LAKE COUNTY VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD MEETING

OCTOBER 3, 1996

The Lake County Value Adjustment Board met in regular session on Thursday, October 3, 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; William "Bill" H. Good, Vice Chairman; and Catherine C. Hanson. School Board members present were: Tom Chapman. Others present were Sanford "Sandy" Minkoff, County Attorney; Frank Royce, Chief Deputy, Property Appraiser's Office; Robbie Ross, Personal Property and Agricultural Operations Director, 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; Chuck Hasley, Personal Property Appraiser and Agricultural Specialist; and Toni M. Riggs, Deputy Clerk.

VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD

Commr. Cadwell reconvened the Value Adjustment Board.

PETITION 1996-61 ALAN JOEL MENAHEM

PETITION 1996-62 ALAN JOEL MENAHEM



Mr. Robbie Ross, Personal Property and Agricultural Operations Director, stated that Mr. Menahem filed his application for agricultural classification after the deadline of March 1. He filed for the classification on May 15, and he filed a petition with the VAB in July, 1996, and it was rescheduled for today, because he was having back surgery. Mr. Ross noted that the applicant was still in a body cast and was unable to attend the meeting today. Mr. Menahem had requested an agricultural classification for timber on his property in Altoona. Mr. Ross felt that there may be extenuating circumstances for the late filing.

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, questioned whether the applicant had back surgery before March 1, in order for the VAB to determine extenuating circumstances.

Mr. Chapman stated that, without any medical documentation, he did not feel that the VAB could determine extenuating circumstances.

After further discussion, the Board requested that Mr. Menahem be contacted for further information, and the case be tabled until that information could be relayed to the VAB.

PETITION 1996-251 KEITH BUSE AND ALBERT BUSE

Mr. Robbie Ross, Personal Property and Agricultural Operations Director, stated that this case involved a rental mobile home park called Palm Gardens. He discussed the case with Mr. Buse and explained the increase in the valuation.

Mr. Keith Buse addressed the VAB and stated that the park has been established for approximately 60 years. He did speak with Mr. Ross about the comparisons of mobile home parks, in relation to the value placed on the lots. The park in question had small lots, and it did not have many of the improvements that were found in other parks. Mr. Buse explained that bigger corporations were buying many of the parks and paying more for them than they were worth, and he did not feel his park was worth the valuation.

Mr. Ross stated that the assessed value for 1996 on the property in question was $1,001,156. He explained that there were 90 mobile homes, 20 RV lots, and approximately 15 cabins, and the street were unpaved. He stated that it was an older park with smaller lots. Mr. Ross stated that the Chain of Lakes on the north side of Lake Eustis, which has 302 lots, sold in 1996 for $5,450,000, and it was a corporation that made the purchase. He further stated that Mid Florida Lakes sold a few years ago to a big corporation, as well as Water Oak Estates in Lady Lake. The Property Appraiser's Office has to assess the property at fair market value. The comparables that he used included Hibiscus Mobile Home Park, which sold in 1992 for $1,845,000, and it was sold in 1995 for $2,300,000. It has approximately 145 rental lots, which would be approximately $13,483 per lot, and it has paved streets and all of the amenities. He stated that the sales price for Florida Anglers was $694,600, and it has 22 mobile home lots, 14 cabins, and has a rental area of 36 spots, and this would project $19,294 per lot. The Haven has 45 lots and was sold in July, 1996 for $610,000, and would be about $13,556 per lot. Mr. Ross stated that he had determined a value on a per rental basis of $7,416 for Palm Gardens, the property in question.

Mr. Buse explained that there had been over a $300,000 increase in the valuation over last year. He stated that the renters would have to absorb the increase through the rental rates, and a lot of them were on fixed incomes. Mr. Ross stated that the taxable value for last year was $683,867, but the assessed value was $1,001,363.

Mr. Frank Royce, Chief Deputy, Property Appraiser's Office, explained that last year was the first year for implementation of Amendment Ten, the Save Our Homes Amendment to the Constitution, that limited increase in value on homestead property to a maximum of three percent, or Consumer Price Index, or market value. He stated that last year it was 2.7%, and this year it was 2.5%. He stated that there had been an error made in the Property Appraiser's Office last year, because the total property was considered under the cap. The only property that was homestead was the property lived in by the owner, so last year, 1995, the park was re-appraised and the assessment went from $680,000 to $1,001,156. Mr. Royce stated that, because of the error in the computer, it could only be adjusted 2.7%, which limited the increase from $680,000 to $698,000. He explained that there was basically 2% of the total property that would come within the homestead cap, and the correct assessed value was $1,001,156.

Mr. Buse questioned whether this type of increase would continue to take place in future years, as other parks were sold for over market values.

Mr. Ross stated that the valuation could be assessed on an income basis, but he did not feel that it would affect the increase, because you would have to consider market expenses and the market income. In the defense of Mr. Buse, Mr. Ross stated that, if Mr. Buse continued to increase his lot rent, he was not only going to lose the value off of the tax roll, because of loss in value from his property, but he would also lose it off of the tangible personal property tax roll, because he would have people vacating the lots.

Mr. Royce explained that the market went for years without mobile home parks being sold, and there had been over 26 parks sold in the last two or three years.

Commr. Hanson made a motion, which was seconded by Mr. Chapman, to uphold the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and approve the assessed value in the amount of $1,001,156 for Petition 1996-251, Keith Buse and Albert Buse, but to allow Mr. Buse to bring in the other figures, if he chooses to do so.

Under discussion, Commr. Good stated that his vote was based on the presumption of correctness ruling, pursuant to the Florida Statutes, and the applicant would have to bring in figures and comparables, in order to dispute his figures.

Mr. Buse explained that he had another problem with people taking their trailers, if they did not like the rates, and it was almost impossible to find another home to replace those pulled, because of the size of the mobile homes.

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

PETITION 1996-25 DAVID J. ANTENUCCI

Ms. Ginger Casburn, Exemptions Supervisor, Property Appraiser's Office, explained that this was a late file case, and the staff would need more information to determine if it would be approved, if it was accepted. She noted that the VAB had been presented with a letter from the applicant for review.

Commr. Cadwell stated that the first issue that needed to be established was whether or not there were extenuating circumstances for the late filing.

Mr. David Antenucci addressed the Board and explained that his sister was the co-executor for his mother's trust, and she lived in Pennsylvania, and therefore, she was not here to tend to issues on a day by day basis. Mr. Antenucci stated that she did receive notification of the homestead exemption being dropped, and during December, 1995, when she was visiting Florida, she attempted to contact the Property Appraiser's Office to inquire about it. Mr. Antenucci explained that he has occupied the residence since October, 1995, because he was a part inheritor of the home. His sister had trusted the response she was given by the Property Appraiser's Office, when she wrote to them. If she had been provided the correct information, after learning that he could have the exemption, based on being a part owner and occupying the house prior to January 1, he would have taken the necessary steps to apply in a timely manner, but he was misinformed. He purchased the house in June, 1996.

Commr. Cadwell explained that extenuating circumstances would include something to do with your health, or some type of emergency, or some other reason other than just not knowing.

Ms. Casburn explained the procedures that she uses in the office when individuals inquire about their homesteads. She stated that a brochure was enclosed routinely with every one of the letters she receives inquiring about homestead, and the brochure explains the requirements for the exemption. She explained that, even though this was routinely done through her office, she was not testifying to the fact that this took place in this case.

Commr. Hanson stated that she did not feel that the testimony provided extenuating circumstances for the late filing. She felt that the information had been sent to his sister.

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, explained that the property seemed to be homestead for probate purposes, which meant, if it was given to the children, it would have become theirs at the instant of death. The homestead, in this case, at the most, would have only gone to 1/4 of the property, because the property would have been held as tenants in common, so even if Mr. Antenucci would have been successful this year, he would only have gotten homestead on approximately $10,000.

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Mr. Chapman and carried unanimously by a 4-0 vote, the VAB upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and denied the homestead exemption in Petition 1996-25, David J. Antenucci, based on the findings of fact and lack of sufficient evidence to overturn the recommendation of denial for late filing.

PETITIONS 1996-80-L through 1996-84

B. F. HARRISON FAMILY TRUST



Mr. Frank Royce, Chief Deputy, Property Appraiser's Office, addressed the Board and stated that the petitions were filed late, on August 26, 1996, to the VAB.

Mr. Robbie Ross, Personal Property and Agricultural Operations Director, stated that the taxpayer filed for the agricultural classification on time, and it was denied, because the last day to file a petition for denial of the classification was July 16, 1996.

Mr. Harrison explained that the petitions were filed late, because his son-in-law had been in an accident on June 4, 1996, and broke his neck, and he was spending all of his time with him.

Mr. Ross noted that the denials were sent out June 15, 1996, and there was a letter in the backup dated August 21, 1996, which explained Mr. Antenucci's situation.

Mr. Harrison explained that his wife had been out of state working, and he had stayed with his son-in-law.

Commr. Hanson made a motion, which was seconded by Mr. Chapman, to hear the case based on extenuating circumstances.

Under discussion, Commr. Cadwell stated that he would vote against the motion, because, in reviewing the letter, the applicant's wife had continued to work and take care of business.

Commr. Hanson stated that, with the comments made by the Chairman, she would withdraw her motion.

Mr. Chapman withdrew the second to the motion.

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Mr. Chapman and carried unanimously by a 4-0 vote, the VAB upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and denied the agricultural classification for Petitions 1996-80-L through 1996-84-L, B. F. Harrison Family Trust, based on finding no extenuating circumstances to overturn the recommendation of denial for late filing.

PETITION 1996-85-L WILLIAM ALAN & KARIN CAMILLE MOORE

Mr. Frank Royce, Chief Deputy, Property Appraiser's Office, informed the VAB that this was an agriculture application, and the petition to the VAB was filed late on August 27, 1996.

Ms. Karin Moore addressed the Board and stated that, when she purchased the property, she was not told that she had to file a green card, and she never received one. Until she and her husband got their actual property statement in the mail, and there was difference in the cost of the taxes, she immediately called the Property Appraiser's Office and followed their instructions.

Mr. Royce stated that the Moores bought the property on December 8, 1995, and the green card would have been mailed to the previous owner.

On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Mr. Chapman and carried unanimously by a 4-0 vote, the VAB upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and denied the agricultural exemption, based on no findings of fact, or conclusions of law to support overturning the presumption of correctness of the Property Appraiser.

PETITION 1996-86-L BOB L. LEININGER

Mr. Frank Royce, Chief Deputy, Property Appraiser's Office, addressed the VAB and stated that this was a late agricultural application to the VAB, which was filed on August 28, 1996.

Mr. Bob Leininger addressed the Board and stated that he owned eight to ten pieces of agricultural property, and the green card must have gotten lost for the property in question. He stated that the property has been grove ever since 1956, and after the freeze in 1985, it was planted in grass, and he has had cows on it ever since that time.

Mr. Royce explained that the agricultural classification was removed in 1995, because the green card was not received, and this would be the second year without the classification. There had been no re-application made in 1996, and therefore, he would not have received a green card this year, because he had not filed in 1995.

Mr. Robbie Ross, Personal Property and Agricultural Operations Director, explained that the Property Appraiser's Office did receive the green cards on the adjoining parcels.

Mr. Royce stated that the taxable value went from $7,000 to $42,000 in 1995.

Commr. Hanson made a motion to find that there were not any extenuating circumstances to hear the case.

Mr. Royce explained that, when the Property Appraiser does not get a green card back, or even when property sells for the first year, and there is not a new application on the property, there is a green belt value on the property, and then there is a classification that reduces the taxable amount per acre. The property owner is given one year to reapply on the green belt property, but the second year, the property goes to market value. This year the property in question went from $42,000 to $84,000.

Commr. Good seconded the motion.

The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried unanimously by a 4-0 vote, for the VAB to uphold the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and deny the agricultural classification, based on finding no extenuating circumstances to overturn the recommendation of the Property Appraiser.

PETITION 1996-90 PATRICIA & ROBERT MOD, SR.

Mr. Frank Royce, Chief Deputy, Property Appraiser's Office, explained that Mr. and Mrs. Mod were petitioning against the value of their property.

Ms. Patricia Mod addressed the Board and stated that she and her husband added a swimming pool last year. She stated that her assessment increased to $78,459. She was assessed $8,600 for pool, patio, roof, and screen room over the pool, and this amount included decking, and she was assessed another $3,000 for a screened porch in front of the house. She explained that she has an entrance way in front of her house, with three sides enclosed, and a seven foot screen across the front. Ms. Mod understood that people were taxed when they improved their property, and she was not protesting the $8,600.

Mr. Peter Peebles, Crew Chief, Property Appraiser's Office, explained that the screen porch on the front of the house was not what was being assessed, and it was simply being assessed as an open porch. It was not even a part of the assessment, therefore, nothing was done to change that value. It was a screened porch added to the back of the home of the property that was being assessed. He further stated that it was a screened porch with a roof that was not on the house that was added, as well as a screen enclosure over the pool, the pool deck, and the pool itself. Mr. Peebles explained that there was no problem with the assessed value, and the only problem was the interpretation of the screened room.

Ms. Mod stated that she has a screened enclosure over the pool, and a little patio roof was torn down, and another patio roof was added that was not connected over the pool.

Mr. Peebles explained that the pool, the deck, and the screen enclosure totaled $8,634 as miscellaneous value; the amount of $3,000 was added for the back screened porch that was added, not the enclosure of the cage, but another porch.

Ms. Mod stated that her letter had indicated that her husband had been diagnosed with Alzheimers, and he needed the pool and screened area for exercise. They also were retired and on a fixed income.

Commr. Good noted that the letter from Ms. Mod indicated that she had no comparables.

Ms. Mod explained that she had been asked to get some comparables, but she did not feel that her neighbors wanted to discuss their property assessment, or taxes, with anyone.

Mr. Royce stated that Ms. Mod's house was assessed at $78,000 with a pool, and there were three of her neighbors that have sold their homes for $79,000, $78,000, and $77,000, and they did not have pools. He stated that she has a larger house with a pool, and she was in a neighborhood where she would realize the increase, if she were ever to decide to sell her house in the future.

Commr. Good stated that he had a problem with not having any comparables from the applicant to compare with the Property Appraiser's Office, and the law says that there is a presumption of correctness.

On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Mr. Chapman and carried unanimously by a 4-0 vote, the VAB upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and approved the assessed value in the amount of $78,459 for Petition 1996-90, Patricia and Robert Mod, Sr., based on the lack of comparables to compare with the Property Appraiser's comparables.



PETITION 1996-92-L ORVEL & MILDRED BOYD

Mr. Frank Royce, Chief Deputy, Property Appraiser's Office, stated that this was an agricultural classification issue, and the application was filed September 6, 1996, and the petition to the VAB was filed September 6, 1996.

Ms. Mildred Boyd stated that she and her husband have owned the property in question since 1957. They sold 75 feet of the property, which removed the agricultural exemption. She stated that, after receiving notice that there was another piece of property that did not have the exemption, she went to the Board and found that it was the right-of-way into the property, and therefore, it did not deserve to have the agricultural exemption. She stated that the piece in question did deserve the exemption, but it had not been exempted, because of selling the 75 feet.

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 denied the agricultural exemption, based on the lack of extenuating circumstances to overturn the recommendation.

PETITION 1996-93-L GEORGE W. MARSHALL

Ms. Ginger Casburn, Exemptions Supervisor, Property Appraiser's Office, informed the VAB that the application would have been approved for homestead, if it had been submitted on time.

Mr. George W. Marshall stated that he was a first time home buyer, and he bought it from a private individual and closed on it through the assistance of an attorney. He was never told about the homestead exemption, and after he received his trim notice, he filed for the exemption.

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Mr. Chapman and carried unanimously by a 4-0 vote, the VAB upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and denied the homestead exemption, based on the lack of extenuating circumstances to overturn the recommendation of denial.

PETITION 1996-132-L MARIANNE ERB

Ms. Ginger Casburn, Exemptions Supervisor, Property Appraiser's Office, stated that the application for homestead would have been accepted, if the applicant had filed on time.

Ms. Marianne Erb stated that she was not aware of the procedures for filing for homestead exemption.

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Mr. Chapman and carried unanimously by a 4-0 vote, the VAB upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and denied the homestead exemption, based on the lack of extenuating circumstances to overturn the recommendation of denial.

PETITION 1996-152-L MARK R. SMITH & MARGARET R. SMITH

Mr. Frank Royce, Chief Deputy, Property Appraiser's Office, stated that this was a late file application for agriculture. He noted that the applicants filed September 9, 1996.

Ms. Margaret R. Smith addressed the VAB and stated that she and her husband lived in Orlando all of their lives, and when they came to the country, they were under the assumption that, if you were zoned agriculture, it would remain agriculture, and they did not realize you had to file for an exemption. After receiving their tax notice, they noticed the increase in their taxes.

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Mr. Chapman and carried unanimously by a 4-0 vote, the VAB upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and denied the agricultural exemption, based on the lack of extenuating circumstances to overturn the recommendation of denial.

PETITION 1996-153-L D. SCOTT JOY

Mr. Frank Royce, Chief Deputy, Property Appraiser's Office, stated that Mr. Joy had filed a petition for homestead, but he had not filed an application.

Mr. D. Scott Joy addressed the Board and stated that a form was completed for him in the Property Appraiser's Office.

Mr. Royce clarified that it was the petition to the VAB that was presented to him, and it was filed on time, September 13, 1996.

Mr. Joy explained that he did not bother applying for homestead exemption, because the home was properly tagged as a motor vehicle, and it must remain as a motor vehicle, until the contract was over with Security Pacific, however, he was being taxed for real estate, and a motor vehicle.

Mr. Royce stated that, pursuant to the laws of the State of Florida, once you attach a motor home, or mobile home, or any kind of residence to the property permanently, and you are the owner of the property, the improvement must be assessed as real property.

Mr. Joy was concerned that he would be in default of the terms of the contract, if it became real property, and he did not file for homestead exemption, because, according to the contract, he was not eligible for homestead exemption.

Ms. Ginger Casburn, Exemptions Supervisor, Property Appraiser's Office, explained that Mr. Joy came in her office on September 13, 1996.

It was clarified that Mr. Joy would not receive the homestead exemption for 1996, because no application had been made.

Mr. Robbie Ross, Personal Property and Agricultural Operations Director, explained that an individual files for real property declaration in the Property Appraiser's Office, which notifies the Department of Motor Vehicles that you are no longer wanting to purchase the mobile home sticker, which would keep the State from trying to back tax someone when he sells the mobile home in the future. Mr. Ross stated that, by law, the Property Appraiser has to assess the mobile home as real property, and the only thing that Mr. Joy would have to do is not get the real property sticker.

Mr. Joy explained the mixed communication he has received between the Property Appraiser's Office and the Tax Agency.

Mr. Royce explained that, if an individual takes an application for a real property tag to the Tax Office, they must issue the tag.

Mr. Peebles stated that he would walk Mr. Joy through the process, so that his affairs would be in complete order.

On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Mr. Chapman and carried unanimously by a 4-0 vote, the VAB upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and denied the homestead exemption, based on the findings of fact and lack of sufficient evidence to overturn the recommendation of denial for late filing.

PETITION 1996-154-L ARTHUR F. & GLORIA POFFENBERGER

PETITION 1996-155 ARTHUR F. & GLORIA POFFENBERGER



Mr. Frank Royce, Chief Deputy, Property Appraiser's Office, stated that the Poffenbergers had filed late for their homestead exemption, on September 6, 1996, which would have been accepted had they filed on time, and this was reflected in Petition 1996-154-L. Mr. Royce stated that he needed to present the Board with some history, in regards to Petition 1996-155.

Mr. Royce stated that the applicants purchased the property in 1991, and for some reason, the Property Appraiser's Office did not receive a building permit from the City of Eustis for the house, nor did the City question them when they did not assess the building for 1992, which would have been the first tax roll year for the Poffenbergers. He stated that 1996 was the first year that the home was being assessed to the tax roll, even though it should have been on the tax roll since 1992. Mr. Royce stated that the Florida law allows the Property Appraiser to back assess an individual, if an error was found in the tax roll, but only for three years. He noted that this has now been done for 1993, 1994, and 1995 for the value of the home alone. The Poffenbergers have only been paying taxes on the land. Mr. Royce stated that the applicants were petitioning that, if they were being back assessed for the home, they deserve homestead for those three years, and for 1996, as noted in Petition 1996-154-L. Mr. Royce clarified that the applicants have never filed for homestead.

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, reviewed the facts and stated that the house was there, and they were living in it, so they were entitled to apply for homestead, but they did not.

Mr. and Mrs. Poffenberger appeared before the VAB to discuss the matter. Mr. Poffenberger stated that, when they received their tax bill, it was sent to the mortgage company for it to be paid out of an escrow account. In 1993, they refinanced the house, and the taxes were approximately $1,000, but the Tax Office told them that it was approximately $280 and refunded them the difference.

RECESS & REASSEMBLY

At 10:28 a.m., the Chairman announced that the VAB would recess for five minutes.

PETITION 1996-154-L ARTHUR F. & GLORIA POFFENBERGER

PETITION 1996-155 ARTHUR F. & GLORIA POFFENBERGER

(CONTINUED)



Commr. Hanson felt that the issue being presented was complicated enough to open it to be heard by the VAB, because there seemed to be extenuating circumstances.

Commr. Cadwell felt that the VAB needed to discuss the issue of granting the homestead for three years, and whether there were extenuating circumstances over those three years to grant the petitions.

Discussion occurred regarding whether there were extenuating circumstances to hear the cases.

Mrs. Poffenberger stated that they moved from Maryland and bought the house directly from the builder, who helped them mortgage it, until they sold their property in Maryland, and they did not know anything about filing for the exemption.

Mr. Royce stated that he did not know if the Property Appraiser could make a recommendation, because of the language in the Florida Statutes pertaining to making an application for homestead.

On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously by a 4-0 vote, the VAB upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and approved the assessed value in the amount of $58,800 for Petition 1996-155, based on the findings of fact and lack of sufficient evidence to overturn the recommendation of the Property Appraiser.

Ms. Casburn informed the VAB that the homestead application would have been accepted, if the applicants had filed on time.

Mrs. Poffenberger stated that they did not know about filing for homestead, until the Property Appraiser came to the property in August and advised them that they were not being assessed for the house.

Commr. Hanson made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Good, to uphold the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and deny the homestead exemption, for Petition 1996-154-L, based on the lack of finding extenuating circumstances to overturn the recommendation of denial for late filing.

Under discussion, Mr. Minkoff explained that the homestead exemption was late for each year that the applicants did not file, and the VAB would have to find extenuating circumstances for each year that they did not file by March 1.

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

PETITION 1996-278-L DEW FAMILY INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP LTD.

Mr. Frank Royce, Chief Deputy, Property Appraiser's Office, informed the VAB that this was a late application for agricultural classification, and the petition was filed late.

Mr. Van Williams stated that his dad, Jack Williams from

Gainesville, was becoming ill and their attorneys in Jacksonville started to do some estate planning. This petition involved an active ten acre grove called Apshawa, and until 1994, when his father passed away, the attorney was handling all of the paperwork. When the green card was sent out, no one returned it. His sister started handling all of his father's affairs after he died in 1994, but she was diagnosed with cancer in May, and sent to him all of the items that had not been handled during her treatment. He received the information last Friday and contacted the Property Appraiser's Office for assistance. Mr. Williams requested that the VAB grant the agricultural classification, because it was a totally active grove.

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Mr. Chapman and carried unanimously by a 4-0 vote, the VAB upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and denied the agricultural exemption, based on finding no extenuating circumstances to overturn the recommendation of denial for late filing.

PETITION 1996-252 MID-FLA. FREEZER WHSE. LTD.

Mr. Frank Royce, Chief Deputy, Property Appraiser's Office, stated that this case was being represented by a tax representative from Easley, McCaleb & Associates, Inc. (EMA), Orlando. He stated that the petition offers no information, although the office did receive a letter from EMA breaking down figures for the cold storage warehouse.

Mr. Clark Mann stated that he was representing the applicant, Mid-Florida Freezer Warehouse, Ltd. He stated that he compared the property record card, for this particular applicant, with another cold storage warehouse, which the VAB would be considering in another moment. He stated that one of the values came out with the Property Appraiser's value and would not be problem when they approached that case.

Mr. Royce clarified that he received two pieces of paper on two different Mid-Florida Freezers, but a petition was only filed on one.

COMMISSIONERS

At 10:58 a.m., Commr. Cadwell turned the chairmanship over to Commr. Good.

PETITION 1996-252 MID-FLA. FREEZER WHSE. LTD. (CONTINUED)

Mr. Mann noted that Petition 1996-255, Florida Food Products Inc., had the appropriate valuation. He stated that Petition 1996-252 was out of line using the Marshall-Swift replacement costs.

Mr. Mann discussed the depreciation of the property, and the replacement costs, and stated that the value would be based on the age of the property, and the large amount of depreciation. The residual value, for just the warehouse wall type structure, would be approximately $258,000 according to Marshall-Swift. If you add any cold storage factors, the average cost per square foot would be $3.50, which would be another $183,000, which would create a value of approximately $500,000. The complex was 52,000 square feet, and the maximum anyone would get when they moved out from the facility would be a maximum of $10 per square foot, because it was built to cater the original owner.

Mr. Royce clarified that there had been no information provided to his office, in terms of sales, or comparables at all, and therefore, he did not feel that Mr. Mann could present such information for consideration by the VAB.

Commr. Good stated that Mr. Mann could provide testimony, but in terms of providing evidence, the evidence was to be provided to the Property Appraiser's five days prior to the hearing.

Mr. Royce explained the information that he had been received from the representative and noted that he could not find the same information from Marshall-Swift as presented by Mr. Mann. He stated that the property was 101,000 square feet and noted that Mr. Randy Marchman, who filed the petition, had written and requested information, and a property record card showing the correct square footage. Mr. Royce stated that the assessed value on the property was $1,078,963, on a two story building that was built in 1962. He stated that he was not sure that the property had depreciated 55%, but using the Marshall-Swift figures of $25.74 for cold storage times the correct square footage equaled $2,600,000, plus site improvements of $50,000, and using the same depreciation of 55.4%, and adding the land back in would present an assessed value of $1,252,000, and he felt the assessment was fair and just.

COMMISSIONERS

At 11:05 a.m., Commr. Good returned the chairmanship to Commr. Cadwell.

PETITION 1996-252 MID-FLA. FREEZER WHSE. LTD. (CONTINUED)

On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Mr. Chapman and carried unanimously by a 4-0 vote, the VAB upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and approve the assessed value of $1,078,963 for Petition 1996-252, Mid-Fla. Freezer Whse. Ltd., based on the lack of comparables from the petitioner.

PETITION 1996-253 COLONY COURT LTD.

Mr. Frank Royce, Chief Deputy, Property Appraiser's Office, stated that the this was a petition for value on an apartment complex called Colony Court, which was in the City of Eustis.

Mr. Clark Mann, a tax representative from Easley, McCaleb & Associates, Inc. (EMA), Orlando, questioned whether staff had received the income and expense statement, which Mr. Royce acknowledged had been received by the Property Appraiser.

Mr. Mann stated that Colony Court was a subsidized housing project, with 47 units, and it was built in 1989.

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, explained that this was quasi-judicial hearing, so the only thing that this Board was going to see was what was introduced to them today.

Mr. Mann stated that the net income to the property was $45,259, and there was an established capitalization rate of 10%, which would indicate a value of approximately $453,000. He noted that the 1995 assessment was $1,049,069. Mr. Mann stated that it was difficult to analyze income streams for subsidized housing properties, because they have rental subsidies, which were below market mortgages. He stated that traditionally they were assessed at approximately $10,000 to $20,000 per unit. The current property has 470 units, and the income supports a value less than $10,000 a unit, and their opinion of value would be $470,000, based on the actual income going through the property. Mr. Mann noted that different counties in the State have struggled with a new law on how to assess subsidized housing.

Mr. Royce explained that his job was to look at the value of the property in one of three ways, cost, income, or market. In the information that was provided, he took the market rent for 45 units, less a 10% vacancy, and added in the other miscellaneous income being shown, subtracting the maintenance and operating costs, utility costs, administrative expenses, and insurance, and developed a net operating cap income of $152,737, and then using a capitalization rate of 11.52%, it provided an income valuation of $1,318,972, and an assessment of $1,047,219. Mr. Royce stated that the market rents shown were lower than the market rents in surrounding rental properties, and he felt that he was well within the range for that type of housing in the area.

On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Mr. Chapman and carried unanimously by a 4-0 vote, the VAB upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and approved the valuation in the amount of $1,047,219, for Petition 1996-253, based on the presumption of correctness, and lack of comparable substantial evidence, or findings of fact within the law, to overturn the Property Appraiser.

PETITION 1996-254 ORANGEWOOD VILLAS LTD.

Mr. Clark Mann, a tax representative from Easley, McCaleb & Associates, Inc. (EMA), Orlando, noted that the income statement for Orangewood Villas in Umatilla had been submitted for review.

Mr. Frank Royce, Chief Deputy, Property Appraiser's Office, explained the information that he did not receive for consideration and stated that he would have to look at the market rent, and using the income information that he had received, he would determine the value of the property.

Mr. Mann stated that all of the properties have restrictions

of income on them, and in most cases, you cannot withdraw more than 4% or 6% of revenues out, if you do have a profit. To increase your expenses, you would have to apply through the government, with HUD, which would be a one to two year project in many cases, just to get coverage for your actual expenses to try and raise rents to cover them.

COMMISSIONERS

At 11:15 a.m., Commr. Cadwell turned the chairmanship over to Commr. Good.

PETITION 1996-254 ORANGEWOOD VILLAS LTD. (CONTINUED)

Mr. Mann stated that you would traditionally be locked into a 20 year deal, and after 20 years, you would have the right to go conventional, but typically no one ever does this. He stated that he did not have any comparable sales for consideration. Mr. Mann discussed the financial statement and noted that the income from the tenants did not make up half of the income coming through the property. There was a total income of $141,371 against expenses of $79,000 leaving $61,000 in net operating income. If you capitalize this, it would create a value of $620,000 versus the 1995 assessment of $1,041,732. The property has 46 units, and this complex would not produce the projected income stream.

Mr. Royce stated that, in this particular case, he has chosen to look at the market rent, and to use the income approach in establishing the value of $1,039,686. He noted that he had used 45 units that showed value in rent from the information he had received.

Commr. Hanson questioned whether using comparable sales to determine the value would give a lower or higher valuation than the income approach.

Mr. Royce stated that market value does not mean that the property would have to sell. He noted that there were very few sales of this type of property.

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, explained that there were a lot more sales, because the sales of these usually involve the sale of the underlying limited partnership interests, and not the actual property themselves, and this was how they were commonly sold and transferred.

Mr. Royce explained that the valuation on this particular property had gone down steadily over the years, because of depreciation.

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Mr. Chapman and carried by a 3-0 vote, the VAB upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and approved the assessed value of $1,039,686 for Petition 1996-254, Orangewood Villas Ltd., based on the findings of fact and the valuation steadily going down over the years.

It was noted that Commr. Cadwell was not present for the discussion or vote.

PETITION 1996-255 FLORIDA FOOD PRODUCTS, INC.

Mr. Clark Mann, a tax representative from Easley, McCaleb & Associates, Inc. (EMA), Orlando, explained that he did not have any information to submit on this petition.

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Mr. Chapman and carried by a 3-0 vote, the VAB upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and approved the assessed value in the amount of $1,279,792 for Petition 1996-255, based on the presumption of correctness of the Property Appraiser.

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

PETITION 1996-256 VIRGO INVESTMENTS INC.

PETITION 1996-257 VIRGO INVESTMENTS INC.



Mr. Clark Mann, a tax representative from Easley, McCaleb & Associates, Inc. (EMA), Orlando, stated that these two petitions had been withdrawn.

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Mr. Chapman and carried by a 3-0 vote, the VAB approved the request for withdrawal of Petition 1996-256 and 1996-257, Virgo Investments Inc.

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

PETITION 1996-258 SOUTHEAST CENTERS ASSOCIATES LTD.

Mr. Clark Mann, a tax representative from Easley, McCaleb & Associates, Inc. (EMA), Orlando, stated that this was a shopping center that has several parcels to it. He stated that one parcel was petitioned primarily because the land in the rear was a retention pond, and he did not feel it should be assessed at the same rate, and he felt the rate was too high on it now.

Mr. Frank Royce, Chief Deputy, Property Appraiser's Office, explained that this was the K-Mart/Albertsons shopping center in Mount Dora, which backs up to the Village Grove Subdivision. Mr. Royce stated that, on the property record card, the land was commercial property, and there was 143,619 square feet on this parcel of property. It was being assessed as a super market.

Mr. Mann had a map of the property for review, but Mr. Royce noted that the map meant nothing, in regards to the discussion of the property. He did not feel the map needed to be accepted, because, in order to justify the information, he would need to have the tax map. Mr. Royce explained that the entire parcel was being assessed.

COMMISSIONERS

At 11:30 a.m., Commr. Good returned the chairmanship to Commr. Cadwell.

PETITION 1996-258 SOUTHEAST CENTERS ASSOCIATES LTD. (CONTINUED)



Mr. Mann stated that this property was being assessed at $80 per square foot, because it has land, which was a retention pond, behind it.

Commr. Good pointed out that the property could not have been developed without the retention pond.

Mr. Royce explained that the property was being assessed at $2.30 a square foot, and the value was $599,861 for this year.

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Mr. Chapman and carried unanimously by a 4-0 vote, the VAB upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and approved the assessed value of $599,861 for Petition 1996-258, Southeast Centers Associates Ltd., based on the presumption of correctness of the Property Appraiser.

PETITION 1996-259 LEE JOHN C/TR

PETITION 1996-260 LEE JOHN C/TR



Mr. Frank Royce, Chief Deputy, Property Appraiser's Office, stated that he did not know if Mr. Clark Mann had permission from the owner to represent him on this property. Early in September, prior to the petition being filed Mr. Randy Marchman, Mr. Royce personally met both buyers and sellers of the property and already reduced the value of the property, with their agreement. The two properties now had a total value of $634,781. The property was currently being marketed for $775,000.

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Mr. Chapman and carried unanimously by a 4-0 vote, the VAB upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and approved the assessed value in the amount of $634,781 for Petition 1996-259 and Petition 1996-260, Lee John C/TR, based on the presumption of correctness of the Property Appraiser.

PETITION 1996-261 SES GROUP LAKE COUNTY

PETITION 1996-265 SES GROUP LAKE COUNTY

PETITION 1996-267 SES GROUP LAKE COUNTY



Mr. Frank Royce, Chief Deputy, Property Appraiser's Office, stated that he had not received any information on these petitions other than a FAX sheet indicating the asking price, and what it may or may not sell for, and a cost of sale. Mr. Royce stated that the property was east of and next to the Lake County Industrial Park, and the owner has an appraisal on the property for over three million dollars, which was stated to him two years ago. He stated that the property was assessed at $13,250 per acre, and $45 per acre of wetlands, and the sales in the area show from $15,000 to $20,000 per acre. He felt that the sales would probably be increasing in the future, because there were no more discounts being allowed in the industrial area.

Commr. Hanson stated that she would have a problem with the information presented by Mr. Royce, in that this was not improved property with the utilities, and what has been sold has been the $15,000 per acre, and she felt that the $13,250 could be high.

Mr. Mann noted that there were approximately 200 acres, and the property was currently for sale for $2,100,000 and was going through Mr. Cole Whitaker, Broker.

Mr. Royce stated that, if you consider the whole acreage and divide it by the assessed value, it would be quite a bit below the $13,000 per acre. The overall valuation would be $2,162,849 for the three pieces of property, and the overall assessment would be $10,670 per acre.

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Mr. Chapman and carried unanimously by a 4-0 vote, the VAB upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and approved the assessed value in the amount of $2,162,849 for Petition 1996-261, Petition 1996-265, and Petition 1996-267, SES Group Lake County, based on the presumption of correctness of the Property Appraiser.

PETITION 1996-262 ORLANDO TENNIS ASSOC. LTD.

PETITION 1996-263 ORLANDO TENNIS ASSOC. LTD.

PETITION 1996-264 ORLANDO TENNIS ASSOC. LTD.

PETITION 1996-266 ORLANDO TENNIS ASSOC. LTD.



Mr. Clark Mann, a tax representative from Easley, McCaleb & Associates, Inc. (EMA), Orlando, stated that he had not been able to get information on the property in question, so he had no other information to submit.

On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Mr. Chapman and carried unanimously by a 4-0 vote, the VAB approved to uphold the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and approved the assessed value in the amount of $17,500 for Petition 1996-262; $2,078,771 for Petition 1996-263; $403,854 for Petition 1996-264; and $203,022 for Petition 1996-266, based on the lack of evidence to overturn the presumption of correctness of the Property Appraiser.

PETITION 274-L JACK WELLING

Mr. Robbie Ross, Personal Property and Agricultural Operations Director, Property Appraiser's Office, stated that Mr. Welling had sold some of his property during 1995. He stated that Dusam Investments Inc. purchased some it and applied for an agricultural application. Mr. Ross stated that his office inspected the property in question and denied the application, based on the fact that it did not qualify for an agricultural classification. Then he found out that Dusam had purchased property in a different section and had filed for the exemption on the wrong piece of property. The classification was denied based on no evidence of an agricultural activity at the time of inspection. He clarified that the parcel that was inspected was the parcel in question today. Mr. Ross stated that the petition to the VAB was filed on September 23, 1996.

Mr. Jack Welling, owner of the property in question, stated that he was not aware that anything had been filed against the property, and he was never notified, until he received his tax bill for the year. He stated that he drives a tour bus for a custom coach and was out of town at that time. Mr. Welling stated that he had returned to town on September 18 or 19, and he had been gone over three weeks.

Mr. Ross noted that the tax notice was mailed August 21, 1996, and the window to file was 25 days, with the last day to file being September 16, 1996.

On a motion by Mr. Chapman, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously by a 4-0 vote, the VAB upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and denied the agricultural exemption, based on the lack of extenuating circumstances to overturn the recommendation of denial for late filing.

RECESS & REASSEMBLY

At 11:50 a.m., there being no one present, as scheduled, the Chairman announced that the Board would recess until 2:30 p.m.

PETITION 1996-235 DONALD J. LACKEY

Mr. Frank Royce, Chief Deputy, Property Appraiser's Office, stated that this was a valuation issue on a home that Mr. Lackey sold.

Mr. Don Lackey stated that he and his father had purchased a house in 1994 that was in need of restoration. They closed on it in 1994 and made plans to start restoring it the first of 1995, after he pulled the permit in 1994. He described the poor condition of the house, and stated that, after remodeling in 1995, it was advertised for sale in the price range of $120,000, as a restoration in progress project. Mr. Lackey discussed the series of events that took place, in terms of repairs and prospective buyers, and stated that he did get a contract on it approximately six week ago, and the house was sold for $112,000. He put additional money into it, after getting the contract in June. He objected to the fact that the house was purchased for $56,000 in 1994, and it was appraised at $56,000 by an independent appraiser, with work that was going to be done on it. He stated that, in 1995, the house was not lived in, it was not livable, and the house was not complete, but he was assessed $83,000, which he did not feel was fair. He stated that the house was taken from a two family home to a one family, and he had not finished it, and no had purchased it to determine a new price on the house. He stated that it was a 75% increase, and in comparison, if he bought a vacant lot and pulled a permit on it to build a house, he would not be taxed for the new value of the property, until it was sold, or if it was re-assessed after 18 months, if it was not sold. Mr. Lackey stated that after January 1, 1996, he added substantial improvements of property amounting to approximately $10,000. He felt that the increased value through January 1, 1996, reflecting what he did in 1995, was not fair. It was noted that the valuation was $87,158. Mr. Lackey stated that Mr. Driggers indicated that he was going to ask for a higher assessment, based on his advertising of the property in 1995.

Mr. Frank Driggers, Senior Review Appraiser, Property Appraiser's Office, presented the VAB with information regarding the advertisements of the property in question, which were placed in the Homes and Land of Lake County. Mr. Driggers discussed the asking price, which ranged from $99,900 in May and June, 1995; $121,900 in August, September, and October, 1995; and $124,900 in November 1995. He noted that the building permit referred to by Mr. Lackey, was issued on September 2, 1994, with the work being completed and signed off by the City of Mount Dora on October 27, 1995. Mr. Driggers explained that he was not assessing the deck, or the air conditioning for 1996. He stated that, based on the information before the VAB, and the facts he received from the City of Mount Dora Building Department, he would recommend an adjusted fair market value of the property, as of January 1, 1996, of $95,356.

Commr. Hanson questioned whether the adjustment would have been recommended, if Mr. Lackey had not appealed his assessment. She had a problem with approving the higher amount of assessment.

Commr. Hanson made a motion, which was seconded by Mr. Chapman, to overturn the Property Appraiser's recommendation and to leave the assessment at $87,158.

Under discussion, Commr. Good stated that the additional work was completed before January 1, 1996.

Mr. Driggers clarified that, in 1995, the property was appraised for $49,681.

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



PETITION 1996-275-L PHILIP E. GLIDDEN

Mr. Frank Royce, Chief Deputy, Property Appraiser's Office, stated that this petition involved a value issue on one of two pieces of property that Mr. Glidden owns between Highway 27 and the Turnpike south of Howey.

Mr. Philip E. Glidden, Orlando, addressed the VAB and stated that, in 1994, Florida Power took a 90 foot easement over the property, which destroyed the value of the property. The only value that contributes to it, at this point, was that he owned the adjacent property and could use some of it for another purpose other than building. Mr. Glidden explained that he had additional information that described the action taken with Florida Power.

Mr. Royce explained that the petition to the VAB was filed late on September 25, 1996.

Mr. Glidden explained that he was in Maine for vacation trying to alleviate his allergies.

Commr. Cadwell explained that the VAB would have to consider extenuating circumstances, which would involve something such as someone in the hospital, a death, or something very extenuating that would keep someone from filing on time.

Mr. Glidden stated that he was advised by his doctor to get out of State. He thought that this issue should proceed from the previous year, because the only thing that prevented this issue from being heard last year was the fact that he could not produce a copy of the certified mail voucher that was sent last year. He stated that the Department of Revenue, after considering the taking of the property, was willing to accept an agreement that the property was worth $10,000.

Commr. Hanson made a motion, which was seconded by Mr. Chapman, for the VAB to upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and approve the assessed value in the amount of $26,775 for Petition 1996-275-L, Philip E. Glidden, based on the lack of extenuating circumstances to overturn the recommendation of the Property Appraiser.

Under discussion, Commr. Good stated that the issue was late filing, and the information provided by the Property Appraiser's Office indicated that it had been a late filing.

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

PETITION 1996-268 HARWOOD E. FISH

Mr. Frank Royce, Chief Deputy, Property Appraiser, stated that Mr. Fish was contesting the value on his new home built during 1995, on a piece of property that he petitioned to this Board last year. The property was located in Bright Water Place on lakefront, and on the northshore of Lake Eustis.

Mr. Harwood Fish addressed the Board and stated that the home was appraised for $296,792. He paid $174,423 for the house, and it was built in 1995. He stated that this was shown in the contract and closing statements, and when a fully informed buyer and seller have acted in good faith at arms length, the transaction was conclusive evidence of value, as explained in the Florida Statutes. Mr. Fish stated that the land increased to $69,751 last year, and this year it has increased to $71,209, based on comparables from other locations, according to Mr. Havill's staff. He stated that there were 20 comparables from Bright Water Place, which were the best indication of value. The comparables from Mr. Havill's staff were from other lakefront divisions with larger, flatter lots, and different conditions. He stated that Bright Water Place began in 1990 and was marketed as a country club type development, but the developer was unable to complete the infrastructure and amenities, which has lowered the value of the remaining lots. He noted that a chart had been provided that reflected the proposed Grand Island Tennis Club. Mr. Fish noted that, in 1990, it was $7.08 a square foot, but it dropped to $5.67 in 1991; $5.46 in 1993; and $4.97 in 1994. He noted that there were no sales in 1992. He also noted that, in 1995 and 1996, the amount increased to $6.21, which excluded the 1996 sale, which could not be considered, due to the date. The 1995 sale average per square foot of the lot was $6.05.

He stated that his Lot 12, which was 10,020 square feet, would be either $62,224 using the 1995-96 sales, or $56,012 using the 1994 figure. Mr. Fish stated that the lot next door has been for sale over three years, and the current asking price was $69,900. Mr. Fish discussed the house that was built on Lot 7 approximately 18 months ago, and stated that it has not been sold. He noted that the Property Appraiser's Office has claimed that, since some of the lots in his subdivision were sold at auction, the sales would not comparable. Mr. Fish stated that he has an appraisal from a certified appraiser on his lot for $55,000, which he paid for it.

Mr. Royce explained that sales have been occurring in the Bright Water Place from 1990 through 1995. Because the subdivision was not developed as a country club, there had been two official auctions of lots primarily in 1990 and 1991. Mr. Royce explained that Mr. Fish had an appraisal by a licensed appraiser using three $55,000 auctioned sales. The Property Appraiser's Office does not look at auctioned sales, Certificates of Title, or Sheriff's Deeds, as a clear trend in the market value with these properties. Mr. Royce noted that Lot 2 sold for $80,000 in 1995; Lot 4 was a resale in 1995 for $66,000. He stated that the following lots were sold in Westgate Subdivision: Lot 2 sold in 1994 for $96,500; and Lot 5 sold in 1994 for $75,000. He then looked at the lots in South Shores on Lake Eustis where the lots were selling in the mid-80s. Mr. Royce noted the following lots that were sold at auction in Bright Water Place: Lot 1, Lot 3, Lot 4 (resold for $66,000), Lot 5, Lot 6, Lot 7 ($75,000), Lot 8 ($70,000), Lot 10 ($83,000), Lot 13 ($57,500, Lot 14 ($57,500), Lot 16 ($82,900), Lot 17 ($67,200).

Mr. Fish stated that Lot 1 was twice the size of his lot, when his was 10,000 square feet of buildable property compared to 25,000 square feet. He further stated that Lot 4 was 11,469 square feet.

Mr. Fish questioned Mr. Royce about items that he considered when developing the proposed assessment on his property.

Mr. Royce explained that Mr. Fish had an attorney, Mr. Crawford, who he met with twice, and the request made by the Property Appraiser's Office for additional information had not been fulfilled.

Mr. Fish stated that he had to ask certain questions of Mr. Royce, because according to the law, if certain issues were considered, or the Appraiser seemed unfair about certain categories, or the Appraiser did not know the square footage of the lot, the advantage would be his, because if the Property Appraiser did not consider all eight factors, as listed in Florida Statutes Section 193.011, including income, which Mr. Royce stated he did not consider, then the presumption of correctness would vanish.

Mr. Royce explained that the current assessment of the total property was $296,792. The land was being assessed at $71,209, and the home it self was $199,825. He stated that the pool, the dock, the screen enclosure and the pool deck was $25,758.

Mr. Fish felt that the assessment should be $174,423, which was the contract price of the house and included the pool, the dock, and the boathouse.

Mr. Royce stated that he had comparables on the house and lot where he had broken it down in different ways. Mr. Royce stated that he needed to respond to the statement that Mr. Fish had furnished to him with the contract. He Royce explained that there were allowances that were listed on the contract, as well as the change orders, so he asked Mr. Fish's attorney to provide him with a closing statement from the builder showing the final payout on the construction of the home, which he has not received.

Commr. Hanson stated that, because the VAB did not have any information really to the contrary on the house, she would make the following motion:

Commr. Hanson made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Good, to adjust the Property Appraiser's recommendation by $16,000, to $280,792, which would affectively reduce the value of the lot.

Under discussion, Commr. Good stated that the motion was based on the comparable sales from 1994 and 1995, and there seemed to be lower sales in the area that would be considered this year.

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

COMMISSIONERS

At 3:33 p.m., Commr. Cadwell turned the chairmanship over to Commr. Good.

PETITION 1996-236 ELISABETH W. DUMONT

Mr. Frank Royce, Chief Deputy, Property Appraiser's Office, stated that Ms. Dumont was contesting the assessment of her home, which was in Leesburg in Kingson Park Subdivision.

Ms. Elisabeth Dumont stated that she was addressing the fact that she put an unattached garage to the house, and the increase to the value was approximately $17,000, and the garage had only cost her $13,000.

Mr. Frank Royce, Chief Deputy, Property Appraiser's Office, stated that the garage was 1,056 square feet. He explained that the carport had not been assessed in the past, so now it was being called an open porch and being assessed. He noted that the roofed in area plus the garage was over 1,200 square feet. Mr. Royce explained that several things that had been overlooked in the past, so the assessed value went up approximately $17,000 this year, from $50,962 to $67,061. The permitted amount for the new construction was $21,120. He stated that he had three comparable sales in the area that showed sales in the mid 60s for smaller homes, to the low 70s. Mr. Royce noted that the figures indicated $13.79 per square foot, which he felt was within the range of the cost, and he has to look at the value that was being created, not what someone pays to do their own work. Mr. Royce stated that comparables were done on lots in Kingson Park and Whispering Pines, with the lowest sale being in 1995 for $64,500, and it was 140 square feet less in living area, eight years older, has a smaller lot and carport without a garage. He noted that another one sold for $71,900, which had the exact amount of living area, three years older, has a carport, no garage, and the lot was smaller.

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, 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 $67,061 for Petition 1996-236, Elisabeth W. Dumont, based on the findings of fact and lack of sufficient evidence to overturn the recommendation of the Property Appraiser.

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

PETITION 1996-278-L C. E. MIDDLEBROOKS

PETITION 1996-279-L C. E. MIDDLEBROOKS



Mr. Frank Royce, Chief Deputy, Property Appraiser's Office,

stated that Mr. Middlebrooks was contesting the value on the real estate in one petition, and the value of the tangible personal property in the other. Mr. Royce noted that both petitions were filed late, as of yesterday.

Mr. C. E. Middlebrooks addressed the Board to present extenuating circumstances as to why both petitions were filed late. He stated that he did not receive the proposed tax assessment until October 1, 1996. It was sent to a former residence in Orlando, and he has not lived there for three years. In December, 1994, he moved from 3807 Venice Drive in Orlando, and at that time, he notified the Lake County Health Department, Lake County Pollution Control, and the Tax Assessor of his new address. Apparently through some clerical error through the Tax Assessor's Office, the correct address was only picked up on two of his assessments. When he received the notification, it looked as though it had been around the world. The house in Orlando has been sold to two elderly people, who are legally blind, and therefore, could not have processed the information accordingly.

Mr. Royce noted that Mr. Middlebrooks was contesting the personal property tangible, which did go to his correct address.

Mr. Middlebrooks stated that the petitions were linked, because the tangible consisted mostly of the wastewater treatment plant, collection lines, water plant, and distribution lines associated with the park.

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, 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 $612,978 for Petition 1996-279-L, E. C. Middlebrooks, based on the lack of extenuating circumstances for late filing.

Commr. Hanson made a motion, which was seconded by Mr. Chapman, to uphold the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and approve the assessed value in the amount of $1,483,172, for Petition 1996-278-L, E. C. Middlebrooks, based on the lack of extenuating circumstances for late filing.

Under discussion, Commr. Good noted that Mr. Middlebrooks did receive the notices at the Sorrento address prior to the first of October.

The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried unanimously by a 3-0 vote.

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

PETITION 1996-61 ALAN JOEL MENAHEM

PETITION 1996-62 ALAN JOEL MENAHEM (CONTINUED

Mr. Robbie Ross, Personal Property and Agricultural Operations Director, Property Appraiser's Office, informed the VAB that he talked to Mr. Menahem who indicated that he had been injured in 1981, and he had surgery in July, 1995 and in December, 1995. In 1996, he had more problems and another operation, which put him in a brace for four months, which would have put him into the late filing of the agricultural application. In August, 1996, he had two surgeries, and he was in a brace for six months, with another six months scheduled for rehabilitation.

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Mr. Chapman and carried unanimously, the VAB approved to open the case for discussion, due to extenuating circumstances for late filing.

Mr. Ross stated that the property in question was located in Altoona. Mr. Menahem filed for an agricultural classification for timber, but the property was actually scrub oaks, and not planted in pine. He stated that he would not qualify for the classification of timber on his ten acres. Mr. Ross noted that the acreage has never qualified for agriculture.

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, 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 classification, for both petitions, based on the findings of fact and lack of sufficient evidence to overturn the recommendation of denial.

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

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Mr. Chapman and carried unanimously by a 3-0 vote, with Commr. Cadwell not being present for the discussion or vote, the Board upheld the recommendations of the Property Appraiser and approved the following assessed values, for all of the no show cases:

1996-79-L Leonard R. Blazick $78,177

1996-88-L Kay Jay Ltd. $211,230

1996-107-L Peter E. Plate $44,208

1996-135-L Sally M. Gawron $32,157

1996-220 Kimco Realty Corp. $440,372

1996-166-L Thomas V. Polk $69,469

1996-221 Dr. Raouf B. Raphael $121,671

1996-222 Dr. R. B. Raphael $26,964

1996-223 Dr. R. B. Raphael $133,376

1996-224 Dr. R. B. Raphael $20,223

1996-225 Dr. R. B. Raphael $79,387

1996-226 Dr. R. Raphael $25,544

1996-227 Dr. R. B. Raphael $220,274

1996-228 Dr. R. B. Raphael $91,564

1996-229 Dr. R. B. Raphael $245,450

1996-230 Dr. R. B. Raphael $264,161

1996-231 Dr. Raouf B. Raphael $174,131

1996-232 Dr. R. B. Raphael $176,125

1996-233 Dr. R. B. Raphael $112,331

1996-237 Emmet Nichols $10,050



VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD MEETINGS

Another Value Adjustment Board meeting was scheduled for October 15, 1996, at 8:45 a.m., to approve the minutes and to certify the tax roll.

There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the VAB, the meeting was adjourned at 4:05 p.m.



WELTON G. CADWELL, CHAIRMAN



ATTEST:







JAMES C. WATKINS, CLERK



TMR\BOARDMIN\VAB96\10-3-96\10-11-96