This meeting is a continuance of the Lake County Value Adjustment Board for 1999. The Board met in regular session on Wednesday, September 29, 1999, 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: Welton G. Cadwell, Chairman; Catherine C. Hanson; and Robert A. Pool. School Board members present were: Mary Fletcher and Phyllis Patten. Others present were: Sanford (Sandy) A. Minkoff, County Attorney; Ed Havill, Property Appraiser; Frank Royce, Chief Deputy, Property Appraiser's Office; Robbie Ross, Tangible Personal Property and Agricultural Operations Director, Property Appraiser's Office; and Sandra Carter, Deputy Clerk.

The Chairman opened the meeting.

PETITION NO. 1999-21 - Marise Irene Matthews

It was noted that this case had been carried over from the August 12, 1999 Value Adjustment Board Meeting, in order to allow Ms. Matthews, who was under a doctor's care for clinical depression and chronic fatigue syndrome, to obtain a letter from her doctor stating said fact.

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the Board that Ms. Matthews filed late for Homestead Exemption, noting that she did not file until April 26, 1999. He stated that he had received a copy of the letter from Ms. Matthews' doctor, however, still had a problem with granting her homestead exemption. He stated that the letter was very generic in nature and he did not feel that it really addressed the issue.

Ms. Marise Matthews, Applicant, addressed the Board and discussed what she goes through, on a daily basis, in dealing with her depression and chronic fatigue syndrome. She stated that she was informed, at the August 12, 1999 Value Adjustment Board Meeting, if she obtained a letter from her doctor stating that she was under his care for clinical depression and chronic fatigue syndrome, she would be granted the exemption.

Commr. Pool concurred, stating that that was his impression, as well.

Commr. Cadwell stated that he had had some experience with people suffering from depression and found that it was not something that one could see, or hear, or know when it was going to affect them; however, he knew for a fact that it affects one's daily life and how they function. He stated that he would hope the Board would grant this request.

A motion was made by Commr. Pool and seconded by Ms. Fletcher to overturn the Property Appraiser's recommendation of denial and grant homestead exemption for Petition No. 1999-21 - Marise Irene Matthews, due to the fact that the applicant suffers from clinical depression and chronic fatigue syndrome and had provided a doctor's statement stating such and that the illness made it impossible for her to meet the March 1^st deadline date for filing for homestead exemption.

Under discussion, Commr. Hanson stated that she would vote in favor of granting the applicant homestead exemption, however, felt that the letter from her doctor was not as strong as it should have been, particularly when it dealt with something that the Board could not see. The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote.

PETITION NOS. 1999-27 THRU 1999-32 - IMPERIAL TERRACE EAST HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC.

Mr. Frank Royce, Chief Deputy, Property Appraiser's Office, informed the Board that the Imperial Terrace East Homeowners Association was asking that the value of their common amenities be removed from the tax roll. He stated that the Property Appraiser's Office assesses common amenities two different ways - to the homeowner's association individually, or they add that particular associated value to the individual homeowner's parcel.

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the Board that the homeowners association was getting billed for the amenities. He stated that the homeowners association was informed that the homeowners could be assessed individually, but was told that the homeowners were already being taxed. He stated that the homeowners feel they are being double taxed.

Mr. Donald Metz, a resident of Imperial Terrace East Subdivision, representing the Imperial Terrace East Homeowners Association, addressed the Board, stating that he was asked to appear before the Value Adjustment Board to express the fact that the homeowners feel they are being double taxed. He stated that they were appealing for a tax relief, just as The Villages, in Lady Lake, had been given, as noted in a recent newspaper article. He stated that they were in the same situation as The Villages, noting that the amenities create a higher market value on their homes. He stated that the Property Appraiser's Office stated they were being taxed on 83% of a 100% valuation, because they were taking into consideration the fact that the amenities create an increased value on their homes. He stated that, to alleviate the added value to their homes for the amenities, the Property Appraiser's Office takes an additional 2% off their 100% valuation, giving them the advantage of not paying double taxation, however, noted that he did not understand that concept. He stated that the homeowners association had never been told that they had a choice of whether to be taxed separately on their homes, or taxed on the association's ownership of the amenities. He stated that the matter came to light when the article alluded to earlier was published in the newspaper.

Mr. Havill informed the Board that, under Florida law, all property is taxable, unless it is immune (State or Federal government property, subdivisions, etc.), or exempt (cities, water authorities, community development districts, etc.). He discussed how Amendment 10, which was passed in 1992, has complicated things, at which time he gave an example of how it affects an assessment. He stated that his staff tried to explain to Mr. Metz how his office assesses subdivisions and the fact that they would have to enforce the tax onto the homeowners. He stated that everybody pays taxes, one way or another. He stated that The Villages pays for everything in its entity, noting that the homeowners are bearing the burden of it, and, with regard to Imperial Terrace, it is broken up between the homeowners and the association. He stated that there is no double taxation. He stated that the appreciation rate and assessments on the homes can only go up 1-1/2% to 2%, to cancel the bill on the clubhouse and have it spread out among the homeowners, if that is what they wanted, which would be comparable to what is occurring in The Villages.

Mr. Royce reviewed the sales in Imperial Terrace and in The Villages, noting that the range of sales came out to 84.5% of the 100% valuation. He stated that there were sales that were 92% and ones that were 78% of the assessment of the sale, but the range came out to 84.5%, which he noted shows that the Property Appraiser's Office is not double assessing, or over assessing the value of the property in Imperial Terrace East Subdivision, whether they include the value of the common areas of the individual lots, or not..

On a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and denied a request for Petition Nos. 1999-27 through 1999-32 - Imperial Terrace East Homeowners Association, Inc., to remove the taxes on the amenities in the subdivision, due to findings of fact and lack of sufficient evidence to overturn the recommendation of denial.

PETITION NO. 1999-34 - PAUL D. RUSSELL

Ms. Tiger Russell, wife of the Applicant, addressed the Board, stating that she and her husband purchased their house in 1997 and it was established, at that time, that they had purchased a 2,215 square foot house; however, it was later established by the Property Appraiser's Office that the house was actually 1,930 square feet. She stated that that should have made a big difference in their assessment, because there was a 300 square feet difference that they should not have been assessed for, which should have amounted to a savings of approximately $27,000. She stated that the house is located on a lagoon 4 feet deep; they are surrounded by water on all sides, except for the driveway; they have a septic tank; the house is located within the flood plain; they have a 16,000 gallon pool, versus a 25,000 gallon standard pool; the house was on the market for 3 years, before they purchased it; the nearest comparable value to their house is 4-7 miles away; and 20 houses across the street from their house are priced at $45,000.00 to $69,000.00.

Ms. Russell stated that, when they purchased their house, they had already made a $35,000.00 irrevocable down payment and, because of family issues, were unable to stay in Florida until they could close. She stated that the price they paid for their house included furniture and lawn equipment that came with the house. She referred to a handout that her husband had prepared and submitted to the Property Appraiser's Office, at the time he filed his petition, and noted that she felt it should be taken into consideration by the Board, when considering this request. She stated that she and her husband feel that they are being penalized by wanting to live in Eustis, with higher taxes, as indicated by the property they purchased, at which time she compared the assessment of her property with those of surrounding properties.

Mr. Frank Royce, Chief Deputy, Property Appraiser's Office, informed the Board that neither this year, nor last year, when the applicant submitted his petition, did he submit any information regarding the personal property that was included in the sale. He stated that the appraisal that was conducted by Mr. John Roberts, a local appraiser who is well respected in the community, had no listing of personal property. He stated that the applicant's property was currently assessed at $211,592.00 and noted that Mr. Roberts had conducted an appraisal of the house in 1997 and had appraised it at $245,000.00. He stated that the applicants paid $235,000.00 for the house. He distributed, for the Board's perusal, an ad taken from the Homes and Land of Lake County Realty Magazine, depicting the house.

Ms. Russell stated that she felt her house should be assessed at $189,000.00, which she noted would be comparable to the other houses in the area.

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the Property Appraiser's assessment of $211,592.00 for Petition No. 1999-34 - Paul D. Russell, due to findings of fact and lack of sufficient evidence to reduce the assessment.

PETITION NO. 1999-36 - ANN BUECHLER

Ms. Ann Buechler, Applicant, addressed the Board, stating that she purchased her property in 1971 and built her house in 1990. She stated that, in 1994, her assessment was raised $10,300.00 and, in 1999, it was raised again $7,718.00, for a total of $18,018.00 in five years. She stated that she had a dock built in 1993, which she was assessed for, as well as a non-working fireplace that was in the original construction of the house.

Mr. Frank Royce, Chief Deputy, Property Appraiser's Office, informed the Board that the house in question was located on Lake Maggie, in Eustis. He stated that his office reevaluated all the properties in that particular neighborhood this year and the house in question was caught up in that reevaluation. He stated that the fireplace was added to the assessment this year, because it was not caught and assessed in previous years. He stated that the dock and a boathouse were added to the assessment this year, as well, which added $4,000.00 to the assessment. He stated that the house was built in 1990, has 1,800 square feet of living area, and is currently assessed at $99,726.00. He stated that market value increases and the Property Appraiser's Office has to keep up with it, which caused a reappraisal in 1994 and also in 1999.

It was noted that the dock was built in 1993, however, was never picked up by the Property Appraiser's Office and assessed until now, along with the fireplace and a 21 foot portion of a screen porch that was enclosed, on the back of the house.

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the Property Appraiser's assessment of $99,726.00 for Petition No. 1999-36 - Ann Buechler, due to findings of fact and lack of sufficient evidence to reduce the assessment.

PETITION NO. 1999-38 - JEANNE H. MENDELSON, ET AL

Mr. Frank Royce, Chief Deputy, Property Appraiser's Office, informed the Board that a petition was filed by the applicant, however, it was incomplete, as far as what the problem was, or what the applicant felt the value should be.

The applicant's husband addressed the Board, stating that he felt his assessment should be $69,000.00, because he had had his house appraised in January of this year and was told that his house and property together were worth $140,000.00; however, his house was worth $69,000.00.

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the Board that his office had the property and house assessed at $98,264.00.

Commr. Cadwell informed the applicant that the Property Appraiser has to assess the property and the house together and questioned whether he felt $98,264.00 was a fair value for the property and the structure.

The applicant stated that he did not feel that was a fair assessment, because the appraiser went five miles away from his house to do a comparable. He further stated that he had not been given an agricultural exemption, nor a disability exemption, even though papers were filed for them in 1990.

Mr. Royce stated that an application was made for an agricultural exemption; however, it was denied, because there was no sign of agriculture on the property. He stated that a request was also made for a disability exemption; however, it was made in Mr. Mendelson's name and his name is not on the deed, so it was not granted. He noted that the problem could be solved with a Quit-Claim Deed from Mr. Mendelson's wife to him, however, that has not been done. On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the Property Appraiser's assessment of $98,264.00 for Petition No. 1999-38 - Jeanne H. Mendelson, due to findings of fact and lack of sufficient evidence to reduce the assessment.

PETITION NOS. 1999-39 THRU 1999-44 - RON WEISS, GENERAL PARTNER, HIBISCUS ASSOCIATION

Mr. Robbie Ross, Tangible Personal Property and Agricultural Operations Director, Property Appraiser's Office, informed the Board that Mr. Ron Weiss, General Partner, Hibiscus Association, petitioned the assessed value of Hibiscus Mobile Home Park, which is a 144 lot park that he purchased in February of 1999, for $2.4 million.

Mr. Ron Weiss, Applicant, addressed the Board, stating that he purchased Hibiscus Mobile Home Park for approximately $1.9 million. He stated that he was in the business of purchasing manufactured housing communities, noting that some of them are purchased for a group of investors that look for an income stream. He stated that he discovered the park is a very old park and that some of the lot sizes are obsolete; therefore, when they become vacant, they are very difficult to fill. He stated that the previous owners of the park did not properly maintain it. He stated that the park is 40 to 50 years old and he was having problems with the sewer system, among other things. He stated that the clubhouse is old and in need of refurbishing, which is going to cost him approximately $5,000.00 to do. He stated that the property could not have appreciated 30%, since the last time it was appraised, due to these factors.

Mr. Weiss stated that the assessment amounts to a $12,000.00 tax increase, which makes the property worth almost $120,000.00 less than what he paid for it, because he paid for it, based on numbers that he had projected, being the old taxes, which were $40,000.00, not the new taxes, at $52,000.00. He stated that he would have to pass the additional costs onto his tenants, some of which are 55 years of age and older and on fixed incomes that are limited to 2% to 3% increases. He stated that the increase in the assessment would amount to a 30% increase. He stated that the park has actually decreased in value, due to the fact that the previous owner did not make the kind of expenditures that needed to be made, to keep the property value stable, let alone spending the money to improve it.

Mr. Ross distributed to the Board, for their perusal, a list of mobile home parks that had sold from 1996 to July of 1999. He stated that the totals reflected overall sales of mobile home parks in Lake County at almost $50 million, for 3,302 lots. He stated that those lots are selling for $15,000.00 per lot. He stated that the Hibiscus Mobile Home Park was purchased in 1995 for $2.3 million, which he noted was one of the particulars that he looked at, when doing his appraisal. He stated that Mr. Weiss and his group supported that value, when they purchased the park in February of this year, by paying $2.4 million for the park. He gave examples of the various mobile home parks that had been sold in Lake County and what they sold for, noting that the Property Appraiser's Office had to look at those sales and make adjustments accordingly. He stated that the actual value of Hibiscus Mobile Home Park may have been closer to $2,520,000.00, noting that, if the previous owners neglected the maintenance on the park, it would have been reflected in a reduced selling price for the park. He stated that he understood where Mr. Weiss was coming from, in that, as a mobile home is pulled off a lot, it takes two lots to make one lot; however, he had always stated that he would be willing to work with the park owners, to look at the adjustments that need to be made to the assessment, when the income is affected.

Commr. Cadwell stated that, while the Board was sensitive to the park owners, they were aware of the fact that mobile home parks are money making operations, thus, the trend of mobile home park sales - 22 in the last three years in Lake County.

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Ms. Patten and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the Property Appraiser's assessment of $2,008,921.00 for Petition Nos. 1999-39 through 1999-44 - Ron Weiss, General Partner, Hibiscus Association, due to findings of fact and lack of sufficient evidence to reduce the assessment.

RECESS AND REASSEMBLY

At 10:50 a.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess until 11:00 a.m.

PETITION NO. 1999-47 - JAMES NESHEIWAT

Mr. Robbie Ross, Tangible Personal Property and Agricultural Operations Director, Property Appraiser's Office, informed the Board that the applicant was petitioning the assessed value of his property, located south of Hwy. 50, on the west side of Paloma Road, east of Clermont. He stated that the applicant feels an agricultural classification should have been placed on his property.

Mr. James Nesheiwat, Applicant, addressed the Board, stating that he bought the property in question (a 20 acre orange grove) in 1993, in a partnership with his cousin. He stated that, when they bought the orange grove, it was not in tip-top shape. He stated that he lived in New York, but his cousin lived in Florida; therefore, his cousin always took care of having someone take care of the grove. He stated that his cousin moved to Chicago, so he bought out his cousin's share of the grove. He stated that the grove had not been taken well care of, during the past two years, but he had been trying to do the best he could to bring it back, since he took over full ownership of the grove. He stated that there are 3,800 trees in the grove, with approximately 200 to 300 of them being in very bad shape. He stated that he had contracted with a gentleman, Mr. Mike Langley, to take care of the grove. He stated that the grove was neglected, because he was not around to take care of it. He submitted various pictures of the grove, for the Board's perusal.

Commr. Cadwell informed Mr. Nesheiwat that, by law, the Property Appraiser's hands were tied, if it was not an operating agricultural activity as of January 1, 1999.

Mr. Nesheiwat stated that, when the grove was assessed, the grass was high, because it had been neglected, however, it has since been mowed. He stated that Mr. Langley was going to prune the trees and remove any dead ones, at which time he will plant new trees where the dead ones are removed.

Commr. Pool stated that it was obvious that the grove had not been well-maintained, however, felt that, if the applicant's goal was to bring it back, he would be more than happy to help him, because he wanted to see as much citrus in Lake County as there could possibly be.

Commr. Hanson stated that the Property Appraiser had to look at where the grove was at the first of the year and, in reality, it probably should not have had an agricultural classification for the past few years, at least since 1990, when the County was hit with the freezes. She stated that the applicant had gotten a tax break, since purchasing the property, and felt that, if he continued with legitimate maintenance of the grove, she did not think there would be any question about his receiving an agricultural exemption next year.

Mr. Nesheiwat was asked if he had any bills, or receipts, indicating that he had paid for the upkeep on the grove, at which time he stated that he did, but his cousin had all the bills and receipts with him in Chicago.

Commr. Pool stated that he was sympathetic to the fact that the applicant had a grove that was not very pretty, or was not producing, but it did not mean that he was not trying to have a grove operation, therefore, was willing to support him. He noted, however, that he felt the applicant should present the Property Appraiser's Office with documentation showing that he had paid for grove care services over the past few years, to indicate that he had tried to upgrade the grove somewhat.

A motion was made by Commr. Hanson and seconded by Ms. Patten to uphold the Property Appraiser's recommendation of denial for an agricultural exemption for Petition No. 1999-47 - James Nesheiwat, due to the fact that the applicant failed to furnish sufficient evidence to indicate bona fide agricultural uses.

Under discussion, Commr. Hanson informed the applicant that he needed to have documentation ready to present to the Property Appraiser's Office, in January or February of next year, to qualify for an agricultural exemption.

Mr. Havill, Property Appraiser, interjected that his office would not accept a petition from the applicant before January of next year, because the applicant would be swearing under oath that, as of January 1, 2000, his grove was a commercial agricultural operation.

Commr. Hanson stated that the applicant would have his trees in the ground, would have his management plan together, and would have contracted with Mr. Langley to manage the groves by that time. She stated that the Board recognizes the fact that it takes several years, before a grove produces a crop. She stated that the applicant would not necessarily have to have a cash crop, but his grove would need to be well maintained.

Commr. Pool stated that he disagreed with Commr. Hanson, noting that he had seen many groves that were ugly, but were still producing. He stated that it was obvious the freezes put this grove in a condition where is was not very acceptable. He stated that he would not vote in favor of the motion. He stated that he understood the Property Appraiser's position, in that they have to look at the grove, as it presently sits, which is not pretty. He stated that the applicant sold fruit from the grove and made payments to an individual to care for the grove; therefore, he felt he should be granted an agricultural exemption.

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

Commr. Pool voted "No".

PETITION NO. 1999-83 - ED HARVEY

Mr. Frank Royce, Chief Deputy, Property Appraiser's Office, informed the Board that the applicant was petitioning the Board to look at the value of his house in Western Shores Subdivision, in Eustis.

Mr. Ed Harvey, Applicant, addressed the Board and read into the Minutes a statement that he had prepared, with regard to this case. He submitted, for the record, a detailed packet of information containing documents, letters, pictures, etc. (21 various articles of information) pertaining to his house and property, which he reviewed, article by article, with the Board.

Mr. Royce addressed some of the concerns that Mr. Harvey raised, one being that he felt the Property Appraiser's Office had appraised his house as a new house, rather than an older house (3 years old), because of the codes that the Property Appraiser's Office uses, in assessing houses. He discussed said codes and how his office uses them to assess a house. He stated that his office had made a mistake, however, in assessing Mr. Harvey's canal front property, noting that, for the past three years, they have had it assessed at $41,004.00 and his mobile home assessed at $33,065.00. He stated that last year the miscellaneous assessment was $1,233.00, for the seawall, however, noted that the boathouse and garage were not assessed. He stated that this year the miscellaneous assessment, which represents the seawall, the boathouse and cover, and the garage is $12,608.00. He stated that it was not being covered this year as new construction, however, should have been, because it was never on the tax roll. He stated that $10,171.00 was being captured under Save Our Homes, which was not correct, but would be corrected. He stated that the Property Appraiser's Office has the mobile home and property assessed at $86,000.00, but noted that it should be in the $90,000.00 range.

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, interjected that the assessment this year should have been higher than what it was, because it was not as high as it should have been in 1996, due to the fact that the boathouse and garage were not assessed. He stated that the assessment will have to go up.

Mr. Harvey stated that he did not feel he should be penalized, because he was capable of building his own garage, and did not feel that it was worth $80,000.00, as alluded to by Mr. Royce. He stated that the purchase price of his mobile home was $25,166.00 and less than $50,000.00 for his property.

Mr. Havill stated that Mr. Harvey felt he was being penalized for using his labor to build his garage, boat dock, etc., however, noted that his labor was worth what it was being assessed at, if he had gotten a contractor to do it, and that is what his office looks at. He stated that Mr. Harvey's assessment would be going up, based on the information they received this date.

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Ms. Fletcher and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the Property Appraiser's assessment of $86,677.00 for Petition No. 1999-83 - Ed Harvey, due to findings of fact and lack of sufficient evidence to reduce the assessment.

RECESS AND REASSEMBLY

At 11:55 a.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess until 1:00 p.m.

Mr. Frank Royce, Chief Deputy, Property Appraiser's Office, informed the Board that, due to some cancellations and withdrawals, the Board would not need to reconvene on September 30, 1999, until 10:00 a.m., rather than 9:00 a.m., as originally scheduled.

PETITION NO. 1999-48 - JAY ROYALL, PRESIDENT

WORTHWHILE DEVELOPMENT II, INC.

Mr. Frank Royce, Chief Deputy, Property Appraiser's Office, informed the Board that this case involved a 330 unit apartment building, on Hwy. 27, south of Clermont, known as Sarah's Place.

Mr. Kenneth Powell, representing Worthwhile Development II, addressed the Board, stating that several years ago Mr. Jay Royall, President, Worthwhile Development II, Inc., started developing low income housing tax credits, through the Florida Housing Finance Corporation, which he noted is bond money. He stated that Mr. Royall has developed two such complexes thus far, one in Orange County, and Sarah's Place in Lake County. He stated that there are certain restrictions that are placed on the Board, by the Federal Government and the State of Florida, through the tax credits, which he reviewed with the Board. He stated that one is restricted, when awarded said tax credits, to a 15 year period, where one is not allowed to sell the projects, without going back before the Florida Housing Finance Corporation and the Federal Government, so it is not something that is an immediate turnaround. He stated that one is given some interest breaks, because of the sale of tax bonds, through the Federal Government. He stated that there are restrictions, as to what the set-asides are.

Mr. Powell stated that this project did not go on line 100%, during the tax period that is in question. He stated that the apartment complex in question is one of two of this caliber of properties in Lake County, the other being located directly across the street from this complex, however, noted that it is four to five years older. He stated that they do not have the same percentage of set-asides as this complex does, noting that it is 100% set-asides, which means that they cannot have any of their tenants under a market rate. He stated that the complex across the street from this complex is assessed at $25,235.00 per unit, with the assessment for this complex being $38,206.00 per unit. He stated that, even though they were told by Mr. Royce that their complex was of better construction and a nicer project than the one across the street from them, they felt a 51% difference was a little high. He distributed various pictures of the complex that is located across the street from this complex, for the Board's perusal, as well as a picture of this complex, for the purpose of comparison.

Mr. Rick Strongback, Accountant, representing Worthwhile Development II, Inc., addressed the Board, stating that they discussed this case with Mr. Royce and tried to come to market value. He stated that Mr. Royce's position was that there were no comparables, because there were no other low income housing tax credit properties within the County, except for the one across the street from this complex, which he felt was not an exact, therefore, was not a comparable. He stated that they just went through the same thing in Orange County and were assessed at $28,658.00 per unit. He stated that the Property Appraiser's Office is used to assessing, based on market value, assuming that it can be sold the very next day. He stated that the problem with that is that there is no market for this type of complex, because they are not allowed to sell them. He stated that he was told that he had a profit motive, therefore, why would they build such complexes. He stated that the State and Federal Governments want low income housing and, after 15 years of being beat up by tenants that they have to rent low income housing to, nobody knows what is going to be left at the end of their lease, so, in order to induce developers to construct such complexes, they pass along a developer's fee, which is the motive for them to construct such complexes.

Commr. Hanson interjected that she felt what had occurred was that low income housing had been created for Orange County, which puts a higher demand on Lake County's services, so there is a cost to the County, rather than a benefit. She stated that she supported affordable housing, but was not sure that she supported it in this manner.

Mr. Royce stated that the Property Appraiser's Office was recently involved in a court case, being the Lake County Property Appraiser vs. Lake Port Square, where the Appellate Court decided that cost is a viable way of assessing income property. He stated that the apartments in question may not have been rented in 1998, but they were completed and able to be rented. He stated that the Property Appraiser's Office has to look at potential rent and, being that they had the rent roll for the complex, they knew what the apartments could rent for and were renting for, which was taken into consideration. He pointed out the fact that, in Chapter 193.011 of the Florida Statutes, it indicates eight factors to consider in arriving at just valuation, being: (1) the present cash value of the property; (2) highest and best use; (3) location; (4) quantity; (5) size of the land and building; (6) the cost; (7) the condition; and (8) the income, or net proceeds of the sale.

Mr. Royce stated that the applicant had provided the Property Appraiser's Office with cost information that indicated on one sheet $18,668,682.00 and on another sheet $13,848,120.00, which he noted is the hard cost for the building. He stated that his office has the building assessed at $11,668,118.00; therefore, no matter which of the two figures the applicant submitted, the assessment is fair. He stated that, by using a cap rate of 10% on this property, which is the income approach, and considering a 10% vacancy, gives them $13,849,752.00 and their total assessment is $12,607,000.00. He stated that three values were given to the Property Appraiser's Office by the applicant and every one of them verifies the assessment.

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the Property Appraiser's assessment of $12,607,000.00 for Petition No. 1999-48 - Jay Royall, President, Worthwhile Development II, Inc., due to findings of fact and lack of sufficient evidence to reduce the assessment.

PETITION NO. 1999-61 - ROBERT MURDOCK

Mr. Robert Murdock, Applicant, addressed the Board, stating that he moved to Lake County from Key West last year, at which time he purchased his house, however, was not familiar with evaluations in the County. He stated that he had met with Mr. Frank Royce, Chief Deputy Clerk, Property Appraiser's Office, and at that time ran the record cards that were attached to the summary that he submitted with his petition. He stated that they found two of what he considered to be absolutely identical comparables, being Items 1 and 2 in the summary. He stated that his house was built in 1921 and has 1,132 square feet. He stated that comparables 1 and 2 were both built in 1925 and have 1,138 and 1,090 square feet. He stated that the conditions of the three structures are about the same, with the only significant difference between his house and the two comparables being that his lot is approximately two-thirds the size of the lots of the two comparables. He stated that Comparable 1 has a valuation of $49,670.00; Comparable 2 has a valuation of $37,325.00; and his valuation is $60,808.00. He stated that he felt the appropriate value for his house, based on said comparables, should be $47,000.00.

Mr. Frank Royce, Chief Deputy, Property Appraiser's Office, informed the Board that the houses Mr. Murdock was comparing his house to do not have air conditioning and his property is valued at $14,000.00, with the comparables being valued at $18,700.00. He stated that Mr. Murdock purchased his house for $76,500.00, in February of this year, and, taking into consideration the fact that they felt the sale was a little high, assessed the house at $60,808.00. He stated that the house has 888 square feet of living area and was renovated in 1989, at which time central heat and air was installed. He gave several comparables in the same area as Mr. Murdock's house, one being located two blocks from Mr. Murdock's house, containing 868 square feet of living area, with central heat and air, which sold for $74,000.00 in September of 1998; another one located on the same block, containing 884 square feet of living area, with central heat and air, which sold for $75,000.00 in 1996; and another one built one block from Mr. Murdock's house, containing 782 square feet of living area, with air conditioning, which sold for $67,000.00, in July of this year. He stated that Mr. Murdock's house sold for $53,000.00 in 1990; $65,000.00 in 1995; and $76,500.00 in 1999.

It was noted that Mr. Murdock did not have a mortgage on his house and the amount of insurance that he has on the house is for the sale price of the house.

Mr. Frank Driggers, Property Appraiser's Office, informed the Board that, at the time that Mr. Murdock's house was built, in 1921, it was in the downtown area; however, when the whole block of downtown Mt. Dora was bought out by a local cardiologist, the house was moved from its former location to its present location, approximately 10 blocks away. He stated that, when it was moved, a new foundation was put under it, the floor was replumbed, new electrical wiring and vinyl siding was installed, along with central heat and air conditioning, so the house does not compare with a neighboring lot that has been in place since 1921, with no improvements, or changes made.

Mr. Murdock distributed two additional Property Cards, for the Board's perusal, indicating two other houses that had sold in his neighborhood, one at 182% of the assessed value, and the other at 303% of the assessed value.

Mr. Royce interjected that Mr. Murdock's information pertained to a $75,000.00 sale on a vacant 90 foot lot in Mr. Dora, in a residential area; therefore, his office disqualified it. He stated that the reported price was higher than what they believed the market to be in that area.

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the Property Appraiser's assessment of $60,808.00 for Petition No. 1999-61 - Robert Murdock, due to findings of fact and lack of sufficient evidence to reduce the assessment.

PETITION NO. 1999-62 - EMMET R. NICHOLS

Mr. Emmet Nichols, Applicant, addressed the Board, stating that he felt his house was appraised too high, because even though it is in a residential neighborhood, one of his neighbors has a 300 to 400 pound potbellied pig that they have had for two years. He stated that he has two additional lots that he cannot sell, because of the pig.

Commr. Cadwell stated that the Board recently acted on the issue of whether or not to consider potbellied pigs as swine and chose not to change the current rules governing same, which is not to allow those types of activities in residential areas. He stated that the neighbor who has the pig will be cited by Code Enforcement in the near future.

Mr. Nichols stated that another problem he had was that the Property Appraiser's Office assessed his house, which he has lived in since November of 1988, for an extra bathroom that he did not have. He stated that they finally subtracted $1,200.00 from his assessment this year for the bathroom, however, questioned whether he should get anything back for all the years that he overpaid.

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, stated that his office does not do back assessments, nor do they give credit for same. He stated that the matter is taken care of when it is brought to their attention.

On a motion by Ms. Patten, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the Property Appraiser's assessment of $136,000.00 for Petition No. 1999-62 - Emmet R. Nichols, due to findings of fact and lack of sufficient evidence to reduce the assessment.

COMMISSIONERS/MEETINGS

It was noted that, due to several applicants having withdrawn their petitions and several others indicating that they did not plan to attend the meeting, the meeting scheduled for Thursday, September 30, 1999, would not need to start until 10:00 a.m., rather than 9:00 a.m, as previously scheduled, and, due to the fact that an Emergency Meeting had been called by the Lake County School Board and all School Board members were asked to be present, the afternoon session would not be able to continue until at least one of the School Board members was able to be present; therefore, the afternoon session would have to be postponed until at least 2:15 p.m. The Recording Secretary was asked to contact the petitioners scheduled for Friday, October 1, 1999, and see if they could be moved up to the afternoon of Thursday, September 30, 1999, starting after 2:15 p.m., due to the withdrawals and potential "no shows".

Commr. Cadwell informed the Board that he would not be able to attend the meeting scheduled for Friday, October 1, 1999, due to the fact that he had another commitment. RECESS AND REASSEMBLY

At 2:10 p.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess until 2:30 p.m.

PETITION NO. 1999-97 - WILDER CORPORATION OF DELAWARE D/B/A BLUE PARROT CAMPING PARK

Mr. Gregory Morgan, Executive Vice President, Wilder Corporation of Delaware d/b/a Blue Parrot Camping Park, addressed the Board, stating that he felt the increase in his assessment was excessive, noting that from 1996 to 1998 the Blue Parrot Camping Park had always been assessed at approximately $1.6 million; however, this year it increased $250,000.00. He stated that no improvements had been made to the park, in fact, noted that some improvements needed to be made.

Mr. Dan O'Brien, Parks Manager, Blue Parrot Camping Park, addressed the Board and reviewed a study that was conducted by the Florida Association of RV Parks and Campgrounds, based on occupancy rates throughout this area. He stated that the occupancy rate in this area does not even hit 50% throughout the year. He stated that, in 1998, it hit 48.52% and, in 1997, it hit 48.6%. He stated that he did not know what the Property Appraiser's Office was basing their occupancy rate on. He stated that his park has less than 6% residency year round, noting that the residents are seasonal.

Mr. Robbie Ross, Tangible Personal Property and Agricultural Operations Director, Property Appraiser's Office, informed the Board that testimony was presented earlier this date, indicating what mobile home parks were selling for in Lake County. He stated that he had received Wilder Corporation's income and expenses for 1996, 1997, and 1998 and that, in reviewing said figures, came up with a Net Operating Income of approximately $500,000.00 for the park. He stated that, in putting a cap rate on it, the figure comes up to a value of approximately $5.4 million. He stated that the current assessment for the park, including real estate and tangible personal property was less than $2 million.

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, stated that the park has been under-assessed for the past couple of years, because his staff cannot appraise every property every year, however, noted that this year his staff was finally able to assess the park and bring it up-to-date.

On a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Ms. Patten and carried unanimously, by a 4-0 vote, the Board upheld the Property Appraiser's assessment of $1,848,777.00 for Petition No. 1999-97 - Wilder Corporation of Delaware d/b/a Blue Parrot Camping Park, due to findings of fact and lack of sufficient evidence to reduce the assessment.

Ms. Fletcher was not present for this portion of the meeting..

PETITION NO. 1999-128 - RICK PARKER C/O JOSEPH C. SANSONE COMPANY

Mr. Frank Royce, Chief Deputy, Property Appraiser's Office, informed the Board that the applicant was petitioning the value of Ruleme Center/Ruleme Place, a nursing home in Eustis.

Mr. Rick Parker, Director, Southeast Region, Joseph C. Sansone Company, addressed the Board, stating that his client has a home for the elderly, at which time he noted that he had submitted information pertaining to same to the Property Appraiser's Office. He stated that he ran a computerized cost approach on the property and feel that the cost is most indicative of value. He stated that it includes services, food, and in some cases, nursing care, so it is very difficult to differentiate between the income for the real estate and the income for the services. He stated that he did not feel the income approach was appropriate for this type of property. He stated that they very rarely sell for just the real estate, because there may be a Certificate of Need involved, or services involved. At this time, he distributed, for the Board's perusal, a cost work-up that was prepared for the property in question.

It was noted that it was the same information that was contained in the Board's backup material that had previously been submitted, along with the petition.

Mr. Parker stated that a 3,000 square foot addition was added to the facility last year and he realized that each year stands on its own, however, noted that last year the assessment was $1.7 million, for 54,000 square feet. He stated that this year the assessment is $3.2 million, for 57,000 square feet. He stated that he had spoken to the Property Appraiser's Office and was informed that, when they picked up the additional square footage, they felt they had miss-classified the property, so, while they were picking up the addition, they reclassified it to a higher classification. He stated that he felt the assessment was on the high side. He submitted, for the Board's perusal, several pictures of the facility. He stated that his firm feels the assessment should be $2.2 million. He noted that the assessment was for Ruleme Center and Ruleme Place combined.

Mr. Royce distributed, for the Board's perusal, a statement that he had prepared, with regard to this case, as well as copies from the Marshall Swift Handbook. He stated that he and the applicant had differing opinions on the issue of value, but felt that there was also a differing opinion as to where the figures were being obtained. He reviewed the handout with the Board, noting that the applicant's figures were far different than the figures given in the handbook. He stated that they were appraising the two buildings differently, because of age. He stated that they do not feel a 30% depreciation could be taken on both of the buildings, because part of the complex was renovated in 1998 and is in better shape than if it was a 30 year old facility, and 11,815 square feet, which is the 24 unit elderly assisted building, was built in 1987, so it is approximately 12 years old. He stated that his office is showing a value of $23,888.00 per bed, which is a low range. He stated that the full care nursing center, with 138 beds, using Marshall Swift figures from the handbook, and with an 11% depreciation off of that, gives a building value of $2,933,968.00. He stated that, with regard to the second building, the 11,815 square feet elderly living facility, with a 6% depreciation, is valued at $3.7 million. He noted that the Property Appraiser's Office has it assessed at $3.2 million. He stated that he felt the current value was fair and just.

On a motion by Ms. Patten, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, by a 4-0 vote, the Board upheld the Property Appraiser's assessment of $3,213,376.00 for Petition No. 1999-128 - Rick Parker c/o Joseph C. Sansone Company, due to findings of fact and lack of sufficient evidence to reduce the assessment.

Ms. Fletcher was not present for this portion of the meeting.

PETITION NO. 1999-129 - RICK PARKER C/O JOSEPH C. SANSONE COMPANY

Mr. Rick Parker, Director, Southeast Region, Joseph C. Sansone Company, addressed the Board, stating that he had viewed the property in question (Oakwood Center) for the first time this date and, after doing so, did not feel there was a major problem with the assessment on it.

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously, by a 4-0 vote, the Board upheld the Property Appraiser's assessment of $1,145,284.00 for Petition No. 1999-129 - Rick Parker c/o Joseph C. Sansone Company, due to findings of fact and lack of sufficient evidence to reduce the assessment.

Ms. Fletcher was not present for this portion of the meeting.

There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting was recessed at 4:00 p.m., until 10:00 a.m., Thursday, September 30, 1999.

__________________________________ WELTON G. CADWELL, CHAIRMAN

ATTEST:

_________________________________

JAMES C. WATKINS, CLERK

sec/9-29-99/10-8-99/boardmin