill stated that, after his office received the petition, the property was reviewed, and he was recommending an assessment in the amount of $2,048.00.

It was noted that James C. and Janet M. Van Selus were present for the hearing.

PETITION 1993-120 Timothy D. Sullivan

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the VAB that the petitioner is appealing the assessment in the amount of $212,789.00. Mr. Havill described the property, which is located in Crooked Lake Terrace on East Crooked Lake, and stated that the home was built in 1990. The last sale was in the amount of $249,000.00, in August, 1992. The sale did not include the pool area added by this owner late in 1992, and the pool area is being assessed for the first time on this years roll. Mr. Havill discussed the comparables presented by Mr. Sullivan, and presented comparables used by his office. Mr. Havill stated that the assessment is fair, with the pool area being picked up for the first time this year.

Mr. Timothy D. Sullivan appeared before the Board and presented information to the VAB members, which had been presented to the Property Appraiser's Office in a timely manner.

Mr. Frank Royce, Senior Appraiser, stated that an individual cannot say that his house is worth less market value by comparing it to other assessments. Mr. Sullivan did indicate on his petition several houses that he was using as comparables, which the Property Appraiser did review. Mr. Royce stated that the Property Appraiser's Office shows that the sales are higher. Mr. Sullivan paid $249,000.00 for the property, and he added a pool area.

Mr. Sullivan stated that he does not deny the amount he paid for the property. He discussed the information that he presented to the members of the VAB, which consisted of assessment figures for 1992 and 1993 on properties that he used as comparables. Discussion also occurred regarding the cost of the pool and extras.

COMMISSIONERS

At 5:42 p.m., Commr. Swartz turned the chairmanship over to Commr. Cadwell.

PETITION 1993-81 Alan M. Altshuler, Trustee

PETITION 1993-84 Nancy Edenfield

PETITION 1993-101 Elane Elias

PETITION 1993-111 James R. Taylor

It was noted for the record that no one was present to discuss the appeal on any of the above noted petitions.

School Board Member Pearson made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Gerber, to uphold the recommendation of the Property Appraiser, and approve the assessment for Petition 1993-81, Alan M. Altshuler, Trustee, in the amount of $302,100.00; Petition 1993-84, Nancy Edenfield, in the amount of $67,927.00; Petition 1993-101, Elane Elias, in the amount of $16,425.00; and Petition 1993-111, James R. Taylor, in the amount of $70,656.00.

Mr. Frank Driggers, Review Appraiser, requested that the VAB postpone Petition 1993-84, Nancy Edenfield, until October 1, 1993.

School Board Member Pearson amended her motion to reflect the postponement of Petition 1993-84, Nancy Edenfield, until October 1, 1993, at 11:15 a.m., or as soon thereafter as possible, with Commr. Gerber amending her second to the motion.

The Chairman called for a vote on the amended motion, with the motion being carried by a 3-0 vote.

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

PETITION 1993-184 Woodland Heritage Mobile Home Park

PETITION 1993-185 Sun Bank - Mount Dora

PETITION 1993-186 Sun Bank - Tavares

PETITION 1993-187 Sun Bank - Leesburg

PETITION 1993-188 Sun Bank - Eustis

PETITION 1993-189 Sun Bank - Clermont

PETITION 1993-190 Sun Bank - Sun Square Leesburg

PETITION 1993-191 Sun Bank - Leesburg

PETITION 1993-192 Sun Bank - Lady Lake

PETITION 1993-193 Connell House

PETITION 1993-194 Friendly's - Eustis

PETITION 1993-195 Friendly's - Leesburg

Mr. Frank Royce, Senior Appraiser, requested the additional acceptance of Petitions 1993-184 through 1993-195 for the record. He stated that the petitions are formally withdrawn, as of this date.

Ms. Jordan Stuart stated that a withdrawn petition is treated in the law as if the petitioner never petitioned, whereas a no show actually gets a denial.

There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the VAB, the meeting adjourned at 5:45 p.m.

CATHERINE C. HANSON, CHAIRMAN

ATTEST:

JAMES C. WATKINS, CLERK

TMR\BOARDMIN\9-30-93\10-15-93