LAKE COUNTY VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD MEETING

SEPTEMBER 29, 1993

The Lake County Value Adjustment Board met on Wednesday, September 29, 1993, at 9:00 a.m., in the Board of County Commissioner's Meeting Room, Lake County Administration Building, Tavares, Florida. Commissioners present at the meeting were: G. Richard Swartz, Jr., Chairman; Rhonda H. Gerber; and Welton G. Cadwell. School Board members present were: Judy Pearson. School Board members not present: Sandra Green. Others present were: Ed Havill, Lake County Property Appraiser; Annette Star Lustgarten, County Attorney; Barbara Lehman, Chief Deputy, Finance and Audit Department; and Toni M. Riggs, Deputy Clerk.

Ms. Annette Star Lustgarten, County Attorney, explained that Florida Statute 194 establishes the Value Adjustment Board for each County. The Board consists of three members of the County Commissioners and two members of the School Board. Three members constitutes a quorum, and there must be at least one member of the governing Board and one member of the School Board present for the quorum to be official.

At this time, the Deputy Clerk verified that all of the advertising was in proper order.

Ms. Lustgarten discussed the different appeals that may be heard by the Board, which are reflected in Florida Statute 196, Exemptions, and Florida Statute 193, Assessments. Ms. Lustgarten stated that, if an applicant for the appeal, or the Property Appraiser, is not satisfied with a decision of the Value Adjustment Board (VAB), that decision is appealable to the Circuit Court.

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, addressed the Board and stated that the Property Appraiser is presumed to be correct, and the burden of proof is on the petitioner to prove that he is incorrect. Mr. Havill stated that a letter was given to each individual who filed a petition requesting any information that the petitioner was going to use at the hearing be provided to the Property Appraiser no later than five days prior to the day the petitioner was to appear before the VAB; otherwise, the information would not be admissible on the day of the scheduled hearing.

HOMESTEAD EXEMPTIONS

PETITION 1993-4 Stephen Lynn Knipp

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the VAB that the petitioner filed for the homestead exemption on May 4, 1993, after the March 1 deadline.

Mr. Stephen Lynn Knipp appeared before the Board and stated that he moved into the home in July, 1992, and the taxes for 1992 were just on the lot itself. He was waiting for additional information, as to the value of his lot and property, so that he could go to the Property Appraiser's Office to discuss the assessment and apply for homestead exemption all at the same time.

Mr. Havill explained that the home was newly constructed, and it takes a year to get the new construction on the assessment roll. This year, 1993, the lot and home will both be on the trim notice Mr. Knipp receives from Property Appraiser's Office.

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously, the VAB upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and denied the homestead exemption for Stephen Lynn Knipp, as he did not meet the March 1 deadline.

PETITION 1993-10 Phil C. Marston

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the VAB that Mr. Phil C. Marston lives in Michigan, and is not a legal resident of Florida. Therefore, he does not meet the residency requirements.

It was noted that Mr. Marston was not present for the hearing.

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously, the VAB upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and denied the homestead exemption for Phil C. Marston, as he did not meet the necessary residency requirements.

PETITION 1993-11 Priscilla I. Freeman

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the VAB that the petitioner filed for homestead exemption on March 11, 1993. He stated that, had the petitioner filed on time, the homestead exemption would have been approved.

Mrs. Priscilla I. Freeman appeared before the Board and explained that she and her husband had attempted twice to apply for homestead exemption, and was provided with misinformation from the Property Appraiser's Office. She discussed the process she and her husband took in attempting to file during the holidays in December, 1992, and Mr. Havill closing his office early on the day that they were to return to his office with the necessary information for filing. She then discussed the unpredicted early delivery of their new baby during the first part of the year. It was noted that the trailer was in both names, and the land was in her husband's name only.

Mr. Havill stated that, because Mrs. Freeman and her husband had made two attempts to file for homestead exemption, and he had closed his office early, he recommended that the VAB approve the request for homestead exemption.

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously, the Board approved to grant homestead exemption to Mrs. Priscilla I. Freeman, as recommended by the Property Appraiser based on extenuating circumstances.

PETITION 1993-25 Daniel D. Yolton

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the VAB that the petitioner filed for homestead exemption on March 11, 1993, after the March 1 deadline.

Mr. Daniel D. Yolton appeared before the Board and stated that he contacted the Property Appraiser's Office in December, 1992, and he was misinformed as to the date for filing. He explained that this was his first home, and he received the same information when he filed late in March.

Mr. Havill explained the advertising process he uses to advise the public of homestead filing, and of the deadline date for the filing.

On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and denied the homestead exemption for Daniel D. Yolton, as he did not meet the March 1 deadline.

PETITION 1993-27 David L. and Louise Thorne

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the VAB that the petitioner filed for homestead exemption on August 12, 1993, after the March 1 deadline.

Mr. David Thorne appeared before the Board and explained that he sold his home in November, 1992, and moved out in December, and he had homestead on this home.

Mr. Havill stated that the old homestead was taken away on January 1, 1993, on the old home, and he needed to fill out a brand new homestead application for his new home by March 1.

Mr. Thorne stated that he took ownership of his new home in May, 1993.

Mr. Havill stated that Mr. Thorne's application indicated that he moved into his new home on December 20, 1992, and he got title on it in May, 1993, and therefore, he would not have been entitled to homestead.

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously, the VAB upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and denied the homestead exemption for David L. and Louise Thorne, as they did not meet the March 1 deadline.

PETITION 1993-31 Patricia L. Nave

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the VAB that the petitioner filed for homestead exemption on March 31, 1993, after the March 1 deadline.

Mr. Larry Taylor, Attorney, appeared before the Board and stated that Ms. Patricia Nave is an employee in his office. He stated that he feels there are extenuating circumstances involved with this case. He explained the personal problems that Ms. Nave had been confronted with during the last part of 1992, in regards to a divorce and child custody. Mr. Taylor stated that the property was purchased, and a home was constructed and completed in August, 1992. Because her attention was diverted by other stressful times, it was an oversight for her to not file for homestead exemption on time, even though she is qualified for the exemption.

Mr. Havill stated that a few years ago the Lake County Commission approved to allow for the pre-filing of homestead exemption, and Ms. Nave could have pre-filed last year.

It was noted that Ms. Nave was present in the audience.

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously, the VAB upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and denied the homestead exemption for Patricia L. Nave, as she did not meet the March 1 deadline.

PETITION 1993-39 Walter F. and Susan M. Wiggins

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the VAB that the petitioner filed for homestead exemption on March 2, 1993, after the March 1 deadline.

Mrs. Susan Wiggins appeared before the Board and explained that she misplaced the card while moving out of an eight room house into a four room house. She also thought that the deadline date was March 31, but she did not know without the card, and she has never been late in filing for homestead.

Commr. Swartz explained that the VAB would have to determine what are truly extenuating circumstances, as indicated in Florida Statute 196.011(8).

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously, the VAB upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and denied the homestead exemption for Walter F. and Susan M. Wiggins, as they did not meet the March 1 deadline.

PETITION 1993-40 Jaime and Juana Nieves

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the VAB that the petitioner filed for homestead exemption on August 30, 1993, after the March 1 deadline. It was noted that the Nieves' petition indicated that they had contacted the Tax Assessor's Office and mailed in a money order for their taxes.

It was noted that no one was present to represent this case.

On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, the VAB upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and denied the homestead exemption for Jaime and Juana Nieves, as they did not meet the March 1 deadline.

PETITION 1993-73 Marlene A. Talbott

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the VAB that the petitioner filed for homestead exemption on March 17, 1993, after the March 1 deadline. It was noted that her petition indicated that she inadvertently misread the deadline date for filing.

It was noted that no one was present to represent this case.

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously, the VAB upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and denied the homestead exemption for Marlene A. Talbott, as she did not meet the March 1 deadline.

PETITION 1993-75 James and Karen Goonan

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the VAB that the petitioner filed for homestead exemption on September 3, 1993, after the March 1 deadline.

Mr. James Goonan appeared before the VAB and stated that he was of the understanding that the mortgage company would be handling the filing of homestead for him. He did not realize that he had to come in and make an application. Mr. Goonan stated that the mortgage company estimated the taxes with the homestead exemption, and with the homestead being denied, he is not able to pay the extra costs.

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously, the VAB upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and denied the homestead exemption for James and Karen Goonan, as they did not meet the March 1 deadline.

Mr. Goonan questioned public assistance, with the Property Appraiser directing him to see Mr. T. Keith Hall, Tax Collector, who has a program established for tax payment. Mr. Goonan was also directed to talk with someone at his mortgage company for clarification of his costs.

PETITION 1993-77 James A. Bryant, Sr.

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the VAB that the petitioner filed for homestead exemption on August 26, 1993, after the March 1 deadline.

Mr. James A. Bryant, Sr. appeared before the Board and stated that he had homestead in November, 1992, and therefore, paid his taxes. He stated that he asked questions of the personnel in the Tax Office as to the status of his homestead for next year, and was informed that it would remain the same. It was noted that he moved into his home on January 30, 1992, and he did not know that he had to file an application for 1993.

On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by School Board Member Pearson and carried unanimously, the VAB upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and denied the homestead exemption for James A. Bryant, Sr., as he did not meet the March 1 deadline.

PETITION 1993-80 Inez and Carolyn Lightsey

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the VAB that the petitioner filed for homestead exemption on June 11, 1993, after the March 1 deadline.

It was noted that no one was present to represent this case.

On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by School Board Member Pearson and carried unanimously, the VAB upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and denied the homestead exemption for Inez and Carolyn Lightsey, as they did not meet the March 1 deadline.

AGRICULTURAL EXEMPTIONS

Ms. Lustgarten reviewed the statutory provisions regarding agricultural exemptions. (Agricultural classification referred herein as agricultural exemption.)



PETITION 1993-1 Odis L. Fender

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the VAB that the petitioner filed the green card for agricultural exemption on March 5, 1993, after the March 1 deadline. Mr. Havill stated that this is a bonifide citrus grove, and a green card has been filed every year.

Mr. Odis L. Fender appeared before the VAB and stated that he lost the card, and when he found it, he had to file late.

Mr. Havill stated that the cards are mailed out in December of each year, and that a duplicate card could have been issued. He explained a green belt classification, and the changes that have been made in the requirements. It was noted that there could be automatic filing for green belt each year, but in Lake County you have to file a card every year. Mr. Havill recommended that the VAB have a little more latitude on green belt renewal cards for bonifide agriculture, in order to help the farmer.

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously, the VAB overturned the denial of agricultural exemption due to late filing, and granted the exemption for Odis L. Fender, as recommended by the Property Appraiser.

PETITION 1993-2 Lorris Brown

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the VAB that the petitioner filed the green card for agricultural exemption on March 25, 1993, after the March 1 deadline. After a visual inspection of the property, Mr. Havill recommended the exemption be granted.

It was noted that Mr. and Mrs. Brown were present.

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously, the Board overturned the denial of the agricultural exemption due to late filing, and granted the exemption for Lorris Brown, as recommended by the Property Appraiser.

PETITION 1993-3 George E. Nahas

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the VAB that the petitioner purchased property on Highway 441 in December, 1985, for $500,000.00. The property consists of 20 acres, which was zoned commercial prior to purchase. The sale price figures out to $25,000.00 per acre. Mr. Havill stated that the property was purchased for commercial use. The petitioner planted pine trees on the property and is requesting an assessment of $175.00 per acre. The application was turned down. It was noted that the petition indicated that pine trees were planted and the exemption was requested after discussion and approval by a Deputy of the Lake County Property Appraiser.

Mr. Jack Prickett, representing Mr. Nahas, appeared before the Board and explained that the pine trees were planted on property owned by Mr. Nahas, based on communication with the Property Appraiser's Office. He stated that discussion had also occurred regarding planting pine trees on several other pieces of property, with trees also being planted on Dr. George Ikeler's property. There were a total of three properties, with one not petitioning, because of definite commercial plans. Mr. Prickett stated that Mr. Nahas proceeded with the plans based on careful research beforehand.

Mr. Mike McLain, former employee of the Property Appraiser's Office, appeared before the Board and stated that he did not tell Mr. Prickett that the application would be approved, but he did tell him that he would be glad to show the application to Mr. Havill and Mr. Robbie Ross, and discuss the proposed planting of pines, and the sale price. He clarified that he did not make a decision on his own, or for Mr. Havill.

Mr. Robbie Ross, Supervisor of Tangible Personal Property Department, Property Appraiser's Office, addressed the VAB and discussed a time period when the Property Appraiser was taken to court over a similar situation. He discussed the sale price of the property, and stated that the $25,000.00 an acre was well over the agriculture value of the property by more than the three times that is required by law, and the zoning of the property also needed to be considered. It was noted that these were the determinations on which to base the recommendation for denial.

Mr. Havill stated that the assessed value on the property this year is $705,000.00.

Mr. Prickett stated that, because this is an application that is approved once every year, and is not approved for the life of the property, he feels the petitioner acted in good faith based on what he felt was proper research with the Property Appraiser's Office, and the application should be approved for one year.

Mr. Havill stated that, based on Florida Statute 193.461, the application should be denied.

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by School Board Member Pearson and carried unanimously, the VAB upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and denied the agricultural exemption for Mr. George E. Nahas, based on Florida State 193.461.

PETITION 1993-5 Richard H. Langley

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the VAB that the petitioner filed a brand new agricultural exemption application on March 19, 1993. He stated that the property was visually inspected, and it is the Property Appraiser's opinion that the property would have been granted agriculture, if the application had been filed in a timely manner, as prescribed by Florida law.

Mr. Richard Langley appeared before the VAB and stated that he holds the property as Trustee for three other individuals, and no one was sure as to who should file for the exemption. He stated that the property is a frozen out grove that is being used as a pasture, and is bonifide agriculture.

Ms. Annette Star Lustgarten, County Attorney, stated that the Florida Statute is very clear that no land shall be classified as agricultural lands unless a return is filed on or before March 1 of each year.

Mr. Havill stated that the last time that green belt was approved on the property in question was in 1990. He recommended denial of the request.

On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by School Board Member Pearson and carried unanimously, the VAB upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and denied the application for agricultural exemption for Richard H. Langley, as he did not meet the March 1 deadline.

PETITION 1993-9 Jane Miller

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the VAB that, after visual inspection of the property, it is the opinion of the Property Appraiser's Office that the property would have been granted the agricultural classification, in part, if the green card had been filed in a timely manner, as described by Florida law. He stated that 25 acres out of the total 106.5 acre tract, would have been granted agriculture for pasture. It was noted that the green card was never received.

Ms. Jane Miller appeared before the Board and stated that she mailed the green card.

Mr. Havill pointed out that the courts have held that the post office is the Plaintiff's agent, not the Property Appraisers, so if someone mails something in, and it is not received by the Property Appraiser, it is considered not filed.

RECESS & REASSEMBLY

At 10:50 a.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would take a short recess.

PETITION 1993-9 Jane Miller (Continued)

Mr. Havill stated that the acreage in this case involves 70 acres that are dry, and 36 1/2 acres that are wet. The property was inspected, and 25 acres would have been approved as green belt, if the green card had been received.

Ms. Miller stated that the property in question has always been classified agricultural for the entire property. A portion of the property that was a citrus grove has now been pushed and cleared for pasture. Ms. Miller stated that her mother is Japanese and elderly, and did not realize the significance of the green card. She stated that the green card was filed late, and that she did mail the card. Ms. Miller stated that, after realizing the deadline had been missed for filing the card, she contacted the Property Appraiser's Office, which instructed her to go ahead and file the card, even though it would be denied, because it was after the March 1 deadline, and she would be able to file an appeal and appear before the VAB. Ms. Miller stated that she has just been made aware that a visual inspection was made of the property. She stated that it is understood that the card was mailed late, but that there was no discussion with the Property Appraiser's Office regarding the card not being received.

Mr. Havill explained what condition the property needed to be in by January 1, 1993, in order for all of it to be approved as agriculture. He stated that this would have been a refiling for the exemption, except that his office never received the green card.

Mr. Terry Miller addressed the VAB and stated that the portion of the property that was grove has been cleared and has grass, but technically a fence has not been placed around it, and the cattle have not been moved.

Ms. Miller stated that there was a fence around the entire parameter of the property by January 1, 1993.

Commr. Swartz stated that, once the green card is submitted to Mr. Havill, the 25 acres that are bonifide agriculture will be approved for the exemption.

Commr. Cadwell made a motion, which was seconded by School Board Member Pearson, to uphold the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and grant the agricultural exemption on 25 acres, subject to the Property Appraiser's Office actually receiving the green card.

Discussion occurred regarding the process that the petitioner would need to take, in order to qualify the additional acreage for agriculture.

The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, with the motion being carried unanimously.

PETITION 1993-16 Mary Alibrandi

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the VAB that, after a visual inspection of the property, it is the opinion of the Property Appraiser's Office that the property would not have been granted the agricultural classification, if the green card had been filed in a timely manner. The inspection found that the fence line was in disrepair, and there was no evidence of livestock grazing. The green card was filed after August 22, 1993.

Ms. Mary Alibrandi appeared before the Board and stated that the property has always been agriculture, as long as she has owned it. She explained that she misplaced the card.

Mr. Orville Alderman appeared before the Board and stated that there is 25-50 head of cattle on one section of the property; on another section of land there is 30-50 head of cattle plus seven horses. The fences have recently be repaired in the last three months.

Mr. Robbie Ross described the property, which is located on the Sumter/Lake County line. He stated that the inspection was made from Highway 44, and there were "For Sale" signs on the property. He further stated that there were areas of the fence line that needed repair, and the pasture was overgrown.

Commr. Swartz questioned whether it would be helpful to reschedule this case, so that another inspection could be made of the property.

Mr. Havill suggested that the case be postponed until October 1, 1993, Friday, at 11:15 a.m.

On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by School Board Member Pearson and carried unanimously, the VAB postponed Petition 1993-16, Mary Alibrandi, until October 1, 1993, at 11:15 a.m., or as soon thereafter as possible.

PETITION 1993-18 Robert N. and Rita I. Saidel

Mr. Frank Bergau was present representing Robert and Rita Saidel.

Mr. Robbie Ross stated that a parcel of property was inspected, which was to the west of the parcel in question. He stated that the parcel being discussed would have been approved for an agricultural classification, if the new application had been filed on time. It was noted that the application was filed a few days late, and the property was purchased in June, 1992.

Mr. Bergau addressed the VAB and stated that the petitioners had been waiting for information from their accountant on the actual expenses incurred for the improvements to the property. Mr. Bergau stated that money is still being expended for equipment. He further stated that the previous owners had always filed for the exemption.

Mr. Ross stated that the property had been sold, and with the sale and change of ownership, a new application would have needed to be filed by March 1, 1993.

Mr. Havill explained that a new application will have to be filed between January 1 and March 1 of next year.

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously, the VAB upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and denied the application for agricultural exemption for Robert N. and Rita I. Saidel, as they did not meet the March 1 deadline.

PETITION 1993-21 Alexander Calabrese

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the VAB that, after a visual inspection of the property, it is the Property Appraiser's opinion that the property would have been granted green belt classification, if the card had been filed in a timely manner, as described Florida law.

Mr. Alexander Calabrese appeared before the VAB and stated that the card was not filed late, because he mailed it in. It was noted that the Property Appraiser's Office never received it when he mailed it in, and Mr. Calabrese came into the Property Appraiser's Office after receiving his trim notice in August, and he was requested to fill one out then.

It was noted by the Property Appraiser's Office that the exemption would have been approved had the card been received on time, and the property has been continuance agriculture.

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by School Board Member Pearson and carried unanimously, the Board overturned the denial of the agricultural exemption, and granted the exemption, as recommended by the Property Appraiser.

PETITIONS 1993-45 thru 1993-49 and 1993-51 thru 1993-58

A. A. Moukhtara Co., John F. Hayter, Attorney

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the VAB that, after a visual inspection of the properties, it is the Property Appraiser's opinion that the green belt be denied on all of the property in question. He stated that the properties fail to show any bonifide commercial use, and a new application was never received by the Property Appraiser's Office.

Mr. John F. Hayter, Attorney representing the petitioner, appeared before the Board and stated that originally four of the parcels were agricultural when purchased in April, 1992, and the exemption had been issued to Mr. G. W. Pringle. The renewal notice was forwarded to him by the Pringles, who are his relatives, in late 1992, because he had purchased the property. Mr. Hayter stated that, after consulting with the Property Appraiser's Office, he filed for the renewal, and placed trust in the U.S. mail. He stated that, after receiving the proposed tax notices on the properties, and noticing that all of the agricultural exemptions had been removed, he called the Property Appraiser's Office, which explained to him that the application for renewal was not received. Mr. Hayter stated that, as a result of this finding, he filed the applications, which are before the VAB today as attachments to his petition. He stated that the character of the properties have not changed at all.

Mr. Havill stated that there would not have been renewals on the properties, because of new ownership, and new applications would have needed to be filed.

Mr. Hayter informed the VAB that he is still under the terms of his lease for grazing purposes through at least September of next year.

Mr. Havill stated that, upon reviewing the copy of the application provided to him, it shows a date of January 19, 1993, but it was never received, because the bottom portion was never completed.

Mr. Hayter informed the VAB that he has a copy of the letter dated January 19, 1993, which went out of his office with the applications to Mr. Havill. It was noted that this letter was not attached to the petition for review.

Mr. Robbie Ross stated that a package of information was received from Mr. Hayter since the petitions were filed, but the applications were not filed in a timely manner, and were never received by the Property Appraiser's Office.

Mr. Havill stated that, based on the testimony presented, and the applications never being received, he would recommend denial of the agricultural exemption on all of the properties in question.

On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by School Board Member Pearson and carried unanimously, the VAB upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and denied the agricultural exemption for A. A. Moukhtara Company, Petitions 1993-45 through 1993-49, and Petitions 1993-51 through 1993-58.

RECESS & REASSEMBLY

At 12:40 p.m., the Chairman announced that the VAB would recess until 2:00 p.m.

PETITION 1993-59 James Rodney Lee

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the VAB that the renewal green card was filed after the March 1 deadline, and after a visual inspection of the property, the green belt would have been granted, because it is bonifide agricultural, and he was recommending approval of the exemption.

It was noted that Mr. Rodney Lee was present for the hearing.

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously, the VAB overturned the denial of the agricultural exemption, due to late filing, and granted the exemption, as recommended by the Property Appraiser.

PETITIONS 1993-61 through 1993-64 M. Kenneth Boykin

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the VAB that, after a visual inspection of the property, the agricultural exemption would have been denied, even if the green card had been received on time. It was noted that the card was filed after the March 1 deadline. Mr. Havill stated that the pasture is questionable, and the citrus portion would have been turned down.

Ms. Sara Lou Boykin appeared before the Board and stated that the property indicated in Petition 1993-61 was being used to grow hay and mulch for the animals that are on other parcels.

Mr. Robbie Ross described the property, which is located by the ultra-light airfield south of O'Brien Road, and stated that part of the property is split by a road that goes to the air field. Mr. Ross stated that there seems to be no actual grove care being done at the property.

Ms. Boykin stated that she has donkeys that are being raised for sale, and approximately 40 goats, and the property was being used to raise the hay for the animals.

Mr. Ken Boykin appeared before the Board and stated that he has 50 acres cross fenced; ten miniature donkeys for sale; approximately 45 goats; 124 pear trees that are used at a commercial stand on Highway 192; 11 pecan trees; and that he feels the citrus grove should be checked again. He stated that the citrus has not be herbicided, and there are 123 dead trees out of 23 acres. He further stated that there are red navels and red grapefruit, which are under irrigation, and it does have a fertigation system on it. Mr. Boykin stated that 80% of the grove is alive.

Mr. Havill suggested that Petitions 1993-61 through 1993-64 be postponed until Friday, October 1, 1993, at 11:15 a.m., so that the property can be inspected again.

On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by School Board Member Pearson and carried unanimously, the VAB postponed Petitions 1993-61 through 1993-64, until Friday, October 1, 1993, at 11:15 a.m., or as soon thereafter as possible.

PETITION 1993-7 Edward O. Reedy

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the VAB that this is a new application for green belt that was filed on March 31, 1993. After a visual inspection of the property, and had it been filed on time, it would have been granted green belt for this year.

Mr. Edward Reedy appeared before the Board and stated that he misread his card and thought he had until March 31. He stated that his son has ALS, and he is his son's constant companion. He has not had the time to take care of his personal business for the past few years. Mr. Reedy stated that the property is an old orange grove, and he has delayed the planting of trees, due to the expense.

Mr. Havill stated that this is not a question of the property being bonifide agriculture, but a new application that was filed after the March 1 deadline.

After some discussion, it was noted that the petitioner has owned the property since 1953, and 1974, and the last time the property had the agricultural exemption was in 1989.

Commr. Cadwell made a motion, which was seconded by School Board Member Pearson, to uphold the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and deny the agricultural exemption, due to late filing.

Commr. Gerber stated that she will have to vote against the motion, because it has been agricultural for a long period of time, and was not a transfer, and because of the petitioner being the sole caretaker of his son.

Mr. Robbie Ross stated that the last agricultural exemption application was granted on this property in 1990. It has been reset in pine, and the application would have been approved had it been filed in a timely manner.

The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, with the motion being carried by a 3-1 vote. Commr. Gerber voted "no".

PETITION 1993-70 Sue B. Roberson, Trustee

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the VAB that the petitioner owns 4.32 acres on Lake Dalhousie. The grove is located on 2.32 acres, and there is one acre of lake bottom, and one acre of homesite. Mr. Havill stated that normally when it is under ten acres, it is not economically feasible to have a commercial agricultural operation of citrus. He stated that the petitioner paid $85,000.00 for the 4.32 acres in 1988, which is more than three times the agricultural value of the property, which is one of the criteria used in denying an agricultural application. Mr. Havill stated that the total assessment of the property is $207,000.00. The reason that the petition is before the VAB is because the petitioner has a grove care taking service caring for the 2.32 acres.

Mr. Robert Roberson appeared before the Board and stated that he has made a bonifide effort to maximize profits on the small lot. He stated that there is other criteria than can be considered including investment and sales and potential sales from the operation. He provided the VAB with several points for consideration, including how the trees were set, which allows twice as many trees per acre; the variety of fruit being produced, after he consulted with a grove care service; the irrigation system; and the actual grove care service that has been contracted to do the work. It was noted that there is not a formal contract with the grove care service at this time.

Discussion occurred regarding the fees that the petitioner has paid for the grove care, and the cost of lots that are currently selling on Lake Dalhousie.

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously, the VAB upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser to grant the agricultural exemption on the 2.32 acres, based on the testimony presented.

PETITION 1993-79 Hazell Brown

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the VAB that, after a visual inspection of the property, the property would have been granted the agricultural classification, if the green card had been filed by the March 1 deadline. Mr. Havill stated that the property is bonifide green belt.

It was noted that Mr. Hazell Brown was present for the hearing, and he verified his address, which had been changed because of the 911 service, with Mr. Havill.

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by School Board Member Pearson and carried unanimously, the VAB upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and granted the agricultural exemption.

Mr. Perry Hodges appeared before the Board and questioned the action that was just taken, and Commr. Swartz directed him to Property Appraiser's Office for more information regarding assessments.

PETITION 1993-85 John P. Hartman, as Personal Representative

of the Estate of William G. Haynie, Deceased, and as Attorney-

in-Fact for Louise Haynie

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the VAB that the property, which was green belt, was owned by Mr. William G. Haynie, who became very sick and passed away. He signed a couple of cards while he was in the hospital, and the cards are in the possession of his attorney. Mr. Havill recommended approval of the agricultural exemption.

Mr. Arthur Roberts, Attorney representing Mr. Haynie, was present for the hearing.

On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by School Board Member Pearson and carried unanimously, the VAB upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and granted the agricultural exemption for John P. Hartman, as Personal Representative of the Estate of William G. Haynie, Deceased, and as Attorney-in-Fact for Louise Haynie.

PETITION 1993-89 Wendell G. Cook

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the VAB that, after a visual inspection of the property, the property would have been granted agricultural classification, if the card had been filed by the March 1 deadline.

It was noted that Ms. Barbara Cook was present for the hearing.

On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by School Board Member Pearson and carried unanimously, the VAB upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and granted the agricultural exemption.

PETITIONS 1993-95 and 1993-96 Lagomar Groves, Inc.

PETITIONS 1993-97 through 1993-99 EWB Groves, Inc.

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the VAB that this involves green cards that came in late, due to a change in address, and for failure of the post office to forward the mail to the property owner in time for the cards to be returned before the March 1 deadline. Mr. Havill stated that, after a visual inspection of the property, the property would have met the agricultural classification, if the cards had been received by the March 1 deadline.

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by School Board Member Pearson and carried unanimously, the VAB upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and granted the agricultural exemption for Petition 1993-95 and Petition 1993-96, Lagomar Groves, Inc.

On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by School Board Member Pearson and carried unanimously, the VAB upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and granted the agricultural exemption for Petitions 1993-97 through 1993-99, EWB Groves, Inc.

RECESS & REASSEMBLY

At 2:43 p.m., the Chairman announced that the VAB would recess until 3:00 p.m.



PETITION 1993-146 Cole Whitaker, Agent

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the VAB that, after a visual inspection of the property, it is the opinion of the Property Appraiser that the agricultural classification be denied. Mr. Havill stated that the property fails to show any bonifide agricultural use.

It was noted that the property in question involves a 200+ acre tract on U.S. 27 and O'Brien Road at the turnpike interchange. The property has over 3/4 mile of Highway 27 frontage, and 2,160 feet on O'Brien Road, which is paved. It also contains a 20 acre lake, and the property abutts the new Lake County Industrial Park.

Discussion occurred regarding the information supplied on the petition when filed. It was noted that the petition indicated that this is an appeal of disapproval for Ad Valorem Tax exemption, other than homestead, by the Property Appraiser, and an appeal of the disapproval of application for agricultural classification.

Mr. Cole Whitaker, Agent for SES Group, Miami, appeared before the Board and stated that he is a limited partner and has equity in the land. Mr. Whitaker stated that an application for agricultural exemption has never been filed for the property in question, because approximately seven years ago, a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) was granted on the front of the property that allows for the removal of the large ridge, which makes the property hard to assess and develop. Mr. Whitaker stated that the exemption also was not filed, because he felt the tax assessment for the last seven years has been more than fair. Last year he paid $5,500.00 in real estate taxes, and this year he is being taxed $36,256.00, which calculates to a 660% increase in the real estate taxes.

Mr. Whitaker explained that there are approximately 135 acres existing in planted pines, with 70% of them surviving, and they are now eight years old. He stated that the County has 600 surrounding acres. Mr. Whitaker explained that the petitioner considers himself to be a silent partner with the County with what it is trying to do at the turnpike interchange. He discussed the land swaps that have taken place between the petitioner and the County, in terms of the realignment of O'Brien Road, and informed the Board that he has a meeting scheduled with Southern States Utilities (SSU) and Mr. Mike Anderson, Director of Facilities and Capital Improvements, to discuss the sewer problem on the County's property. It was noted that the petitioner had sold 20 acres so that SSU could have a spray field. Mr. Whitaker stated that he has brought developers out to the site to try and get development for the County's property first, because the County is rendering the funds for the infrastructure. Mr. Whitaker stated that he can understand a tax increase on the CUP section of property, but there is no one that is going to pay $2,135,075.00 for the property. He stated that eight years ago the property was purchased for $1,750,000.00, and if the property was put up for sale for this amount, there would be no takers. It was noted that the CUP expires in one and one-half years, and that $60,000.00 a year is received as income.

Mr. Havill stated that, because the section regarding seeking review and adjustment of the assessed value was not marked, it cannot be considered by the VAB. He stated that the application was filed on time, but he does not feel this is bonifide agricultural. Mr. Havill stated that, in 1987, the petitioner paid $8,500.00 per acre, and it should be assessed at $175.00 per acre for pine trees. He discussed the criteria in the Florida Statutes that he is considering when recommending denial of the application. He further indicated that, once the County starts selling the property in this location, it will start improving the value of the property in question.

Mr. Frank Driggers, employee of the Property Appraiser's Office, addressed the communication that he has had with Mr. Whitaker, in terms of an asking price on the property, and stated that he was told that an appraisal had recently been obtained, in the amount of $4 million dollars. Discussion occurred regarding the information received during the communication that took place between the parties.

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously, the VAB upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and denied the application for the agricultural exemption in this case.

PETITION 1993-162 Dennis L. Horton, as Trustee

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the VAB that this involves a new application that was filed on June 29, 1993. He stated that, after a visual inspection of the property, the green belt would have been granted.

Commr. Gerber made a motion, which was seconded by School Board Member Pearson, to uphold the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and deny the agricultural exemption, due to the application being received after the March 1 deadline.

It was noted that the record would reflect that the time was 3:15 p.m., with Mr. Dennis L. Horton, as Trustee, not being present for the hearing.

The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, with the motion being carried by a unanimous vote.

ASSESSMENTS

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, discussed with the VAB members the requirements of Florida Statute 193 regarding assessments.

PETITIONS 1993-112 through 1993-116 Darrin Mitchell

c/o George McElroy & Associates, Inc.

It was noted for the record that, at 3:35 p.m., Mr. Darrin Mitchell was not present in the audience.

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the VAB that the property involves the Eustis Plaza Shopping Center, and stated that three years ago the property was sold for $5,500,000.00, with a mortgage being securing for $5,800,000.00. The loan for the property was foreclosed one and a half years later, and the property was transferred to L & N Consultants for the sum of $2,966,000.00. This amount is approximately 54% of the $5,500,000.00 sale price that had occurred 20 months earlier. Mr. Havill stated that the most recent sale was not considered in arriving at the assessed value, and that this was a distress sale, and not an arms length transaction. The current assessment is $2,211,151.00 based on the economic conditions that pertain to most shopping centers of its kind. Mr. Havill stated that he feels this is more than a fair and just assessment, and is in line with other shopping centers in the County. The petitioner obtained the property in 1992 for approximately $3,000,000.00.

It was noted that, at 3:40 p.m., no one was present to represent Petitions 1993-112 through 1993-116.

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously, the VAB upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and approved the assessment in the amount of $2,211,151.00.

There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the VAB, the meeting adjourned 3:40 p.m.



CATHERINE C. HANSON, CHAIRMAN



ATTEST:





JAMES C. WATKINS, CLERK



TMR\BOARDMIN\9-29-93\10-6-93



A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

OCTOBER 1, 1993

The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in special session on Friday, October 1, 1993, at 4:00 p.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; Catherine Hanson, Vice Chairman; Rhonda H. Gerber; Don Bailey (Commr. Bailey was not present due to another commitment); and Welton G. Cadwell. Others present were: Annette Star Lustgarten, County Attorney; Peter F. Wahl, County Manager; James C. Watkins, Clerk; Barbara Lehman, Chief Deputy, Finance and Audit Department; and Marlene S. Foran, Deputy Clerk.

BONDS/RESOLUTIONS/SOLID WASTE

The Chairman, Commr. Swartz, announced that the special meeting on the resolution authorizing the refunding of the Lake County Adjustable Tender Resource Recovery Industrial Development Revenue Bonds Series 1988A, and the Lake County Taxable Mandatory Tender Obligation Resource Recovery Industrial Development Revenue Bonds, Series 1988B would be continued until 4:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter as possible, due to the bond materials not being available at this time.

No one present wished to comment on the continuation of this meeting.

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously, the Board approved to continue the special meeting on the Series 1988A & Series 1988B Resource Recovery Revenue Bonds until 4:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter as possible.

RECESS & REASSEMBLY

At 4:05 p.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess and reconvene at 4:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter as possible, for the special meeting on the Series 1988A & Series 1988B Resource Recovery Revenue Bonds.



BONDS/RESOLUTIONS/SOLID WASTE (CONTINUED)

The Chairman reconvened the special meeting in regard to the resolution authorizing the refunding of the Lake County Series 1988A and 1988B Resource Recovery Revenue Bonds.

Mr. Rick W. Patterson, Managing Consultant, Public Financial Management, Inc., appeared before the Board and introduced Mr. Steve Miller, Nabors, Giblin & Nickerson, P.A.; Mr. Thomas Giblin, Esquire, Nabors, Giblin & Nickerson, P.A.; Mr. Richard Wells, Senior Managing Underwriter, PaineWebber, Inc.; Mr. Scott Richbourg, PaineWebber, Inc.; Mr. Michael D. Williams, Honingman, Miller, Schwartz & Cohn; and Mr. Robert Mellen, III, Akerman, Senterfitt & Eidson, P.A. Mr. Patterson stated that, on behalf of Public Financial Management, Inc., he was pleased to present the Report of the Independent Financial Advisor regarding the Issuance of $69,615,000 Resource Recovery Industrial Development Refunding Revenue Bonds (NRG/Recovery Group Project), Series 1993A; and $7,935,000 Taxable Resource Recovery Industrial Development Refunding Revenue Bonds (NRG/Recovery Group Project), Series 1993B for the purpose of refinancing the outstanding Adjustable Tender Resource Recovery Industrial Development Revenue Bonds, Series 1988A and the Taxable Mandatory Tender Obligation Resource Recovery Industrial Development Revenue Bonds, Series 1988B.

Mr. Patterson reviewed the recommended financing parameters based on Variable-to-Fixed Rate Conversion under current Fixed Interest Rate Market and Historical Weekly Variable Interest Rates and stated that the current projections are as follows:

Tipping Fee Increase

Year 1 $.50

Year 1-5 $.65



True Interest Cost

Combined Series 1993 Bonds 6.004604%



Weighted Average Maturity

Combined Series 1993 Bonds 13.74 Years



Gross Debt Service Savings $16,378,117



Present Value Debt Service Savings $6,609,554



Average Debt Service Savings per Ton $4.03

Mr. Patterson stated that, based upon PFM's experience with other resource recovery financings in Florida and across the country, based on their knowledge of the tax-exempt market, and based upon the review of recent comparable financings in the state and the nation, PFM is of the opinion that the combined true interest cost for the Series 1993 Bonds of 6.005% is fair and equitable, and that the underwriting spread of 0.010426%, or approximately $10.426 per $1,000, is also fair and appropriate for this transaction. Accordingly, PFM recommends that the Board approve the financing, and award the sale of the Series 1993 Bonds to PaineWebber, Inc.

Mr. Tom Giblin appeared before the Board and explained that the action required by the Board was the approval of the Bond Resolution, which was presented to the Board prior to the start of the meeting this date. He explained that the Exhibits attached to said resolution are legal documents relating to the issuance of the bonds, and explained that the Purchase Contracts outline various conditions that must be met by the County prior to the actual delivery of the bonds; the Preliminary Official Statement, dated September 21, 1993, was the offering prospectus for the Series 1993A Bonds and the Series 1993B Bonds; and the Escrow Deposit Agreement was the agreement under which the bond proceeds would be utilized by First Union National Bank of Florida, as the Escrow Agent and Trustee, to pay off the Series 1988A Bond holders.

He noted that the bond closing was scheduled for October 14, 1993.

Commr. Hanson made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Gerber, to approve and authorize the Chairman to execute Resolution No. 1993-165 authorizing the refunding of the Lake County, Florida Adjustable Tender Resource Recovery Industrial Development Revenue Bonds Series 1988A and Lake County, Florida Taxable Mandatory Tender Obligation Resource Recovery Industrial Development Revenue Bonds, Series 1988B.

Commr. Swartz expressed his appreciation to County staff and the Clerk's Office for their assistance in this activity and stated that the County has received an outstanding rate on the Series 1993A Bonds and has successfully refinanced to a Fixed Rate.

The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which carried unanimously.

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

Mr. Richard Wells appeared before the Board and commented that the No-Burn Analysis, the decision to renegotiate with Ogden Martin Systems of Lake, and the Ad-Hoc Financing Advisory Committee combined worked to the County's benefit in terms of the interest rates. He expressed his appreciation, on behalf of PaineWebber, Inc., and all of the underwriters, for allowing them to work with the County and all those involved on the refinancing of the bonds.

There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting adjourned at 5:05 p.m.



G. RICHARD SWARTZ, JR., CHAIRMAN



ATTEST:







JAMES C. WATKINS, CLERK





MSF/10-14-93/10-1-93