LAKE COUNTY VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
FEBRUARY 27, 2007
The Lake County Value Adjustment Board (VAB) met on Tuesday, February 27, 2007, at 8:30 a.m., in the Board of County Commissioners’ Meeting Room, Lake County Administration Building, Tavares, Florida. The following members were present: Commissioners Welton G. Cadwell, Chairman; Debbie Stivender; and Elaine Renick; and School Board Members Scott Strong; and Jimmy Conner. Others present were: Sanford A. “Sandy” Minkoff, County Attorney; Toni M. Riggs, Deputy Clerk; Ed Havill, Lake County Property Appraiser; Frank Royce, Chief Deputy, Lake County Property Appraiser’s Office; Robbie Ross, Director, Tangible Personal Property and Agriculture Operations, Lake County Property Appraiser’s Office; and Gaylord A. Wood, Jr., Attorney representing the Lake County Property Appraiser.
Commr. Cadwell called the meeting to order, and it was noted that a quorum was present. He asked Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, to give the Board an update on the procedures they needed to take today on cases that were postponed from the February 20, 2007 VAB meeting.
AGRICULTURAL EXEMPTIONS
Mr. Minkoff addressed the first cases noted on the agenda, Petitions No. 2006-27, 2006-28, and 2006-29 for Michel Moukhtara, which were inadvertently left off of the list when the VAB made its motion on February 20, 2007. All three cases were agricultural exemption cases, and the special master recommended that the agricultural exemption be granted. There were specific factual findings in these cases that, on January 1, there was an agricultural operation on the property. This was contested by the Property Appraiser at the hearing, but the special master made actual findings of fact that these properties were conducted as agricultural operations. The recommendation would be that the special master’s recommendation be upheld and that the exemption be granted.
On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Mr. Strong, and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the VAB upheld the recommendation of the special master and granted the agricultural exemption for Petitions No. 2006-27, 2006-28, and 2006-29, Michel Moukhtara, as recommended.
THREE TIMES PRESUMPTION CASES
Mr. Minkoff stated that the rest of the cases listed on the agenda are cases that involve the three times presumption. The special master recommended approval of the agricultural exemption on all of these cases; the Property Appraiser opposes that recommendation and filed a brief in opposition which they have all received. He noted that, at the last VAB meeting, February 20, 2007, there was a 2-2 vote on these cases; therefore, the cases had to come back before a full board.
Mr. Conner stated that he has reviewed the documentation, and the question would be whether or not this property qualifies for an agricultural exemption.
Commr. Renick stated that the decision is whether or not they are going with the intent of the law as it was originally put into place. Last year, the County Attorney recommended that the VAB uphold the Property Appraiser’s recommendation of denial. It was changed this year based on the fact that Judge G. Richard Singeltary had ruled differently in the case, and it was her contention that, since the case is still on appeal, they do not have a definitive answer.
Commr. Stivender stated that the issue falls on whether or not the property is being used for agriculture. People can speculate and buy property all over the place but, if you have a bona fide pursuit, you should be getting the exemption for it.
Commr. Cadwell explained that the logic used by the Property Appraiser is the three times rule, which he has done in these cases, and that is why he believes that he has some legal precedent to recommend denial.
Mr. Minkoff explained that a portion of the statute indicates that, if a person pays more than three times the agricultural assessed value of the property, there has to be special circumstances to get the agricultural exemption. The litigation involves whether special circumstances means something out of the ordinary or just means you can continue an agricultural operation.
Discussion occurred regarding the fact that the Property Appraiser is relying on the law, as indicated in the Florida Statutes, and the fact that there is now case law where a judge overturned the decision of the VAB, and it is now on appeal. In the discussion, it was also pointed out that some of the property being discussed is in the process of being developed today.
Commr. Renick stated that she does not find fault with anyone trying to get the exemption; they are trying to save on their taxes, but the law was put into place to keep agriculture as a business. She believes that, in these cases, there are those who are trying to keep it in agriculture to get the tax exemption until such time as it will be developed. She pointed out that the reason for the three times rule is that you cannot pay three times what the property is worth and expect to stay in agriculture.
Mr. Strong made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Stivender, to uphold the recommendation of the special master and grant the following petitions, as listed on the agenda, Item 1.b.:
PETITION NO. PETITIONER(S)
Grant 2006-62 Lori Ann Herrman & Jean-Mark P. Stark
Grant 2006-64 Good Earth, LLC (Champion)
Grant 2006-46/47/48/49 Benderson Randall Trustee et al
Grant 2006-30/31/32/33/34/35/36 Drew Pastures
Grant 2006-94/95/96 Montverde Investments, LLC
Grant 2006-60 John M. Nabers
Grant 2006-89 Mayro, LLC
Grant 2006-23/24/25/26 Amanda Eshbaugh
Grant 2006-69/70 Howey Groves, LLC
Grant 2006-71/72/73 Joshua High & Julia L. Johnson
Grant 2006-74/75/76/77/78/79 Gordon Tender, LLC/Baker Heritage, LLC/et al
Grant 2006-59 John & Judy Page
Grant 2006-57 Ronald Ingles
Grant 2006-90/91/92/93 BL Land Investments, LLC
Grant 2006-86 Howey in the Hills LTD
Under discussion, Mr. Conner stated that, as it was pointed out earlier in the discussion, as far as the letter of the law, they are probably upholding it, and it sounds like the three times presumption backs up the Property Appraiser and his decision. From a public policy standpoint, Mr. Conner stated that property that is going to be developed in the immediate future probably should not qualify for the agricultural exemption.
The Chairman called for a vote on the motion.
The motion failed by a 2-3 vote.
Commr. Cadwell, Commr. Renick, and Mr. Conner voted against the motion.
Commr. Renick made a motion, which was seconded by Mr. Conner, to deny the recommendation of the special master and uphold the ruling of the Property Appraiser to deny the following petitions, as listed on the agenda, Item 1. b.:
PETITION NO. PETITIONER(S)
Grant 2006-62 Lori Ann Herrman & Jean-Mark P. Stark
Grant 2006-64 Good Earth, LLC (Champion)
Grant 2006-46/47/48/49 Benderson Randall Trustee et al
Grant 2006-30/31/32/33/34/35/36 Drew Pastures
Grant 2006-94/95/96 Montverde Investments, LLC
Grant 2006-60 John M. Nabers
Grant 2006-89 Mayro, LLC
Grant 2006-23/24/25/26 Amanda Eshbaugh
Grant 2006-69/70 Howey Groves, LLC
Grant 2006-71/72/73 Joshua High & Julia L. Johnson
Grant 2006-74/75/76/77/78/79 Gordon Tender, LLC/Baker Heritage, LLC/et al
Grant 2006-59 John & Judy Page
Grant 2006-57 Ronald Ingles
Grant 2006-90/91/92/93 BL Land Investments, LLC
Grant 2006-86 Howey in the Hills LTD
Under discussion, Mr. Conner wanted everyone to know that one side was as compelling as the other but, from a public policy standpoint, he will say that he commends the Property Appraiser’s Office for taking a stand that is probably controversial and that, from a public policy standpoint, he feels the Property Appraiser is doing the right thing. He noted that maybe they can address this issue at the State level, but developers who are going to develop their property need to pay development prices and development taxes.
Commr. Cadwell called for a vote on the motion, which was carried by a 3-2 vote.
Mr. Strong and Commr. Stivender voted “no”.
BILLING
On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Mr. Strong and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the VAB approved the following request, pursuant to Chapter 194.015, Florida Statutes:
a. To bill the Lake County School Board for two-fifths of the net expenses, in the amount of $4,491.10;
b. And to bill the Board of County Commissioners for three-fifths of the net expenses, in the amount of $6,736.66.
MINUTES
On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Mr. Conner and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the VAB approved the following minutes:
Minutes of October 17, 2006 - Organizational Meeting
Minutes of January 16, 2007
Minutes of February 20, 2007
Minutes of February 27, 2007, subject to final review by the County Attorney
Mr. Frank Royce, Chief Deputy, Property Appraiser’s Office, noted that the Property Appraiser’s Office will need to come back to the VAB with the correct calculations for the certificates of value and notice of tax impact.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 a.m., and the Chairman announced that the VAB will reconvene on March 13, 2007 at 8:30 a.m.
__________________________________
WELTON G. CADWELL, CHIARMAN
ATTEST:
__________________________
JAMES C. WATKINS, CLERK