The Lake County Value Adjustment Board met in regular session on Thursday, October 2, 1996, at 9:00 a.m., in the Board of County Commissioner's Meeting Room, Lake County Administration Building, Tavares, Florida. Commissioners present at the meeting were: Welton G. Cadwell, Chairman, Value Adjustment Board; and William "Bill" H. Good, Vice Chairman. Commr. Catherine C. Hanson was not present for the meeting. School Board members present were: Tom Chapman and Kyleen Fisher. Others present were Sanford "Sandy" Minkoff, County Attorney; Ed Havill, Property Appraiser; Jordan Stewart, Attorney, representing the Property Appraiser's Office; Gaylord Wood, Attorney, representing the Property Appraiser's Office; Frank Royce, Chief Deputy, Property Appraiser's Office; Robbie Ross, Director of the Tangible Personal Property and Agricultural Operations, Property Appraiser's Office; Ginger Casburn, Exemptions Supervisor, Property Appraiser's Office; Pete Peebles, Crew Chief, Property Appraiser's Office; Frank Driggers, Senior Review Appraiser, Property Appraiser's Office; Roger Childress, Real Estate Appraiser, Property Appraiser's Office; and Toni M. Riggs, Deputy Clerk.

VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD

It was noted that Commr. Cadwell, Commr. Good and Mr. Chapman were present to form a quorum for the meeting.

MINUTES

On a motion by Mr. Chapman, seconded by Commr. Good and carried unanimously by a 3-0 vote, the VAB approved the Minutes of June 18, 1996, and August 1, 1996, as presented.

VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, reminded the Board that the decision of the Property Appraiser comes to the Board with a presumption of correctness. The Board would be hearing appeals of assessment, as well as some late homestead and agriculture appeals. In order to overturn any of the recommendations, there would have be specific findings of fact and conclusions of law, or extenuating circumstances, to establish that the Property Appraiser was incorrect in his recommendation. Mr. Minkoff explained that extenuating circumstances would include illness, mental illness, or something out of the ordinary.

PETITION 1996-109 CABLE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

Mr. Frank Royce, Chief Deputy, Property Appraiser's Office, informed the Board that there were three representatives present in behalf of Cable Development Corporation.

Mr. William Wares, Attorney representing the applicant, addressed the Board and presented introductory information about the petition involving tangible personal property. Mr. Wares explained that Cable Development Corporation, who was the personal tangible/personal property owner, had a private community cable television service licensed by the County. The private service served only a private development and was not a countywide franchised service, and the property at issue involved the property that comprised the system. The system was put in under a contract with the developer, Pringle Development Corporation, and it was run under the contract, which was a bulk rate contract. Mr. Wares stated that there were certain features under the bulk rate contract that were important. The contract was signed under a reduced rate, and it had an escalation clause where the rate could go up each year, but the rate was limited by the contact, which affects the revenue. Mr. Wares noted that the basic current rate was $18.78 compared to approximately $29.95 for county cable. He explained that this cable system differs from a county franchise system in that the costs per unit were going to be higher, because there would be less subscribers. He understood that the valuation method usable under the law would be actual or replacement costs, or comparable sales, or some kind of income capitalization method. Mr. Wares noted that the valuation was originally $650,000, and the valuation in the past had been between $100,000 to 150,000, and it was $118,000 last year. He understood that the increase in valuation had changed, because the idea behind the valuation had changed. Rather than looking at this as a collection of pieces of tangible property, it was now being valued as a system, which was an income earning vehicle, and therefore, was more appropriately valued, rather than through actual costs, or replacement costs, at what the fair market value of the system would be as an income generating vehicle. Mr. Wares stated that, in his view, if you take into account the facts concerning the system, it did not make an income that justified the valuation, and secondly, a comparable system would not make that type of income either. He did not believe that Lake County Cable, which was a countywide franchise, was not a comparable system.

Mr. Robbie Ross, Director of the Tangible Personal Property and Agricultural Operations, Property Appraiser's Office, stated that the Property Appraiser's Office did receive information from Cable Development Corporation, with the last information being received Friday.

Mr. Ed Blattler. Blattler & Company, P.A., C.P.A.'s, addressed the Board and stated that the actual costs were reported in the past, and there was no difference, or discrepancy there. In looking at the second method of capitalization of income, the petitioner had provided copies of tax returns, which contained adjustments reflecting net income with those items that would be considered to be add backs. He noted that the company was showing losses on the tax returns; however, when you add back depreciation, interest, or debt service, tangible tax expenditures, and items that were non-operating in nature, it did show a profit, and if you capitalize it with a 12% interest rate, you would have a valuation that would be close to what the property was valued in the past using the actual costs. He felt that a key issue was the operating expenses directly relating to the production of services to the community. The third method would be the sale of comparable systems. Mr. Blattler explained that a comparable system would have to have the same limitations and restrictions on it, in order to make a legitimate comparison.

Mr. Chapman questioned whether there had been a counter-offer made to the petitioner by the Property Appraiser's Office, with Mr. Wares noting that the petitioner has not tried to negotiate, but would like the opportunity to do so.

Mr. Ross explained that the cable system in question was located in Highland Lakes Subdivision. In April, he had requested additional information, in order to prepare a valid appraisal. In May, he received a letter with very limited information. He reviewed cable television sales from around the United States, and he found that systems were selling from $1,000 to $2,700 a subscriber. With this information, he determined an adjusted per subscriber sale cost of $813, or an assessment on the market approach of $569,100. He then considered the homes past, which determined a depreciated cost for the system, and found sales of $450 to $2,200. Making another adjustment, he determined an adjustment of $564 for a home past, for an assessment based on cost approach of $434,280. He then requested a basic cable rate of the system, which he did not receive until after he had done his appraisal. Since then, he was given the figure of $16.07, which today has now changed to $18.78 a subscriber. He based his value on $16.07. In taking a look at the market and using the 12% cap rate, he had determined an income approach to value at $430,274. Based on the three approaches, the $569,100, $434,280, and $430,274, he had adjusted the assessment to $445,759. He used 700 subscribers in his approach to the valuation.

Commr. Cadwell suggested that the VAB uphold the Property Appraiser's assessment, because, with the additional information he received from the petitioner, Mr. Ross had dropped the appraisal by almost $200,000.

On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Mr. Chapman and carried unanimously by a 3-0 vote, the VAB upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and approved the assessed value in the amount of $445,759 for Petition 1996-109, Cable Development Corporation, based on the evidence and findings of fact and conclusions, the income assessment used by the Property Appraiser's Office, and the lack of sufficient evidence to overturn the recommendation.

PETITION 1996-96 HARRY REIN

Mr. Frank Royce, Chief Deputy, Property Appraiser's Office, informed the VAB that this was an agricultural case, and the petitioner would be represented by Mr. Stephen C. Vaughn, Sr., Realtor.

Mr. Robbie Ross, Director of the Tangible Personal Property and Agricultural Operations, Property Appraiser's Office, explained that, when Mr. Rein looked at his proposed tax notice in August, he found the assessment to be quite high compared to other years, and he thought he had an agricultural classification on the property. Upon review, Mr. Rein filed the petition to the VAB, and he also filed for the agricultural classification. Therefore, this petition should be considered as a late file, and the Board needed to determine whether it would accept the application and petition.

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, clarified that the petition had been filed timely, but the application for exemption had not been filed on time. The VAB had the authority to consider late applications, if it found there were extenuating circumstances. The application for the exemption should have been filed by March 1.

Mr. Vaughn presented the VAB members with an Affidavit by

Harry Rein, which had been accepted by the Property Appraiser's staff. Mr. Vaughn stated that, in 1992, the papers were mailed to Mr. Rein, but for some reason, it had a post office box on it. In Mr. Rein's Affidavit, he stated that he has never had a post office box; he never received an ag card; and he had never been notified of this issue. Mr. Vaughn stated that Mr. Rein lives in Orlando, and he has always gotten all of his mail, but this time it went to a post office box. Mr. Vaughn had photographs showing the pasture land in question.

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, explained that the issue was not the agriculture, because it qualified for the exemption. The question, in this case, was the timely filing.

Mr. Ross stated that Mr. Rein had purchased the property in January, 1992. For the 1993 tax roll year, he would have had to complete an application. The possibility arises in the fact that the agricultural classification lapsed in 1992, because the previous owner did not get the green card back to the Property Appraiser's Office. In this case, there was a note that the ag card was returned saying that the post office box had been closed. In January, 1993, Mr. Rein did not file for the agricultural classification, and it was not granted, nor did he apply in 1994, or 1995, until it came to his attention. He would have been granted the exemption, if the application had been submitted prior to March 1.

Mr. Frank Royce, Chief Deputy, Property Appraiser's Office, stated that the green card would have been mailed to Mr. Rein prior to the sale of the property to him, and it was the previous owner who did not return the green card.

Mr. Minkoff explained that the extenuating circumstances, that had been approved before by the Board, included illness that would have kept someone in the hospital, or mental incompetency to understand the nature of the issue.

On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Mr. Chapman and carried unanimously by a 3-0 vote, the VAB upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and denied the agricultural exemption for Petition 1996-96, Harry Rein, based on the findings of fact and lack of sufficient evidence to overturn the recommendation of denial for late filing.

PETITION 1996-277-L ROBERT K. BLAKELEY

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the Board that Mr. Blakeley bought a house in February of this year. The people that sold the house lived there on January 1, 1996, and a letter was sent to them last fall with some questions about it. He did not get a response from them, so the homestead exemption was taken away. Mr. Havill stated that the Property Appraiser's Office requested certain documentation from Mr. Blakeley, he had reviewed it, and Mr. Blakeley should get homestead exemption for this year, but he would need to file in his own name for next year. He requested that the VAB uphold the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and approve the homestead exemption.

On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Mr. Chapman and carried unanimously by a 3-0 vote, the VAB upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and approved the homestead exemption for Petition 1996-277-L, Robert K. Blakeley.

VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD

It was noted that Ms. Kyleen Fisher, Chairman of the School Board, arrived at 10:35 a.m.

PETITIONS 1996-110 through 1996-130 ROBERT W. SMITH

Mr. Frank Royce, Chief Deputy, Property Appraiser's Office, informed the VAB that Mr. Smith owned a subdivision in south Lake County and the petitions were filed on the values of each lot that he continued to own in the subdivision.

Mr. Robert Smith addressed the VAB and provided documentation to be discussed regarding his assessments. Mr. Smith stated that the 1996 proposed assessments for the 21 lots were extremely excessive, and he felt it was because of two fundamental errors in the assessment. He stated that the assessor had raised the lot assessments on the basis of a few sales, and he had totally ignored comparables of adjacent property. He further stated that an appraiser did not make a site visit before the fact, and he had assumed the lots were of similar characteristics. Mr. Smith stated that the original assessor did make a site visit, and he did address those differences, which were shown in the data and based on the assessment of 1994 versus the assessment for 1996. Mr. Smith reviewed the documentation in detail including the characteristics of his property, and the lots that had been sold. He noted that the lots that were sold in 1995 varied in price from $45,000 to $52,000. He questioned why, if the sales of his land created such a impact to him (the percentage went from 122% to 455%), they did not create an impact to the surrounding areas, which were competitive and comparable to his property. Mr. Smith stated that the valuations were inappropriate and unfair. He stated that he and his wife were half owners of the property, and they were in the process of developing an irrevocable trust to go to St. Judes Childrens Hospital.

Mr. Royce stated that he did visit with Mr. Smith prior to the 1995 tax roll, and he visited the property, and at that time, there had been two lots sold. He stated that he was also the assessor that appraised the property for 1996. In 1994, he had asked Mr. Smith for a price list of the lots, and Mr. Smith explained that he did not have one, because he dealt with individuals as they came to look at the property. Mr. Royce stated that the values on the property were increased this year, because of three sales in 1995, as follows: Lot 9 sold for $45,000; Lot 10 sold for $57,000; and Lot 29 sold for $56,000. In January, 1996, Lot 19 sold for $53,500. Mr. Royce stated that the adjoining properties were being assessed differently, because they were selling differently. There were five sales, one in the mid $40,000 range and four in the mid $50,000 range. The assessed values before the VAB for the property in question ranged from $24,000 to $37,000 and fell within the property market. Mr. Royce stated that the sales were showing him that the properties were worth more than what they were assessed for today.

On a motion by Mr. Chapman, seconded by Commr. Good and carried unanimously by a 4-0 vote, the VAB upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and approved the following assessments for Petitions 1996-110 through 1996-130, Robert W. Smith, based on comparables provided by the Property Appraiser's Office on sales in 1995 and 1996:

1996-110 $28,780

1996-111 $24,845

1996-112 $24,669

1996-113 $32,935

1996-114 $31,300

1996-115 $30,117

1996-116 $33,008

1996-117 $31,248

1996-118 $30,339

1996-119 $33,106

1996-120 $31,889

1996-121 $38,039

1996-122 $33,480

1996-123 $32,268

1996-124 $33,165

1996-125 $33,242

1996-126 $33,264

1996-127 $35,343

1996-128 $37,013

1996-129 $31,274

1996-130 $34,628

PETITION 1996-133 ALFRED H. & TERESIA MOFFETT

Mr. Frank Royce, Chief Deputy, Property Appraiser's Office, informed the VAB that the petition from Dr. and Mrs. Moffett had been withdrawn by their attorney.

RECESS & REASSEMBLY

At 11:05 a.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess until 11:15 a.m.

VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD

It was noted that Commr. Cadwell, Commr. Good and Mr. Chapman were present for the meeting.

At 11:15 a.m., Commr. Cadwell called for those individuals that were scheduled to be heard at this time. It was noted that no one was present.

RECESS & REASSEMBLY

At 11:25 a.m., Commr. Cadwell announced that the meeting would recess until 1:30 p.m.

VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD

At 1:30 p.m., Commr. Cadwell called for those individuals that were scheduled to be heard at this time. It was noted that no one was present.

Mr. Frank Royce, Chief Deputy, Property Appraiser's Office, presented withdrawals for the record.

PETITION 1996-165 GANOT CORPORATION

Mr. Frank Royce, Chief Deputy, Property Appraiser's Office, informed the VAB that Petition 1996-165, Ganot Corporation, had been withdrawn.

PETITION 1996-173 COCA COLA

PETITION 1996-176 HEALTHSOUTH CORPORATION

PETITIONS 1996-179 through 1996-184 COCA COLA

Mr. Frank Royce, Chief Deputy, Property Appraiser's Office, informed the VAB that Petition 1996-173 Coca Cola; Petition 1996-176 Healthsouth Corporation; and Petitions 1996-179 through 1996-184 Coca Cola, had been withdrawn.

PETITIONS 1996-200 and 1996-201 FLORIDA MINING & MATERIALS

SOUTHDOWN

Mr. Frank Royce, Chief Deputy, Property Appraiser's Office, informed the VAB that Petitions 1996-200 and 1996-201, Florida Mining & Materials/Southdown, had been withdrawn.

RECESS & REASSEMBLY

At 1:40 p.m., Commr. Cadwell announced that the VAB would recess until 1:45 p.m.

VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD

At 1:45 p.m., Commr. Cadwell called for those individuals that were scheduled to be heard at this time. It was noted that no one was present.

VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD

It was noted that Commr. Cadwell, Commr. Good, Mr. Chapman and Ms. Fisher were present for the meeting.

At 2 p.m., Commr. Cadwell called for those individuals that were scheduled to be heard at this time.

PETITION 1996-269 SAW MILL LAKES, INC.

Mr. Frank Royce, Chief Deputy, Property Appraiser's Office, addressed the Board and stated that the petition was for Mr. Larry Carlson, the developer, and he was being represented by his attorney. Mr. Royce stated that Mr. Carlson was not protesting the assessed value of the lots per their value for a viable platted lot. He was protesting the assessment that they were platted and viable before 1996.

Mr. Tim Hoban, Attorney representing Saw Mill Lakes, Inc., addressed the Board and stated that the valuation was too high, because it reflected the value of a recorded plat on the subdivision. In October, 1995, a plat was recorded over his property, over Mr. Carlson's objections, in violation of the Lake County Land Development Regulations (LDRs), which was the basis for his objection. Mr. Hoban reviewed the facts and stated that, in the summer of 1995, Mr. Carlson was going through the final plat process to record a plat with 49 units with private roads on his subdivision, Saw Mill Lakes. Based on the conversations he had with his mortgage broker, and his attorney, he was instructed not to record anything, until HUD had approved the subdivision. He noted that HUD approval was necessary to get FHA loans. The County contacted Mr. Carlson in October, 1995, and inquired as to why he had not recorded the plat. Mr. Carlson advised him that he did not want to record the plat, because he was going through the HUD process, and there were other things that had not been done. The homeowner association had not been developed, the roads had not been finished, and recording fees had not been paid. Even though Mr. Carlson objected to having the plat recorded, the County recorded it. The recorded plat said the private roads, and the stormwater areas, would be maintained by a homeowners association, and in October, 1995, there was not one. The Lake County LDRs require some entity to maintain private roads and stormwater. Mr. Hoban presented the VAB members with a copy of Page XIV-53 of the Lake County Code for consideration. Mr. Hoban stated that the Code was written this way by the County Commissioners, because they did not want subdivisions where the County would have to use taxpayer's dollars to maintain the common areas, particularly in roads and stormwater. Mr. Hoban presented a brief summary of each exhibit that had been presented to the VAB for consideration. Mr. Hoban stated that Mr. Carlson objected to the plat being illegally and improperly recorded against the property owner's will.

Mr. Larry Carlson was present and testified as to the process he went through to obtain HUD financing; his conversations with County staff in regards to the recording of the plat; his conversations with his attorney; and his conversations with the Lake County Property Appraiser. He testified that he had talked to Mr. Frank Royce, who had explained that, once he received his trim notice, and if there was a valuation change, he could then take the necessary action.

Mr. Royce stated that some of the information had been passed on to him at that time about the plat being recorded prior to his approval and how it would affect the value. They discussed getting some more information for him from the County that would support his objection, so that he could make an adjustment, if necessary.

Mr. Hoban discussed Mr. Carlson's alternative to file an action for slander of title, and noted that a lawsuit could not be filed without paying the fees. Mr. Hoban stated that Mr. Carlson had a plat recorded against his will, and he had to pay extra costs; attorney's fees to Lawrence Presser; attorney's fees to Todd South; he had incurred additional expenses of going from private to public; he was incurring his attorney's fees today; and he had interest in the property caused by all of these delays. Mr. Hoban discussed the Lake Jem Rural Village, which was put in the wrong place by the Board of County Commissioners and stated that the VAB gave the property owners relief by lowering the assessment for one year, with the value going up the following year to the normal value, because the problems were due to a series of County mistakes. Mr. Hoban stated that Mr. Carlson had been subject to a series of Lake County staff errors. He asked that the VAB assess him as though the plat had not been recorded, and then re-assess him the upcoming year. Mr. Hoban requested that the VAB take the value at about 85% of what Mr. Carlson had paid for the property, which was $225,000, and this would reduce the value to $192,000.

The VAB reviewed a plat provided by the Property Appraiser's Office.

Mr. Hoban explained that the Board could approve a plat and then allow it to sit, because the Board approval was about midway through the approval process. He further explained that, even if the Board approved a plat, subject to all of the other things being done, the applicant still had the right to stop the process particularly when he had not complied with the Lake County regulations. Mr. Hoban stated that Mr. Carlson was not disputing the fact that the plat had been signed by the petitioner.

Commr. Cadwell stated that he did not see this issue as a Property Appraiser's problem, and he was not sure that this was the place for Mr. Carlson to get his relief.

Ms. Jordan Stewart, Attorney representing Mr. Havill, suggested that, whether or not the plat was recorded, was not an issue that needed to be heard here. Under Palm Beach Development and Sales Corporation, 478 So.2nd 11.22, it made no difference whether or not the plat was actually recorded. It was a highest and best use question under Section 193.011, Florida Statutes, and if the Property Appraiser could determine that the highest and best use of the property was a subdivision, the recording of the plat would become irrelevant to the assessment. She stated that clearly, in this case, from the evidence before the Board, the plat was a good plat and it was approved, and whether or not it was recorded would have made no difference in the assessment. Mr. Havill would have been bound to assess it at its highest and best use as subdivision property.

Mr. Hoban stated that the highest and best use for an unrecorded plat would have been one house on the whole property and, as a matter of land use, an individual could only pull one building permit on the whole subdivision pursuant to the County's LDRs in affect on January 1.

Mr. Minkoff stated that, with the plat recorded, an individual could have pulled a building permit for each one of the lots on January 1.

Mr. Hoban stated that the County violated its own ordinances and its own procedures, and perhaps the only remedy for his client would be to file a slander of title action against the County. He noted that, as of August, the plat was now in the appropriate form.

Mr. Hoban explained that this Board, in the past, under very similar circumstances (Lake Jem), reached a settlement with the property owners.

Mr. Minkoff explained that, if a plat had not been recorded, the County would have tried to collect the fee, and there have been mistakes where fees have not been totally collected properly, but once the official Board action was done, the plat became a part of the public records of Lake County.

Mr. Chapman made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Good, to uphold the recommendation of the Property Appraiser's Office and approve the assessed value in the amount of $719,500, for Petition 1996-269, Saw Mill Lakes, Inc., based on the fact that the plat was recorded and existed, at that time, as platted parcels.

Under discussion, Mr. Chapman felt that Mr. Havill acted in good accord in his assessment whereas the property was a subdivision no matter whether the plat was recorded or not.

The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried unanimously by a 4-0 vote.

PETITIONS 1996-167 through 1996-170 and

PETITION 1996-185 GERALD L. KNIGHT, ESQ.

Mr. Frank Royce, Chief Deputy, Property Appraiser's Office, informed the VAB that Mr. Knight had called and indicated that he would not be present for the hearings. Mr. Knight had requested that he, in behalf of the Property Appraiser's Office, present the cases to the VAB.

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, explained that there would be no reason to hear any evidence, because the Property Appraiser's decision was presumed to be correct, and there had been no evidence presented to the VAB otherwise.

On a motion by Mr. Chapman, seconded by Ms. Fisher and carried unanimously by a 4-0 vote, the VAB upheld the Property Appraiser's recommendation and approved the following assessments for Petitions 1996-167 through 1996-170 and Petition 1996-185, based on the findings of fact and lack of any further evidence being presented to overturn the recommendation:

1996-167 $1,581,530

1996-168 $328,745

1996-169 $573,303

1996-170 $52,650

1996-185 $12,834

RECESS & REASSEMBLY

At 2:40 p.m., the Chairman announced that, because of noted withdrawals, the VAB would recess and reconvene at 4 p.m.

VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD

It was noted that Commr. Cadwell, Commr. Good and Ms. Fisher were present for the meeting.

At 4 p.m., Commr. Cadwell called for those individuals that were scheduled to be heard at this time. It was noted that no one was present.

At 4:15 p.m., Commr. Cadwell called for those individuals that were scheduled to be heard at this time.

Mr. Frank Royce, Chief Deputy, Property Appraiser's Office, informed the VAB that it was the opinion of the Property Appraiser's Office that Petitions 1996-211 through 1996-216, which had been scheduled for Real Estate Tax Services, Inc., were filed incorrectly, and no information had been received from them, as requested.

Mr. Christopher E. Hines, Real Estate Tax Services, Inc., addressed the VAB and explained that he had testimony to present on the scheduled cases.

Commr. Cadwell explained that he would allow testimony, but he would not allow any physical information to be presented, pursuant to the rules requiring that the applicant provide the Property Appraiser with any written information five days prior to the hearing.

Mr. Royce noted that this would be acceptable.

PETITION 1996-211 SOUTHSIDE ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Mr. Christopher E. Hines, Real Estate Tax Services, Inc., explained that this particular case was the same as last year when it was contested. He stated that this particular shopping center was anchored by Winn Dixie. Mr. Hines stated that Winn Dixie was currently moving several miles to the south, and the owners felt that this had negatively impacted the value of the property. All of the leases in the shopping center would expire, with the exception of one, by 1998, with the majority expiring in 1996 and 1997, although Winn Dixie was paying rent, because its lease did not expire until 1997. If the property was sold on the market today, it would be negatively impacted by Winn Dixie's decision to leave. Mr. Hines noted that there was some adjustment this year in the assessment. The owners felt that, based on their knowledge of the market, the center would probably sell for approximately $20 per square foot. They had no interest in leasing the Winn Dixie space, and Winn Dixie had the space until 1997, so the local tenants would suffer at this point in time. Mr. Hines stated that the argument was the same as last year, in that next year Winn Dixie will have moved out, and there would be a dark space. He noted that occupancy was pretty good in the center, and as of January of this year, there were only two vacant spaces. The problem was the tenants being tied to time when Winn Dixie would be leaving.

Mr. Royce explained that the Property Appraiser must assess the property as it stands January 1 of each year. Due to the rents that were involved, Winn Dixie moving out, and his office having no rent roll to do any income approach, the property was being assessed at $2,030,584, which was down approximately $190,000 from last year.

On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Ms. Fisher and carried unanimously by a 3-0 vote, the VAB upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and approved the assessed value in the amount of $2,030,584 for Petition 1996-211, Southside Associates, Ltd., based on finding no facts, or conclusions that might otherwise indicate comparables, or other evidence that this might be an inappropriate valuation, and because the valuation had been done on January 1.

PETITION 1996-212 CLERMONT VENTURE LTD.

PETITION 1996-213 CLERMONT VENTURE LTD.

Mr. Christopher E. Hines, Real Estate Tax Services, Inc., requested that Petition 1996-212 Clermont Venture Ltd., and Petition 1996-213 Clermont Venture Ltd., be withdrawn.

PETITION 1996-214 CHEMICAL BANK TRUSTEE

PETITION 1996-215 CHEMICAL BANK TRUSTEE

Mr. Christopher W. Hines, Real Estate Tax Services, Inc., informed the VAB that these two petitions involved the two retail wings on the former Wal-Mart space in Leesburg, and they did not include the former Wal-Mart. The property was currently listed for $1,140,000 for the two pieces. Mr. Hines stated that there had been a broker's opinion and an appraisal performed on the property, which were both below the asking price.

Mr. Frank Royce, Chief Deputy, Property Appraiser's Office, stated that the Property Appraiser had not received any information on these petitions. He stated that the assessment for the two pieces of property was $1,143,465.

On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Ms. Fisher and carried unanimously by a 3-0 vote, the VAB upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and approved the assessed value in the amount of $788,947 for Petition 1996-214, and the assessed value in the amount of $354,518 for Petition 1996-215, based on no evidence of comparables that might have indicated that the appraisal was incorrect.

PETITION 1996-216 PEOPLES SOUTHWEST RE LTD PRTSP

Mr. Frank Royce, Chief Deputy, Property Appraiser's Office, informed the VAB that the Property Appraiser had received no information on the case. He noted that the property involved Inwood Heights in the City of Eustis.

Mr. Christopher W. Hines, Real Estate Tax Services, Inc., informed the VAB that the complex had been recently taken back in February, 1996, by a Certificate of Title. The owners did not feel that any assessment increase was justified, based on the fact that it was taken back, and the property was not performing.

Mr. Royce noted that the Property Appraiser had established an assessment in the amount of $1,141,454. He stated that there was a total of 11 buildings, with over 100 units.

On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Ms. Fisher and carried unanimously by a 3-0 vote, the VAB upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and approved the assessed value in the amount of $1,141,454 for Petition 1996-216, Peoples Southwest Re. Ltd. Prtsp., based on there being no comparable physical evidence to overturn the presumption of correctness of the Property Appraiser.

On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Ms. Fisher and carried unanimously by a 3-0 vote, the VAB upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and approved the following assessments for those cases where no one appeared:

1996-87 Delmar & Nelle Rose Rasmus $22,371

1996-97 Oak Ridge Apartments Ltd. $923,140

1996-98 Oak Ridge Apartments Ltd. $5,800

1996-100 Oak Ridge Apartments Ltd. $11,492

1996-103 Eudora Grove Apartments Ltd. $800,936

1996-104 Blueberry Hill Apartments Ltd. $985,215

1996-134 Avante Group, Inc. d/b/a

Avante at Leesburg, Inc. $122,248

1996-136 Hillary & Sons, Inc. $346,847

1996-137 Hillary & Sons, Inc. $161,580

1996-138 Hillary & Sons, Inc. $26,210

1996-139 Hillary & Sons, Inc. $32,067

1996-140 Hillary & Sons, Inc. $20,000

1996-141 Hillary & Sons, Inc. $19,000

1996-142 Hillary & Sons, Inc. $235,415

1996-143 Hillary & Sons, Inc. $144,519

1996-144 Hillary & Sons, Inc. $63,160

1996-145 Hillary & Sons, Inc. $105,385

1996-156 Hillary & Sons, Inc. $32,837

1996-157 Hillary & Sons, Inc. $9,165

1996-203 AT&T Wireless Services (CI 13) $456,306

1996-204 AT&T Wireless Services (CI 12) $453,823

1996-205 AT&T Wireless Services (CI 11) $387,379

1996-206 AT&T Wireless Services (CI 07) $188,816

1996-207 AT&T Wireless Services (CI 06) $207,994

1996-208 AT&T Wireless Services (CI 05) $241,253

1996-217 Lake Cogen Ltd. $7,904,814

1996-218 Lake Cogen Ltd. $2,016,790

1996-219 Lake Cogen Ltd. $58,627,831

1996-196 Steven R. Hall $254,649

1996-197 Steven R. Hall $205,682

There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the VAB, the meeting recessed at 4:17 p.m., until October 3, 1996, at 9 a.m.

WELTON G. CADWELL, CHAIRMAN

ATTEST:

JAMES C. WATKINS, CLERK

TMR\VAB96\10-2-96\10-7-96