LAKE COUNTY VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD MEETING

SEPTEMBER 27, 1995

The Lake County Value Adjustment Board met in regular session on Wednesday, September 27, 1995, at 8:30 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, Value Adjustment Board; William "Bill" H. Good; and Rhonda H. Gerber. School Board members present were: Kyleen Fischer and Claudia Ramsey. Others present were Sanford "Sandy" Minkoff, County Attorney; Ed Havill, Property Appraiser; Jordan Stewart, Attorney, representing Property Appraiser's Office; Frank Royce, Chief Deputy, Property Appraiser's Office; Frank Driggers, Senior Review Appraiser, Property Appraiser's Office; Robbie Ross, Personal Property and Agricultural Operations Director, Property Appraiser's Office; Chuck Hasley, Agricultural Appraiser, Property Appraiser's Office; Mike Bryie, East County Crew Chief, Property Appraiser's Office; Peter Peebles, West County Crew Chief, Property Appraiser's Office; Ginger Casburn, Exemptions Supervisor, Property Appraiser's Office; Ron Sporman, Real Estate Appraiser, Property Appraiser's Office; Tony Graham, Real Estate Appraiser, Property Appraiser's Office; Guy White, Real Estate Appraiser, Property Appraiser's Office; and Sandra Carter, Deputy Clerk.

The Chairman opened the meeting.

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, informed the members of the Value Adjustment Board that said Board falls under the rules of a quasi-judicial hearing and that it follows the guidelines of the Florida Statutes, as well as the Department of Revenue. He briefed the members on what they could and could not do, while sitting on said Board. He noted that he had distributed to them, prior to the meeting, a guide that had been prepared by Ms. Jordan Stewart, Attorney, representing the Property Appraiser's Office, dealing with quasi-judicial hearings, for their perusal. He informed the Board that they should make their decisions only on evidence presented at these proceedings and that they should not have had any ex-parti communication prior to said proceedings. He stated that, if any of the members had such communication, they should disclose it on the record and participate only if they felt they could make an unbiased decision, based on what they had heard at these proceedings.

Mr. Minkoff, County Attorney, stated that exhibits submitted by either side would be required to be retained by the Deputy Clerk and that some of those exhibits would not be considered public record, they would be considered confidential, by Statute. He stated that, in each case, the Board would be required to render a written decision, with findings of fact, conclusions of law, and reasons, therefore, was something that the Board would have to pay particular attention to, particularly if they overruled the Property Appraiser. He stated that all the cities had been notified of these meetings and were entitled to participate. He stated that, in all cases, the Property Appraiser would be presumed to be correct and the burden of proof would be on the taxpayer. He noted that, at the end of the process, the County would certify the tax roll.

Mr. Minkoff stated that a number of late petitions had been submitted and were contained in a separate file. He stated that the rule of the Department of Revenue is that the Board has no authority to extend the time for filing a petition (cut-off date was September 18, 1995); however, they are required to consider them, and, if the applicant can show good cause for delay and the Property Appraiser's Office is not prejudiced, the Board can consider the petitions. He noted, however, that said petitions would have to be scheduled to be heard at a later date. He stated that the Statutes allows the filing for exemptions after the deadline date of March 1, and, if the taxpayers can show extenuating circumstances, it is left up to the Board to consider them, on a case-by-case basis.

Commr. Swartz commended the Property Appraiser's Office on the Trim Notices that were sent out this year, noting that he felt they were excellent and should help the taxpayers, as they read through them. He then suggested that those petitions received late be scheduled to be heard at a later date, for the Board to consider, on a case-by-case basis, and determine whether extenuating circumstances existed.

On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by Commr. Good and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved to schedule the petitions that were received late, as time is available, in order to hear them and determine whether there were extenuating circumstances involved with the late filing.

Mr. Minkoff interjected that said petitions should be marked as late.

A brief discussion occurred regarding a letter received from Mr. Albert Cook requesting a continuance until October 10, 1995, for Petitions 1995-170 and 1995-171. It was noted that the Board would decide later this date how said cases would be handled.

Mr. Minkoff noted, for the record, that the same Conflict of Interest rules were in effect for any other matter that would come before them and that he had disclosure forms available, for any of the members that would need to fill one out. He noted that said forms should be filed, this date, with the Deputy Clerk.

PETITION NO. 1995-3 - MARY ANN ROLNICKI

Ms. Mary Ann Rolnicki, Petitioner, appeared before the Board stating that she and her husband purchased their home two years ago, however, had not applied for homestead exemption until this year.

Ms. Ginger Casburn, Exemptions Supervisor, Property Appraiser's Office, informed the Board that this request was denied because of late filing.

On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by Commr. Good and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and denied a request for homestead exemption for Petition No. 1995-3, due to findings of fact and lack of sufficient evidence to overturn the recommendation of denial.

PETITION NO. 1995-6 - BESSIE AND WILLIAM R. WALKER

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the Board that this case involved a late filing for homestead exemption, noting that Mr. and Mrs. Walker did not file until March 6, 1995.

Ms. Bessie Walker and her husband, William, Petitioners, appeared before the Board stating that they were not aware that they needed to file until a friend told them they needed to do so.

On a motion by Ms. Ramsey, seconded by Ms. Fischer and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and denied a request for homestead exemption for Petition No. 1995-6, due to findings of fact and lack of sufficient evidence to overturn the recommendation of denial.

PETITION NO. 1995-7 - LINDA M. FERRIER

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the Board that this case involved a late filing for homestead exemption, noting that Ms. Ferrier did not file until July 26, 1995.

Ms. Linda Ferrier, Petitioner, appeared before the Board stating that she purchased her mobile home in January, 1995, through an estate sale, however, was not given the title to it at that time. She stated that she questioned her attorney about filing for homestead exemption and the fact that she did not have the title and was told not to worry about it, that he would take care of it, however, later informed her that there was some miscommunication between them. She stated that she mailed a letter to the party that she purchased the home from, requesting the title, and was informed that they did not have it. She then sent for a second title, which she received, thus, the reason for her late filing.

Mr. Havill stated that Ms. Ferrier stated she purchased her home in January, 1995; however, he checked the records and found that the deed was dated December 22, 1994. He stated that she purchased her home one week too early to be eligible for an exemption this year.

On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by Commr. Good and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and denied a request for homestead exemption for Petition No. 1995-7, due to findings of fact and lack of sufficient evidence to overturn the recommendation of denial.

PETITION NO. 1995-2 - LARRY H. VANDERGRIFT

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the Board that this case involved a late filing for homestead exemption, noting that Mr. Vandergrift did not file until May 10, 1995.

Mr. Larry Vandergrift, Petitioner, appeared before the Board stating that he did not file for homestead exemption when he purchased his mobile home, because his tax bill was only $107.00; however, he later discovered that said bill was for vacant land, rather than land with a mobile home.

On a motion by Ms. Ramsey, seconded by Commr. Good and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and denied a request for homestead exemption for Petition No. 1995-2, due to findings of fact and lack of sufficient evidence to overturn the recommendation of denial.

PETITION NO. 1995-9 - KATHERINE WAREING MUELLER

It was noted that this case involved a late filing for homestead exemption.

Ms. Katherine Mueller, Petitioner, appeared before the Board stating that, because of several mismailings, she was unaware that she did not have homestead exemption last year and did not know that she needed to apply for it until March 2, 1995. She stated that she discovered her tax bill had been sent to a prior mortgage company, rather than to the mortgage company she currently uses, which she elaborated on. She stated that she felt, due to the paper trail, her lack of filing on time was due to extenuating circumstances; therefore, she should be approved for the exemption for this year.

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, stated that the mortgage company was responsible for contacting the Property Appraiser's Office, when they took over Ms. Mueller's mortgage.

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, stated that that would not have changed the Trim Notice, noting that it should have gone to the property owner, rather than to the mortgage company.

Mr. Havill stated that he would have to check his records, to see where the Trim Notice was sent.

It was noted that, while Ms. Mueller and her husband were married, they had homestead exemption; however, when they divorced, her husband was granted the home with the exemption and she purchased the home in question.

On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by Ms. Ramsey and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board overturned the recommendation of the Property Appraiser for denial of homestead exemption and approved the request for exemption for Petition No. 1995-9, based on findings of fact and evidence presented this date.

PETITION NO. 1995-10 - GEORGE L. AND L. JANE GATWOOD

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the Board that this case involved a late filing for homestead exemption, noting that Mr. and Mrs. Gatwood did not file until March 20, 1995.

Ms. Jane Gatwood, Petitioner, appeared before the Board stating that she and her husband purchased their property last Fall, in a private sale, with a title company and the former owner. She stated that, being new residents of the State, they did not know when to file for the exemption. She stated that they were told the deadline date was the end of March, however, later discovered that it was March 1, 1995.

On a motion by Ms. Ramsey, seconded by Ms. Fischer and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and denied a request for homestead exemption for Petition No. 1995-10, due to findings of fact and lack of sufficient evidence to overturn the recommendation of denial.

PETITION NO. 1995-12 - HAROLD R. AND EVELYN A. WHALEN, JR.

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the Board that this case involved a late filing for homestead exemption, noting that Mr. and Mrs. Whalen did not file until March 13, 1995.

Mr. Harold Whalen, Petitioner, appeared before the Board stating that he and his wife purchased their property November 17, 1994, and were informed at that time, by the closing agent, that they did not have to file for homestead exemption until March 31, 1995. He stated that he had helped his son move to California and, upon returning, filed for the exemption, however, found that he had filed too late to be eligible for this year.

On a motion by Ms. Ramsey, seconded by Commr. Good and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and denied a request for homestead exemption for Petition No. 1995-12, due to findings of fact and lack of sufficient evidence to overturn the recommendation of denial.

PETITION NO. 1995-17 - ROBERT L. AND ARLENE B. MARTIN

Mr. and Mrs. Robert Martin, Petitioners, appeared before the Board to discuss their case. Mr. Martin stated that he and his wife had not been informed by their real estate agent, when they purchased their home, to file for homestead exemption. He stated that this was their first home and they were unexperienced in such matters. He further elaborated on the matter, noting that he thought his taxes were going to be $200.00, however, found that, in actuality, they were $1,400.00.

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the Board that Mr. Martin's taxes were only $200.00, because his property was assessed as a vacant lot.

On a motion by Ms. Ramsey, seconded by Ms. Fischer and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and denied a request for homestead exemption for Petition No. 1995-17, due to findings of fact and lack of sufficient evidence to overturn the recommendation of denial.

PETITION NO. 1995-18 - CHERRY GAMMAGE AND OCTAVIA PRICE

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the Board that this case involved a late filing for homestead exemption, noting that Ms. Gammage and Ms. Price did not file until March 13, 1995.

Ms. Cherry Gammage and Ms. Octavia Price, Petitioners, appeared before the Board stating that they did not file for homestead exemption until March 13, 1995, because they were told by their realtor that they had until the end of March to file.

On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by Commr. Good and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and denied a request for homestead exemption for Petition No. 1995-18, due to findings of fact and lack of sufficient evidence to overturn the recommendation of denial.

PETITION NO. 1995-20 - ROSS E. AND JUDITH A. PAUL

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the Board that this case involved a late filing for homestead exemption, noting that Mr. and Mrs. Paul did not file until March 7, 1995.

Commr. Gerber noted, for the record, that she had had a conversation with Mrs. Paul about this request and had encouraged her to come forward, if she felt the need to do so. She stated that she felt she could make a decision, based on the facts.

Mr. and Mrs. Ross Paul, Petitioners, appeared before the Board to discuss their case. Mrs. Paul stated that she and her husband had been homeowners and taxpayers in Lake County since 1966 and had owned two homes during that period of time. She stated that every year, for a number of years, they filed for homestead exemption, as required, until it became automatic. She stated that they built a new home and thought the exemption would automatically transfer over to their new home, however, later discovered that that was not the case. She stated that they filed immediately, upon learning said fact, however, discovered that they were too late to qualify for the exemption this year. She stated that they felt, because they had been homeowners in Lake County for the past 30 years, something could be done to allow them the exemption.

On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Ms. Ramsey and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and denied a request for homestead exemption for Petition No. 1995-20, due to findings of fact and lack of sufficient evidence to overturn the recommendation of denial.

PETITION NO. 1995-21 - WILLIE L. MILLS

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the Board that this case involved a late filing for homestead exemption, noting that Mr. Mills did not file until August 7, 1995.

Mr. Willie Mills, Petitioner, appeared before the Board stating that he was not aware that he had to file for homestead exemption, until after his mother passed away. He stated that he thought his mother's life estate would automatically go to him, upon her death. He noted that he had lived with his mother for 34 years.

Mr. Arthur Kelly, a friend of Mr. Mills, appeared before the Board stating that Mr. Mills was mentally impaired, which he elaborated on. He stated that Mr. Mills's mother was in a nursing home, before her death; therefore, Mr. Mills never received a tax notice.

Ms. Ginger Casburn, Exemptions Supervisor, Property Appraiser's Office, informed the Board that Mrs. Mills's mail went to the nursing home, prior to her passing away in 1994. She stated that her office did not receive an address change until Mr. Mills (son) called and informed them of such, which was after the fact.

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, interjected that mental impairment would be an extenuating circumstance.

On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Ms. Ramsey and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board overturned the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and approved a request for homestead exemption for Petition No. 1995-21, based on findings of fact and evidence presented this date.

PETITION NO. 1995-24 - RICHARD W. AND LAURA R. BROWN

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the Board that his office had received additional information they needed, regarding this case, therefore, had approved a request for homestead exemption and would recommend that the Board uphold said approval.

On a motion by Ms. Ramsey, seconded by Commr. Good and carried, by a 3-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and approved a request for homestead exemption for Petition No. 1995-24, based on evidence presented to the Property Appraiser's Office this date.

Commr. Gerber and Ms. Fischer were not present for the discussion or vote.

PETITION NO. 1995-29 - MR. AND MRS. SANTIAGO RIVERA

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the Board that this case involved a late filing for homestead exemption, noting that Mr. and Mrs. Rivera did not file until March 3, 1995.

Mr. Santiago Rivera, Petitioner, appeared before the Board stating that he and his wife were first time home buyers. He stated that they received a notice from the builder stating that the deadline date for filing for homestead exemption was March 18, 1995, however, upon filing, on March 3, 1995, he was informed that he had filed too late.

On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Ms. Ramsey and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and denied a request for homestead exemption for Petition No. 1995-29, due to findings of fact and lack of sufficient evidence to overturn the recommendation of denial.

PETITION NO. 1995-33 - ESTELLE TRAYLOR

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the Board that this case involved a late filing for homestead exemption, noting that Ms. Traylor did not file until March 7, 1995.

Ms. Estelle Traylor, Petitioner, appeared before the Board stating that she had fallen in her home on February 8, 1995 and crushed a disc in her back, therefore, was not ambulatory for quite some time. She submitted, for the record, a letter from Tri-County Orthopaedics stating that she was under their care from February 9, 1995 through March 7, 1995.

It was noted that Ms. Traylor's home was a used mobile home that she purchased in January, 1994 (filed deed in February, 1994).

On a motion by Ms. Ramsey, seconded by Commr. Good and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and denied a request for homestead exemption for Petition No. 1995-33, due to findings of fact and lack of sufficient evidence to overturn the recommendation of denial.

PETITION NO. 1995-41 - DEBRA J. RICHARDS

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the Board that this case involved a late filing for homestead exemption, noting that Ms. Richards did not file until March 2, 1995.

Ms. Debra Richards, Petitioner, appeared before the Board stating that, in 1992, when she purchased her mobile home, she did not receive the title to it, due to the fact that the individual she purchased the home from passed away and his son was unable to find the title in his father's escrow papers. She stated that she had been informed by the Property Appraiser's Office that she could not file for homestead, unless she had the title to the mobile home. She stated that, since that time, she had not been able to locate the son, to sign paperwork she needed to obtain a replacement title, so that she could file for homestead. She stated that a neighbor informed her that she could file as "home on property", rather than "mobile home on property", in which case she would not have to have the title. She stated that she called the Property Appraiser's Office on March 1, 1995, however, was not able to get through to anyone until 4:30 p.m. and, since she works in Orlando, could not make it to Tavares before closing time. She stated that she was informed she would be a day late in filing, however, could probably appeal it.

Mr. Havill stated that this case involved a "gray" area and that, apparently, Ms. Richards had been given misinformation in 1992. He stated that, due to the fact that she called his office at 4:30 p.m., on March 1, 1995, and was in the office the first thing the next morning and filed, he would not object to the Board overturning his recommendation of denial in this case.

On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Ms. Ramsey and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board overturned the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and approved a request for homestead exemption for Petition No. 1995-41, based on findings of fact and evidence presented this date.

PETITION NO. 1995-69 - JAMES AND MICHELE PRIDDY

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the Board that his office had obtained information they needed, regarding this case, therefore, had approved a request for homestead exemption and would recommend that the Board uphold said approval.

On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by Ms. Ramsey and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and approved a request for homestead exemption for Petition No. 1995-69, based on evidence presented to the Property Appraiser's Office this date.

PETITION NO. 1995-72 - DAISY JONES

Ms. Daisy Jones, Petitioner, appeared before the Board stating that she filed late for homestead exemption, because she did not receive paperwork that she needed, to do so, until after the deadline date of March 1, 1995.

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the Board that Ms. Jones did not file for homestead exemption until March 7, 1995.

On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and denied a request for homestead exemption for Petition No. 1995-72, due to findings of fact and lack of sufficient evidence to overturn the recommendation of denial.

PETITION NO. 1995-78 - JERRY WILLIS

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the Board that his office had received information they needed, regarding this case, therefore, had approved a request for homestead exemption and would recommend that the Board uphold said approval.

On a motion by Ms. Ramsey, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and approved a request for homestead exemption for Petition No. 1995-78, based on evidence presented to the Property Appraiser's Office this date.

PETITION NO. 1995-111 - JOHN AND DIANNE GARVIS

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the Board that this case involved a late filing for homestead exemption, noting that Mr. and Mrs. Garvis did not file until March 23, 1995.

Mr. John Garvis, Petitioner, appeared before the Board stating that he and his wife were newlyweds and had had a home built in September of 1994. He stated that he had never owned a home before and that his wife had lived with her parents, therefore, neither of them were aware of the deadline date of March 1, 1995, for filing for the exemption.

On a motion by Ms. Ramsey, seconded by Ms. Fischer and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and denied a request for homestead exemption for Petition No. 1995-111, due to findings of fact and lack of sufficient evidence to overturn the recommendation of denial.

PETITION NO. 1995-116 - GERALD S. AND PAMELA K. NYEN

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the Board that this case involved the late filing for homestead exemption, noting that Mr. and Mrs. Nyen did not file until May 31, 1995. He stated that they would have qualified, had they filed on time.

Ms. Pamela Nyen, Petitioner, appeared before the Board stating that she was unaware of the March 1 deadline date, due to the fact that she does not read the newspapers and never received anything from her builder regarding it. She stated that she was under the impression that she could file any time during the year. She noted that, in Illinois, when one purchases a home, their name is automatically put on the list for homestead exemption and that system seems to work very well.

On a motion by Ms. Ramsey, seconded by Ms. Fischer and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of Property Appraiser and denied a request for homestead exemption for Petition No. 1995-116, due to findings of fact and lack of sufficient evidence to overturn the recommendation of denial.

PETITION NO. 1995-118 - MICHAEL AND AMY NEAL

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the Board that this case involved the late filing for homestead exemption, noting that Mr. and Mrs. Neal did not file until March 8, 1995. He stated that they would have qualified, had they filed on time.

Ms. Amy Neal, Petitioner, appeared before the Board stating that she gave birth to her son at the beginning of February and that, at the end of the month, her husband's sister died of cancer.

Mr. Havill stated that he would not object to the Board overturning his recommendation of denial and approving this request.

On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by Commr. Good and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and approved a request for homestead exemption for Petition No. 1995-118, based on findings of fact and evidence presented this date.

PETITION NO. 1995-128 - ROBERT C. JOHNSON

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the Board that this case involved the late filing for homestead exemption, noting that Mr. Johnson did not file until September 18, 1995. He stated that Mr. Johnson would have been eligible for the exemption, had he filed on time, except for the fact that he has a Master Land Trust Agreement. He stated that he treats the property and trust as personal and that there was a question about the trust, itself.

Mr. Robert Johnson, Petitioner, appeared before the Board stating that, according to a statement made by Mr. Havill earlier during this meeting, the Property Appraiser's Office bases their taxation on the date of final inspection and that he did not receive final inspection on his home until the latter part of May, 1995. He stated that he had been in the process of building his home for one and one-half years and had almost all of his furniture in the home at the time.

Mr. Havill interjected that what Mr. Johnson stated about the final inspection was true, however, there is a Florida Statute that states that once an individual pulls a building permit, if the home is not completed within 18 months, the Property Appraiser's Office is to start assessing it the following January 1. He stated that Mr. Johnson obtained his building permit in 1993, so his office had to start assessing it this year, as a partially completed home.

Mr. Johnson stated that, as of January 1, 1995, his home was probably 95% complete. He stated that he and his wife were in the home, but not permanently, because they had not received their final inspection. He stated that it was his understanding that one cannot obtain homestead exemption without a Certificate of Occupancy. He stated that a final inspection was done on the home and the County assumed they were living in the home, however, they were never notified that they were going to be put on the tax roll.

Mr. Havill stated that whether Mr. and Mrs. Johnson were in their home January 1, 1995, or not, is beyond the scope of this hearing, because Mr. Johnson did not file for homestead exemption until September of this year. He noted that, had Mr. Johnson filed by March 1, 1995, he would have been able to get homestead exemption against his partially completed home.

A motion was made by Commr. Gerber and seconded by Ms. Fischer to uphold the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and deny a request for homestead exemption for Petition No. 1995-128, due to findings of fact and lack of sufficient evidence to overturn the recommendation of denial.

Under discussion, Mr. Johnson questioned the issue of the Certificate of Occupancy not being issued until May of 1995.

Commr. Good stated that it would not have affected the date that Mr. Johnson filed his papers.

The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote.

MISCELLANEOUS

Mr. Frank Royce, Property Appraiser's Office, informed the Board, for informational purposes, that the various counties throughout the State and the Country had an influx of petitions from tax representatives. He stated that the ones representing cases in Lake County are stating that they had not received any direction stating that they needed to get information to the Property Appraiser's Office ahead of time and are quoting the Florida Statutes. He stated that they will be contacting the Board, requesting a later hearing, stating that they did not know that they had to get the information submitted within five (5) days of the hearings and that the hearings are too soon. He referred to a company in Biloxi, Mississippi, represented by Mr. Bryan Gipson, who filed approximately ten petitions on September 18, 1995. He stated that his office mailed Mr. Gipson a request for information September 19, 1995 and that staff has no control over delays created by the Post Office, however, wanted the Board to know that Mr. Gipson was aware that he needed to submit information ahead of time. He noted that said cases would be scheduled for Friday, September 29, 1995.

COMMISSIONERS

At this time, Commr. Gerber left the meeting, due to another commitment.

PETITION NO. 1995-43 - JIMMIE O. HULL

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the Board that this case involved a "gray" area, whereby, Mr. Hull rented his house and garage apartment to his adult son, while he was in Arizona for approximately four to five months. He stated that this case did not involve a run-of-the-mill homestead application. He stated that Mr. Hull filed for homestead exemption on April 4, 1995, however, he had an exemption on the property last year, but, because of the complaint his office received and, due to the fact that it looked like Mr. Hull was renting the property out, he took the exemption away. He stated that the question is whether the homestead exemption should have been taken away, to begin with.

Mr. Jimmie Hull, Petitioner, appeared before the Board stating that the last part of 1995, his family decided to take a mission trip out West, to work in orphanages, soup kitchens, with teenagers, etc., so the latter part of the year, his family was living on his property in the main house. He stated that he has lived on the property since 1981. He stated that his family left December 26, 1994, to go on the trip he alluded to and returned home in February, 1995. He stated that they had rented a portion of their property, but not all of it, so immediate family members were living on the property at all times, therefore, he was shocked to learn that he had lost his exemption.

Mr. Havill interjected that rental of a portion of the property does not abandon the homestead exemption. He stated that, after receiving several complaints from a neighbor that Mr. Hull had rented out his property, he sent an employee to the property to investigate and suggested that the family file for homestead exemption and go before the Value Adjustment Board, for a decision. However, after considering the facts involving this case, he would recommend that the Board continue the homestead exemption that was on the property, because he felt it should not have been taken away.

It was noted that a portion of the residence was the primary residence of Mr. Hull and his family and continues to be.

On a motion by Ms. Fischer, seconded by Ms. Ramsey and carried, by a 4-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser to retain homestead exemption on the property in question, for Petition No. 1995-43, based on findings of fact and evidence presented this date.

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

PETITION NO. 1995-138 - KATHERINE A. FENNELL

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the Board that this case involved the late filing for homestead exemption, noting that Ms. Fennell did not file until March 16, 1995. He stated that she would have qualified, had she filed on time.

Ms. Katherine Fennell, Petitioner, appeared before the Board stating that she had a problem securing the documents that she needed, in a timely fashion, to prove that she had purchased her home and was a resident of Florida, which she elaborated on.

On a motion by Ms. Fischer, seconded by Ms. Ramsey and carried, by a 4-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and denied a request for homestead exemption for Petition No. 1995-138, due to findings of fact and lack of sufficient evidence to overturn the recommendation of denial.

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

PETITION NO. 1995-313 - BILL E. SAYLOR

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the Board that this case involved the late filing for homestead exemption, noting that Mr. Saylor did not file until September 18, 1995. He stated that he would have qualified for the exemption, had he filed on time.

Mr. Bill Saylor appeared before the Board stating that the reason he filed so late was because he had been given misinformation about his need to file, noting that he was told it would not be necessary for him to file, that he would automatically receive it. He stated that he was not aware that he had to file, until he received his trim notice and saw that he had not been given the exemption.

It was noted that he purchased his home from his sister, however, she did not have homestead exemption on it, because she had a residence in Orlando and rented the home to his father.

On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Ms. Ramsey and carried, by a 4-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and denied a request for homestead exemption for Petition No. 1995-313, due to findings of fact and lack of sufficient evidence to overturn the recommendation of denial.

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

RECESS AND REASSEMBLY

At 11:40 a.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess until 3:00 p.m.

MISCELLANEOUS

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, informed the Board that, during the lunch break, he had received a telephone call from Mr. Bryan Gipson, one of the individuals Mr. Royce, Property Appraiser's Office, was referring to earlier, from Biloxi, Mississippi, who represented property owners involved in Petitions No. 1995-183 through 1995-189, scheduled to be heard on Friday, September 29, 1995. He stated that there were two issues, with respect to Mr. Gipson, the first being that the Property Appraiser's Office apparently sent out a notice, other than the notice of the hearing, requesting additional information from the property owners involved and has not received a response. He stated that Mr. Gipson indicated they never received said letter, however, is willing to provide whatever materials the Property Appraiser's Office is requesting. Secondly, Mr. Gipson has requested a continuance of said cases, citing the Administrative Code, which requires that the notices mailed by the Clerk's Office be received by the property owners five days prior to the hearings, or, alternatively, it requires that the notices be mailed ten days prior to the hearings.

Mr. Minkoff stated that granting a continuance would allow the Board to comply with the Code and would give the Property Appraiser's Office the opportunity to review whatever information Mr. Gipson submits.

Discussion occurred regarding the matter, at which time Mr. Havill noted problems his office is faced with, in trying to meet the deadline date of October 12, 1995, for the Tax Collector.

Commr. Swartz stated that he would like to have the Tax Collector's input on the matter.

Ms. Jordan Stewart, Attorney, representing the Property Appraiser's Office, interjected, at this time, that she had a housekeeping matter to resolve, being that, with respect to agricultural classification matters, the Property Appraiser had respectfully requested that Commr. Good recuse himself from those matters and those matters only - that he withdraw from the room for each and every agricultural classification petition that is heard, based on what has gone on during the past year and on the involvement of Commr. Good in the agricultural movement. She stated that the Property Appraiser was respectfully requesting that the Board consider recusal, specifically as to Commr. Good, in light of the fact that they feel it would be an uncomfortable position for Commr. Good to be placed in, considering the context of the objections with the agricultural community.

Commr. Good requested the advice of the County Attorney regarding this matter.

Mr. Minkoff, County Attorney, stated that Florida law prohibits public officers from abstaining, unless they have a conflict of interest, as provided under Chapter 112 of the Florida Statutes. He stated that, in his opinion, Commr. Good would not be able to abstain, unless he had a personal conflict, as provided in said Chapter.

Ms. Stewart stated that, with all due respect, she felt Mr. Minkoff was confusing abstention with recusal. She stated that this circumstance is not one where the Board is empowered to sit and make a decision on a public issue, such as an ordinance, it is specific to each petition that comes before the Board, and, just as a judge would decide between parties, the Board decides between parties, one being the Property Appraiser and the other being the taxpayer; therefore, it does not fall under the provisions of Chapter 286.011, it falls under the provisions of Chapter 194, specifically, Chapter 194.015, which addresses the constitution of the Value Adjustment Board. She stated that that is the only Statute that addresses the constitution and action of the Value Adjustment Board.

Ms. Stewart stated that recusal has never been raised as an issue, nor has it ever been addressed that a member of the Board could not leave during any petition, as long as a quorum remains. She stated that the Board sits as a body to hear and, as long as that body has three members present, any one member can withdraw. She stated that that is not true of a board that is constituted as a public body, under Chapter 286. She stated that the provisions of Chapter 120, Administrative Hearings, do not apply to this and, by extrapolation, they can comfortably say that the only limitations and empowerment that do apply are those in Chapter 194.015. She stated that Commr. Good's conscience should decide this matter, not the Board, nor her, nor Mr. Havill.

Commr. Swartz stated that the Board had a request before them from the Property Appraiser that Commr. Good recuse himself during any discussions concerning agricultural classifications and that, as he understood it, it was Commr. Good's decision to determine whether or not he could serve on this Board and make fair and impartial rulings, as he is obligated to do, under the law, therefore, would leave that decision up to him to make.

Ms. Stewart stated that the issue would be raised, under any circumstance, because, if she understood correctly, Commr. Good had a petition that would be coming before the Board.

Commr. Good interjected that he would recuse himself at that time. He stated that, in one case, he owns the property in question and, in the other case, he would be ruling on a matter that is unrelated to him and he would gain no financial, or personal, benefit from, other than doing the job that he is supposed to do and make a decision that he has been asked to make, which are very different situations. He stated that he did not, at this point, see any reason for him to recuse himself from any case other than the case that involves his property.

Commr. Swartz stated that the issue had been raised and Commr. Good was not recusing himself, therefore, suggested moving forward with the meeting.

PETITION NO. 1995-76 - W. E. LOCKEBY, SR.

Mr. W. E. Lockeby, Sr., Petitioner, appeared before the Board requesting a reassessment of his property. He had information available that he was felt was pertinent to his case, however, was not allowed to present it, due to the fact that he had not provided same to the Property Appraiser's Office five days prior to this meeting. He stated that his property assessment had increased from $79,123.00 to $96,536.00, which was a 22% increase. He stated that he inquired as to why his assessment had been increased to such an extent and was told by the Property Appraiser's Office that staff had found some air conditioners on the premises. He stated that he did not own the air conditioners, that the tenants own their own air conditioners and are permitted to take them with them when they leave; therefore, he should not be taxed for them.

Mr. Lockeby stated that he had spoken to Mr. Mike Bryie, in the Property Appraiser's Office, about the matter and Mr. Bryie informed him that that part would be removed from his assessment. He stated that he further questioned Mr. Bryie as to, other than the air conditioning, what constituted the 22% increase in the assessment and was informed by Mr. Bryie that his property had not been properly appraised for the past several years. He requested the Board to not penalize him, by raising his assessment so high in one year, for their mistake. He stated that, if the County was going to increase his assessed value, to do it in a timely manner, year by year, and not all at once.

Mr. Frank Royce, Property Appraiser's Office, informed the Board that Mr. Lockeby's assessment had been the same for a number of years, due to the fact that staff cannot visit every property, every year; therefore, they visit the sites every three years, as required by law. He stated that they found some of the information they had was incorrect, so they had to change the assessment, to bring it up to the value that staff felt was warranted. He stated that the property is assessed at $20,130.00 (purchased for same in 1958) and the building at $70,696.00, for a total assessment of $90,826.00. He stated that, without any further information, as far as income, staff feels that the assessed value is fair and just.

On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by Commr. Good and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the Property Appraiser's assessment of $90,826.00, for Petition No. 1995-76, due to findings of fact and lack of sufficient evidence to reduce the assessment.

MISCELLANEOUS

Mr. T. Keith Hall, Tax Collector, appeared before the Board to respond to a question regarding the continuance of certain cases that would delay the Property Appraiser's ability to get the tax roll to him, in a timely fashion, and force the County to have a dual certification. He stated that a dual certification would not create a problem for his office, in the sense that, under Chapter 197.323, it states that, if the continuance of the Value Adjustment Board is the only reason for delaying issuance of the tax roll, he could request the Board of County Commissioners to have the tax roll extended and it would be certified to him, after the fact, when all the cases have been heard and acted on. He stated that, for any cases already on the tax roll, the Property Appraiser would simply give him a correction reducing or increasing the value, whatever the case may be.

It was noted that the matter would be put on the Agenda for the next Board of County Commissioner's Meeting (October 3, 1995), as an Addendum, for approval.

PETITIONS NO. 1995-140; 1995-141; 1995-144; 1995-145

1995-146; 1995-148; 1995-149 - ERIC H. COE

Dr. Eric Coe, Petitioner, appeared before the Board stating that he was in the rental property business. He stated that he petitioned these cases (duplexes), because he felt the assessments were higher than they should be. He stated that he was requested to submit paperwork indicating what he was offered for five duplexes, which were similar to his, to buy, and that he had sent said information to the Property Appraiser's Office, by registered mail.

Mr. Peter Peebles, West County Crew Chief, Property Appraiser's Office, appeared before the Board and requested to see the registered mail receipt, noting that his office did not receive anything from Dr. Coe.

Dr. Coe indicated that he did not have said receipt with him, however, given the time, could retrieve it from his office.

A brief discussion occurred regarding the matter.

Commr. Swartz suggested continuing these cases, until such time as the Property Appraiser's Office could determine whether or not said information was received and/or Dr. Coe could prove that it was sent.

A motion was made by Commr. Gerber and seconded by Commr. Good to continue Dr. Coe's petitions until 4:45 p.m., this date, to allow him the opportunity to obtain his registered mail receipt and bring same back to the Board, as requested.

Under discussion, Commr. Gerber questioned whether Dr. Coe had any other evidence to present, at this time.

Dr. Coe stated that he did not.

The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote.

PETITION NO. 1995-57 - IRA L. JARVIS

Mr. Ira Jarvis, Petitioner, appeared before the Board requesting a reassessment of his property. He submitted, for the record, a folder containing information pertinent to his case, as well as seven (7) photos of various homes in his subdivision (Bright Water Place). He then reviewed said information and photos and answered questions from the Board regarding same. It was noted that his property was assessed at $70,300.00; however, he feels it should be assessed at $53,986.00.

Mr. Frank Royce, Chief Deputy, Property Appraiser's Office, stated that the Bright Water Subdivision had had some problems in the past, however, considering the market value and the fact that the lot in question is a buildable lot, on Lake Eustis, staff feels the assessment is fair and just. He further elaborated on the matter, noting what several lots in the subdivision had sold for. He stated that it is an ongoing subdivision, containing beautiful lots, in a gorgeous setting.

On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by Ms. Ramsey and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved to uphold the Property Appraiser's assessment of $70,300.00, for Petition No. 1995-57, due to findings of fact and lack of sufficient evidence to reduce the assessment.

PETITIONS NO. 1995-140; 1995-141; 1995-144; 1995-145

1995-146; 1995-148; 1995-149 - ERIC H. COE (CONT'D.)

These cases were postponed earlier in the meeting, to allow the petitioner to obtain his registered mail receipt, showing that he had mailed information that he felt was pertinent to these cases to the Property Appraiser's Office, prior to this meeting.

Dr. Eric Coe, Petitioner, reappeared before the Board stating that, according to the receipt, the Property Appraiser's Office received said information August 31, 1995, at which time he distributed, for the record, copies of the receipt. He then projected on the monitor, for the Board's perusal, copies of the documents that he had submitted to the Property Appraiser's Office, for discussion and review. He stated that he was contesting the Property Appraiser's value of the duplexes and noted that he would be presenting evidence as to what the income was, in terms of the capitalization rate, and would show what figure was last offered for the duplexes.

It was noted that the Property Appraiser's Office had assessed the duplexes at $43,500.00 per unit; however, Dr. Coe feels the assessment should be between $41,000.00 and $42,000.00 per unit, due to the fact that he could purchase units of similar nature, through the bank, for $40,200.00 per unit.

Ms. Jordan Stewart, Attorney, representing the Property Appraiser's Office, questioned Dr. Coe about the duplexes and discussed the issue of the capitalization rate with him.

COMMISSIONERS

At this time, Commr. Gerber left the meeting, for the remainder of the day, due to another commitment.

PETITIONS NO. 1995-140; 1995-141; 1995-144; 1995-145

1995-146; 1995-148; 1995-149 - ERIC H. COE (CONT'D.)

Discussion continued regarding the matter of the duplexes, at which time Mr. Frank Royce, Chief Deputy, Property Appraiser's Office, stated that, what was given to the Property Appraiser's Office was the net income and gross income for said duplexes; however, it was not enough to make an opinion of value, using the income approach. He stated that said information was on the properties in the Leesburg area, which were assessed separately, therefore, requested the Board to consider those petitions separately, before going on to the other duplexes owned by Dr. Coe. Mr. Royce stated that the information submitted to his office from Dr. Coe, by way of registered mail, was paperwork that Dr. Coe had received from the bank and would not have been information that his office would have taken a lot of stock in, because, according to the Clerk's Office, the bank does not own said properties. He stated that they could be properties in foreclosure that the bank holds the mortgage on. He stated that he did not feel anything that is bought by a bank, in multiple units, can be used as a fair market value and noted that Dr. Coe had not submitted any other information, as far as that is concerned.

On a motion by Ms. Ramsey, seconded by Ms. Fischer and carried, by a 4-0 vote, the Board upheld the Property Appraiser's assessment of $933,244.00, for Petitions No. 1995-140; 1995-141; 1995-144; 1995-145; 1995-146; 1995-148; and 1995-149, involving 19 duplexes, due to findings of fact and lack of sufficient evidence to reduce the assessment.

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

PETITION NO. 1995-139 - ERIC H. COE

Dr. Eric Coe, Petitioner, addressed Petition No. 1995-139, involving five (5) duplexes located on Hwy. 44, east of the Lake County Fairgrounds, assessed at $262,252.00. He stated that there was not a great deal of difference in size, or rent, between these duplexes and the duplexes located in Birchwood (previously discussed), therefore, felt these duplexes were worth approximately the same as the ones in Birchwood.

Mr. Mike Bryie, East County Crew Chief, Property Appraiser's Office, appeared before the Board stating that each of the units in question were assessed at $42,990.00, not including the land. He stated that the income information Dr. Coe provided to his office was incomplete, which he elaborated on. He then answered questions from the Board regarding the matter.

Mr. Frank Royce, Chief Deputy, Property Appraiser's Office, noted, for the record, that staff used a cost approach on the buildings and a market approach on the land.

Discussion continued regarding the matter, at which time Dr. Coe answered questions from the Board regarding same.

On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Ms. Fischer and carried, by a 4-0 vote, the Board upheld the Property Appraiser's assessment of $262,252.00, for Petition No. 1995-139, due to findings of fact and lack of sufficient evidence to reduce the assessment.

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

PETITION NO. 1995-142 - ERIC H. COE

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the Board that discussion regarding this petition would follow the same as it had for the previous petitions and that his office would have no further input regarding the matter.

Dr. Eric Coe, Petitioner, noted, for the record, that this petition involved two duplexes in Eustis and that they were similar in size and rent to the Birchwood units.

A brief discussion occurred regarding the matter.

On a motion by Ms. Ramsey, seconded by Ms. Fischer and carried, by a 4-0 vote, the Board upheld the Property Appraiser's assessment of $100,984.00, for Petition No. 1995-142, due to findings of fact and lack of sufficient evidence to reduce the assessment.

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

PETITION NO. 1995-147 - ERIC H. COE

Dr. Eric Coe, Petitioner, did not address this petition, due to the fact that it is very similar to the property involving Petition No. 1995-142 and he felt the Board would take the same action that they took with said petition.

On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Ms. Fischer and carried, by a 4-0 vote, the Board upheld the Property Appraiser's assessment of $49,469.00, for Petition No. 1995-147, due to findings of fact and lack of sufficient evidence to reduce the assessment.

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

PETITION NO. 1995-143 - ERIC H. COE

Dr. Eric Coe, Petitioner, stated that this petition involved two (2) duplexes in Astatula that were more than 15 years old. He stated that, if the Property Appraiser's Office used the income approach, they would come up with a figure that he felt the duplexes should have been appraised at, being between $80,000.00 to $90,000.00.

Mr. Frank Royce, Chief Deputy, Property Appraiser's Office, noted that the cost approach was used, in assessing the property in question. He stated that the value was in the land, because it is located on a canal. He stated that, if the same units were in Leesburg, or Eustis, the value would be less.

On a motion by Ms. Ramsey, seconded by Ms. Fischer and carried, by a 4-0 vote, the Board upheld the Property Appraiser's assessment of $117,716.00, for Petition No. 1995-143, due to findings of fact and lack of sufficient evidence to reduce the assessment.

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



COMMISSIONERS

Ms. Ramsey was not present for the discussion concerning the following case.

PETITION NO. 1995-104 - HARWOOD E. FISH

Mr. Harwood Fish, Petitioner, appeared before the Board to request a reassessment of his property. He submitted, for the record, documents that he felt were pertinent to his case, for the Board's perusal. He stated that, in March of 1994, he purchased the property for $55,000.00, noting that he had had an appraisal done by a professional appraiser (Mr. Wayne Justison) and the property was appraised at that figure.

Mr. Fish stated that, when he purchased his property in 1994, his broker advised him that the assessed value was $20,233.00; however, the Property Appraiser's Office assessed the property at $50,339.00, a 150% increase. He noted that the current assessment is $69,751.00, a further increase of 40%. He stated what various other lots in his subdivision sold for, noting that, originally, the subdivision was going to have a golf course, swimming pool, tennis club, etc.; however, none of that is now going to occur, so the lots are selling for a lot less than originally assessed. He stated that, if the County wanted to assess it at $55,000.00, that would be fine, however, if the County wanted more than what he paid for it, he had a problem with that.

Mr. Frank Royce, Chief Deputy, Property Appraiser's Office, informed the Board that he had never seen a licensed appraiser use auction sales for his comparable properties, but that is what Mr. Fish's appraiser did. He stated that he would not even consider using said appraisal and he did not feel that anyone else in the business would either. He stated that Mr. Fish got a good deal on his property, because the individual who sold the property to him paid $60,000.00 for it and then sold it to him for $55,000.00.

Mr. Fish stated that he did not like the idea of the Property Appraiser's Office impugning his appraiser, noting that he was a professional appraiser that Sun Bank uses to do their appraisals.

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, interjected that he knew Mr. Fish's appraiser and that his office was not impugning him, that they feel he is a good appraiser, however, noted that, when a bank has an appraisal done, they have to loan money on the property, therefore, are going to be very conservative in their appraisals. He stated that the fact the appraiser used auction prices shows that he was looking for the lowest number he could get.

On a motion by Ms. Fischer, seconded by Commr. Good and carried, by a 3-0 vote, the Board upheld the Property Appraiser's assessment of $69,751.00, for Petition No. 1995-104, due to findings of fact and lack of sufficient evidence to reduce the assessment.

Ms. Ramsey abstained from the vote, due to the fact that she was not present for the discussion.

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

COMMISSIONERS

At this time Ms. Fischer left the meeting, due to another commitment.

PETITION NO. 1995-282 - ROBERT A. AND DEBRA P. DEWITT

Mr. Harwood Fish appeared before the Board, representing Mr. and Mrs. Robert DeWitt, Petitioners, and requested a reassessment of their property. He submitted, for the record, documents that he felt were pertinent to the case, for the Board's perusal.

It was noted that the Property Appraiser's Office assessed the property at $191,575.00 for the home and $68,771.00 for the land, for a total assessment of $260,346.00; however, Mr. and Mrs. DeWitt feel that the home should be assessed at $196,500.00 and the land at $55,000.00, for a total assessment of $251,500.00.

Mr. Fish stated that the land was the main thing that he was concerned with and that he would use the same argument that he did for his property.

On a motion by Ms. Ramsey, seconded by Commr. Good and carried, by a 3-0 vote, the Board upheld the Property Appraiser's assessment of $260,346.00 for Petition No. 1995-282, due to findings of fact and lack of sufficient evidence to reduce the assessment.

Commr. Gerber and Ms. Fischer were not present for the discussion or vote.

PETITION NO. 1995-344 - JEAN C. HUNTINGTON, TRUSTEE

Mr. Harwood Fish appeared before the Board, representing Ms. Jean Huntington, Petitioner, and requested a reassessment of her property. He used the same argument that he did for his property.

It was noted that the Property Appraiser's Office assessed the property at $69,751.00; however, Ms. Huntington feels the assessment should be $55,000.00.

On a motion by Ms. Ramsey, seconded by Commr. Good and carried, by a 3-0 vote, the Board upheld the Property Appraiser's assessment of $69,751.00 for Petition No. 1995-344, due to findings of fact and lack of sufficient evidence to reduce the assessment.

Commr. Gerber and Ms. Fischer were not present for the discussion or vote.

PETITION NO. 1995-80 - JULIA ANNE WILSON

Ms. Julia Wilson, Petitioner, appeared before the Board to request a reassessment of her property. She submitted, for the record, a statement and other documents that she felt were pertinent to the case, for the Board's perusal. She pointed out the fact that the Property Appraiser's Office had increased the value, both market and assessed, from $9,453.00 to $14,126.00, an increase of $4,673.00, or slightly more than a 49.5% increase. She stated that, when she inquired as to the reason for the increase, she was told that it was the purchase price that she had paid for the lot on April 28, 1995; however, according to the TRIM notice that she received, the value was supposed to be based on the market value, as of January 1, 1995, a full four months before she purchased the lot. She stated that, on January 1, 1995, the lot was the same vacant, unimproved lot, as it had been in prior years. She stated that, when further questioned about what the purchase price had to do with the appraised value, she was told that it was one of the factors they use, along with sales, etc. She stated that she was told their office had thought the lot would sell for probably about $4,000.00 to $5,000.00 less than what she paid for it and that she had already been given a 10% discount, because of the lift station next to it. She noted that the Property Appraiser's Office did reduce the original assessment to $11,772.00.

Ms. Wilson stated that, according to the research she did, there had been no sales in the area, whatsoever. She stated that, in researching the computer files of the Property Appraiser's Office, she found that all of the vacant lots in the subdivision had been reduced, except hers. She stated that she never received a clear explanation as to why her lot got increased, by almost 25%, and everybody else's lot got reduced. She stated that she felt the purchase price should have nothing to do with it and she did not know of any other sales in the area, to base it on. She stated that she would like for the value of the lot to remain the same, or be reduced, as the other vacant lots in the area had been.

Mr. Frank Royce, Chief Deputy, Property Appraiser's Office, informed the Board that Ms. Wilson's subdivision was reappraised and that, if one looked at the chart she submitted showing the taxable value of the current year versus the previous year, one could see the assessed value of the vacant lots Ms. Wilson alluded to. He stated that, after further review of Ms. Wilson's case, he felt the Property Appraiser's reduction from $14,126.00, originally reported on the TRIM notice, to $11,772.00 was in error and recommended that the value be increased back to the original figure of $14,126.00. He stated that the subdivision is a nice subdivision, containing waterfront lots and homes in the mid-$80,000 range. He stated that a value of $15,000.00 to $17,000.00 was good for Ms. Wilson's particular size piece of property.

Commr. Swartz questioned what the basis was for reducing the property, originally.

Mr. Royce stated that it was reduced in error, which he elaborated on.

Ms. Wilson stated that she did not feel she should have to pay the price for somebody else's mistake, if that is what it is. She stated that, in looking at the history of the values from 1987 forward, the price range is all over the place. She noted that the value of her property was at $18,000.00 at one point and got dropped by half of that, but is now being raised back up and she did not understand why.

Mr. Royce stated that every appraisal is an opinion of value. He stated that he did not know why the assessed value of Ms. Wilson's property was $18,000.00 in 1991 and then dropped to $9,000.00. He stated that the appraiser, at that time, went out and looked at the property and in 1991, 1992, 1993, and 1994, there was no change in the assessed value of the lot; however, in 1995 they reassessed it, because of Amendment No. 10, which required his office to look at homesteaded properties. He stated that they looked at every lot, whether they were homesteaded, or vacant. He stated that some values went down and some went up. He stated that Ms. Wilson's particular lot was simply way out of line from any other assessment for land in her subdivision.

On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Ms. Ramsey and carried, by a 3-0 vote, the Board upheld the Property Appraiser's assessment of $11,772.00 for Petition No. 1995-80, due to findings of fact and lack of sufficient evidence to reduce the assessment.

Commr. Gerber and Ms. Fischer were not present for the discussion or vote.

PETITION NO. 1995-68 - PULP MILL HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION, INC.

Mr. Robert C. Schneider, President, Pulp Mill Homeowners' Association, Inc., Petitioner, appeared before the Board stating that his subdivision consisted of 27 lots. He submitted, for the record, a copy of the Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions for the subdivision, as well as copy of the plat, for the Board's perusal. He stated that, when the Homeowners' Association took over the property in question from Mr. and Mrs. Herlong, in 1991, they deeded to the Association a lot of common land, being the roads, circles, etc. He stated that there was another piece of property deeded at that time, being Lot 28. He noted that the Covenants and Restrictions mention Lot 28 as being deeded to the homeowners, for the exclusive storage of boats, trailers, etc. He stated that the by-laws restrict the homeowners from parking said vehicles anywhere else in the subdivision, other than Lot 28.

Mr. Schneider stated that the Property Appraiser feels Lot 28 could be sold as a buildable lot, if the Homeowners' Association would vote to sell it, therefore, has appraised it at $10,786.00. He stated that all the other common land, except for that lot, has been appraised at $8,800.00. He stated that the homeowners would never vote to sell the lot, because if they did, they would not have any place to park their vehicles and it would be contrary to the Covenants and Restrictions that they bought into. He stated that another reason the lot cannot be sold, covered on Page 7 of the Covenants and Restrictions, is that the Covenants and Restrictions run with the land and are binding on all parties and persons under them, for a period of 25 years from the date that the Restrictions were recorded, being 1984. He stated that, in the year 2009, the homeowners could do something about it, if they wished.

Mr. Schneider stated that, at the present time, the lot is just common land. He referred to another parcel of property in the upper left-hand corner of the plat provided to the Board, stating that it was a lot that Mr. Herlong gave to the Homeowners' Association in May of this year. He noted that said lot is also common land and that the Property Appraiser's Office appraised said lot at $1,080.00, which the Association is happy with. He did some calculations and noted that, based on said calculations, the Homeowners' Association feels that Lot 28 should be appraised at $3,000.00.

Ms. Jordan Stewart, Attorney, representing the Property Appraiser's Office, informed the Board that the Covenants and Restrictions contradicts itself, noting that it states no recreational vehicles, including but not limited to campers, boats, boat trailers, motor homes and mobile homes, shall be parked in the subdivision, other than on Lot 28, but it does not limit the use of Lot 28 to that. She referred to Article XXV of the Covenants and Restrictions, which states that, by a majority vote of the members of the Homeowners' Association, the owners of record of Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 25, 26, 27 and 28 may each place a boat dock on Tract B, or Tract C. She stated that that would seem to indicate that, if there is an owner of Lot 28, that that owner has the right to put in a dock. She further elaborated on the matter, noting limitations that the owner of Lot 28 could place on said lot, in the future, should he/she choose to do so.

Mr. Peter Peebles, West County Crew Chief, Property Appraiser's Office, appeared before the Board and noted the condition of the other common lots in the subdivision. He stated, however, that Lot 28 is fenced, with nothing on it but mobile homes and boats and, if one were to take them off the lot, one would be left with a flat, buildable lot, that is platted as a lot.

It was noted that the Property Appraiser's Office was aware that Lot 28 is a storage lot, however, consideration was given for the lot's highest and best use, at the present time.

On a motion by Ms. Ramsey, seconded by Commr. Good and carried, by a 3-0 vote, the Board upheld the Property Appraiser's assessment of $10,786.00, for Petition No. 1995-68, due to findings of fact and lack of sufficient evidence to reduce the assessment.

Commr. Gerber and Ms. Fischer were not present for the discussion or vote.

PETITION NO. 1995-109 - TOMMIE N. AND LUCILLE V. WEATHERS

Mr. Leonard Baird, Jr., Attorney, representing Mr. and Mrs. Tommie Weathers, Petitioners, appeared before the Board stating that Mr. Weathers had two petitions, one that he filed himself, regarding his agricultural exemption, and the other regarding his home in Margaree Gardens, in Clermont, and he was present, at this time, regarding the agricultural exemption.

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the Board that the petitioner, Mr. Weathers, had pine trees on the property in question and that, prior to May 1, 1995, if one had a twelve month hiatus from a green belt farming operation, it would be an illegal use after that, if the zoning had been upzoned, and that Mr. Weathers was in that position. He stated that, at the May 1, 1995 Board Meeting, when the LDRs were changed for Lake County, the 12 month window of opportunity for one to get back into the green belt was widened to 15 years and, had that been in effect on January 1, 1995, the Property Appraiser's Office would have approved Mr. Weather's pine tree farm; therefore, he did not see any problem with it and would not object to the Board approving it, for this year.

On a motion by Ms. Ramsey, seconded by Commr. Good and carried, by a 3-0 vote, the Board overturned the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and approved a request for an agricultural exemption for Petition No. 1995-109, based on findings of fact and evidence presented this date.

Commr. Gerber and Ms. Fischer were not present for the discussion or vote.

PETITION NO. 1995-286 - DARYL D. LARSEN

Mr. Leonard Baird, Jr., Attorney, representing Mr. Daryl Larsen, Petitioner, appeared before the Board requesting a reassessment of Mr. Larsen's property. He stated that Mr. Larsen had valued the lot in 1994 at $115,000.00 and that, in 1995, it went up to $160,000.00. He stated that Mr. Larsen feels it is a fairly substantial increase and is unjustified by any of the sales in the neighborhood.

Mr. Frank Driggers, Senior Review Appraiser, Property Appraiser's Office, appeared before the Board and distributed a copy of a newspaper article which noted that Mr. Larsen paid $130,000.00 for his homesite several years ago, as well as an explanation and justification for his assessment of the property, for the Board's perusal.

Mr. Baird objected to the submission of the article, stating that the only objection this date was the increase in the land, itself.

Mr. Driggers justified his assessment of the property, giving as an example, comparables of two vacant waterfront lots in the subdivision and what they sold for, noting that one of the lots sold for $54,000.00, in December of 1986, and that, in May of 1989, the same lot sold for $105,000.00, a 94% increase, in less than three years. He stated that the same lot sold again in January of 1990 for $145,000.00, a 38% increase in one year, and again in August of 1993, it sold for $165,000.00. He noted that the second lot in his example sold for $69,500.00, in December of 1987, and again in November of 1991, for $180,000.00, a 160% increase in four years.

On a motion by Ms. Ramsey, seconded by Commr. Good and carried, by a 3-0 vote, the Board upheld the Property Appraiser's assessment of $592,986.00, for Petition No. 1995-286, due to findings of fact and lack of sufficient evidence to reduce the assessment.

Commr. Gerber and Ms. Fischer were not present for the discussion or vote.

Mr. Baird noted, for the record, that he was present to represent Mr. T. N. Weathers, with regard to Petition No. 1995-287, and Mr. Cataldo Cerilli, with regard to Petition No. 1995-288, however, wished to withdraw said petitions, at this time.

PETITION NO. 1995-292 - GEORGE T. AND ANNE D. KIRBY

Mr. George Kirby, Petitioner, appeared before the Board requesting an agricultural classification of his property, which had been denied. He noted that said property consisted of a five acre naval orange grove, off Lake Nellie, which was purchased in 1981 and froze out in 1983 and again in 1985. He stated that, in 1989, he lost 475 trees that he had reset after the two previous freezes, however, still had 325 of the original trees. He stated that he had receipts indicating that the property was mowed in March of this year and herbicided in May. He stated that he distributed the Spring fertilizer himself and indicated that he had a man that tended to the grove. He showed the Board several pictures that he had taken of his grove, showing its condition, and answered questions regarding same.

Mr. Frank Royce, Property Appraiser's Office, noted, for the record, that Mr. Kirby had been denied an agricultural exemption for this year, due to the fact that documentation and visual inspection showed that care is only given to the property approximately once a year. He stated that the lack of care was the primary reason for denial of the exemption. He showed the Board pictures that the Property Appraiser's Office had taken of said grove, in comparison to the ones that Mr. Kirby displayed. He stated that the care Mr. Kirby had given his grove, since staff took their pictures, would allow the five acres in question to qualify for an agricultural exemption.

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the Board that, since Mr. Kirby had paperwork showing income and expenses and the fact that the pictures he took shows that he is caring for the grove, he would not object to the Board overturning his recommendation of denial and approving an agricultural exemption for him.

On a motion by Ms. Ramsey, seconded by Commr. Good and carried, by a 3-0 vote, the Board overturned the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and approved a request for agricultural exemption for Petition No. 1995-292, based on findings of fact and evidence presented this date.

Commr. Gerber and Ms. Fischer were not present for the discussion or vote.

PETITION NO. 1995-290 - GEORGE T. AND ANNE D. KIRBY

PETITION NO. 1995-291 - GEORGE T. AND ANNE D. KIRBY

Mr. George Kirby, Petitioner, appeared before the Board requesting an agricultural classification of his property, which had been denied. He showed the Board various pictures of his groves and noted that he had bills and receipts showing that he was working and caring for the groves.

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the Board that, as in the case before this one, since Mr. Kirby had paperwork showing income and expenses and the fact that the pictures he took shows that he is caring for the groves, he would not object to the Board overturning his recommendation of denial and approving an agricultural exemption for him.

On a motion by Ms. Ramsey, seconded by Commr. Good and carried, by a 3-0 vote, the Board overturned the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and approved a request for an agricultural exemption for Petitions No. 1995-290 and 1995-291, based on findings of fact and evidence presented this date.

Commr. Gerber and Ms. Fischer were not present for the discussion or vote.

PETITION NO. 1995-280 - JAMES F. AND GLORIA C. GARDNER

Mr. and Mrs. James Gardner, Petitioners, appeared before the Board requesting an agricultural classification of their property, which had been denied.

Mr. Chuck Hasley, Agricultural Appraiser, Property Appraiser's Office, informed the Board that this property was denied an agricultural exemption, because the original application was received after the March 1, 1995 deadline date; however, after a visual inspection of the property in question, the request would still have been denied, because the property did not have what his office would consider to be a good orange grove on it.

Mr. Gardner noted, for the record, that he and his wife had just purchased the property, in November of 1994, and were not aware of the fact that they would need to renew the agricultural exemption. He stated that they had purchased 250 trees and were working the property, however, would not be able to complete the project until they repaired the present underground sprinkler system. He stated that he was not aware of the damaged system, when he purchased the property.

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, interjected that there was no way the Board could grant an exemption for this year, because of the late filing, however, noted that next year would be a different story. He stated that the petitioners would have the same circumstances as a homestead exemption, but that was not true for this year.

On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Ms. Ramsey and carried, by a 3-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and denied a request for agricultural exemption for Petition No. 1995-280, due to findings of fact and lack of sufficient evidence to overturn the recommendation of denial.

Commr. Gerber and Ms. Fischer were not present for the discussion or vote.

PETITION NO. 1995-281 - CONSTANCE M. DEATHERAGE

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the Board that the petitioners have ten acres in the Howey-in-the-Hills area, planted in pine trees; however, they did not file for an agricultural exemption until after the deadline date of March 1, 1995. He noted that, had they filed on time, they would have been granted the exemption.

Ms. Leslie Deatherage, Petitioner, appeared before the Board to answer any questions there might be regarding this case, however, did not present any evidence regarding same.

On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Ms. Ramsey and carried, by a 3-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and denied a request for an agricultural exemption for Petition No. 1995-281, due to findings of fact and lack of sufficient evidence to overturn the recommendation of denial.

Commr. Gerber and Ms. Fischer were not present for the discussion or vote.

There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting was recessed at 8:05 p.m., to be continued at 9:00 a.m., Thursday, September 28, 1995.



_______________________________

G. RICHARD SWARTZ, JR., CHAIRMAN





ATTEST:







_________________________________

JAMES C. WATKINS, CLERK



sec/9-27-95/11-13-95/boardmin