The Lake County Value Adjustment Board met on Wednesday, September 28, 1994, 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: Catherine C. Hanson, Chairman; Welton G. Cadwell, and Don Bailey. School Board members present were: Patricia H. Hart; and Judy Pearson. Others present were: Ed Havill, Lake County Property Appraiser; Frank Royce, Senior Appraiser; Jordon Stuart, Attorney, representing the Property Appraiser; Bruce Duncan, Assistant County Attorney; and Marlene S. Foran, Deputy Clerk.
Ms. Patricia Hart, School Board Member, gave the invocation and led the Pledge of Alliance.
Mr. Bruce Duncan, Assistant County Attorney, briefly explained that the procedures governing the Value Adjustment Board were outlined in Florida Statute Chapter 194 establishing the Value Adjustment Board for each County, and by rules outlined in the Florida Administrative Code, Chapter 12. He stated that the Board was allowed to accept testimony from both sides, and are only allowed to accept evidence that has been presented to the Property Appraiser's office at least five (5) days prior to the hearing. He explained that the Value Adjustment Board consists of three members of the Board of 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. He further explained that the burden of proof was on the petitioner to prove that the Property Appraiser's assessment was incorrect.
PETITION 1994-2 First Baptist Church of Mount Dora
Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the Board that the petitioner had filed for ad valorem tax exemption on a parcel of property that was denied exemption due to the fact that the property was not being used by the First Baptist Church for church purposes as of January 1, 1994.
Mr. Carl Tucker, Chairman of Trustees, First Baptist Church, appeared before the Board and explained that the property in question was vacated on January 1, 1994, and the existing structure on this property was demolished in March 1994, with the intent of using the lot for parking. He noted that the Church property completely surrounds the parcel.
Ms. Jordon Stuart, Attorney, representing the Property Appraiser, explained that the structure on the parcel as of January 1, 1994 was vacant, and the property was not being used for church purposes. She stated that the Property Appraiser would be able to grant the tax exempt status for 1995 if the property was incorporated into the surrounding property and used for the purposes of the church. She suggested that the present application be used for tax exempt status for 1995, and stated that the Property Appraiser's office would contact the First Baptist Church in January to verify the use of the property.
Ms. Stewart distributed five (5) photographs of the parcel in question for the Board's review and explained that the photographs were taken on a Sunday morning and illustrates that the grass was overgrown, and the fence was locked.
Commr. Cadwell made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Bailey, to uphold the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and deny the request for ad valorem tax exemption for the First Baptist Church.
Mr. Havill stated that the present application would be used for tax exempt status for 1995, and that the Property Appraiser's office would contact the First Baptist Church to verify the use of the property on January 1, 1995, at which time, Commr. Bailey requested that Mr. Havill's comments be incorporated into the motion. Mr. Havill stated that the assessment for this year would include the structure on the property on January 1, 1994.
The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which carried unanimously.
PETITION NO. 1994-7 The Canopy of Lake Griffin, Inc.
Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the Board that the petitioner had filed for ad valorem tax exemption on a condominium providing housing for retired ministers.
Mr. James Garner, Chairman of The Canopy of Lake Griffin, Inc., appeared before the Board and stated that The Canopy was a not-for-profit corporation that was established for the purpose of building housing for foreign field missionaries or retired clerics on an as needed basis, and that The Canopy was structured to subsidize those individuals based on need. He stated that the original application for exemption was denied, and a letter was received indicating that the reasons for denial, one of which was that sufficient information had not been provided to support the function indicated on the application. He explained that The Canopy has been granted tax exempt status as a 501-C-3 by the Internal Revenue Service and has received tax exempt status by the State of Florida Department of Revenue. He referred to the final declaration received from the Property Appraiser's office on March 1, 1994, and stated that, had they received said correspondence prior to March 1, 1994, they could have retitled the property properly in order to obtain a homestead exemption on the unit in question. He stated that the request this date was not to argue whether they qualify at the present time under the exemption, but that they be given the opportunity to provide the proper documents to the Property Appraiser to allow the cleric presently living in the unit homestead exemption.
Ms. Jordon Stuart, Attorney, representing the Property Appraiser, stated that unless the property in question was owned by the specific individual who was seeking homestead on January 1, homestead could not be granted.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and denied the request for ad valorem tax exemption for The Canopy of Lake Griffin, Inc.
PETITION NO. 1994-166 Southlake Community Foundation, Inc.
Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the Board that the petitioner filed for ad valorem tax exemption for not-for-profit low income housing.
Mr. Robert L. Chapman, II, Southlake Community Foundation, Inc., appeared before the Board and stated that one of the requirements that the Board of County Commissioners adopted was that Southlake provide a substantial amount of affordable housing, and in the Florida Quality Development Order that was adopted, there was a specific requirement that a not-for-profit foundation be established to sponsor low income housing. He stated that the Federal Government granted a 501-C-3 exemption January 1992, and, subsequently, the State Department of Revenue has granted a sales and use tax exemption. He explained that he submitted an original application to the Property Appraiser in 1992; at which time Mr. Havill requested Southlake to contact the State Department of Revenue. He distributed a letter, to be submitted into evidence, addressed to Mr. Havill, from the State of Florida Department of Revenue, date July 1, 1992, in regard to charitable exemption for Southlake Community Foundation, Inc., and read said letter into the record. He presented into evidence a memorandum from Mr. Havill, dated July 2, 1992, to Mr. Red Waller, Pardue Heid, the Appraiser who was working for the people who were investing in the tax exempt bonds to fund the property.
At this time, Ms. Jordon Stuart, Attorney, representing the Property Appraiser, objected to the introduction of the memorandum from Mr. Havill, dated July 2, 1992, on the basis that the Property Appraiser had no idea that said memorandum was to be presented.
Mr. Chapman stated that the memorandum, dated July 2, 1992, had been attached as an exhibit to the application for tax exemption, and does not have to be resubmitted if it had already been submitted as a part of the application.
Mr. Bruce Duncan, Assistant County Attorney, stated that the requirement states that evidence be submitted with the appeal petition; however, in light of the fact that the prior document that was entered with the letter to Mr. Havill from the State of Florida Department of Revenue had been overlooked, this, as well, was documentation that the Property Appraiser was aware of said letter.
Ms. Stuart withdrew her objection to the introduction of the memorandum, dated July 2, 1992, into evidence.
Mr. Chapman stated that Mr. Havill indicated in the memorandum that, in light of the opinion provided by the Florida Department of Revenue, he had concluded that the Southlake Community Foundation would qualify for ad valorem tax exemption for 1993 and subsequent years, assuming the facts described remain the same. He stated that the Articles of Incorporation, as submitted to the Property Appraiser, specifically itemized that the foundation would construct, maintain and operate, and the project was under construction. He noted that the Department of Revenue, in granting the sales tax exemption, required that the construction be underway before they would grant a long term certificate.
Ms. Stuart stated that the issue dates back to 1992, and noted that an opinion by the State of Florida Department of Revenue was not a binding opinion, and the Property Appraiser was responsible for deciding the question of fact and law. At this time, Ms. Stuart traced the history of this request, and stated that one of the questions to consider was whether the property was actually being used for what would be, considering all facts are equal, the charitable use. She stated that, in this case, there was not one individual residing on the property as of January 1, 1994. It should also be noted that prior to this time, there was no tax exemption granted and that the property was agriculturally classified. She explained that any implication that there was any prior decision made to grant this use was incorrect. At this time, she discussed the criteria necessary to meet a charitable exemption.
Mr. Havill noted that only the land was being assessed for 1994.
Mr. Chapman reviewed the evidence and explained that the charitable purpose of the foundation was clearly stated in opinion by the Deputy Attorney General. He stated that the housing was approximately sixty (60%) percent complete as of January 1, 1994, and the project was completely full at this time, with less than ten (10) vacancies. He stated that Southlake Community Foundation has complied with what they were requested to do, and the application was submitted this year.
Mr. Havill stated that the issue of tax exemption would be for 1995, and the issue for this year was what was on the property as of the final inspection from Lake County. He stated that, on January 1, 1994, the property was assessed for the land only and not entitled to tax exemption.
At this time, Mr. Chapman presented closing arguments.
Ms. Stuart commented that there was a substantial completion law in Florida that states that property was not to be placed on the tax rolls until it can be used for its intended purpose, noting that the building in question was not substantially complete and could not be used for its intended use.
Commr. Bailey made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Cadwell, to uphold the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and deny a request for ad valorem tax exemption for Southlake Community Foundation, Inc.
Ms. Patricia Hart, School Board Member, stated that this request was to uphold the Florida Statutes and expressed her concern that an individual was penalized for the purchase of the land that was necessary to build the buildings to make them accessible to lower income renters. She expressed concern with the law and suggested that the attorneys' look into this issue.
Mr. Duncan stated that this issue was best addressed by the legislature, and that the Board today must follow the law.
The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which carried unanimously.
PETITION NO. 1994-3 Dolores E. Gough
Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, presented the request for homestead exemption for Dolores E. Gough.
Ms. Jordan Stuart, Attorney, representing the Property Appraiser, stated that it has been determined that Ms. Dolores Gough was entitled to the homestead exemption, and briefly discussed this request.
It was noted that Petition No. 1994-3 had been withdrawn.
PETITION NO. 1994-5 Sherri A. Howard
Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, presented the request for homestead exemption for Sherri A. Howard.
Ms. Sherri A. Howard appeared before the Board and briefly discussed the events that have led to the denial of the request for homestead. She stated that the purpose for denial of homestead for this year was because she did not have her deed as stated in her name, Sherri Howard, as of January 1, 1994, noting that she and her husband, Scott Howard, had separated. She further explained that the deed that the Property Appraiser had was in the name of Sherri and Scott Howard. She stated that she has always lived in the house, and because the new deed was dated February 28, 1994 it was not a good deed.
Mr. Havill explained that there were several deeds on the property in question and that Ms. Howard had used an unrecorded deed on a mobile home to file for homestead exemption for 1993. He explained that, in November of 1993, Ms. Howard called to discuss her assessed value and informed staff that she was only buying the mobile home and not the land because the deed talks about a mobile home and not a piece of property. He stated that the Property Appraiser's office reviewed the deed, and determined that the property was for the mobile home and not for the lot. At that time, the exemption for 1993 was removed and the property was put back into the name of Michael Lee Solicit. Ms. Howard filed for homestead exemption in February of 1994 with a 1994 recorded deed to the property. He noted that homestead exemption was denied because the deed was dated February 1994. Ms. Howard came into the office after receiving notice of her denial with another unrecorded deed typed, signed, and notarized December 1992 that had the same legal description that was recorded. At this time, Mr. Havill questioned Ms. Howard if the deed dated 1992 was notarized in 1992.
Ms. Howard discussed the deeds in question and noted that she brought to the attention of the Property Appraiser's office that there had been an error in the deeds. She stated that she has lived in the house since February 1992.
Ms. Jordon Stuart, Attorney, representing the Property Appraiser, clarified that, as of 1993, Ms. Howard must have legal title under a recorded deed. She explained that there has always been a recording requirement; and, as of 1994, a deed must be recorded in the public records in order for the homestead exemption to be granted. She stated that, in this case, the only deed that was recorded in the public records was a deed that was dated in February of 1994.
Ms. Ginger Casburn, Deputy, Property Appraiser's office, appeared before the Board and confirmed that Ms. Howard did indicate to her that she was only purchasing the mobile home. At this time, she discussed the deed in question.
Ms. Howard continued to explain that she was purchasing the land and she inadvertently gave the Property Appraiser the home deed instead of the land deed. She stated that when she applied for homestead exemption, and she was informed by the Property Appraiser's office that a wraparound deed, or something indicating that she was purchasing the land, was all that was required. She stated that she has always had the deed, dated 1992, for the land. When she received notice of the new legislation requiring a recorded deed, she decided to have the deed put in her own name.
Ms. Hart stated that Ms. Howard has acted in good faith and it appears to be a mixup in the records. She noted that there was definitely occupancy on January 1, 1994.
Ms. Stuart stated that the deed that dates prior to 1994, submitted by Ms. Howard after the fact, could be used as a basis to show her ownership; however, that deed was not recordable because of technical reasons. She stated that Ms. Howard would have to obtain a corrective deed that references that deed indicating that she lived on the property and owned the property prior to 1994, and said deed would have to be recorded in the public records before the tax rolls are certified for this year.
At the request of Ms. Stuart, Ms. Howard confirmed that she had the executed Articles of Agreement that she had presented, as of the 18th day of December, 1992.
On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Ms. Hart and carried unanimously, the Board approved the request for homestead exemption for Petition 1994-5; subject to the petitioner getting a corrected recordable deed that references the original deed in such a way that it was recorded in the public records.
Mr. Havill indicated that Ms. Howard would need to have a corrected recordable deed by October 15, 1994.
PETITION 1994-21 Nations Bank of Florida
Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, stated that the petitioner was appealing disapproval of the application for agricultural classification, and explained that Lake Cogen, Ltd. had installed a cooling generating plant on the parcel in question.
Mr. Kurt Garber, Attorney representing the petitioner, appeared before the Board and stated that Lake Cogen, Ltd. has been denied the agricultural classification on 5.2 acres located in Umatilla, across the street from Golden Gem Growers. He stated that 3.01 acres of the property in question was planted in citrus and would like said property classified as agricultural.
Mr. Garber called Mr. Philip B. Gonbut, representing Golden Gem Growers, to the podium to provide testimony; at which time the oath was administered by the Deputy Clerk.
Mr. Gonbut provided testimony in regard to his relationship with Golden Gem Growers, the history of the Golden Gem Growers original grove, and the number of trees on the property at this time. He stated that there are 444 citrus trees on the property at this time, and approximately ten (10) cedar trees, which equates to 3 plus acres of citrus groves. He stated that the age of the trees was approximately five (5) to six (6) years of age.
At this time, Mr. Garber presented into evidence a copy of the Golden Gem Growers, Inc. Revised Grower Member Agreement, and a copy of the Golden Gem Growers Grove Care Cost Census and, for the record, indicated a copy had been submitted to the Property Appraiser on September 21, 1994.
Mr. Garber presented a Memorandum of Law that he had prepared on this case for the Board's review and explained that one of the basis of denial of agricultural exemption on the property in question was the fact that the minimum parcel size had to be ten (10) acres. In response to a question presented by Mr. Garber, Mr. Gonbut testified that it was possible to have a commercially productive grove on less than ten (10) acres in Lake County. He stated that a cooling tower was located on the property in question for the purpose of recondensing steam. He discussed the relationship between Golden Gem Growers, Inc. and Lake Cogen, Ltd.
Mr. Gonbut provided testimony in regard to the authority provided in the Golden Gem Growers, Inc. Revised Grower Member Agreement and responded to questions presented by Ms. Jordon Stuart, Attorney, representing the Property Appraiser, in regard to the Golden Gem Growers Grove Care. He confirmed that, in addition to harvesting the fruit and taking care of the grove in trust, the owner of the property has paid Golden Gem Grower a total of $11,180.25.
Ms. Stuart stated that the City of Umatilla required that this property be maintained in such a way that a buffer be provided for the neighboring properties, and that the property be maintained in citrus in order for the Lake Cogen plant and the water towers necessary to said plant to be constructed. She stated that it was impractical from a commercial agricultural standpoint to maintain a citrus operation on 3.5 acres of property unless there was another overriding reason, and that overriding reason was apparent in the City of Umatilla's requirements for the property. She stated that the citrus on the property was not profitable, it was not commercial in the sense required by the statutes, and was a detriment to the owner of the property. She stated that it should not enjoy the benefit of commercial agricultural use when the real use was to allow the owner to keep cooling towers on the property. She explained that Golden Gem Growers was not the owner of the property, and the benefit runs to the owner who must have a bonified commercial agricultural purpose to the property.
Mr. Garber discussed the Memorandum of Law which addresses the presumption that was set forth in Florida Statutes 193.461 4.(C), which sets a rebuttal for presumption, and the language indicates that the land owner has a right to demonstrate that the land was to be continued in a bonifide agricultural purpose. He stated that the grove in question has been continuous since the 1950s. He presented his closing remarks and stated that the Property Appraiser was denying an agricultural classification based upon the fact that there was a cooling tower on the property; however, the majority of the property was under grove. The case law states clearly that you look to the actual physical use of the property. He stated that they are requesting the agricultural be given to the 3.02 acres, which are being used for citrus.
Commr. Cadwell made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Bailey for purpose of discussion, to approve the request for agricultural classification on approximately 3.02 acres of the property that does not include the cooling tower.
Ms. Stuart clarified that the petitioner was withdrawing the portion of the property that includes the cooling tower.
Mr. Cadwell stated that 3.02 acres of property was a viable citrus grove, and could be a profitable grove.
Ms. Patricia Hart, School Board Meeting, stated that the bottom line was whether the property in question was agricultural land.
The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which carried unanimously.
PETITION NO. 1994-31 Denise and Pierre Grimm
At this time, Commr. Bailey declared a conflict of interest in regard to Petition No. 1994-31, Denise and Pierre Grimm, and stated that he would not be voting on this request; however, he questioned if he would be allowed to provide information on behalf of the petitioner.
Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the Board that the petitioner has filed for an agricultural classification on ninety-nine (99) acres in south Lake County. He stated that the property has had a PUD (Planned Unit Development) since 1992.
Ms. Denise Grimm appeared before the Board and explained that Commr. Bailey grazed his cattle on the property in question.
Commr. Bailey appeared before the Board and explained that he sold the property to Denise and Pierre Grimm in July 1993 and asked if he could continue to graze his cattle on the property until approval could be obtained from the County and the Department of Community Affairs for a golf course and housing development on the property. He noted that final approval was obtained in June 1994. Mr. Havill distributed pictures of the property in question for the Board's review.
Ms. Patricia Hart, School Board Member, stated that the issue was whether the property was being used for agricultural purposes, and requested clarification from the County Attorney.
Mr. Bruce Duncan, Assistant County Attorney, stated that there were seven (7) factors to be examined to determine if the property qualifies for the agricultural classification.
Commr. Bailey stated that, as of January 1, 1994, he needed the property in question for pasture.
Mr. Havill stated that, based on Commr. Bailey's statement, he recommends approval of agricultural classification.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and approved agricultural classification for Petition No. 1994-31, Denise and Pierre Grimm.
The motion carried by a 4 - 0 vote. Commr. Bailey declared a conflict of interest, and abstained from the vote.
PETITION NO. 1994-118 William H. Shutze
Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the Board that the petitioner was denied agricultural classification; however, after review, he recommends approval of agricultural classification.
On a motion by Ms. Hart, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and approved agricultural classification for Petition No. 1994-118, William H. Shutze.
The motion carried by a 4 - 0 vote.
Commr. Cadwell was not present for the discussion or vote.
PETITION NO. 1994-60 Phy Corp. Land Developers, Inc.
Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the Board that the petitioner was denied agricultural classification; however, after discussion with Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney, representing the Phy Corp. Land Developers, Inc., he recommends approval of agricultural classification; based on requirements agreed upon by the petitioner.
Ms. Jordon Stuart, Attorney, representing the Property Appraiser, stated that Mr. Richey has agreed to make sure that the lease was a bonified agricultural lease and to provide an affidavit.
On a motion by Ms. Hart, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and approved agricultural classification for Petition No. 1994-60, Phy Corp. Land Developers.
The motion carried by a 4 - 0 vote.
Commr. Cadwell was not present for the discussion or vote.
PETITION NO. 1994-153 ESTATE OF G. H. TALLEY, JR.
Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the Board that the property meets the requirements for agricultural classification and explained that a green card was not received in 1993 and, therefore, a green card had not been sent to the Estate of G. H. Talley, Jr. for 1994. He noted that they would have received agricultural classification for 1994 had they received and returned a green card for this year. He stated that he recommends that the Board find a way to approve agricultural classification for 1994.
Mr. Bruce Duncan, Assistant County Attorney, suggested that the Board grant the agricultural classification contingent upon the fact that the petitioner file the appropriate paper work within two (2) weeks.
Mr. Robert E. Austin, Jr., representing the Estate of G. H. Talley, Jr., appeared before the Board to discuss this request.
Mr. Havill noted that an application was filed on May 17, 1994 for agricultural classification and recommended approval of agricultural classification.
On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and approved agricultural classification for Petition No. 1994-153, The Estate of H. H. Talley, Jr.
The motion carried by a 4 - 0 vote.
Commr. Cadwell was not present for the discussion of vote.
PETITION NO. 1994-164 ROBERT L. CHAPMAN, II
PETITION NO. 1994-165 ROBERT L. CHAPMAN, II
PETITION NO. 1994-167 ROBERT L. CHAPMAN, II
PETITION NO. 1994-168 ROBERT L. CHAPMAN, II
Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the Board that Petition No. 1994-164, Petition No. 1994-165, Petition No. 1994-167, and Petition No. 1994-168 were requesting agricultural classification, and noted that agricultural classification has been granted for Petition No. 1994-164.
RECESS AND REASSEMBLY
At 11:55 a.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess for five minutes, and reconvene at 12:00 p.m..
PETITION NO. 1994-164 ROBERT L. CHAPMAN, II
PETITION NO. 1994-165 ROBERT L. CHAPMAN, II
PETITION NO. 1994-167 ROBERT L. CHAPMAN, II
PETITION NO. 1994-168 ROBERT L. CHAPMAN, II (CONTINUED)
Mr. Robert L. Chapman, II appeared before the Board and requested permission to present all four (4) petitions at one time. He explained that the property located on Highway 27 had been in the Chapman family since 1949, and he provided a brief history of the property in question. He stated that the orange grove operation began to diminish prior to the freeze of 1989; and in 1978 the decision was made to begin pine tree farming, and a Management Plan was developed in June of 1978. He stated that the Management Plan had been revised, and there have been five (5) plantings of pine trees on the property. He explained said property would come into production at approximately the 21st year in terms of being economically rewarding, and the plan was to have enough trees planted so that when the timber entered the 21st year those could be replaced with additional plantings for an on-going basis. He stated that the agricultural effort has consisted of an average planting per year over the last fifteen (15) years of 6,193 seedlings. He stated that the information he would be presenting was based on the County Forester's files on the South Lake Tree Farm.
At this time, Ms. Jordon Stuart, Attorney, representing the Property Appraiser, objected to the presentation of the above mentioned material or testimony concerning said material, noting that the Property Appraiser had specifically requested that the documents that Mr. Chapman proposes to introduce be withheld.
Mr. Chapman explained that the agricultural classification has been granted every year until this year based on the information that had been previously submitted. He stated that the green card had been returned in a timely fashion, and the use of the property clearly was agricultural. He stated that they were requesting that the Property Appraiser continue to consider that the parcels are agricultural.
Ms. Stuart stated that agricultural classification on the parcels in question were continued on the basis of oversight over the years and not on the basis of agricultural use.
Mr. Frank Royce, Senior Appraiser, explained that the Property Appraiser's agricultural appraiser visited the property in question, and forty (40) acres of agricultural classification had been granted on Petition No. 1994-164. At this time, he presented a photograph of the property for the Board to review, which illustrated a poor survival rate of the pine trees and stated that there was not a predominant agricultural use on the property.
Mr. Chapman discussed the survival rate of the trees planted on the property, and noted that they have planted slash pines and sand pines. In response to a question presented by Ms. Stuart, Mr. Chapman stated that, according to the Management Plan written in 1978, the commercial viability for the slash pines can begin as early as fifteen (15) years and continues through the fiftieth (50) year. Mr. Chapman stated that he requested a meeting with Mr. Havill for the purpose of presenting the forestry file, at which time he was informed that Mr. Havill did not have an appointment available.
Mr. Havill noted that Mr. Chapman had not indicated that he had additional information to present when he requested a meeting, and noted that a letter was attached to every petition indicating that evidence must be submitted no later than five (5) calendar days before the scheduled date of the hearing before the Board.
Mr. Chapman stated that he would be happy to withdraw anything that would not be appropriate, and stated that his main point was that he has meet with the Property Appraiser every year, and the only thing that has changed was the rezoning. He stated that there was adequate documentation that indicates that there has been a logical, methodical plan that has been operated by people who have been in agricultural since 1950.
Ms. Stuart stated that Mr. Royce has indicated that there are pine tree saplings on the bulk of the property, and the only property that shows any evidence of care was the property that has been granted the agricultural classification. She stated that the property has been rezoned PUD (Planned Unit Development), and there was no reasonable expectation that a harvest will ever occur on the property.
Commr. Hanson stated that Lake County was attempting to plant pine trees in the County for agricultural use and for agricultural classification. She stated that a management program was required to obtain the exemption, and stated that, if Mr. Chapman has information that indicates that he has a current management program, and that he was actively involved in said program, she would support allowing Mr. Chapman to submitted said information. Mr. Royce stated that, even if a management plan had been submitted to the Property Appraiser, a visit to the property by the Property Appraiser's office indicates that the management plan has not been followed.
Mr. Bruce Duncan, Assistant County Attorney, stated that the existing use was one of the factors that the Board could examine in determining that this property was eligible for an exemption, but it was only one of the seven requirements. He stated that this particular exemption allows for a judgment decision based on the seven factors, and either side has a right to appeal.
Commr. Bailey made a motion, which was seconded by Ms. Hart and carried, to uphold the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and approve a request for agricultural classification for Petition No. 1994-164; and deny a request for agricultural classification for Petition No. 1994-165, Petition No. 1994-166, Petition No. 1994-167, Robert L. Chapman, II.
Ms. Patricia Hart, School Board Member, requested clarification on whether Mr. Chapman would have the opportunity to submit the evidence in question through the appeal process.
Mr. Havill responded that Mr. Chapman's only recourse would be to file a lawsuit within sixty (60) days after the Certification of the Roll against the Property Appraiser, if the evidence was submitted through the appeal process, and the request for agricultural classification continued to be denied.
At this time, Mr. Chapman requested that the Board allow him to present the evidence which states the facts.
Ms. Hart stated that, for the record, Mr. Chapman has requested that the Board permit him to submit the evidence at this time. She requested that Counsel advise the Board on their obligations.
Mr. Duncan stated that the Board could not accept the evidence in question pursuant to Florida Statute, Chapter 194. He explained that he would have the opportunity to present the evidence, if he chooses to appeal under Chapter 194.036, which specifically outlines the procedures for the appeal process.
Ms. Stuart noted, for the Board's edification, that, if an appeal of the determination was made, the Property Appraiser was bound by statute to defend the appeal, and the Board was not involved in the appeal nor responsible for the decision.
The motion carried by a vote of 4 - 0.
Ms. Judy Pearson was not present for the discussion or vote.
PETITION NO. 1994-188 Dawn Kimmel, Esquire
Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the Board that the petitioner was appealing denial of an application for agricultural classification for the Christian Village Retirement Center.
Ms. Dawn Kimmel, Esquire, Law Office of Cecelia Bonifay, appeared before the Board and explained that the former owner of the property in question planted approximately fifty-nine (59) acres of pine trees, and, in December 1993, the Christian Home and Bible School purchased the property. She noted that the property continued to be utilized as pines trees, and a survival count taken, in October 1993, had been submitted to the Property Appraiser indicating a fifty-five (55%) percent survival rate of the pine trees, or an average of 416 trees per acre.
Mr. Havill stated that an agreement had been reached with Ms. Cecelia Bonifay to grant the agricultural classification for 1994.
Commr. Bailey made a motion, which was seconded by Ms. Hart, to uphold the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and approve agricultural classification for Petition No. 1994-188, Dawn Kimmel, Esquire.
Ms. Stuart stated that, for the record, there was a Planned Commercial Development at the present time, and that she was originally under the impression that they were seeking agricultural classification on an uncared for native stand which was not the case.
The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which carried unanimously.
RECESS AND REASSEMBLY
A 12:45 p.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess for fifteen minutes for lunch, and would reconvene at 1:00 p.m.
PETITIONER NO. 1994-1 James A. Kirkland
Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the Board that the petitioner was appealing denial of his homestead exemption.
Mr. Frank Royce, Senior Appraiser, explained that the home was not occupied as of January 1, 1994, and the petitioner was only being assessed on vacant land for this year. He noted that the petitioner agrees with the recommendation of the Property Appraiser; however, has not withdrawn his request.
On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Ms. Hart and carried, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser to withdraw the request for homestead exemption for James A. Kirkland, and assess only the vacant land for 1994.
The motion carried by a 3 - 0 vote.
Commr. Cadwell and Ms. Judy Pearson were not present for the discussion or vote.
PETITION NO. 1994-4 Duncan F. and Helen I. Obee
Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the Board that the petitioners were appealing denial of homestead exemption and explained that Mr. and Mrs. Obee had not established Florida residency until February 15, 1994.
Mr. and Mrs. Duncan Obee appeared before the Board and stated that the property was purchased in December 1992, and that they have resided in the house since 1992.
Mr. Havill explained that a Declaration of Domicile was signed in attesting under oath that February 15, 1994 was when they became legal residents of Florida, and all documentation, including their Drivers Licenses and Voter Registration Cards are dated February 15, 1994.
Mr. Obee explained that they were in the process of selling property in Ohio on January 1, 1994, and had an Ohio Drivers License, an Ohio Voter Registration Card and an Ohio vehicle tag.
Ms. Jordon Stuart, Attorney, representing the Property Appraiser, stated that she would submit that Mr. and Mrs. Obee were Ohio residents until February 15, 1994.
Mr. Havill noted that the application for this year could be used to prefile for homestead exemption for 1995, and that Mr. and Mrs. Obee do not need to refile for 1995.
On a motion by Ms. Hart, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and denied the application for homestead exemption for Duncan F. and Helen I Obee.
PETITION NO. 1994-8 Penny C. Williamson
Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the Board that the petitioner filed for homestead exemption on August 26, 1994, and stated that she would have qualified for homestead exemption had she filed by the March 1, 1994 deadline.
Ms. Penny C. Williamson appeared before the Board and stated that she purchased her house June 1993 and was told by her Real Estate Agent at time of closing that homestead exemption had been filed.
Mr. Havill recommended that the Board approve the application for homestead exemption.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and approved the application for homestead exemption for Penny C. Williams.
PETITION NO. 1994-37 Anita Luck
Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the Board that the applicant was denied homestead and explained that the property was in an Illinois Land Trust, and the beneficiary of the property, namely the applicant, was not entitled to receive the homestead exemption on property conveyed to the trustee.
Ms. Jordon Stuart, Attorney, representing the Property Appraiser, stated that the owner of an Illinois Land Trust creates an interest in personal property in place of real property, and homestead cannot be obtained on personal property. She suggest that the petitioner have her attorney change the terms of the trust for next year to indicate that her Homestead was an interest in real property.
Ms. Anita Luck, the applicant, appeared before the Board and stated that the attorney had assured her that the Land Trust was to protect her husband's share because his name did not appear on the deed. She stated that she had been misrepresented by her attorney.
On a motion by Ms. Hart, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board upheld the Property Appraiser's recommendation and denied the homestead exemption for Anita Luck.
PETITION NO. 1994-59 John A. and Rose Marie Cook
Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the Board that the applicants filed an application for homestead on March 18, 1994, and noted that they would have been granted homestead had they filed by the March 1, 1994 deadline.
Mr. Bruce Duncan, Assistant County Attorney, informed the Board that they had the option to continue this case until the end of the day on Friday, September 30, 1994, to allow the applicant to appeared before the Board.
At this time, it was the decision of the Board to postpone this request until Friday, September 30, 1994.
PETITION NO. 1994-114 KWAME EADDY
Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the Board that the applicant filed an application for homestead on March 31, 1994, and noted that she would have been granted homestead had she filed by the March 1, 1994 deadline.
Ms. Kwame Eaddy appeared before the Board and explained that her husband had been ill in February and March, and they were out of the state taking care of his illness.
Mr. Havill recommended that the Board approve the application for homestead.
On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Ms. Hart and carried unanimously, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and approved the application for homestead exemption for Kwame Eaddy.
PETITION NO. 1994-15 Holiday Retirement Corporation
PETITION NO. 1994-16 Holiday Retirement Corporation
Mr. Frank Royce, Senior Appraiser, informed the Board that the petitioner was Citation Eustis Ltd. Holiday Retirement Corporation, represented by Marvin F. Poer & Company, which was a convalescent home in the City of Eustis. He stated that Holiday Retirement Corporation was appealing the assessment of $2,168,856.00, and was requesting that the assessment be reduced to $1,100,000.00. He noted that Petition No. 1994-15 and Petition No. 1994-16 would be presented together.
Mr. Art Garcia, Marvin F. Poer & Company, representing Holiday Retirement Corporation, appeared before the Board and amended the estimated fair market value on Petition No. 1994-15 to $1,725,000.00.
Ms. Jordon Stuart, Attorney, representing the Property Appraiser, stated that the Property Appraiser had no objection to said amendment.
Mr. Garcia stated that he had a packet of information regarding an analysis, to be distributed to the Board, and explained that all of the information contained in said packet had been discussed with Mr. Royce.
Mr. Royce stated that the Property Appraiser's office had received all of the information in the packet with the exception of the cover sheet.
Ms. Stuart objected to the presentation of the cover sheet because the Property Appraiser has not had the opportunity to review said analysis.
Mr. Garcia removed the cover sheet and introduced into evidence the packet of information for the Board's review. He stated, for the record, that his client purchased the property with a number of other properties, and the allocated purchase price of the sale was approximately $963,992.54. He stated that there were 97 rental units that were currently being used for rental purposes, and deriving a potential gross income of the market rent, deducting 20% for vacancy, results in approximately $215,000.00 in revenue.
Mr. Royce noted that Mr. Garcia was presenting information from a form that had not been previously submitted to the Property Appraiser.
Mr. Garcia requested that the Board consider the allocation price of the transaction.
Mr. Royce briefly discussed the two approaches taken to arrive at the assessed value of the property, which resulted in a value of $3,046,018.00, and $3,215,000.00. He noted that the two figures are within ten (10%) percent of each other and the total assessment was $2,197,000.00. He stated that this assessment was performed strictly on the income submitted by Marvin F. Poer and Company, and the original approach was done on the cost approach.
Ms. Stuart explained that this property in question was an adult convalescent living facility, and standard appraisal practice would treat it as a special use or special purpose property. She stated that the cost approach was the most appropriate approach to use to value the property.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and approved the assessments, in the amount of $2,168,856.00 and $28,280.00 for a total in the amount of $2,197,136.00, for Holiday Retirement Corporation.
The motion carried by a 4 - 0 vote.
Ms. Patricia Hart was not present for the discussion or vote.
PETITION NO. 1994-47 Basic Capital
PETITION NO. 1994-48 Basic Capital
Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the Board that the petitioner, Basic Capital, was appealing the assessments in the amount of $373,621.00 and $47,891.00, and would be represented by Marvin F. Poer and Company.
At this time, it was noted that Petition No. 1994-47 and Petition No. 1994-48 had been withdrawn, and Mr. Havill recommended that the Board approve the assessments as stated.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried, the Board upheld the Property Appraiser's recommendation and approved the assessment of $421,512.00, for Basic Capital.
The motion carried by a 4 - 0 vote.
Ms. Patricia Hart was not present for the discussion or vote.
PETITION NO. 1994-64 Candis A. Daniels
Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the Board that the petitioner was appealing the assessment in the amount of $185,983.00.
Mr. Jim Daniels, representing Ms. Candis A. Daniels, appeared before the Board and discussed the location of the property in question in relation to Lake Gertrude, indicating that the property was not to be considered lake front property. He stated that the estimate of fair market value, in the amount of $183,000.00, was the purchase price of the property. He stated that it was his understanding that fifteen (15%), or whatever consideration was given, was deducted from the net price of the house and not the purchase price of the house.
Ms. Jordon Stuart, Attorney, representing the Property Appraiser, discussed the criteria for deriving an assessment price.
Mr. Daniels stated that, on behalf of Ms. Daniels, they would appreciate any consideration that the Board can give them.
Mr. Frank Royce, Senior Appraiser, noted that the property in question had been reduced from the original assessment in the amount of $219,766.00.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Ms. Pearson and carried, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and approved the assessment, in the amount of $185,983.00, for Candis A. Daniels.
The motion carried by a 4 - 0 vote.
Ms. Patricia Hart was not present for the discussion or vote.
PETITION NO. 1994-71 Lake Port Properties
PETITION NO. 1994-72 Lake Port Properties
Mr. Frank Royce, Senior Appraiser, informed the Board that Mr. E. J. Davidson would be representing Lake Port Properties, which was a Lake Port Square Retirement Home and Nursing Facility.
Mr. E. J. Davidson, As Agent for Tax Adjustment Experts of Florida, representing Lake Port Properties, appeared before the Board and presented a copy of an analysis of the value of the property in question and noted that a value was not included on the petition. He stated that they have deducted the nursing facility, which was assessed at $2,731,030.00, and stated that the value of the property was, in the amount of $11,762,153.00, as indicated on the analysis.
Ms. Jordon Stuart, Attorney, representing the Property Appraiser, stated, for the record, that the Property Appraiser's office has a standing objection to the extraction of any portion of a whole in an attempt to reduce the assessment on part of the property.
Mr. Davidson stated that, for the convenience of the Property Appraiser, there was one number placed on the entire parcel; however, he noted that there was a nursing facility, rental apartment project, and commercial buildings on the site. He stated that the cost approach sets the upper limits of value unless there was a condition of shortage, and there was not a shortage in the nursing home and skilled nursing care facility. He stated that they have deducted the items that are not a part of the property under appeal. At this time, he distributed information to the Board, which had been previously provided to the Property Appraiser. He further explained that they are not contesting the nursing facility, since it was his contention that the cost approach sets the upper limits of value. He stated that the balance of the assessment was excessive in which the cost approach was used and was too high for the type of facility. He stated that he was prepared to present to the Board nine (9) comparable sales of similar facilities.
Ms. Stuart stated that, at this time, the Board should determine whether they wish to hear this request as an apartment building or as one facility.
Commr. Cadwell suggested that the Board review cases in the context that they were appraised by the Property Appraiser.
Mr. Royce stated that he has discussed with Mr. Davidson the option of presenting the parcels with separate legal descriptions, however, he noted that the parcel was one entity and a total package. He explained that Mr. Davidson was protesting only a portion of the property, and stated that the single apartment building adds to the value of the whole project.
Mr. Davidson stated that the comparables that he will present to the Board for their review are all identical uses that have sold.
Ms. Stuart stated that the Property Appraiser would have no object to Mr. Davidson presenting the data on the comparables as long as he can refrain from testimony as to what occurs in other counties. She noted that Mr. Davidson was a tax representative and not the petitioner, and he was precluded from testifying to things that he cannot substantiate.
Mr. Davidson stated that, if the parcels cannot be ruled on individually, he would save the Board time and not present the comparables. He stated that the petitioner accepts the Property Appraiser's number as to what sets the upper limit of value; however, the argument was that the apartment houses do not sell for the figure indicated in the cost approach, and that functional and economic obsolescence was always present.
On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and approved the assessment, in the amount of $17,269,336.00, for Lake Port Properties.
The motion carried by a 4 - 0 vote.
Ms. Patricia Hart was not present for the discussion or vote.
PETITION NO. 1994-90 Woodland Heritage, Inc.
PETITION NO. 1994-91 Woodland Heritage, Inc.
PETITION NO. 1994-92 Woodland Heritage, Inc.
PETITION NO. 1994-93 Woodland Heritage, Inc.
Mr. Frank Royce, Senior Appraiser, informed the Board that Woodland Heritage, Inc. was appealing the assessment of $1,062,677.00. Mr. Royce described the property and explained that it was a rental mobile home park located on Highway 27, with 128 platted lots and 107 lots occupied.
Mr. E. J. Davidson, Agent, Tax Adjustment Experts of Florida, representing Woodland Heritage, Inc., appeared before the Board and stated that the petitioner's estimate of the fair market value was, in the amount of $750,000.00, using an income analysis. He discussed the operating statement, which had been previously presented, and indicated an income of approximately $200,000.00; operating expenses, in the amount of $177,000.00; and a net operating income of $22,000.00. He stated that the income would not support the assessed value.
Ms. Jordon Stuart, Attorney, representing the Property Appraiser, discussed the reasons that the actual income and the actual expenses of the property are not considered.
Mr. Robbie Ross, Tangible Personal Property Supervisor, appeared before the Board and presented comparables to the property.
Mr. Davidson discussed the vacancy factor at Woodland Heritage, Inc. Mobile Home Park and indicated that the assessment would result in additional vacancies that would drive the income down further.
On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Ms. Pearson and carried, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and approved the assessment, in the amount of $1,062,677.00, for Woodland Heritage, Inc.
The motion carried by a 4 - 0 vote.
Ms. Patricia Hart was not present for the discussion or vote.
PETITION NO. 1994-189 Health First of Lake County
Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the Board that the petitioner was appealing the assessment in the amount of $320,601.00. He stated that the petitioner purchased the property for $250,000.00, and built a $250,000.00 office on the property in 1991. He explained that the building permit was never received by the Property Appraiser, and staff discovered the building this year, and there was a back assessment for 1991, 1992, and 1993.
Ms. Beverly Parsons, representing Mr. Henry J. Richter, President, Health First of Lake County, appeared before the Board and requested that the Board reconsider the assessment for 1991. She stated that Dr. Richter has owned the property since 1991.
Ms. Jordon Stuart, Attorney, representing the Property Appraiser, stated that Florida Statutes provide for the Property Appraiser, when an omission was made, to go back for three (3) years and assess the current ownership. She noted that the property has been owned by Health First of Lake County, the Corporation, and not by Dr. Richter.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Ms. Pearson and carried, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and approved the assessment, in the amount of $320,601.00, for Health First of Lake County.
The motion carried by a 3 - 0 vote.
Ms. Patricia Hart and Commr. Bailey were not present for the discussion or vote.
PETITION NO. 1994-23 Charles E. Jones
Mr. Frank Royce, Senior Appraiser, informed the Board that the petitioner was appealing the assessment; however, he was not present at this time. It was noted that this request would be postponed at this time.
PETITION NO. 1994-25 Rufus H. Pace
Mr. Frank Royce, Senior Appraiser, informed the Board that the petitioner was appealing the assessment, in the amount of $57,775.00, due to the assessment being on a model mobile home for the 1994 tax year. He explained that Mr. Rufus Pace was the distributor and holds a dealer's license.
Mr. Rufus H. Pace appeared before the Board and stated that the manufactured home, located on the property in question, was being used as a model home, and has not been transferred to real estate.
Mr. Royce explained that there were a number of model mobile homes that were assessed for the 1994 tax year, and that the 1994 Legislature changed the law so that in the future, beginning in 1995, a mobile home that was permanently affixed shall not be taxed as real property, if it was being held for display by a licensed mobile home dealer or a licensed mobile home manufacturer and was not rented, occupied, or located on property used for mobile home occupancy. He stated that the home in question was on a mobile home lot and had to be assessed for the 1994 roll.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Ms. Pearson and carried, the Board overturned the recommendation by the Property Appraiser and approved a tax exemption on the model mobile home, for Mr. Rufus H. Pace, President, Rufus H. Pace Mobile Home Sales, Inc.
The motion carried by a 3 - 0 vote.
Commr. Bailey and Ms. Patricia Hart were not present for the discussion or vote.
PETITION NO. 1994-30 Patricia G. Metcalfe
Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the Board that the petitioner was denied agricultural classification.
Ms. Patricia G. Metcalfe appeared before the Board and stated that the property has been agricultural since the 1800s, and explained that she does not reside on the property and only uses the property for cattle and horses. She explained that one portion of the six (6) acre parcel has been left unmowed for the purpose of reseeding itself. She explained that she resides and works in Brevard County, and that a neighbor cares for the livestock.
At this time, Mr. Havill distributed photographs of the property in question. He explained that a mobile home was located on one acre of the property, and noted that the remaining five acres were separated by a road. He noted that the north and south pastures were in poor condition with abandoned vehicles in the south pasture.
Mr. Havill recommended that the Board approve agricultural classification, after listening to Ms. Metcalf's presentation.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Ms. Pearson and carried, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and approved agricultural classification for Patricia G. Metcalfe.
The motion carried by a 3 - 0 vote.
Commr. Bailey and Ms. Patricia Hart were not present for the discussion or vote.
RECESS AND REASSEMBLY
At 3:40 p.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess for fifteen minutes, and reconvene at 3:55 p.m.
PETITION NO. 1994-29 Tony Ray Evans
Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the Board that the petitioner filed for agricultural classification on September 12, 1994, and stated that an inspection was performed on the property, which indicated a stand of planted pines. He noted that this was a new application for agricultural classification.
Mr. Tony Ray Evans appeared before the Board and stated that he had not been given notification at the time he purchased the property that he had to apply for agricultural classification and assumed that once it was agricultural, it remained agricultural.
At this time, Mr. Havill informed Mr. Evans of the process for applying for agricultural classification for 1995.
On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Ms. Pearson and carried, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and denied agricultural classification for Tony Ray Evans.
The motion carried by a 4 - 0 vote.
Ms. Patricia Hart was not present for the discussion or vote.
PETITION NO. 1994-42 Betty N. Simmons
Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the Board that the petitioner had applied for agricultural classification and the agricultural renewal card had been returned undelivered to the Property Appraiser's office. He stated that agricultural classification would have been granted had the green card been signed and returned.
It was noted that Ms. Betty N. Simmons, the petitioner, was present in the audience.
Mr. Havill recommended that the Board approve agricultural classification.
On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Ms. Pearson and carried, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and approved agricultural classification for Betty N. Simmons.
The motion carried by a 4 - 0 vote.
Ms. Patricia Hart was not present for the discussion or vote.
RECESS AND REASSEMBLY
At 4:05 p.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess for ten minutes, and reconvene at 4:15 p.m.
PETITION NO. 1994-41 Donald Armstrong
Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the Board that
the petitioner had applied for agricultural classification and explained that the green card had not been returned to the Property Appraiser's office. He stated that agricultural classification would have been granted had the green card been returned. He recommended that the Board approve this request.
It was noted that Mr. Donald Armstrong was present in the audience.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Ms. Pearson and carried, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and approved agricultural classification for Donald Armstrong.
The motion carried by a 4 - 0 vote.
Ms. Patricia Hart was not present for the discussion or vote.
PETITION NO. 1994-26 Ross E. VanDellen
Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the Board that the petitioner was appealing the assessment, in the amount of $405,384.00, and explained that, after further review, the property has been lowered to $357,750.00. He stated that he recommends that the Board approve the assessment in the amount of $357,750.00.
On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and approved the assessment, in the amount of $357,750.00, for Ross E. VanDellen.
The motion carried by a 4 - 0 vote.
Ms. Patricia Hart was not present for the discussion or vote.
RECESS AND REASSEMBLY
At 4:20 p.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess for five minutes, and reconvene at 4:25 p.m.
PETITION NO. 1994-9 Leslie Ebanks & Muriel Ebanks
PETITION NO. 1994-10 Leslie Ebanks
PETITION NO. 1994-11 Leslie Ebanks
PETITION NO. 1994-12 Hyacinth Beadle
PETITION NO. 1994-23 Charles E. Jones, II
PETITION NO. 1994-24 Joan M. Wolcott
PETITION NO. 1994-27 Sam Spiegel, Attorney
PETITION NO. 1994-32 Abatement Incorporated
PETITION NO. 1994-33 Abatement Incorporated
PETITION NO. 1994-34 Abatement Incorporated
PETITION NO. 1994-35 Abatement Incorporated
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and approved the assessments for the following petitions: Petition No. 1994-9 - $49,738.00
Petition No. 1994-10 - $50,146.00
Petition No. 1994-11 - $58,238.00
Petition No. 1994-12 - $168,659.00
Petition No. 1994-23 - $6,480.00
Petition No. 1994-24 - $7,568.00
Petition No. 1994-27 - $469,724.90
Petition No. 1994-32 - $208,554.00
Petition No. 1994-33 - $220,954.00
Petition No. 1994-34 - $360,488.00
Petition No. 1994-35 - $212,461.00
There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Value Adjustment Board, the meeting recessed until 9:00 a.m., September 29, 1994.
CATHERINE C. HANSON, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
JAMES C. WATKINS, CLERK
MF\BOARDMIN\9-28-93\10-21-94