This meeting is a continuance of the Lake County Value Adjustment Board for 1995. The Board met in regular session on Friday, September 29, 1995, at 9:00 a.m., in the Board of County Commissioner's Meeting Room, Lake County Administration Building, Tavares, Florida. Commissioners present at the meeting were: G. Richard Swartz, Jr., Chairman, Value Adjustment Board; and William "Bill" H. Good. Commr. Rhonda H. Gerber was not present, due to another commitment. School Board members present were: Claudia Ramsey. School Board member Kyleen Fischer was not present, due to another commitment. Others present were Sanford "Sandy" Minkoff, County Attorney; Ed Havill, Lake County Property Appraiser; Jordan Stewart, Attorney, representing Lake County Property Appraiser's Office; Frank Royce, Chief Deputy, Property Appraiser's Office; Frank Driggers, Senior Review Appraiser, Property Appraiser's Office; Robbie Ross, Personal Property and Agricultural Operations Director, Property Appraiser's Office; Chuck Hasley, Agricultural Appraiser, Property Appraiser's Office; Mike Bryie, East County Crew Chief, Property Appraiser's Office; Peter Peebles, West County Crew Chief, Property Appraiser's Office; Ginger Casburn, Exemptions Supervisor, Property Appraiser's Office; Ron Sporman, Real Estate Appraiser, Property Appraiser's Office; Tony Graham, Real Estate Appraiser, Property Appraiser's Office; Guy White, Real Estate Appraiser, Property Appraiser's Office; and Sandra Carter, Deputy Clerk.
The Chairman opened the meeting.
PETITION NO. 1995-5 - JAMES SCOTT MAROTTA, ET AL
Mr. James Marotta, Petitioner, appeared before the Board stating that the property in question was his son's property, but his name is listed on the deed.
Mr. Frank Royce, Chief Deputy, Property Appraiser's Office, informed the Board that Mr. Marotta was protesting the assessed value of his property, which his office had assessed at $99,760.00. He stated, however, that his staff met with Mr. Marotta, prior to this meeting, and adjusted the assessment to $89,357.00.
It was noted that the $89,357.00 figure was satisfactory to Mr. Marotta.
On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Ms. Ramsey and carried unanimously, by a 3-0 vote, the Board upheld the Property Appraiser's assessment of $89,357.00 for Petition No. 1995-5, based on findings of fact and evidence presented to the Property Appraiser's Office.
Commr. Gerber and Ms. Fischer were not present at this meeting.
PETITION NO. 1995-11 - D. DOUGLAS DEVNICH
Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the Board that this case was originally scheduled to be heard on September 28, 1995. He stated that Mr. Devnich filed for homestead exemption on time; however, this case involved a green card situation. He stated that Mr. Devnich has a green card, as an alien resident from Canada.
Mr. Douglas Devnich, Petitioner, appeared before the Board stating that he had been invited by Florida Hospital to be the Director of Hospital Care, at which time he read into the record the provision that the law makes for religious workers in the United States, particularly from Canada, being: "A Canadian citizen or a "Landed Immigrant" in Canada who is a citizen of a British Commonwealth country or of Ireland does not need a visa to apply for admission to the United States as an R-1 non-immigrant religious worker under Section 101(a)(15)(R) of the Immigration and Nationality Act." He presented same to the Board, for the record.
Mr. Devnich stated that, as required, he presented and received a stamp on his passport, with a document that was validated for a three year period. He stated that it was explained to him that it was renewable for any three year period, as long as he had employment in the United States. He stated that, based on that fact, he did not rush to make application for a visa, therefore, when he tried to apply for homestead exemption, he was told that he needed to have a green card. He stated that he had a green card from previous work in the United States, but did not assert to put it forward, because it was his understanding with Immigration that, in order to go beyond what the provision is for a religious worker, to get the visa, he would need to go through the process again. He stated that the process was begun and, as of June of this year, he had his appropriate resident alien card.
Ms. Jordan Stewart, Attorney, representing the Property Appraiser's Office, stated that she felt the misunderstanding in this case is the fact that obtaining a visa does not make one a permanent resident in the United States, as required for homestead exemption. She stated that the visa was not the issue, the issue was that Mr. Devnich, as of January 1, 1995, did not have permanent residency.
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, stated that a green card is not necessary to obtain homestead exemption. He stated that the issue is that one is not able to obtain homestead exemption, if one's residence is not the permanent residence. He stated that, if the law is true, that a Canadian citizen who comes to the United States to work for religious reasons does not need a green card, then Mr. Devnich is probably entitled to homestead; however, if the law is that one needs to get permission to become a resident before one becomes a resident, then Mr. Devnich is probably not entitled to it. He stated that he felt that is what this case revolves around.
Ms. Stewart stated that the document Mr. Devnich presented pertained to obtaining a visa, which she noted has no bearing, whatsoever, on whether or not one is a permanent resident. She stated that it does not define permanent residency. She stated that the document pertained to non-immigrant information for Canadian citizens and certain "landed immigrants" in Canada, entering the United States as religious workers. She stated that it did not speak to the issue of permanent residency. She read into the record what the Florida Administrative Code states about the issue of obtaining a temporary visa and meeting the requirements of same, with regard to claiming homestead exemption.
Commr. Swartz stated that he felt the document Mr. Devnich submitted as evidence clearly allowed him to be in the United States and felt that he would be able to qualify for a green card; however, felt that until he obtained said card, there would be a certain temporary status, which he felt Mr. Devnich fell under. He stated that it was a fact that, regardless of Mr. Devnich's tenure, things could change and he could be sent to another state, or called back to service in Canada, or some other country, therefore, he did not feel Mr. Devnich met the requirements for homestead exemption.
A motion was made by Commr. Good to uphold the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and deny a request for homestead exemption for Petition No. 1995-11, due to findings of fact and lack of sufficient evidence to overturn the recommendation of denial.
Commr. Swartz passed the gavel to Commr. Good and seconded the motion.
Commr. Good called for a vote on the motion, which was carried, by a 2-1 vote.
Ms. Ramsey voted "No".
Commr. Gerber and Ms. Fischer were not present at this meeting.
PETITION NO. 1995-319 - CECELIA BONIFAY, ESQUIRE
Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, Attorney, Maguire, Voorhis & Wells, appeared before the Board stating that she was present representing Mr. Louis Geys and Sierra Homes.
Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the Board that this case involved a value assessment on a piece of property consisting of a subdivision. He stated that it was a question of vesting rights and that his office felt the assessment of $262,338.00 was correct. He noted that it was vacant property with three paved streets, consisting of 16.3 acres, involving four blocks, with lots within those blocks.
Ms. Bonifay stated that she was present challenging the assessment, on the basis that the Property Appraiser's Office had not complied with Section 193.011, in that all eight factors that they must look at were not considered and, in fact, their opinion was based solely on the fact that the property was sold. She stated that they used the value of said sale to make their determination. She requested Ms. Kathy Allison, her paralegal, to come before the Board for questioning, based on her conversation with staff in the Property Appraiser's Office, as to the exclusiveness of their looking only at the sale price of the property. She stated that the case law is very clear that, while the Property Appraiser has wide discretion and can weigh factors in a number of ways and give more or less weight to the individual factors, as they go through their analysis, all of those factors have to be looked at. She reviewed said factors with the Board, being (1) present cash value; (2) highest and best use of the property in the immediate future; (3) present use of the property, considering any applicable judicial limitation; and (4) local or state land use regulation considering any moratorium imposed by executive order, law, ordinance, regulation, resolution or proclamation adopted by any governmental body or agency which restricts the development or improvement of property as otherwise authorized by law.
Ms. Bonifay stated that documentation (Exhibit A) that she submitted, for the record, clearly demonstrates that the property in question had been held up and not allowed to be developed, since August of 1994, due to the fact that the County changed the land use classification on the property to Suburban, even though a plat had been in place on the property since 1892, allowing the development as a subdivision. She further elaborated on the matter, stating that her client cannot develop said property, based on what is in effect today, even though the County allowed her client to go forward, accepted improvements on the land, allowed her client to expend money, put in roads to county standards, and accepted those roads into the County Maintenance System, as of 1994. She stated that she had requested a vested rights determination and felt that, if ever there existed a good case for common law vesting, this case was it.
Ms. Bonifay stated that they had numerous governmental development orders and had reliance on those, a substantial change in position in the purchase of the property, and continued to expend monies and proceed in good faith; therefore, it would have been highly unequitable for the Government, at this time, to pull the rug out from under her client and stop development. She further discussed the history of the property in question and what she had done, on behalf of her client, with regard to working with the County, to allow her client to develop his property.
Ms. Bonifay stated that, at this point in time, her client cannot obtain financing, or develop his property; therefore, she was putting the Board on notice that, if some action was not taken to alleviate his problem, he would have no other form of relief, after August of 1994, but to seek a judicial remedy. She noted that a letter instructing the Board of same was hand delivered to each member of the Board of County Commissioners on September 14, 1995; however, as of this date, no vested rights determination had been issued and her client could not move forward, under the County's current land use classification. She stated that said factor should have been given heavier weight by the Property Appraiser's Office, in that there is an absolute moratorium and prohibition on the use of the property in question.
Ms. Kathy Allison, a paralegal in Ms. Bonifay's office, appeared before the Board and answered questions from Ms. Bonifay regarding her conversation with staff in the Property Appraiser's Office, as to the exclusiveness of their looking only at the purchase price of the property, in determining the assessment of same.
Ms. Jordan Stewart, Attorney, representing the Property Appraiser's Office, objected to Ms. Bonifay's questioning, with regard to her statement that the Property Appraiser's Office looked only at the purchase price of the property and did not consider the seven factors that she had alluded to earlier, in making their determination of the assessed value of the property. She stated that it is required that the Board consider the assessment as the value of the property and not the way that it is made. She stated that the issue before the Board was not what an employee of the Property Appraiser's Office may or may not have said, but what Mr. Havill's determination of value is. She stated that it was irrelevant as to what his personnel stated, regarding the matter.
Ms. Stewart questioned Ms. Allison about statements she had made during her testimony. She then questioned Ms. Bonifay, Attorney, regarding her attempts to have a vested rights determination made and whether, during said process, she saw, or attempted to obtain, a valuation of the property. She questioned whether she was aware of whether or not a valuation had been performed on the property, to her knowledge.
Ms. Bonifay stated that, to her knowledge, one had not been performed on the property.
Mr. Peter Peebles, West County Crew Chief, Property Appraiser's Office, appeared before the Board stating, for the record, that apparently Ms. Allison spoke with someone else in the Property Appraiser's Office, because he did not tell her that the assessed value was based on the sale price. He reviewed a map of the property in question (displayed on the monitor) and stated that the Property Appraiser's Office was not considering the property as a subdivision, only as 13 acres of land on Lake Emma. He then answered questions from Ms. Stewart, Attorney, regarding the method of valuation that was used and the basis for the valuation, as well as various other issues regarding the property. He noted, for the record, that the property was purchased in July of 1992 for $268,000.00 and resold in May of 1994 for $700,000.00.
Ms. Bonifay, Attorney, representing the petitioner, reappeared before the Board, in rebuttal to Mr. Peebles' testimony. She stated that she felt the reason the value was being challenged was on the basis of the fact that nothing can be done with the property, by the failure of the County to issue a vested rights determination. She discussed the timeliness issue and how it affects her client's property. She stated that the property, if not vested, under Suburban land use and timeliness, was only entitled to two units, between three county maintained roads, on 13.3 acres, because of the County's failure to issue this project vested rights. She stated that her client should have been given an appeal to know if his property was vested and, if not, he could take the appeal to the Circuit Court. She requested, on those grounds, that the assessment not be upheld.
A motion was made by Commr. Good that the Board uphold the Property Appraiser's assessment of $262,338.00, for Petition No. 1995-319, due to findings of fact and lack of sufficient evidence to overturn the recommendation of denial.
Commr. Swartz passed the gavel to Commr. Good and seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Ms. Ramsey stated that she felt, in evaluating the land, the Property Appraiser's Office should have evaluated it to the platted land, noting that she saw platted land on the map that Mr. Peebles displayed on the monitor, and that, due to the fact that the petitioner cannot use the land as platted land, she felt the property was worth nothing at this point in time.
Ms. Stewart, Attorney, representing the Property Appraiser's Office, informed the Board that once land is platted and available for sale, legally, that is the way the Property Appraiser's Office is supposed to assess it. She stated that Mr. Havill did not do that, or the petitioner would really have been caught in a vice.
The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried, by a 2-1 vote.
Ms. Ramsey voted "No".
Commr. Gerber and Ms. Fischer were not present at this meeting.
PETITION NO. 1995-320 - JIM PERRY, PUBLISHER, THE DAILY COMMERCIAL
Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the Board that this case involved an evaluation of real estate, as well as tangible personal property, for The Daily Commercial. He stated that it had new owners, so the tangible personal property return was filed as of January 1, 1995.
It was noted that the Value Adjustment Board would only be dealing with the assessment of real estate property, not tangible property.
Mr. Allen Payne, Controller, The Daily Commercial, appeared before the Board stating that he was not present to beleaguer the assessment, but felt that, since the newspaper changed hands, at an arms length transaction, between a willing buyer and a willing seller, the tax returns that were filed by him, as Controller of The Daily Commercial, in January of this year, reflected values that were used by the former owners of the newspaper.
Mr. Frank Royce, Chief Deputy, Property Appraiser's Office, informed the Board that the assessed value on the portion of real estate owned by The Daily Commercial was $1,555,667.00.
Mr. Payne noted that he had not been able to provide to the Property Appraiser's Office evidence that the Board could use in determining whether the Property Appraiser had over assessed the property in question, due to the fact that he did not have said evidence available to him, to submit to the Property Appraiser five days prior to this meeting, however, had said evidence available at this time.
Commr. Swartz informed Mr. Payne that he could request a continuance of his case until the November hearings, to allow him to provide to the Property Appraiser's Office evidence he felt was pertinent to his case, for them to review and make a decision on.
Mr. Payne stated that he would like to do so.
Mr. Frank Royce, Chief Deputy, Property Appraiser's Office, informed the Board that property in the State of Florida is valued as of January 1; therefore, the information that Mr. Payne would be providing would pertain to a sale that occurred in September of this year and would not affect this year's assessment, it would affect next year's assessment.
Commr. Swartz stated that, having heard said statement, he was not sure that a continuance would be of any value to The Daily Commercial.
On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Ms. Ramsey and carried unanimously, by a 3-0 vote, the Board upheld the Property Appraiser's assessment of $1,555,667.00, for Petition No. 1995-320, due to findings of fact and lack of sufficient evidence to reduce the assessment.
Commr. Gerber and Ms. Fischer were not present at this meeting.
RECESS AND REASSEMBLY
At 10:50 a.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would take a ten minute recess.
PETITION NO. 1995-114 - DAVID G. AND JANE G. ROUNDY
Mr. Frank Royce, Chief Deputy, Property Appraiser's Office, informed the Board that this case involved a request for reassessment. He noted that Mr. Roundy lived in Orange Blossom Gardens, in Lady Lake, and that the assessed value on his property was $105,903.00.
Mr. David Roundy, Petitioner, appeared before the Board stating that he purchased his home, as a resale in 1994, for $134,900.00, however, $20,000.00 of that figure was for furniture, noting that he bought his home completely furnished. He stated that he had questioned his attorneys regarding the fact that the home was listed as $134,900.00, with nothing stated about the furniture, and was told that it would not make any difference, because the appraisal would be based on what his home was worth. However, when he spoke with the Property Appraiser's Office, he was informed that he had paid $134,900.00 for his home, but that was not the case, because $20,000.00 of that figure was for the furniture.
Mr. Peter Peebles, West County Crew Chief, Property Appraiser's Office, appeared before the Board and discussed how he assessed Mr. Roundy's home.
On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Ms. Ramsey and carried unanimously, by a 3-0 vote, the Board upheld the Property Appraiser's assessment of $105,903.00 for Petition No. 1995-114, due to findings of fact and lack of sufficient evidence to reduce the assessment.
Commr. Gerber and Ms. Fischer were not present at this meeting.
PETITION NO. 1995-324 - MEADOWS, INC.
PETITION NO. 1995-325 - MEADOWS, INC.
PETITION NO. 1995-326 - MEADOWS, INC.
Mr. David Zachery, Appraiser, Tax Adjustment Experts of Florida, Inc., representing Meadows, Inc., Petitioner, appeared before the Board stating that he had filed a number of petitions, however, most of said petitions had been withdrawn. He stated that there were three petitions still to be heard, however, he planned to withdraw them, as well. He suggested, in the future, that the Value Adjustment Board get their notice of hearings mailed out earlier than they have been in the past. He further elaborated on the matter, noting that many of the other jurisdictions in the State of Florida notify professional companies ten days prior to the hearings, knowing that they will be withdrawing a substantial amount of the petitions, prior to the actual hearings.
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, interjected that professional companies should not have any problem at all. He stated that the problem is with the Florida Statutes and not with the process, because the petitions can be received up to 25 days from the date of the mailing of the notices, yet the Value Adjustment Board is required to meet between 30 and 45 days from the date of the mailing of the Trim Notices, therefore, when a petition is filed on the last day, there is a full 20 days between the time of the last day that the Value Adjustment Board can meet and hear said petition. He stated that professional people know those time frames, therefore, know when the hearings will be scheduled, immediately. He stated that, if anybody gets penalized, it is those individuals who are not represented by professionals, who are not aware of the quick time frames. He stated that the Statutes require five days and, this year, for those two or three individuals that did not get five days, the Board granted continuances.
Ms. Jordan Stewart, Attorney, representing the Property Appraiser's Office, interjected that there is a five day minimum and, if the notices are sent out registered mail and there is five days between receipt of that notice and the Value Adjustment Board hearings, the Board is within the law. She further elaborated on the matter.
Mr. Minkoff, County Attorney, stated that the Legislature passed a Bill this year recognizing that there was a major problem with Value Adjustment Board hearings, statewide, and appointed a committee to come back with ways to amend the law, to eliminate the time problems that all the counties are having. He stated that said language is in the Statutes that were adopted, so it is not just a Lake County issue, it is a statewide issue.
Mr. Zachery noted, for the record, that he was withdrawing Petitions No. 1995-324 through 1995-326 and thanked the Board for their time.
There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting was recessed at 11:45 a.m., to be continued at 9:00 a.m., Monday, October 2, 1995.
_______________________________
G. RICHARD SWARTZ, JR., CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
_________________________________
JAMES C. WATKINS, CLERK
sec/9-29-95/11-21-95/boardmin