This meeting is a continuance of the Lake County Value Adjustment Board for 1995. The Board met in regular session on Thursday, September 28, 1995, 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, 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, Lake County Property Appraiser; Jordan Stewart, Attorney, representing Lake County 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 Board that he had prepared an agenda item for the Board of County Commissioners, regarding the tax roll extension, and noted that he would like this Board to discuss it sometime during this meeting.

PETITION NO. 1995-16 - SADUN SENTURK

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the Board that there were two issues involved with this case. He stated that the first issue involved a late filing for homestead exemption, noting that Mr. Senturk did not file until August 10, 1995, and the second issue was that Mr. Senturk had a temporary Green Card.

Mr. Sadun Senturk, Petitioner, appeared before the Board stating that, due to the slow processing of his Green Card application, he did not receive his permanent resident status until June 30, 1995. He noted that he had been married for over a year, at that time, however, did not file for the exemption, because he knew that permanent status was a requirement for homestead exemption. He further noted that his home was his first home and he was not aware of the fact that his wife could have filed for partial exemption.

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 denied a request for homestead exemption for Petition No. 1995-16, due to findings of fact and lack of sufficient evidence to overturn the recommendation of denial.

PETITION NO. 1995-32 - ASTOR-ASTOR PARK WATER ASSN.,INC.

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the Board that the Astor-Astor Park Water Association was requesting a total tax exemption for their association, however, noted that his legal counsel had a problem with the way their by-laws were set up, which he elaborated on.

Mr. Bill Chandler, Petitioner, appeared before the Board, representing the Astor-Astor Park Water Association, and noted that he had submitted, for the record, a packet of information, for the Board's perusal.

It was noted that the Board did not have said information, however, it would be copied for them and, in the meantime, the Board would review the next case.

PETITION NO. 1995-103 - JOSEPH LENEHAN/LAKE COUNTY LODGE 142

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the Board that this request was for a total tax exemption and involved a bar (Club 44) on Hwy. 44, between Eustis and Leesburg. He stated that the Fraternal Order of Police acquired said bar, however, filed too late to be eligible for an exemption.

Mr. Joseph Lenehan, Petitioner, Treasurer, Fraternal Order of Police, appeared before the Board stating that, when the Order purchased the building in question, through an oversight, they failed to file for an exemption.

A brief discussion occurred regarding the matter, at which time Mr. Lenehan answered questions from the Board and Ms. Jordan Stewart, Attorney, representing the Property Appraiser's Office, regarding same.

Mr. Edward Treon, President, Fraternal Order of Police, appeared before the Board stating that the Order did not receive any tax information from the Property Appraiser's Office until March or April of this year and, at that time, they were not aware that they could file for an exemption.

A brief discussion occurred regarding the issue of extenuating circumstances and whether or not this case fell into that category.

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, informed the Board that the Property Appraiser has the right, under the Statute, to waive the March 1 deadline date, if he finds the circumstances to be extenuating, at which time he read into the Minutes what the Statutes state regarding the matter.

Ms. Jordan Stewart, Attorney, representing the Property Appraiser's Office, discussed the difference between an "extenuating circumstance" and a "hardship" and whether or not the Order would be eligible for an exemption. She questioned whether the Order was using the property for the purposes of the organization on January 1, 1995.

Mr. Lenehan stated that they were, however, the building was in the process of being renovated. He noted that the building failed every inspection that was given to it.

Mr. Treon interjected that the Order did not obtain an occupancy license from the County until May or June of this year.

On a motion by Ms. Ramsey, seconded by Ms. Fischer and carried, by a 4-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and denied a request for total tax exemption for Petition No. 1995-103, due to findings of fact and lack of sufficient evidence to overturn the recommendation of denial.

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

PETITION NO. 1995-32 - ASTOR-ASTOR PARK WATER ASSN., INC. (CONT'D.)

This case had been postponed earlier in the meeting, to allow staff to copy a handout that Mr. Chandler had provided, for the record, which he felt was pertinent to his case.

At this time, the handout was distributed to the Board, for their perusal.

Ms. Jordan Stewart, Attorney, representing the Property Appraiser's Office, upon viewing the handout, informed the Board that some of the documents contained in said handout referred to action, or lack of action, taken by the Property Appraiser from Volusia County, Mr. Morgan Gilreath, and that, understanding and accepting the fact that the evidentiary rules in this proceeding were quite lax, she cautioned the Board that any action taken by Mr. Gilreath, with respect to this case, should not, in any way, impact on the Board's decision as to what Mr. Havill should or should not do. She stated that each Property Appraiser is an independent officer and makes a decision on his own.

Mr. Bill Chandler, Petitioner, representing the Astor-Astor Park Water Association, Inc., reappeared before the Board and gave a brief statement regarding the Association and why they felt they should be exempt.

Ms. Jordan Stewart, Attorney, representing the Property Appraiser's Office, informed the Board that this case involved a situation where the Federal and State Statutes do not agree, which she elaborated on, and advised Mr. Chandler to obtain a legal opinion regarding same. She stated that, if there is a conflict, the Association can take the matter to the Attorney General's Office and have them deal with it.

Discussion continued regarding the matter and whether or not the Board's decision, should they grant an exemption to the Association, could be defended in court.

Commr. Swartz suggested that the County Attorney's Office work with the Astor-Astor Park Water Association, the Property Appraiser, and his staff, to see if an interlocal agreement could be developed that would solve the problem at hand, for next year, as quickly as possible, and bring same back to the Board at a later date.

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 denied a request for total tax exemption for Petition No. 1995-32, due to findings of fact and lack of sufficient evidence to overturn the recommendation of denial.

PETITION NO. 1995-108 - RONALD W. AND MARIAN C. JAKUBIAK

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the Board that this case involved a request for reassessment.

Mrs. Jakubiak, Petitioner, appeared before the Board stating that, based on 1994-95 home sales of homes in her area, she felt any increase in the assessed value of her home was unjustified. She noted that the home next to hers sold for $185,000.00 and was larger than hers and contained a pool.

It was noted that said home was lake front property.

Mr. Frank Royce, Chief Deputy, Property Appraiser's Office, informed the Board that the home which Mrs. Jakubiak referred to is a home that is 12 years older than her home and smaller than her home, in square footage of living area. He stated that there is an enclosed porch on the back of the home that adds to the square footage, however, it is still smaller. He stated that Mr. and Mrs. Jakubiak bought their home in March of 1994 for $310,000.00 and that the Property Appraiser's Office currently has it assessed at $209,074.00. He stated that the home was reappraised this year, along with some other properties along Lakeshore Drive, and staff feels that the assessment is fair and just.

On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the Property Appraiser's assessment of $209,074.00 for Petition No. 1995-108, due to findings of fact and lack of sufficient evidence to reduce the assessment.

RECESS AND REASSEMBLY

At 10:20 a.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess for ten minutes.

PETITION NO. 1995-124 - SOUTHLAKE COMMUNITY FOUNDATION, INC.

PETITION NO. 1995-294 - SOUTHLAKE COMMUNITY FOUNDATION, INC.

Ms. Jerri Blair, Attorney, representing Southlake Community Foundation, Inc., Petitioner, appeared before the Board stating that she was representing two petitions, Petition No. 1995-124, a request for real property exemption, and Petition No. 1995-294, a request for tangible personal property exemption. She requested that said petitions be continued until a later date, due to the fact that she had requested six hours, however, had been put on a schedule with five minute hearings. She stated that she had 115 exhibits and three witnesses to present to the Board and was concerned that, with the number of cases to be heard, the Board might not be able to give her exhibits, testimony, and arguments the attention they needed. She stated that she was requesting a continuance for her client's due process protection and for the fact that, if the Board ruled in favor of her client, she wanted to make sure there was sufficient evidence to support their action.

Ms. Jordan Stewart, Attorney, representing the Property Appraiser's Office, informed the Board that the Property Appraiser objected to a continuance, noting that this process does not contemplate a full trial. She stated that there was no reason for a five or six hour hearing, regarding the cases in question.

Discussion occurred regarding the matter and whether or not to continue said cases.

On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by Commr. Good and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved to continue Petitions No. 1995-124 and 1995-294 until a later date, to be determined by the Board at a later time.

PETITION NO. 1995-64 - HARRY J. SCHUUR, III

PETITION NO. 1995-65 - HARRY J. SCHUUR, III

PETITION NO. 1995-66 - HARRY J. SCHUUR, III

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the Board that these cases involved a request for an agricultural exemption that came under the change in the Land Development Regulations that was made in May of this year. He stated that it meets the new 15 year window, for greenbelt, but, as of January 1, 1995, it did not meet the 12 month window. He stated that the petitioner was a bona fide farmer and, based on the changes which were made, should receive an agricultural exemption.

On a motion by Ms. Ramsey, seconded by Commr. Good and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board overturned the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and approved a request for agricultural exemption for Petitions No. 1995-64, 1995-65 and 1995-66, based on findings of fact and evidence presented this date.

PETITION NO. 1995-96 - ROBERT LEE CHAPMAN, JR.

PETITION NO. 1995-97 - ROBERT LEE CHAPMAN, JR.

Mr. Tom Chapman, the son of the Petitioner, Robert Chapman, Jr., appeared before the Board, representing his parents' interest, with regard to their agricultural operation in south Lake County.

It was noted that this case involved a denial of agricultural exemption, based on failure to meet the agricultural classification.

Mr. Chapman submitted, for the record, a binder containing documents that he felt were pertinent to the case, for the Board's perusal.

Ms. Jordan Stewart, Attorney, representing the Property Appraiser's Office, informed the Board that the evidence submitted dated back to 1977 and suggested that the Board accept any such material, as presented, but to recognize that it should consider said material only in terms of two criteria for the agricultural classification, being (1) the length of time that the land has been utilized in agriculture and (2) that an effort has been made to care for the land.

Mr. Chapman stated that he was present to discuss two Petitions, Petition No. 1995-96 and 1995-97, and requested that they be heard together, due to the fact that the properties involved are contiguous to one another. He stated that there were some factual issues that were a little different on the two, but he would like to have them heard together. He discussed the fact that last year the agricultural classification was denied on some of the parcels of property that his parents own, therefore, they came before the Value Adjustment Board and presented their history of planting pine trees and were told that they did not have enough density of pine trees, to qualify for the exemption. He stated that they decided, at that time, to comply with the Lake County Reforestation Program and follow it, to the letter, to maintain a commercial forestry operation and qualify for the agricultural classification.

Mr. Chapman stated that they contacted a forester and sought his advice regarding silvicultural techniques to employ, to plant the trees, contracted to do the entire planting, in December of 1994, and planted all of the land. He stated that, when they filed for an agricultural classification, the Property Appraiser accepted some of the parcels as pine tree production; however, two of the parcels were rejected, being the ones before the Board this date. He stated that he contacted Mr. Havill, Property Appraiser, to find out why said parcels were not granted the classification and were told that it was a matter that would have to go before the Value Adjustment Board, thus, the reason for his presence this date.

Mr. Chapman referred to various documents contained in the binder that he presented to the Board, for the record, which he reviewed. He stated that the Property Appraiser's Office made some factual mistakes, regarding his parents' property, which he elaborated on.

A brief discussion occurred regarding the fact that the land in question was rezoned to PUD (Planned Unit Development), at some point in time, and the fact that the land was rezoned to same without the approval of the petitioner. It was noted that the rezoning was done at the request of one of the petitioner's sons.

Mr. Robert Chapman, Jr., Petitioner, appeared before the Board stating that, in trying to survive, after the freezes which destroyed his citrus operation, he planted pine trees, noting that he had been informed by the Property Appraiser's Office that, if he planted pine trees, he would receive very favorable taxation. He stated that he did so, however, has yet to find out exactly what the Property Appraiser's Office objected to, regarding his agricultural classification.

Ms. Stewart, Attorney, representing the Property Appraiser's Office, stated that the Property Appraiser's staff would provide for the Board evidence of what they found on the property in question and attempt to make a distinction between the entire Chapman holdings. She stated that the total holdings amount to approximately 600 to 700 acres of property, of which less than 200 of those acres constitute the subject parcels, which are contiguous, however, are not contiguous with the rest of the property. She further elaborated on the matter.

Mr. Chuck Hasley, Agricultural Appraiser, Property Appraiser's Office, reviewed an aerial photograph that was taken of the properties, by his office, and answered questions from Ms. Stewart regarding same, with regard to the planting of the pine trees (December, 1994), according to documentation that was presented to the Property Appraiser's Office, and what he found, upon inspection of the property, in March or April of this year. He stated that there was a poor survival rate, noting that most of the trees on the property were dead. He submitted, for the record, thirteen (13) pictures of the property in question, for the Board's perusal.

Ms. Stewart continued to question Mr. Hasley extensively concerning the property in question, with regard to it being a commercial operation; what type of pine trees were planted on the property; the documents presented by Mr. Chapman, for the record; and compliance with the management plan.

Mr. Tom Chapman (son) and Mr. Robert Chapman, Jr., Petitioner, reappeared before the Board, in rebuttal to the testimony presented by the Property Appraiser's Office, at which time they addressed, among other things, the pictures of their property that were presented as evidence by the Property Appraiser's Office.

A motion was made by Commr. Good to overturn the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and approve a request for an agricultural exemption for Petitions No. 1995-96 and 1995-97, based on findings of fact, which he felt was enough evidence to overturn the recommendation of the Property Appraiser.

The motion died for lack of a second.

A motion was made by Commr. Gerber and seconded by Ms. Fischer to uphold the recommendation of the Property Appraiser for denial of an agricultural exemption for Petitions No. 1995-96 and 1995-97, based on findings of fact and lack of sufficient evidence to overturn the recommendation of denial.

Under discussion, Commr. Swartz stated that it appeared, from the pictures presented as evidence, that the trees did not exist at commercially viable densities and he did not feel that sufficient evidence was presented, to overturn the Property Appraiser's recommendation of denial.

The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried, by a 4-1 vote.

Commr. Good voted "No".

COMMISSIONERS

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

PETITION NO. 1995-293 - INDIAN LAKE FRUIT COMPANY, INC.

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the Board that this case involved a late filing for agricultural classification. He stated that the petitioner originally had citrus on the property in question and, when the citrus died, the petitioner planted pine trees, however, did not submit a new application. He stated that, based on a visual inspection of the property, the request would have been approved had it been filed on time.

The Board questioned what the law states, with regard to an existing agricultural classification.

Ms. Jordan Stewart, Attorney, representing the Property Appraiser's Office, stated that the purpose of an application for an agricultural classification is to notify the Property Appraiser's Office that the use exists, so that the Property Appraiser can look at it and determine if it is a bona fide use. She stated that she did not feel there had ever been a case, or circumstance, where anyone had decided that a new application had to be submitted for a new use, but it only made sense, because, if one switched from citrus to pine trees, the Property Appraiser would not be able to determine if that use was bona fide or not, therefore, would not be able to decide whether or not to grant the exemption.

Mr. and Mrs. W. L. Broadway, Petitioners, appeared before the Board to discuss their case and answer any questions there might be from the Board regarding the property in question.

Mr. Havill, Property Appraiser, stated that the property in question consisted of 30 acres and was a bona fide pine forest, therefore, would not object if the Board overturned his recommendation of denial and approved an agricultural classification for this case.

Ms. Stewart, Attorney, representing the Property Appraiser's Office, objected, stating that there was a problem with this case, noting that, when the green card is mailed out, it states on the card that the applicant is to put down what the property is used for and return it to the Property Appraiser's Office. She felt that the petitioner had not complied.

Mr. Broadway stated that he had mailed the green card back to the Property Appraiser's Office with the category of "Forestry" circled.

It was noted that Mr. Broadway had complied with the requirements of the green card; however, the Property Appraiser's Office did not act on it.

Mr. Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the Board that Mr. Broadway had filed for an agricultural exemption for 1995, however, his office did not catch it. He informed Mr. Broadway that he would need to stop by the Property Appraiser's Office and file a new application for 1995. He noted, for the record, that he did not see any problem with the property in question.

On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Ms. Fischer and carried, by a 4-0 vote, the Board overturned the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and approved a request for an agricultural exemption for Petition No. 1995-293, based on findings of fact and evidence presented this date.

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

PETITION NO. 1995-19 - JOHNNY WALKER, TRUSTEE

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the Board that this case involved a late filing for agricultural classification.

Mr. Johnny Walker, Petitioner, appeared before the Board to discuss his case and answer any questions there might be from the Board regarding same. He distributed, for the record, a handout containing documents that he felt were pertinent to his case, which he reviewed with the Board.

Mr. Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the Board that Mr. Walker had a green belt for the property in question, noting that it was a fenced pasture and Mr. Walker had been signing the green card over the years, for an agricultural exemption, however, staff discovered that the property in question was no longer used for agriculture, it was now a bear run, which is not a commercial use for property, under the green belt law.

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 an agricultural exemption for Petition No. 1994-19, based on 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 1:00 p.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess for lunch and reconvene at 2:00 p.m.

MISCELLANEOUS

A brief discussion occurred regarding the need to schedule additional days for the Value Adjustment Board, at which time it was determined that three (3) additional days would probably be needed.

On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Ms. Ramsey and carried, the Board set Monday, November 27, 1995 through Wednesday, November 29, 1995, as the days for the continuance of the Value Adjustment Board for this year.

Ms. Fischer was not present for the discussion or vote.

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, brought to the attention of the Board the need to place on the Board of County Commissioner's agenda, for the next scheduled meeting, for action, the issue of the dual certification, noting that he had given them a memorandum regarding same, for their information.

It was the consensus of the Board to do so.

PETITION NO. 1995-181 - LAWRENCE E. WHITE, TRUSTEE

PETITION NO. 1995-182 - LASALLE GROUP, TRUSTEE

Mr. Kurt Grosman, Attorney, appeared before the Board stating that he was present representing both Lawrence E. White, Trustee, Petition No. 1995-181, and LaSalle Group, Trustee, Petition No. 1995-182. He stated that both act as trustee owners of the parcels of property in question and, in order to save the Board time, requested that the Board allow him to make argument, with respect to both petitions, due to the fact that they both pertain to the same matter. He noted that said properties are contiguous to one another.

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the Board that these cases involved a request for agricultural classification, noting that said classification was taken away in 1994.

Mr. Frank Royce, Chief Deputy, Property Appraiser's Office, informed the Board that the two petitions in question involved numerous parcels of property. He stated that his office took the green belt classification away, on all the parcels, however, after the tax bills went out, some were corrected and given the green belt. He stated that his office informed the LaSalle Group that their whole parcel would be denied, for 1994, and they failed to file for 1995, until a later date.

Mr. Grosman stated that the filing was made July 27, 1995 and denied August 29, 1995. He stated that his clients received a letter, dated November 29, 1994, from the Property Appraiser's Office (attached to the petitions in question as Exhibit B), which he read a portion of into the record, stating that Osprey Heights was being denied an agricultural classification, due to zoning, platting, and low rate of survival of trees, for the 1995 tax roll. He stated that said letter was a surprise to his clients, due to the fact that they have an active forestry program ongoing on the properties in question and have had since 1990.

Mr. Grosman stated that he met with Mr. Frank Royce, Chief Deputy, Property Appraiser's Office, sometime in April of this year and gave him sufficient evidence (including some pictures) to make it clear that there was an active forestry program ongoing, for the properties in question. He stated that, as a result of that meeting, Mr. Royce sent him a letter (attached to the petitions in question as Exhibit C), dated April 25, 1995, which he read into the record, stating that the properties in question would qualify for a green belt classification, for ad valorem tax purposes, and that his clients had shown good faith, by establishing a forestry plan and by continuing in the replanting of areas with pine trees that had had a poor survival rate. He further elaborated on the letter, stating that it went on to say that, due to the fact that the Property Appraiser's Office had not received application for green belt on the properties in question, no classification could be granted for 1995.

Mr. Grosman stated that that was the whole issue, noting that, unfortunately, an application was not submitted for agricultural classification between January 1, 1995 and March 1, 1995, because they had been denied the agricultural classification by Mr. Chuck Hasley's letter, dated November 29, 1994. He stated that he did not feel the petitioners should be punished for a determination by the Property Appraiser's Office, in November of 1994, that was cleared up, with additional evidence that was being submitted to the Property Appraiser's Office in early 1995. He stated that, had the letter dated November 29, 1994 not been mailed out, his clients would have sent in the short form, as they had since 1991, but, because they were told that they were not going to get the classification, the obvious conclusion was that they were going to have to deal with the matter in front of the Value Adjustment Board. He requested the Board to consider the facts of these cases and grant his clients an agricultural classification for 1995.

Ms. Jordan Stewart, Attorney, representing the Property Appraiser's Office, questioned Mr. Grosman about the letter he alluded to and noted that he was aware of the procedures involved in filing for an agricultural classification. She stated that the issue relevant in these cases was whether or not there was an extenuating circumstance provision, with respect to the filing of an agricultural classification, and it was determined, for this year, that there was not. She stated that next year that will change, but, for this year, the application was not timely filed, therefore, the burden was on the taxpayer and there is no provision for anything other than "shall file the application, in order for agricultural to be considered."

Mr. Royce, Chief Deputy, Property Appraiser's Office, addressed the issue of the letters and the fact that there were numerous contacts from his office with the petitioners and their counsel, Mr. Grosman, regarding said classification. He noted that, as of January 1, 1995, there were very few pine trees left on the properties in question, however, 15 acres had been replanted, after January 1, 1995, and that, when he met with Mr. Grosman and his clients, that information was passed on to his office. He stated that, if the application had been made, an agricultural exemption would have been granted for the properties in question.

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 an agricultural exemption for Petitions No. 1995-181 and 1995-182, due to findings of fact and lack of sufficient evidence to overturn the recommendation of denial.

PETITION NO. 1995-289 - INVESTMENT INDUSTRIES OF FLORIDA

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the Board that this case involved an evaluation assessment. He stated that the property in question (304 1/4 acres) was assessed at $402,170.00, however, noted that it had lost its agricultural classification and was assessed at market value this year, whereas, last year it fell under the green belt classification.

Mr. Robert M. Johnston, representing Investment Industries of Florida, Petitioner, appeared before the Board stating that the property consisted of 158 acres, not 304 1/4, as stated by the Property Appraiser.

Mr. Frank Royce, Chief Deputy, Property Appraiser's Office, interjected that, according to the legal description, the total property consisted of 304 1/4 acres, however, 146 of those acres were wetlands, leaving 158 acres of dry land.

Mr. Johnston stated that the property in question was purchased by Investment Industries of Florida, in July of 1980, for $314,900.00. He stated that the current assessment was based on 158.24 acres, at $3,000.00 per acre. He stated that the market value last year was $147,518.00 and this year's amended market value was $404,070.00. He stated that, originally, his firm was sent a trim notice showing a market value of $319,568.00 and an amended trim notice was sent out for the $404,070.00 assessment, an increase of 175% over last year's market value. He stated that his firm feels the market value of the property in question, at most, is $1,000.00 per acre. He stated that the State of Florida had contacted his firm indicating that they would like to purchase said property, since it is in the Green Swamp, for a little less than $1,000.00 per acre.

Mr. Havill stated that, first of all, Mr. Johnston stated the assessment on the property in question went up 175% since last year, however, noted that last year the property was under green belt, but, this year is market value, so they were dealing with apples and oranges; secondly, they paid $314,000.00 for the property 15 years ago; and thirdly, Mr. Johnston stated that the State of Florida had indicated an interest in purchasing the land, due to the fact that it was in the Green Swamp, but his office has said property broken out at $45.00 per acre. He stated, for the record, that 146 acres, or about half of the property, is assessed at $45.00 per acre and the 158 dry acres is assessed at $2,500.00 per acre. He stated that he felt said assessment was fair and just.

Ms. Jordan Stewart, Attorney, representing the Property Appraiser's Office, informed the Board that Mr. Johnston had not presented one single fact of evidence, as to the value of the property in question, therefore, the Property Appraiser should be presumed correct.

On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by Ms. Ramsey and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the Property Appraiser's assessment of $404,070.00 for Petition No. 1995-289, due to findings of fact and lack of sufficient evidence to reduce the assessment.

COMMISSIONERS

Commr. Good declared a Conflict of Interest regarding the following case, due to the fact that it involved his property, and recused himself from the Board.

PETITION NO. 1995-179 - WILLIAM H. GOOD

Mr. Frank Royce, Chief Deputy, Property Appraiser's Office, informed the Board that this case involved a request for an agricultural classification.

Commr. Gerber noted, for the record, that she had been to Commr. Good's home, however, while there did not ascertain any knowledge about his farming matters and felt that she could make a fair and just decision in this case.

Commr. Good appeared before the Board and submitted, for the record, a handout containing information that he felt was pertinent to his case, which he reviewed with the Board, as well as a FEMA flood map and aerial of his property, noting that same would show the amount of property actually under water this year. He stated that there were several issues (noted in a letter which he read into the record) that he felt needed to be resolved, concerning his property, being (1) that, according to the condition of his home at the time of appraisal, based on a site visit, he felt the assessment of his home was too high; and (2) that the estimate of the number of acres of wetland on his property was incorrect.

Mr. Royce, Chief Deputy, Property Appraiser's Office, informed the Board that there was a discrepancy regarding the number of acres of wetlands, however, his office was in the process of correcting it and that they agreed with Commr. Good's estimate of same. He stated that they had Commr. Good's property assessed at $70,991.00, however, due to the discrepancy, had reassessed the property at $63,388.00.

It was noted that Commr. Good would accept the reassessment of $63,388.00.

Regarding the denial of an agricultural classification for his property, Commr. Good read into the record the equipment that he was being taxed on. He stated that the historical use of his property had not changed since he purchased it and that he had been receiving an exemption since 1988. He discussed the use of his land and noted that a site visit to the property would show that the land has been and is presently being used for bona fide agriculture. He displayed numerous pictures of his property, showing that the land is being used for agricultural purposes. He stated that he has been through IRS (Internal Revenue Service) audits and they found his farm to be legitimate. He referred to various exhibits contained in his handout, which he reviewed, pertaining to the fact that his property is used for agricultural purposes.

Commr. Good stated that he chose not to submit receipts that were requested by the Property Appraiser's Office, because he did not want the evaluation to be based on a paper trail, he wanted it to be based on the agricultural use of the land. He stated, for the record, where various products from his farm, such as honey, eggs, rabbits, pigs, fruit, etc., are marketed.

Ms. Jordan Stewart, Attorney, representing the Property Appraiser's Office, questioned Commr. Good regarding several aspects of his agricultural operation. She gave a brief history of what had occurred regarding said property and as to why the Property Appraiser's Office did not grant Commr. Good an exemption for this year. She noted that the Property Appraiser's Office had sent Commr. Good, as well as a number of other people in his neighborhood, an agricultural classification questionnaire, as a routine update; however, a response was received from Commr. Good that raised some questions as to whether or not the classification should still apply, which she submitted to the Board, for their perusal. She stated that the Property Appraiser has to exclude an agricultural operation, even though it may well be a farm, that cannot, by its nature, be a commercial operation, but rather classified as a hobby farm.

A brief discussion occurred regarding the issue of a hobby farm and some case law regarding same, at which time she submitted, for the record, a memorandum from Mr. Pete Wahl, former County Manager, in which he addresses the issue.

Commr. Good informed the Board that as much land as was allowed by law, short of the wetlands, was being used in agricultural activity. He stated that his farm was a small family farm and was producing income.

RECESS AND REASSEMBLY

At 4:10 p.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess for ten minutes.

PETITION NO. 1995-179 - WILLIAM H. GOOD (CONT'D.)

Commr. Gerber questioned whether the County Attorney, Mr. Sandy Minkoff, concurred with the policy set forth by the former County Manager, Mr. Pete Wahl, alluded to earlier.

Mr. Minkoff stated that he felt the rules set by Mr. Wahl were given as a guide to staff, from a Code Enforcement standpoint.

Commr. Good thanked everyone for their time and apologized for the length of his case, however, stated that he felt it was necessary. He stated that he had presented evidence that he runs a small family farm and that it is commercial. He noted that he had not presented receipts, or tax returns, because he felt there was only a certain amount of evidence needed to appraise property and make decisions. He stated that, rather than presenting receipts and tax forms, he felt that agricultural use should run to the use of the land. He stated that he would abide by the Board's decision.

Commr. Swartz noted, for the record, that Commr. Good's evaluation issue appeared to be resolved; however, the Board would need to make a decision regarding the agricultural classification issue.

Commr. Gerber stated that it looked to her like Commr. Good's farm was a commercial agricultural endeavor.

A motion was made by Ms. Ramsey and seconded by Commr. Gerber to overturn the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and approve a request for an agricultural classification for Petition No. 1995-179, based on findings of fact and evidence presented this date.

Under discussion, Commr. Swartz stated that he felt, in reviewing the evidence presented, Commr. Good's farm met the requirements of a commercial agricultural operation and would approve the motion, based on said evidence.

Ms. Fischer stated that the Board had denied an agricultural classification for a case that had come before them earlier this date, due to the fact that, by a freak of nature, the petitioner's pine trees did not grow, therefore, without proof or verifiable receipts, she could not support the motion before them.

The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried, by a 3-1 vote.

Ms. Fischer voted "No" and Commr. Good had declared a Conflict of Interest and recused himself from the Board, in order to present his case.

Mr. Frank Royce, Chief Deputy, Property Appraiser's Office, noted, for the record, that his office would be assessing three (3) acres for the citrus and fruit; one (1) acre for a hay field; four (4) acres of pasture land; one (1) acre for the bees, chickens, rabbits, and pig; one (1) acre for the homesite; one (1) acre for a non-agricultural use, which he noted would take care of the roads, lanes, etc.; and six (6) acres of wetlands. He noted that the evaluation of the property would be lower than what it was before, however, could not tell the Board, at this time, how much lower it would be.

A brief discussion occurred, at which time it was noted that Commr. Good would withdraw the portion of his petition pertaining to the evaluation, due to the fact that he had come to an agreement with the Property Appraiser's Officer regarding same.

No action regarding the evaluation was needed or taken.

Commr. Good submitted, for the record, a Conflict of Interest form.

COMMISSIONERS

Commr. Good returned to the Board, for the remainder of this meeting.

PETITION NO. 1995-315 - THE UMATILLA FRUIT COMPANY, INC.

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the Board that the Umatilla Fruit Company missed the 12 month hiatus from being classified as a bona fide green belt, thus, the reason his office turned them down for said classification. However, based on the May 1, 1995 LDR Meeting, they would meet the 15 year criteria, therefore, he would not object to the Board overturning his recommendation of denial and approving an agricultural classification for this case.

On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by Commr. Good and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board overturned the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and approved a request for an agricultural classification for Petition No. 1995-315, based on findings of fact and evidence presented this date.

PETITION NO. 1995-113 - JEAN B. KARR

It was noted that this case involved a tangible property assessment.

Ms. Jean Karr, Petitioner, appeared before the Board stating that she purchased, in March of this year, an apartment complex consisting of six units, located in Mt. Dora. She stated that there was no designation, with regard to what was personal property, as opposed to real property, and, in her mind, the personal property was worthless.

Mr. Robbie Ross, Personal Property and Agricultural Operations Director, Property Appraiser's Office, informed the Board that one of the problems with this case is that the previous property owner filed a tangible personal property tax return and, because of that fact and the confidentiality of that document, he could not release it to Ms. Karr, so she was having to pay taxes on the previous owner's reporting of equipment that he stated he had on the site. He noted, however, that his office had reduced Ms. Karr's assessment from $8,764.00 to $4,248.00.

Ms. Jordan Stewart, Attorney, representing the Property Appraiser's Office, stated that the responsibility of paying the tax runs to the owner, whoever that happens to be, as of the date that the tax is due, which in this case, was November 1, 1995. She stated that Ms. Karr, by virtue of contract, had standing to be before the Board and, if they could get her to testify, under oath, that she purchased everything in the six unit building from the gentleman who filed the tax return, they could deal with the matter. She requested that Ms. Karr be sworn in, for questioning.

Ms. Karr was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk, Sandra Carter, at which time she answered questions from Ms. Stewart regarding various aspects of the tangible personal property that she purchased.

Ms. Stewart questioned Mr. Ross regarding the tangible personal property tax return that the previous owner had filed, prior to Ms. Karr purchasing said property. The tax return was then projected on the monitor, for the Board's perusal, at which time Mr. Ross reviewed the return and answered further questions regarding same. He noted that the return indicated that the tangible personal property in question amounted to $21,164.00.

Further discussion occurred regarding the matter, at which time Mr. Ross stated that, based on the evidence presented this date, he would make a further adjustment in the assessment to $2,166.00.

On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by Commr. Good and carried, by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the Property Appraiser's assessment of $2,166.00 for Petition No. 1995-113, based on findings of fact and evidence presented this date.

PETITION NO. 1995-13 - INNAHTAUL ZAFARALI

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the Board that this case involved the late filing of an agricultural classification. He stated that Ms. Zafarali did not file until March 30, 1995.

Ms. Innahtaul Zafarali, Petitioner, appeared before the Board stating that she was in New York and had asked her bookkeeper to file the green card for her; however, she failed to do so.

On a motion by Ms. Fischer, 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 an agricultural classification for Petition No. 1995-13, due to findings of fact and lack of sufficient evidence to overturn the recommendation of denial.

PETITION NO. 1995-322 - HARBOR HILLS DEVELOPMENT, L.P.

PETITION NO. 1995-323 - HARBOR HILLS COUNTRY CLUB, L.P.

Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney, representing Petitions No.

1995-322 and 1995-323, appeared before the Board stating that he had conferred with Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, regarding said petitions, scheduled to be heard October 2, 1995 (requested ten (10) hours), and requested a continuance of these cases until the November hearings, to be determined at a later date.

On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by Commr. Good and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved a continuance for Petitions No. 1995-322 and 1995-323, until the November hearings.

There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting was recessed at 5:35 p.m., to be continued at 9:00 a.m., Friday, September 29, 1995.

_______________________________

G. RICHARD SWARTZ, JR., CHAIRMAN

ATTEST:

_________________________________

JAMES C. WATKINS, CLERK

sec/9-28-95/11-20-95/boardmin