The Lake County Value Adjustment Board met in regular session on Wednesday, September 27, 2000, 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 and Catherine C. Hanson, Vice Chairman. Commissioners not present at the meeting: Robert A. Pool. Lake County School Board members present at the meeting were: Mary Fletcher and Gerald Smith. Others present were: Sanford A. Minkoff, County Attorney; Ed Havill, Property Appraiser; Frank Royce, Chief Deputy, Property Appraiser's Office; Robbie Ross, Tangible Personal Property and Agricultural Operations Director, Property Appraiser's Office; and Toni M. Riggs, Deputy Clerk.
MINUTES
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Mr. Smith and carried unanimously by a 4-0 vote, the VAB approved the Minutes of August 24, 2000 as presented.
PETITION NO. 2000-150 - NEAL MCCULLOH
Mr. Frank Royce, Chief Deputy, Property Appraiser's Office, explained that a letter had been received from Clayton & McCulloh requesting a postponement, because they were unable to obtain additional and critical information to provide to the Property Appraiser's Office within the time requirements. Mr. Royce noted that the Property Appraiser has yet to receive any information from them. It was noted that the petitioner did receive timely notice to appear.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Mr. Smith and carried unanimously by a 4-0 vote, the VAB denied the request for postponement, Petition No. 1000-150, Neal McCulloh, and to hear the case as scheduled, September 28, 2000 at 11:15 a.m..
PETITION NO. 2000-10 - ROBERT E. DELEON & DONALD K. DELEON
Mr. Frank Royce, Chief Deputy, Property Appraiser's Office, explained that the petitioner filed for the agricultural exemption on March 30, 2000. Pursuant to Florida Statutes, the deadline to file is March 1st.
Commr. Cadwell clarified that the VAB would be hearing the petitioner on the late file issue before it decided whether it would address the denial of the agricultural exemption.
Mr. Robert DeLeon explained that he was traveling back and forth from Lake County to south Florida, and he discovered that there was a lot of paperwork that had not been addressed. Mr. DeLeon stated that they have been in business for more than 20 years in south Florida. He stated that he knew he was filing late, and unfortunately things got misplaced and part of that was their fault.
Commr. Cadwell explained that historically this Board has viewed extenuating circumstances as a grave illness, being mentally incapable of knowing that you were supposed to do it, and he stated that the Florida Statute is very clear, in terms of what things can be excused.
Mr. DeLeon stated that they just bought the property in July, and possibly, because he was out of town, the information was misplaced.
Commr. Hanson made a motion, which was seconded by Mr. Smith, to uphold the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and deny the agricultural exemption, Petition 2000-10, Robert E. DeLeon and Donald K. DeLeon, based on the March 1st deadline, and the petitioner failing to demonstrate extenuating circumstances for filing late.
Under comments, Commr. Hanson stated that, for whatever reasons Mr. DeLeon was denied the agricultural classification, she was sure that staff would work with him and let him know what he needed to do to get that approval for next year, in addition to him filing on time.
The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried unanimously by a 4-0 vote.
PETITION NO. 2000-54 - ALICE K. GRIMES
Mr. Frank Royce, Chief Deputy, Property Appraiser's Office, explained that this was more of a valuation than an agricultural case. Mr. Royce stated that the petitioner has almost five acres of property, and she is receiving the agricultural classification on 1.5 acres, which is a grove. The 3.38 acres is being assessed at fair market value, so there was an increase in value this year.
Ms. Alice Grimes appeared before the VAB and stated that the increase is unfair, because the assessed value increased from $8,598 (last year), to $22,794. Ms. Grimes stated that, after discussing this with the Property Appraiser's Office, the amount was reduced from $23,275 to $13,081 on one parcel. She stated that the property has remained unchanged, and there are no buildings on it. She further stated that they bought the additional 165 acres, because it adjoined their property. She explained that the area, where the trees are located, is a "cold pocket", and the road is not paved.
Mr. Royce noted that the current assessment is $22,794 for almost five acres of property. He explained that there is only 1.5 acres of grove on the property, on north Buckhill Road. He stated that there have been a lot of sales in that area ranging from $6,660 an acre to $8,594 an acre, for five acre parcels. Mr. Royce explained that, to keep up with the market, the land that is not under the classification had to be increased to market value.
Ms. Grimes explained that they bought the property for agriculture, because it adjoined their grove. She explained that, because it was a "cold pocket", the trees never survived. She also felt that, because there is a trailer home next to the property, it cannot possibly increase the value of her property.
Mr. Royce explained that, in 1995, the petitioner paid $26,000 for the property, and the value of acreage is not increasing that much in this area, but the value has been there. The total value with the 1.5 acres of grove is $24,294. The agricultural classification reduces it by $1,500. He pointed out that those acres could be put into some other kind of agricultural use, even though there is a "cold pocket".
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Mr. Smith and carried unanimously by a 4-0 vote, the VAB upheld the assessment of the Property Appraiser, Petition 2000-54, Alice K. Grimes, based on the petitioner's failure to show evidence to overturn the Property Appraiser's presumption of correctness.
PETITION NO. 2000-55L - KENNETH HUFFSTUTLER
Mr. Frank Royce, Chief Deputy, Property Appraiser's Office, explained that the petitioner filed for the agricultural classification on September 1, 2000. Pursuant to Florida Statutes, the deadline to file is March 1st.
Mr. Kenneth Huffstutler appeared before the VAB and stated that this is the first time that he has owned property, and most of the property in question is wetlands. Mr. Huffstutler stated that the property was placed in a trust for his children, because of his health problems, and his attorney was taking care of his affairs. He stated that his attorney moved to Washington, and once his attorney received the information, it was forwarded to him. He stated that he did not know that there was an agricultural classification, or that he had to file for the classification.
Commr. Hanson stated that she felt there were extenuating circumstances, but she requested clarification of the issue, in regards to what Mr. Huffstutler actually received from his attorney.
Mr. Royce explained that a deed was recorded in 1999, and the address was taken off of the deed. Mr. Huffstutler filed for his homestead exemption, and he actually received his trim notice in the mail.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Mr. Smith and carried unanimously by a 4-0 vote, the VAB upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and denied the agricultural exemption, Petition 2000-55L, Kenneth Huffstutler, based on the March 1st deadline, and the petitioner failing to demonstrate extenuating circumstances for filing late.
PETITION NO. 2000-56L - JOHN R. TOON AND JOB S. TOON
PETITION NO. 2000-57L - JOHN R. TOON AND JOB S. TOON
Mr. Frank Royce, Chief Deputy, Property Appraiser's Office, explained that the petitioners filed for the agricultural exemption on September 6, 2000. Pursuant to Florida Statutes, the deadline to file is March 1st.
Mr. John Toon appeared before the VAB and stated that, from what he received in the mail, he thought his property was being considered for the classification.
Mr. Robbie Ross, Tangible Personal Property and Agricultural Operations Director, Property Appraiser's Office, stated that the petitioner purchased two lots that are planted with pines. The sale occurred in late December, and the previous owner received the agricultural classification renewal cards and sent them to the Property Appraiser's Office. In the process of changing the deed information into Mr. Toon's name, Mr. Toon received the receipt that should have gone to the previous owner. Because Mr. Toon purchased the property in 1999, he is required to make an application on the property for the year 2000. Mr. Ross noted that, even if Mr. Toon had filed for the classification, the Property Appraiser would have denied the classification.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Mr. Smith and carried unanimously by a 4-0 vote, the VAB approved to hear Petitions 2000-56L and 2000-57L, John R. and Job S. Toon, for the late file.
Mr. Ross explained that the inspection of the property found that it was properly planted for pine trees. He stated that Lot 4 was 5.09 acres and Lot 5 was 5.1 acres, and the acreage for each lot is above the five acre minimum requirement to enable the Property Appraiser's Office to consider granting the agricultural classification for planting pines. The zoning of the property is R-1-A, and the sale price for both parcels was $60,000, or $5,888 per acre. This sale is comparable to the purchase price paid for other lots in the subdivision. Mr. Ross stated that, Florida Statute 193.461(4)(c) states that the sale of land for a purchase price that is three or more times the agricultural assessment placed on a land shall create a presumption that such land is not used primarily for bona fide agricultural purposes. The amount of $4,650 would be the three times the agricultural assessment placed on the land and the maximum amount that a buyer could pay without losing the presumption that such land is being used primarily for bona fide agricultural purposes. Mr. Ross noted that one piece of property is assessed at $25,654, and the other one is comparable.
Mr. Frank Royce, Chief Deputy, Property Appraiser's Office, explained that the assessment, disregarding the agricultural assessment, is based on the market.
Mr. Ross stated that the market value has increased in this area from sales ranging from $33,000 to $33,500 for five acre parcels. The petitioner's parcel has been annexed into the City of Leesburg, and a new home is being constructed on Lot 3, which is next to one of his parcels.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Mr. Smith and carried unanimously by a 4-0 vote, the VAB upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and denied the agricultural classification in both Petition 2000-56L and Petition 2000-57L, John R. and Job S. Toon, based on the purchase price being three or more times the agricultural assessment on the land, which creates a presumption that such land is not used primarily for bona fide agricultural purposes.
PETITION NO. 2000-68 - PHYLLIS B. CROSS
Ms. Phyllis Cross addressed the VAB and stated that her assessed value was raised more than 3% for new construction. Ms. Cross stated that, over 20 years ago, she enclosed part of her porch. She referred to copies of the Florida Statutes, which she presented to the Board, and noted the duties of the Property Appraiser. Ms. Cross stated that the Property Appraiser is required to inspect physically the property every three years to ensure that the tax roll meets all of the requirements of law. She was told by the Property Appraiser that her property had not be appraised in over 20 years. She noted information she had presented regarding a court case, Smith v. Welton, which stated the following: "The Supreme Court held that appraisers lacked authority to reach back and correct erroneous calculation of base year "just value" assessment and then apply that corrected value to subsequent years." Ms. Cross requested that her assessed value be returned to 3% of what it had been previously.
Mr. Frank Royce, Chief Deputy, Property Appraiser's Office, presented the Board information that explained that the increase in assessed value was due to a general reappraisal of the area, and to the discovery of portions of the home not previously assessed. The increase added approximately 173 square feet of heated and cooled area and 252 square feet of unheated area, which was not previously on the tax roll. Mr. Royce referred to Florida Statute 193.155(8)(a), and stated that assessments for subsequent years shall be corrected. He explained that the addition of square footage of living area not previously assessed is a material mistake of fact and should be added to the tax roll, and whereas the Statute states "may"be corrected, this office does not wish to pursue the issue back taxes.
Ms. Cross stated that she has a problem with the word "new" construction, since it is over 20 years old, and it was merely a enclosure and not adding square footage. The house has the same square footage as it did when it was built.
Mr. Royce explained that "new" meant it was new to the tax roll. He noted that the value changed in 1982, 1983, 1985, 1986, 1991, 1995, 1997 and this year.
Ms. Cross stated that she was not responsible for an appraiser that misses something when he is assessing property. She was requesting that the assessed value be returned to the same amount, so that it is only 3%.
On a motion by Mr. Smith, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously by a 4-0 vote, the VAB upheld the assessment of the Property Appraiser, Petition No. 2000-68, Phyllis B. Cross, based on the petitioner's failure to show evidence to overturn the Property Appraiser's presumption of correctness, and pursuant to Florida Statute 193.155(8), as noted.
PETITION NO. 2000-28 - KATHLEEN M. DOUGLAS
PETITION NO. 2000-29 - KATHLEEN M. DOUGLAS
PETITION NO. 2000-30 - KATHLEEN M. DOUGLAS
Mr. Frank Royce, Chief Deputy, Property Appraiser's Office, explained that the petitioner filed for the agricultural classification on March 27, 2000. Pursuant to Florida Statutes the deadline to file is March 1st. He noted that Ms. Douglas had requested a postponement from the August 24, 2000 VAB meeting.
Ms. Kathleen Douglas appeared before the VAB and stated that the extenuating circumstances for filing late involved health issues. Ms. Douglas stated that, when she and her husband first bought the property, they were given an agricultural classification and assumed that it was in place, even though they had to pay approximately $5,000 two years in a row. The previous owner of the property had the classification and told them that the property taxes would be a minimal amount. She stated that there has been a lot of hardship associated with this property. She further stated that they have owned the property for about eight years, and they have had the classification over the years.
Mr. Robbie Ross, Tangible Personal Property and Agricultural Operations Director, explained that the petitioner purchased the property in November, 1991, and the first time she applied for the agricultural classification was in 1996. He noted that the green card was mailed, but it was never returned to the appraiser's office.
Ms. Douglas explained that her husband was diagnosed in March with cancer, and he was operated on in April. She did not remember receiving the card for renewal of the classification.
Commr. Hanson made a motion to uphold the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and deny the agricultural classification, based on the March 1st deadline, and the petitioner failing to demonstrate extenuating circumstances.
Mr. Ross explained that the petitioners have been paying high taxes, because of the market value in that area. He stated that they paid $59,000 for each five acre parcel.
The motion was seconded by Ms. Fletcher, to uphold the recommendation of the Property Appraiser.
The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried unanimously by a 4-0 vote.
PETITION NO. 2000-71 - JAMES L. & GRACE M. PARKER
Mr. James Parker appeared before the VAB and stated that he had information regarding comparable properties on Hook Street, which he presented to the Board. Mr. Parker stated that the appraisals ranged from $43,627 to $95,642. The information he presented was broken down into assessed value, land value, and value of each one of his comparable properties located on Hook Street. Mr. Parker presented 31 pictures consisting of homes in the area, as well as the condition of his swimming pool and deck. He stated that his house is assessed at $95,642, as follows: the land is $16,400, the shed is $4,000, the deck is $267, the pool, pool deck and screen room is $10,008. He discussed the pool area of his home and stated that it was an eyesore, as shown by the pictures. Mr. Parker stated that he has owned his home since 1988. He explained that the house located at 700 Hook Street is assessed at $54,431and the house located at 720 Hook Street is assessed at $74,617. He stated that there is a difference of $9,776 between his assessment and the house directly next door, and they are basically the same. His house is assessed at $24,000 more than the house at 700 Hook Street.
Mr. Frank Royce, Chief Deputy, Property Appraiser's Office, noted that Mr. Parker's current assessment is $95,642 and last year it was $96,333.
Mr. Parker explained that there was a church and a school approximately 150 feet from his property, and just past the church, approximately 300 feet away, there is an 80 unit, three story motel, and adjacent to the motel is a commercial lot. He stated that less than 250 feet from his house is a vintage trailer park, and to the south approximately 300 feet from his property are several houses that are valued less than $35,000. He could not understand how he could be assessed at $95,642 when he is surrounded by these types of properties. Mr. Parker stated that his pool is in deplorable condition, and he felt there needed to be some adjustments.
Mr. Royce discussed the house located at 720 Hook Street and stated that the house does not have a pool, and it is smaller, and in 1988, the same year that Mr. Parker bought his house, the house at 720 Hook Street sold for $72,000. He stated that, even though Mr. Parker feels that the pool is deteriorating, it still adds value to the home. Mr. Royce stated that there have been some sales in the area, such as the house at 743 Oak Drive, which sold in May, 1999, for $80,000, and it does not have a pool.
Mr. Smith reviewed the picture of the house located at 720 Hook Street, and stated that, when looking at this house, in relation to Mr. Parker's house, he has a hard time believing that it is $20,000 higher in assessed value today.
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, stated that Property Appraiser's valuation comes to the VAB with the presumption of correctness, however, through the facts that have been given to the VAB at the hearing, if it finds that it needs to make a change, the VAB has the ability to change it.
Mr. Royce stated that the value of the home was lowered this year, based on Mr. Parker indicating that he does not use the detached garage as a garage, so it was reclassified as a utility building.
Mr. Smith stated that he was familiar with Hook Street and the neighborhood.
Mr. Smith made a motion to overturn the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and reduce the assessment by $10,000, to 85,642, Petition No. 2000-71, James L. and Grace M. Parker, to allow for the pool and improvements, which will make it $10,000 above the assessment of the home located at 720 Hook Street.
Under discussion, Mr. Royce requested clarification of the Statute being used for the reduction in the assessment.
Mr. Minkoff stated that he did not believe that the VAB members had to quote the Statute, but if the facts are that the information given on the adjacent properties that are similar in nature have been appraised at lower values, that would be the basis.
Mr. Smith clarified that the $85,642 was a more adequate value to be placed on the home considering the condition of the neighborhood.
Commr. Hanson seconded the motion.
The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried unanimously by a 4-0 vote.
PETITION NO. 2000-74 - STANLEY H. AND LOUISE R. WILLIAMS
Mr. Frank Royce, Chief Deputy, Property Appraiser's Office, explained that the petitioner was appealing the value of a piece of property in Astor Forest Campsites. Mr. Royce stated that Ms. Williams has four lots on a canal, and all of the lots are around a shared pond with an artesian well. He noted that Ms. Williams will explain to the VAB that the property is in litigation, but as of January 1st this year, the appraiser's office was dealing with four lots of record.
Ms. Louise Williams appeared before the VAB and stated that, at first, she thought the property should be assessed at $50,000, but now she feels that, until the lawsuit is settled, it should remain at what it was assessed for in the past. Ms. Williams explained that the lots were not created at the beginning of the year, and if she cannot enjoy the property, until the lawsuit is settled, they are of no value to her. She further explained that the value was there when it was assessed for public use. Ms. Williams stated that, at that time, it was only assessed at $11,025 and now it is being assessed at $117,500.
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, stated that the basis of the suit is that the property cannot be used privately, and that it is for the use of all of the people that own lots in the development.
Commr. Hanson stated that it was not fair that Ms. Williams pay those taxes, if the property could go back to common ownership.
Ms. Williams stated that she feels she should be allowed to own the property, or she would not have purchased it. She stated that, in 1977, the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD) cited this area for abandoned restrooms containing open sewer pipes, and now the SJRWMD wants those wells permanently sealed. She further stated that she has gotten an estimate to have that done, but until the case is closed, she is not going to put any more money into it. Ms. Williams noted that the lawsuit started in February, and she paid $15,000 for the property.
Mr. Royce stated that the plat of this particular area has always said that it was a public swimming area, and it was always considered by the homeowners, and the appraiser's office, as a common area, or a public area, and that is why the assessment was low. He stated that, when Ms. Williams bought the four lots, the appraiser's office had to look at the selling price for lots that were on the canal, which were in the $40,000 range, and that is how they based the value. Mr. Royce stated that, since that time, Ms. Williams has filed for a Unity of Title combining all of the lots into one. He noted that the lots have been $11,025 for ten to twelve years, and now there is an owner.
Commr. Hanson made a motion, which was seconded by Mr. Smith, to overturn the recommendation of the Property Appraiser, in Petition 2000-74, Stanley H. and Louise R. Williams, and to appraise the property at $15,000 at this time, pending the lawsuit.
Under discussion, Commr. Cadwell stated that his only concern is that Ms. Williams is moving forward with the property with the assumption of ownership, and she is getting a Unity of Title. He felt that, unless there was some type of injunction, she would be able to sell the property again.
The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried by a 3-1 vote.
Commr. Cadwell voted "no".
PETITION NO. 2000-166 - DONALD G. AND MARGARET H. WEAVER
Mr. Frank Royce, Chief Deputy, Property Appraiser's Office, explained that the petitioner is contesting the valuation of their home in Lake Crescent View, Clermont.
Mr. Donald Weaver appeared before the VAB and stated that he and his wife moved into their home in 1999. Mr. Weaver stated that their assessment went from $132,872 to $144,330 in one year. Mr. Weaver explained that he built the house for $81,000, and he added the $4,500 improvement, which was a sunroom on the back of the house, which would bring the value of the house to approximately $86,000. He noted that he paid $24,000 for the lot, which would bring the assessment to approximately $112,000. Mr. Weaver stated that he sold another house on Anderson Hill a few years ago, because they wanted a smaller place where they could afford the taxes, but the taxes on this house turned out to be more. He looked at some of the immediate properties in the area, which ranged from $70,000 to $80,000 although they were built many years ago, and stated that it seems his appraisal is out of line of what they expected.
Mr. Royce explained that they met with Mr. Weaver and re-measured his house and made some adjustments, and the trim notice went out in the amount of $144,330. Today the appraiser is looking at $134,330. He noted that a comparable lot in Crescent View is Lot 8, which was built in 1964, and it recently sold for $144,900, and they were being assessed for a pool in the amount of $6,458.
Mr. Weaver stated that he would be very unhappy, if the record reflected that the appraiser's office had reduced his assessment by $10,000. He stated that he has never had an appraisal done of his property, but he has an insurance policy on the house, for approximately $130,000.
On a motion by Mr. Smith, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously by a 4-0 vote, the VAB upheld assessment of the Property Appraiser, in the amount of $134,330, Petition No. 2000-166, Donald G. and Margaret H. Weaver, based on the petitioner's failure to show evidence to overturn the Property Appraiser's presumption of correctness.
PETITION 2000-94 - JAMES S. BASSETT
Mr. Frank Royce, Chief Deputy, Property Appraiser's Office, explained that the petitioner is contesting the valuation of his home in Griffin Village, Howey.
Mr. James Bassett appeared before the VAB and stated that he had already presented information for consideration to the Property Appraiser, which he would be referring to at this time. Mr. Bassett explained that Addendum #1 made reference to the appraiser's web site and the issue of Fair Market Value; Addendum #2 addresses Value Change From Year to Year; Addendum #3 addresses Save our Homes; and Addendum #4 addresses Appraised Value Question. Mr. Bassett stated that his home was built in 1986-1987 for approximately $100,000 including the lot. He stated that 13 years later, in 1999, the Fair Market Value listed by the appraiser's office was $120,101, which was a 20% increase over the 13 year life of the house, which was about 1.5% a year increase. As of January 1st, his market value rose to $142,119, which is an 18.3% increase in one year. Mr. Bassett presented three comparable pieces of property on Lakeshore Boulevard, which he reviewed with the VAB, and noted that the first property was purchased in 1989 for $108,000 and the 1999 Fair Market Value was $104,579; the second property was sold in 1994 for $139,000 and the 1999 Fair Market Value was $130,609; and the third property was sold in 1999 for $160,000 and the 1999 Fair Market Value was $143,276. Mr. Bassett stated that clearly Lake County has a problem evaluating and taxing property fairly. He stated that it was clear that all 123,000 parcels within the County were not evaluated equitably every year. Mr. Bassett stated that the Property Appraiser's web site stated that 3% is the maximum that any home should increase in assessed value year to year, and his house should be evaluated at no more than $123,704.03 for the year 2000. He stated that it would appear that the methodology for appraising property in Lake County is somewhat flawed, and the appraiser's office needs to take the initiative to make it more equitable. An assessment over 3%, when a property sells, is not justified, or fair to the buyer, if other properties of similar value are not changing ownership, or appreciated accordingly. Mr. Bassett stated that, if the selling price is the primary method in justification for increases in Fair Market Value and the way that the appraiser arrives at increases, then the need for six appraisers in the appraiser's office may be somewhat questionable. He stated that he would recommend closer attention by the appraiser's office in comparing values of surrounding properties in arriving at fair assessments. Mr. Bassett clarified that he was not saying that his house was not worth what he paid for it.
Commr. Hanson stated that Mr. Bassett agrees that his house is worth $160,000, and he understands the Save Our Homes legislation enough to know that this is the only time that the appraiser has the time to correct the evaluation, at the time of sale, and that is the time that it is going to go up more than the 3%, otherwise it would never go up more than 3% a year, and the discrepancies would become greater and greater between valuation and taxable.
Mr. Bassett addressed Addendum #3 and stated that the Save Our Homes was implemented the first time in 1995, and the 3% homestead property assessment limitation is a constitutional benefit approved by Florida voters in 1992, which places a limitation of 3% on any annual assessment increase on homestead properties in Florida. He stated that his property was homesteaded a year before he bought it, and it continues to be homesteaded. Mr. Bassett explained that there was nothing in the appraiser's web site that indicates that it goes off when the house is sold. He explained that the Property Appraiser in Duvall County, went through the County tax rolls, and on the inspection of the properties, he made adjustments on all of the property values, in the early 1990s. He stated that, if the appraiser in Lake County had adjusted his taxes 3% per year, it would be where it is today, but it was only increased 1.5% a year.
Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, explained that the Property Appraiser in Duval County probably went through his tax rolls, because he was ordered to do so by the Department of Revenue. Mr. Havill explained that, in 1992, Amendment 10 was passed by the voters of Florida, not by the Property Appraisers of Florida, and it wound up in court, and by 1995, there was a base year. He stated that, if his web site does not say when a house is sold, the new owner goes to market value, it will be put on there tomorrow. He explained that people who had homestead was raised at 3%, or the Consumer Price Index (CPI), whichever was less, for each of the years between 1995 and 2000. When the properties were improved, as part of Amendment 10, during the year of improvement, that addition was put on at market value while the rest of the property was capped at 3%, or the CPI. Once the property sells, the appraiser has to put it to market value, and that is what happened to Mr. Bassett. Mr. Havill stated that he was against Amendment 10 when it passed in 1992, because he knew this was going to happen, and that is what is wrong with Amendment 10. Mr. Havill stated that Mr. Bassett's assessment is fair, and it complies with Florida law.
Commr. Hanson suggested that it may be possible for the Property Appraiser's Office to link their web site into the actual legislation, so that people can be referred to the actual Florida Statute.
On a motion by Mr. Smith, seconded by Ms. Fletcher and carried unanimously by a 4-0 vote, the VAB upheld the assessment of the Property Appraiser, Petition 2000-94, James S. Bassett, based on the petitioner's failure to show evidence to overturn the Property Appraiser's presumption of correctness.
RECESS & REASSEMBLY
At 10:45 a.m., the Chairman announced that the VAB would take a ten minute recess.
PETITION NO. 2000-28 - KATHLEEN M. DOUGLAS
PETITION NO. 2000-29 - KATHLEEN M. DOUGLAS
PETITION NO. 2000-30 - KATHLEEN M. DOUGLAS
Commr. Cadwell informed the VAB that he was approached by Ms. Kathleen Douglas who indicated that she had some additional information that she would like to present to the members. He told her that they would need it in writing. Commr. Cadwell explained that, under the rules, the member who made the motion to uphold the Property Appraiser's recommendation can make a motion to readdress the case.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Ms. Fletcher and carried unanimously by a 4-0 vote, the VAB approved to re-address Petitions 2000-28, 2000-29, and 2000-30, Kathleen M. Douglas.
Commr. Cadwell explained that, due to the stress that Ms. Douglas has been under, she informed him that she had gotten her dates wrong, in regards to when her husband was ill, and she would like to have an opportunity to present it in writing, for the VAB's consideration. He stated that the case would be rescheduled to September 28, 2000, at 9 a.m..
It was noted that the case would be left open, until the scheduled time noted by the VAB.
PETITION NO. 2000-104 - DANIEL A. AND GOLDIE L. WILSON TRUST
Mr. Frank Royce, Chief Deputy, Property Appraiser's Office, explained that the petitioner is protesting his assessment on his home, which is located on Wesley Road east of Eustis.
Mr. Daniel Wilson appeared before the VAB and stated that he had pictures to present to the VAB for consideration (12 total). Mr. Wilson explained that Mr. David Narrow, Property Appraiser's Office, and his assistant, were shown through his house, but the only suggestion of change in appraisal was a mistaken living area space. He stated that Wesley Road is a main entrance, and it is a dirt road that is three-tenths of a mile long subject to water coverage. He further stated that the sides of the road are never mowed by the County, and the vegetation is now seven feet tall. Mr. Wilson discussed the building next to his property and stated that it has never met the RR zoning criteria. Since 1982, the Building Code Enforcement has never required its removal. He stated that the building effects the value of his property. Mr. Wilson stated that they have tried to screen it, but it is difficult to screen a 12 foot high building. In 1974, a woman bought the parcel, and her request for a building permit was rejected, because it did not meet the RR requirements, but in the 1980s, the owner built the building in three sections and has never been required to remove it.
COMMISSIONERS
At 11:13 a.m., it was noted that Commr. Cadwell left the meeting.
PETITION NO. 2000-104 - DANIEL A. AND GOLDIE L. WILSON TRUST
(CONTINUED)
Mr. Wilson stated that his house was built in 1968, it is cement block, it is located in the open sun, and it is located next to a warehouse 90 feet long. The house located at 33435 Wesley Road was built in 1978, it has a brick facade, it is shaded, and it has a pleasant view of vegetation and neighboring houses. He stated he has an eyesore with the 90 foot long warehouse. Mr. Wilson explained the condition of his home, in detail, and presented pictures. He further noted that he bought his home in 1971.
COMMISSIONERS
At 11:20 a.m., it was noted that Commr. Cadwell returned to the meeting.
PETITION NO. 2000-104 - DANIEL A. AND GOLDIE L. WILSON TRUST
(CONTINUED)
Mr. Wilson stated that his appraisal of $68,539 is a19.2% increase over last year. He stated that he has past trim notices that show that, within two years, his assessed value was the same as his appraised value. He explained that, in 1989, part of the garage was made into a study, and two-thirds of that was charged as living area. The appraiser's office said the error would be rectified, and he asked for retroactive credit for those 11 years. Mr. Wilson's desire was to see his appraisal remain at $57,000 and that his amount be retained for a certain period of time, under the consideration of the things he presented this morning.
Mr. Royce explained that the taxable amount went from $32,506 to $34,058, and there was currently $5,751 loss due to Save Our Homes. He noted that the assessment that went out on the trim notice was $68,539 and when the appraiser went back to re-assess the home, the assessment was adjusted to $65,809. The land was currently assessed at $27,520 and the home was assessed at $38,289 and that was taking into consideration the value that stands today with the problems, as described by Mr. Wilson. The property is on a paved road, and the increase in assessment is due to the value of land in this area. The home does have a capture under the Save Our Homes, so the taxable value is increasing about $1,500 and this will increase each year, until it reaches the market value. Mr. Royce presented comparable properties, which were built in 1958, and noted that one of them sold in 1999 for $68,600 and another one sold for $85,000. Another comparable built in 1971 sold for $69,500. Mr. Royce stated that the assessment of $65,809 is fair and that the property would sell for more than that amount. He further stated that the assessment has to keep up with the market.
Mr. Wilson stated that he was not here to compare his property with someone else's property. He has presented the facts of his property, and he knows the problems with his house. He indicated that he was waiting to see what the outcome of the hearing today would be, before he contacts a non-county appraiser to appraise his property.
Mr. Smith made a motion to overturn the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and limit the assessment to 3% over the $57,000, Petition 2000-104, Daniel A. and Goldie L. Wilson Trust, based on the fact that the shed is next door, and it offsets the value of the extra size of the lot. He stated that, if they did not adjust it, based on what was next door, then it was an error in the market place.
Commr. Hanson stated that she would second the motion for discussion.
Mr. Royce clarified that 3% is the allowable increase, other than the market value, or the Consumer Price Index (CPI) which is 2.7% this year. He pointed out that the market was higher than this current assessment.
Mr. Smith explained that he is in the real estate business, and a reduction should be considered, based on the use, and the type of building next door.
Mr. Royce clarified that the appraiser's office has taken a reduction on the condition of the property as a total, and he does not feel that the building next door reduces the land value. He further clarified that the total increase was in the land, which is a double lot.
Commr. Hanson stated that she believes that the area is a very desirable area, and perhaps some repairs should be made to the house, but the lot itself is very desirable, and as a real estate agent, she would not have any trouble selling the house for more than the $65,000 knowing the area.
Commr. Hanson and Commr. Cadwell stated that they had no intention of supporting the motion. Commr. Cadwell stated that the market value is probably correct from the information presented today.
The Chairman called for a vote on the motion to overturn the recommendation of the Property Appraiser, with the motion failing 1-3.
Commr. Hanson, Commr. Cadwell, and Ms. Fletcher voted against the motion.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Ms. Fletcher and carried by a 3-1 vote, the VAB approved to uphold the assessment of the Property Appraiser, in the amount of $65,809 based on the petitioner's failure to show evidence to overturn the Property Appraiser's presumption of correctness.
Mr. Smith voted "no".
Mr. Royce informed the VAB that Florida law allows the appraiser to go back and request a refund from the State for three years, and he will do that automatically for Mr. Wilson, for the square footage that the appraiser had assessed as living area.
PETITION NO. 2000-105 - W. T. PAUL LIAU, TRUSTEE
Mr. Frank Royce, Chief Deputy, Property Appraiser's Office, explained that they have asked a member from the Planning and Zoning Department to be here today, because they were a little unclear about the allowed use of the property. The appraiser is currently assessing it as commercial.
Mr. Peter Peebles, Property Appraiser's Office, explained that the property in question is located at the southwest corner of Highway 474 and Highway 27. Mr. Peebles noted that a smaller piece of this property was sold for the Handi-Way. Mr. Peebles stated that all of the property in this area had to be re-appraised, because of the increased growth in this area. The appraiser is appraising the property as vacant commercial, as the highest and best use for the property. Mr. Peebles noted that the parcel consists of 7.06 acres.
Mr. John Cento, Growth Management, addressed the Board and explained that the property in question is zoned C-1, but because of the commercial location criteria in the Comprehensive Plan, specifically in the Green Swamp Area of Critical State Concern, the only type of commercial allowed in this area is the smallest one called neighborhood convenience center, which is limited to 5,000 square feet. There is also a spacial separation requirement, and these types of commercial centers, or nodes, must be separated by two miles. He stated that, based on the straight C-1 zoning, and the fact that there is already 3,500 square feet from the cutout, and there is commercial in the process of being developed across the street on the north side of Highway 474, the 5,000 square feet is gone. Mr. Cento stated that the petitioner would be limited to the non-commercial uses allowed by a zoning district.
Commr. Hanson questioned whether the petitioner had been informed that he can go before a mediator and ask for mediation in this issue. She felt that an individual should be told at the counter that there is an appeal process.
Mr. Cento explained that, in this case, the County did offer a consultation about possible rezoning to a mixed use Planned Unit Development (PUD), as noted in his letter dated September 25, 2000, and which he presented at this time..
Commr. Cadwell stated that this piece of property sounds familiar to him, and he wanted staff to clarify what other things could be done with the property.
Mr. Cento explained that a church, day care center, bed and breakfast inn, major utilities, library, or cultural center could be placed on the property in question.
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, stated that the County may have this parcel under contract, or may be in the process of buying it, and the County has an existing contract and an appraisal. He noted that the County is paying a substantial amount of money for the property, and the contract is coming to the Board in the next two or three weeks.
Mr. Liau explained that the contract is still being negotiated, but the contract price is $275,000 for the three acres, which is the back piece of the property.
Mr. Peebles used a map to show the VAB where the property is located, in relation to the other surrounding commercial properties.
Mr. Royce noted that the current assessment had been set at $751,282 by the appraiser's office.
Commr. Hanson suggested that, when staff sends a letter, it list those uses that can be developed at the site, and in fairness to the public, let them know there is an appeal process.
Mr. Liau explained that he was aware of the appeal process, but every time he has had a prospective buyer, they hire an attorney and research the records and find that there are specific requirements and uses for the property.
Commr. Hanson suggested that Mr. Liau move forward with the appeal process through mediation, because it is appropriate property for those types of uses on a major road, at a major intersection. She felt that the appraiser's office was current with the assessment, however, the County's regulations keep him from getting the best use of the property.
Mr. Royce stated that, after considering the new information about the back piece of property being under contract with the County for $275,000, he still had to consider that there are three acres of property on the highway.
Commr. Hanson stated that she felt that the $751,282 assessment was probably high based on the current uses.
Mr. Minkoff stated that he did have appraisals in his office, and when the County hires a MAI to do an appraisal, it should be based on allowed use of the property, just as anyone else should be allowed the use.
Discussion occurred regarding postponing this particular hearing, to give the appraiser's office time to consider the appraisal.
Mr. Peebles clarified that, in order for Mr. Liau to file for a PUD, to change the use, he would be required to have ten acres.
Mr. Liau stated that, if he can have the commercial uses that he needs, he does not have a problem paying the taxes. He stated that he could have sold the property four or five years ago, and over two years, he has had about five contracts, but they were all turned down, because they were discouraged.
Commr. Cadwell stated that the VAB will table the hearing for Petition 2000-105, W. T. Paul Liau, Trustee, until 1 p.m. today.
PETITION NO. 2000-91 - WILLIAM MCCABE
PETITION NO. 2000-92 - WILLIAM MCCABE
Commr. Cadwell noted that Mr. William McCabe had been scheduled for 10:45 a.m. today, but he had called the Clerk's Office to let them know he was running behind in his schedule. Commr. Cadwell stated that he told him to be here today at 1:30 p.m., and his case would be worked into the agenda.
RECESS & REASSEMBLY
At 11:55 a.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess until 1 p.m.
PETITION NO. 2000-105 - W. T. PAUL LIAU, TRUSTEE
(CONTINUED)
Mr. Frank Royce, Chief Deputy, Property Appraiser's Office, stated that the appraiser's office had an opportunity to review the appraisal that had been presented to the County, which pertains to the portion or property in question. He pointed out that, in four different parts of the appraisal, the property is referred to as C-1 commercial zoning that can be used for convenience stores, beverage establishments, drugstores, pharmacies, banks, barber shops, restaurants, variety stores, etc., and that points out that there is still some confusion about what can be done. Mr. Royce stated that he took the square footage of the property that is being sold, and the selling price of the property, if the contract goes through with the County, and he took 85% of that price and came up with a value, and then he divided it by the square footage and got $1.95 per square foot. He stated that the appraiser, Mr. Leon Strickland, used sales to come up with his value, and he does break it down into square footage. He has sales that ranged from $1.62 to $3.97, and although he adjusted those, he uses a low rate of $1.88 and a high rate of $2.03 and states a mid-range of $1.95. He stated that, if the appraiser sets the $1.95 a square foot as a fair value, according to the sale price in contract for the piece of property located in the back, and if the appraiser uses that on the total property, that would give them an assessed value of $645,559 based on the information before them today.
Mr. Liau felt that the amount being presented would probably be the right amount, if they had a market for the property.
Commr. Hanson felt that there was a very strong likelihood that the petitioner can get the commercial uses that he thought he had through the appeal process, and it was probably a fair valuation. She stated that, if the petitioner comes before the VAB next year, and he has gone through the appeal process and cannot get the full C-1 uses, then she would feel that the VAB should look at it again.
Mr. Liau stated that, if he can get the C-1 uses, then he would be happy to pay the taxes, but today he would like to be fair, because right now there is no market, and he cannot sell the property.
Mr. Royce referred to the market value being quoted by Mr. Strickland and stated that, if he deducts the closing costs and other additional expenses, the amount would be $539,838.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Mr. Smith and carried unanimously by a 4-0 vote, the VAB overturned the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and approved an assessment in the amount of $539,838, Petition 2000-105, W. T. Paul Liau, Trustee, based on evidence being presented to derive at a reduction in just value.
PETITION NO. 2000-112 - DOUGLAS V. RAINEY AND TANYA R. ESTEP
Mr. Frank Royce, Chief Deputy, Property Appraiser's Office, explained that the petitioner is protesting the value of a 19.7 acre parcel, which has 660 feet of frontage on Burhans Road.
Mr. Douglas Rainey appeared before the VAB and stated that he and his wife paid $150,000 for the property. After purchasing the property last year, the appraised value went from $78,000 to $138,000, which was an increase of 90%. He did some research on surrounding homes, and he could not find any that had gone up 90%, and a 15% to 20% increase was common on a lot in this area. He stated that his appraised value is about $7,000 an acre. He explained that over seven acres is an orange grove, and it is on a lake, and it was assessed at a little over $3,000 an acre. The lot does not touch the lake, but it does have a view of the lake. The comparables of acreage he found ranged from $1,500 to $2,000 per acre, according to their assessed value. Another comparable showed $4,750 per acre, and every piece of property he looked at that had any acreage in this section was under $5,000, yet he was being assessed at $7,000 an acre, and there is no grove on his property, or cattle, at this time.
Commr. Cadwell stated that the land value in that area as gone up extensively in the last several years.
Mr. Rainey stated that he bought the property last year, and there was a piece of property in this area that sold the month after he bought his property. He stated that they paid $35,000 more for it and received ten acres less, and their appraised value has not changed. He felt that, in all fairness, he should be a range somewhere to the people in his neighborhood.
Mr. Royce stated that he would agree with everything that has been said by Mr. Rainey, and the problem with the surrounding properties is that they all have an agricultural classification, which basically acts as an exemption to the property and drastically reduces the taxable value of the property. He explained that the value that is placed on an agricultural piece of property is actually a lower value to begin with, because it is basically a rate that is used countywide and throughout Central Florida and is set up by the State of Florida, and then the classification reduces it so much less. Therefore, they are not based on market value, as long as they have the classification. Mr. Royce had three comparables, one selling in December, 1999 for $92,000, which is $7,883 per acre; one selling in June, 2000, for $155,000, or $9,935 an acre; and one selling in March, 1997, for $84,000, or $7,000 an acre. Mr. Royce stated that Mr. Rainey did purchase his property for $150,000 or approximately $7,614 per acre, and the current assessment is $7,000 with a value of $137,900. He noted that, if there was an agricultural business on the property, he could apply for the classification, and that is why the properties surrounding him did not increase.
Mr. Smith pointed out that, on Mr. Rainey's application, he shows the property as agricultural for horse breeding.
Mr. Rainey noted that the future use of the property would be for horse breeding, and he may have misinterpreted the question.
On a motion by Mr. Smith, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously by a 4-0 vote, the VAB upheld the assessment of the Property Appraiser, Petition 2000-112, Douglas V. Rainey and Tanya R. Estep, based on the petitioner's failure to show evidence to overturn the Property Appraiser's presumption of correctness.
PETITION NO. 2000-175 - RICHARD AND RHONDA DANIELS
Mr. Frank Royce, Chief Deputy, Property Appraiser's Office, explained that the petitioners are protesting the value of their home in Rolling Acres Estates, Eustis.
Mr. and Mrs. Daniels appeared before the VAB to present their appeal. Mr. Daniels stated that they bought a lot last year next to their property, and the lot is unbuildable. He explained that this is an older development, and they have city water, but they do not have city sewer. Mr. Daniels stated that they paid $67,500 and the assessment was a little more than $68,000. The have been there five years, and the previous owners only paid $55,000 for the house when it was new. He stated that they did put in a pool, and they did buy the lot.
Mr. Royce stated that the Daniels did a Unity of Title last year, and they have combined the two properties. He stated that he only has the current parcel, and he would like to see if there is any reason that Save Our Homes might affect this property. He asked that the VAB table this issue, until his office can get him the information.
Commr. Cadwell noted that the Board would table this petition and move forward with the hearings.
PETITION NO. 2000-144 - ROBERT NUNNO AND GERALD KLANDER
ROBERT MILLER, AGENT
Mr. Robert Miller, Agent, explained that he faxed information to the Property Appraiser's Office last week, and he verbally communicated some information to them.
Mr. Frank Royce, Chief Deputy, Property Appraiser's Office, explained that this case involves15.5 acres of property, which is mostly swamp land. It has come to his attention that there have been lots sold out of this property, and out of five sales, three of them have been paid off at an extremely high value.
Mr. Miller explained that the petitioners acquired the property in lieu of a debt that was owed to them. He noted that Mr. Nunno is a real estate broker in the State of Florida and a general contractor. The property was deeded to the petitioners in 1992, to pay a debt of $12,000. With the property, there were five contracts to deed for one-half acre parcels that are nonbuildable. Mr. Miller explained that some of the people continued to make payments. He stated that those parcels are not market value, and they are not eligible buyers, and therefore, those sales should not be considered in the process. Mr. Miller explained that his clients did receive some payments for the properties, which began in 1986. He stated that sales for wetlands in this area have a maximum value of $1,600 per acre, which would give a value of about $25,000 for this property. The property was assessed last year at $55,944; this year it is assessed at $188,034. After checking with the zoning department, Mr. Miller found that the zoning on the property is A, which would allow one unit for every five acres, provided there was enough upland to develop it. Mr. Miller stated that they had requested that the appraiser reduce the assessment back to $56,000 in their negotiations, but today they are requesting that they reduce it to $25,000 based on sales at $1,600 an acre.
Mr. Peter Peebles, Property Appraiser's Office, explained that five parcels of property were sold out of the total acreage. The total acreage purchased was changed to an unrecorded plat called Highland Pines. The petitioners continued to accept monies for two of those sold parcels in the sum of $15,338 including interest and transferred title by issuing warranty deeds.
Mr. Miller explained that Mr. Nunno is obligated under a Contract of Deed to issue a Warranty Deed. He stated that it is not his client's contention that those lots are buildable, and it has nothing to do with the market value today.
Mr. Peebles explained that the appraiser's contention today is that they do not know the future plans of this non-recorded plat, and that the petitioner was receiving funds and not returning them, and therefore, the value has been set for that land.
Mr. Miller explained that valuing the property based on sales to uninformed buyers is not the market value, as defined by the State of Florida.
Mr. Royce stated that the appraiser would have to agree with Mr. Miller, but the problem occurred when the uninformed buyer from New York contacted them, and they found out that Mr. Miller's client accepted $15,338 as payment on their property, which is a small portion of the property that the petitioner's owns, and he is claiming that it is only worth $25,000 today. He explained that the payment was accepted, they knew it was swamp land, they issued the Warranty Deed on the property and transferred title, and they did not know if the petitioners explained to the buyers that the land was swamp land and worthless. Mr. Royce felt that this needed to be brought to attention of someone with authority, and he was asking the VAB to start the process and make some kind of decision, at least pertaining to the value of the property.
Mr. Miller stated that the $15,000 received included interest on the Contract for Deed.
On a motion by Mr. Smith, seconded by Ms. Fletcher and carried by a 4-0 vote, the VAB overturned the assessment of the Property Appraiser and approved an assessed value of $55,944 which results in $3,600 an acre, Petition 2000-144, Robert Nunno and Gerald Klander (Robert Miller, Agent), based on evidence being presented to derive at a reduction in just value.
PETITION NO. 2000-175 - RICHARD AND RHONDA DANIELS
(CONTINUED)
Mr. Frank Royce, Chief Deputy, Property Appraiser's Office, explained that, in regards to Petition No. 2000-175, Richard and Rhonda Daniels, the appraiser's office wanted to make sure that an incorrect value was not being presented. Mr. Royce stated that the petitioners purchased one lot with the house for $67,400 in 1996. They purchased the second lot in 1998 for $9,300, and this year they added the pool, screen enclosure, pool deck and pool heater. The purchase price is $77,200, and the assessment price is $85,448, which takes into consideration that, after the purchase of the home, they added a screen room and pool and equipment. He noted that this year they only got one tax bill, because they combined the two properties into one.
Mr. Daniels stated that, by assessing their property at this amount, it would put their house at the highest priced house in the development. Mrs. Daniels noted that all of the comparables that they submitted were double lots.
Mr. Daniels explained that one of the houses in the neighborhood was assessed at $77,800, and he felt that he could probably sell his house for $85,000, but that would be 100% of the assessment.
Mr. Royce stated that last year there were two assessments, one was $68,066 for the one lot and house. He stated that a house just sold around the corner from Mr. Daniels, on Washington Street, and it was about the same size house with no pool, for $83,000. From the parcels that the Daniels presented to the appraiser's office, Mr. Royce stated that most of them are on single lots, and the houses are approximately the same age and size, but none of them had sold, so there was nothing to use as far as a comparable. The one that is the closest in comparison is on a single lot, and it has been assessed at $63,765, which is comparable to what theirs was last year on one lot. Mr. Royce stated that he has three sales in the area, one for $83,000, one for $73,200, and one for $76,600, and the assessment for the Daniels is in the range of the market for the neighborhood.
On a motion by Mr. Smith, seconded by Ms. Fletcher and carried unanimously by a 4-0 vote, the VAB approved to uphold the assessment of the Property Appraiser, Petition 2000-175, Richard and Rhonda Daniels, based on the petitioner's failure to show evidence to overturn the Property Appraiser's presumption of correctness.
PETITION NO. 2000-161 - JAMES H. MCCORMICK
Mr. Frank Royce, Chief Deputy, Property Appraiser's Office, explained that the petitioner was protesting the value of his home on two canal front lots in Harbor Shores Subdivision.
Mr. James McCormick appeared before the VAB and stated that he has a two bedroom, two bath modular home on a canal, and there are only about three other modular homes in this area, and most of them are larger. He explained that he has no seawall, no boat house, no dock and only a single car garage. Mr. McCormick stated that he paid $65,000 for the house and the two lots last year. He understood that it had been on the market for over two years, and an offer for $75,000 was refused. He presented a picture of the home, and it was noted that it had been assessed at $96,118 and listed in Homes & Land for $92,500. He stated that he had presented the appraiser's office with information about a 70 foot lot that sold this year on the same street, on the canal, for $22,500. He further stated that there was another lot and a half that sold this year on Pine Island Drive, which is on a canal, for $24,900. He found another lot and a half on the canal that sold for $29,500. Mr. McCormick stated that, according to current sales, the lots are not selling for $28,000, as noted by the appraiser's office.
Mr. Royce explained that an improved lot would usually have a higher value, because of other improvements to the lot other than the house itself. He stated that the appraiser's office did not qualify this sale, because it was donated to the Florida Elks, and it was not a true arms-length sale. He explained that, because it was not fair market value, and it came from a non-profit organization from a donation, it was unqualified. Mr. Royce presented three comparables to the VAB and noted that Mr. McCormick's property was built in 1972. He noted that one comparable was a house built in 1971 on two lots, and it just sold for $115,000 on Pine Island Drive. There was another house on a single lot that sold in October, 1999, for $100,000, and the third comparable was another concrete house on two lots that sold in February, 2000, for $135,000. Mr. Royce noted that all three of these have docks and boathouses and one to two car garages. He clarified that the appraiser's office looks at what a house will sell for on the market, not the listed price.
Mr. McCormick clarified that last year his assessment was $88,000, and he was not looking for it to be lowered to $65,000, because he does think he got a good buy on the house, but it does not have the same amenities as the other homes. He did not see where it should be $96,000 when it would not sell a year ago for $92,500.
Commr. Cadwell noted that Mr. McCormick based his argument in his letter on the land value, and it being $5,000 a lot too much.
Mr. Royce stated that, after listening to Mr. McCormick, the Property Appraiser's Office has no problem reducing the value to $86,000.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Mr. Smith and carried unanimously by a 4-0 vote, the VAB overturned the assessment of the Property Appraiser and approved an assessment in the amount of $86,000, Petition No. 2000-161, James H. McCormick, based on the petitioner providing evidence to overturn the Property Appraiser's presumption of correctness.
PETITION NO. 2000-171 - FRANCES E. ANDERSON TRUST, ET AL
PETITION NO. 2000-172 - LIVE OAK TRAILER PARK
PETITION NO. 2000-173 - LIVE OAK TRAILER PARK
Mr. Frank Royce, Chief Deputy, Property Appraiser's Office, explained that the petitioner is protesting the value of what is known as the Live Oak RV Park located in Leesburg.
Mr. Royce noted that the VAB could hear all three petitions, because two of them were tangible personal property.
Mr. Paul Anderson appeared before the VAB and stated that Frances E. Anderson is his mother. Mr. Anderson stated that his parents bought the trailer park in 1978. He explained that his name and his brother's name are on the property, but essentially it was their parent's residence, and they ran the trailer park. He stated that last year it was brought to his attention that the appraiser's office had reduced the homestead exemption from $25,000 to $14,000, so he began to look into it. It was his opinion that, in all of that time, no one from the appraiser's office had ever visited the property. Through his investigation, he found that there were six buildings that were being assessed, but they were never on the property, so they were paying extra tax on property they never owned. He also noted that they have not been able to identify some of the tangible property, and from the files, they cannot find where anyone had every visited the property, until last week. Mr. Anderson stated that he called the appraiser's office and asked for another appraisal. Last year the property was appraised at $164,000 and, after taking off the six buildings, the only difference in the taxes was about $100. Mr. Anderson stated that they did bring the homestead exemption back up to $24,000, even though they got the full $25,000 up until last year. He stated that the appraiser's office did not have in their records where anyone had ever come out to the property. He stated that some of the buildings date back to 1974, and they bought it in 1978, and it seems that there are a lot of inequities that need to be addressed. Mr. Anderson stated that, in regards to the tangible, he feels that they have a base of $18,000, and all they can come up with is $2,500. He stated that, considering the age of his parents, he seriously doubts that they addressed things properly. Mr. Anderson stated that there has been legislation passed that says that the RV park is supposed to be taxed the same as commercial, such as a hotel or motel, as far as the fire protection, etc.
Mr. Royce explained that the non ad valorem tax for the fire protection and similar services are handled by the County's Special Assessment Office. He stated that the homestead exemption can only be given on the portion of the property that is homesteaded, and that would be only the house that his parents live in and the land under the home. After looking at the property, they found that, at this point in time, Ms. Anderson has two-thirds ownership in the property, so only two-thirds counts towards homestead, which results in the $24,000 figure. He stated that the mobile homes were removed from the tax roll, but, when they have no tags, and no one can show them a registration, they have to assume they are owned by the park owner, and they will be assessed as real property. Mr. Royce explained that this was an ongoing problem with mobile home parks and RV parks. He stated that the assessment did not change a lot, because they have to assess the property at market value today, and it is probably way under assessed, just as far as vacant land alone in that area.
Mr. Anderson stated that some of the trailers without tags, as referred to by Mr. Royce, dated back prior to them owning the park.
Mr. Royce explained that, not only does the appraiser's office look at mobile home parks very closely, they also send every mobile home park owner a questionnaire asking about the number of mobile homes, and number of RV trailers, and the rent roll from the previous year, and so does the special assessment office, because they have a special way of assessing RV parks. He stated that, if there are attachments to the mobile homes, those are also assessed, even if they are rented, and they are on the tangible roll.
Mr. Eric Porn, Property Appraiser's Office, stated that the petitioner has 3.9 acres and was approved for 28 RV lots, and four mobile home sites, even though there are less now, and the occupancy is pretty minimal. Mr. Porn stated that six RV buildings were deleted from the tangible roll, which would have been valued at $2,000 to $4,000 a piece. He noted that the taxes would have been $16 per $1,000. He stated that he had a long discussion with Mr. Anderson, who indicated to him that the income that the property is producing does not justify the assessed value. Mr. Porn explained that he had determined that the highest and best use of the property, particularly in this area, would be for a vacant commercial site, because of its frontage on two roads (County Road 33 and Highway 27) . He explained that sales in the area ranged from $2 to $3 a square foot, and even if he allowed $100,000 for the site planning, and rezoning expenses to get it rezoned for a different use, they would still be looking at well over $200,000. He noted that he did not have any income information to consider.
Commr. Hanson stated that, even though the appraiser's office may determine what it feels would be the highest and best use for the property, her concern is what the County's Comprehensive Plan might actually allow in that area.
Mr. Anderson explained that the property has been operated like a small business, and it did not make a lot of money, but it did provide his parents with a place to live and retirement facilities. He stated that there have been no improvements, or changes to the property since they have owned it. Just for the sake of curiosity, he contacted one of the fast food chains and was told that this was a secondary business location, and they had no interest in it all. The property is zoned for a RV trailer park, and the front of it is zoned for RV sales.
Mr. Robbie Ross, Tangible Personal Property and Agricultural Operations Director, explained that, in this type of situation, the appraiser's office does request the income and expense information, to verify the appraisal.
Mr. Smith felt that, in looking at the number of RV spaces in this kind of location, in terms of value of the park, it would be on the burden of the owner to provide them next year the operating statements to try and determine the value. He stated that the overall value for a mobile home park in this location, in the amount of $164,000, is not unreasonable for value.
Mr. Anderson stated that, even though it was approved for 28 spaces and four RV trailers, probably 10 spaces cannot be used, but it was probably easier for his parents to renew year after year with the same information that was on the last form.
Mr. Porn noted that the total valuation of the property is $162,696 which is less than $1 a square foot. He further noted that the homestead exemption was also adjusted to $24,127 based on finding more value on the homestead portion of the property.
Commr. Hanson stated that she still thinks there is an issue here, and if all he can do with the property is a RV park, then anything else would be non-conforming with the Comprehensive Plan, and even if this was not a problem for this particular area, there may a problem with other places in the County where people do not have full commercial zoning, when the appraiser's office is looking at the highest and best use.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Ms. Fletcher and carried unanimously by a 4-0 vote, the VAB upheld the assessments of the Property Appraiser, for Petition No. 2000-171 Frances E. Anderson Trust, et al, Petition No. 2000-172 Live Oak Trailer Park, and Petition No. 2000-173 Live Oak Trailer Park, based on the petitioner's failure to show evidence to overturn the Property Appraiser's presumption of correctness.
PETITION NO. 2000-176 - R. DEWEY BURNSED, AS TRUSTEE
Mr. Walt McLin appeared before the VAB and stated that he, along with Mr. R. Dewey Burnsed, is one of the owners of the Lakes and Springs Subdivision. Mr. McLin stated that they had hired Mr. Larry King, Appraiser, and asked if the VAB would accept his testimony as an expert witness without them qualifying him as such.
Commr. Cadwell stated that the VAB would accept his testimony as an expert witness.
Mr. McLin presented the VAB members with information, which listed the lots in Lakes and Springs Subdivision, their listed price, sales price, and assessment. He stated that it was originally an 82 lot residential subdivision that was platted in 1997, and they have been in the process of selling lots at that subdivision since 1997. Of the 82 original lots, there have been 23 sales, which leaves 59 lots that are subject to the assessment. Mr. McLin stated that the assessment is not an issue, as it relates to the value of the lots. He explained that the appraiser's office took their sales price list for all of the lots and applied the discount for closing cost and came up with 59 separate assessments. He stated that their concern is that it would be a proper assessment, if they could sell all of these 59 remaining lots in one year, but as these lots historically and projectedly will sell over a period of time, they felt that the assessment in bulk for a single owner subdivision should be discounted, based on the length of time it will take to sell the property. He stated that Mr. King will present what he feels would be a more realistic assessment, for the 59 remaining lots.
Mr. Larry King appeared before the VAB and stated that what he felt was very critical to this issue was the definition of market value, which he presented to the VAB members. He referred to (3) "a reasonable time is allowed for exposure in the open market." He stated that 59 lots are not going to be sold in one year, or even in two years. Mr. King explained that there was one lot deeded to a family member in 1997, and since then and up until this time, there have been 22 lots sold, so they have been selling seven or eight lots a year. There are approximately ten on site now, and he anticipates that sales will be picking up, and he is suggesting that they can sell one lot per month, which will take 59 months to sell the subdivision out, or about five years. Mr. King stated that Mr. McLin supplied the appraiser's office with his short letter that shows his discounting process with maps and the sales. Mr. King stated that he feels they should be discounted at 91/2%, which is what banks in the general area are charging. If the lots are discounted at this rate over a 59 month period, and in addition, discounting the carrying cost for that period of time, Mr. King stated that it was his opinion that the market value of the subdivision, based on the assessment, which is based on the list prices, would be $1,560,000. The total assessment by the appraiser's office is $2,309,777. He explained that the $1,560,000 is approximately 68% of the appraiser's assessment. He feels that it is in line with market value. He also pointed out that, if the property was owned free and clear, and the owners wanted to go and finance it, the banks are not going to base their loan value on the total assessment, but they are going to base their loan on the discounted sell out period, which is $1,560,000. Mr. King stated that he has talked to the Property Appraiser's Office in Sumter County, and the Property Appraiser's Office in Marion County, and both of these offices told him that normally, on subdivision like this one, they do offer discounts, and that they do not assess these lots at 100% of market value as the cost of the sale. Mr. King stated that he does not have a problem with the individual assessments, but he does have a problem putting them all together, and he feels that a discount should be granted, and he feels that 32% is reasonable, based on discounting them at 91/2% over a five year period.
Mr. Royce stated that the appraiser assesses every subdivision in the County the same way. The lots are valued as lots are selling, and when the market is established by those lots that have sold, they assess every lot in that subdivision. He stated that no where in the Florida Statutes does it allow discounts for subdivisions. The Statutes tell them to assess each and every property at just value, which is market value on January 1st of that year, and there are only eight factors they can consider in arriving at just value, as outlined in the Statutes. He explained that they do not know what lots will sell five years from now, and they do not know that a lot listed today at $35,000 will not increase in value to $40,000 or $45,000 and sell for that amount, but they do have a value today, which is how the property is assessed.
Mr. King stated that they are not arguing the total assessment of $2,309,777, but the 59 lots are not worth that amount, and no one is going to pay that for all 59 lots. They are going to factor in profit and expenses, and it is his opinion that they are worth $1,560,000. He thinks that the VAB needs to go to the definition of market value, and the cash value, in this instance, is $1,560,000.
Mr. Smith questioned whether there are areas of the County where blocks of lots are sold, because it happens every day with builders, and he questioned whether the appraiser's office has looked at the value, based on a block of lots sold.
Mr. Royce explained that normally they do not look at the value based on a block of lots sold, but in Clermont and new subdivisions in that area, there are builders that buy ten at a time and build a few, and then buy ten more. He stated that they do not reflect the general values, and it does not affect their assessment. Mr. Royce stressed that there is no provision in the Florida Statutes to discount.
Mr. Smith stated that there are subdivisions that builders buy all of the time, and that is the discounted cash value.
Mr. Royce explained that, in regards to the lots in the subdivision before the VAB, the lot never goes below $35,000, if that is what people are paying for that lot, and speculating the future, that land is going to be worth more, and it will be able to be sold for more, and therefore, the discount is already taking place today.
Mr. King stated that he disagrees with that argument, because the best lots are going to be sold up front, and in the middle, and the less desirable lots are going to be sold at the end. He explained that, when he talked to Marion County and Sumter County, he used the example of the Villages, where there are 1,500 to 1,800 houses a year being sold, and he was told that they do not assess each individual lot.
Mr. Royce stated that Lake County does assess each lot, and that is why two years ago on the in depth study, the Department of Revenue came to Lake County to use their assessments and their sales and qualified sales against the Sumter County Property Appraiser, because they felt he was not assessing that property correctly.
Mr. McLin stated that one thing not listed in the Statute that lets the appraiser determine the value of a piece of property is the intangible thing, which would include things like boat docks, etc., and the assessor can use these things as additional information. Secondly, they are not talking about what the assessment is going to be on this property for the next five years, but what it is going to be for the year in question. He stated that, as the appraiser's office has suggested, if the value of these lots go up, then next year they can do a different assessment, based on the sales of those properties that take place in this current year. Mr. McLin stated that, to suggest that they could sell all of these lots at one time for $2 million is not realistic, but they are being assessed that way. He stated that it was easy to suggest that the Statute does not specifically allow a discounted rate for volume lots in a subdivision, and it has not been shown to them where this has been disapproved by anyone higher than the individual tax assessor. He would assume that the appraiser's office assesses everyone the same in the County, but the fact that they do not appear before the VAB to contest their erroneous assessment does not mean that it is not erroneous. Mr. McLin stated that, in their case, if time value of money, as defined in market value, is the way it should be determined, then there is no prohibition to reducing this down to the discounted rate, as suggested by Mr. King.
Commr. Hanson questioned where the VAB would find the prohibition, and whether it is the Property Appraiser's policy, or whether it is actually law, that you cannot discount.
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, stated that generally the Statute requires the Property Appraiser to look at several factors, as mentioned by Mr. Royce, and his valuation is entitled to presumption of correctness, so typically the property owner has to show that the Property Appraiser did not use one or more of the methods that are in the Statutes. He clarified that there is really not a prohibition that says that they cannot discount, but if the Property Appraiser did it in accordance with the Statute, then it is presumed to be correct.
Commr. Cadwell stated that it is relevant to how the appraiser is handling everything else, because if they think it is unfair, then they probably need to go back and address all of the others, and the question of how quick a lot sells, and he did not know of any other way to do it to be fair. He stated that he would tend to uphold the Property Appraiser in this case.
Commr. Hanson stated that the argument has merit, however, because that is the way the Property Appraiser is doing it throughout the County, she would make a motion.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Ms. Fletcher and carried by a 3-1 vote, the VAB upheld the assessment of the Property Appraiser, Petition No. 2000-176, R. Dewey Burnsed, as Trustee, based on the petitioner's failure to provide evidence to derive at a reduction in just value, and the petitioner failing to overturn the property appraiser's presumption of correctness.
Mr. Smith voted "no".
PETITION NO. 2000-149 - FH/2 LLC
Mr. Frank Royce, Chief Deputy, Property Appraiser's Office, explained that the petitioner is protesting the value for what formally used to be the Spruce Creek Model Home Center located in Lady Lake. It is now being occupied by the Allergy, Asthma and Sinus Center and doctors offices.
Mr. Glenn Lane, Agent for FH/2, stated that the assessment on this property has doubled in one year. Mr. Lane stated that the assessment was wrong last year, and it is wrong this year, because there has been no significant change in the property. The tenants that are there now are the same tenants that were there the previous year. The major cost, in terms of changing a use to a higher and better use, would be water and sewer, and he does not believe they have been deducted. Mr. Lane stated that he talked to Mr. Eric Porn, Property Appraiser's Office, who handled his questions in a very professional manner, and he told him that one of the reasons for the increase in the assessed value was the title transfer, which is a result of a much larger sale, with the bulk of it being in Marion County. He was told that the lawyer handling the sale basically assigned a value to the parcel, for documentary stamps. He stated that to double the value and taxes in one year would be unconscionable, just as it would be if he doubled the rent, and actually, on this particular property, there is a prohibit of increase.
Mr. Royce stated that most of the value increase was due to reappraisal of land along Highways 27 and 441, basically from Tavares to Leesburg and north to the Marion County line this year. The land value went from $108,000 to $310,000 and the building value went from $155,000 to $207,000 due to a reappraisal of the area.
Mr. Eric Porn, Property Appraiser's Office, stated that, because of the sales price, this caused them to reassess the property. Mr. Porn stated that the assessment is not actually based on the sales price. He stated that the property consists of two converted model homes on 2.38 acres along the highway. Only about an acre of the property is used in conjunction with the two offices, and the southern part of the property and the rear property are not utilized at all. Mr. Porn presented three comparable land sales, as follows: $175,000 ($2.21 a square foot); $694,000 ($4.50 a square foot); and $450,100 ($8.00 a square foot), and three comparable improved sales, $145,000 ($90.63 a square foot); $215,000 ($105 a square foot); and $225,000 ($105 a square foot). He stated that the depreciated building value is $210,715, and adding the land and miscellaneous improvements results in a total value of $530,249. If he had included impact fees, or site work, it would have resulted in an assessment closer to $579,739. He explained that, with the market approach, based on improved sales, there should be a market value of $100 a square foot of office area. The excess land was added separately, again based on $3 a square foot, to arrive at a total value market amount of $579,739. Mr. Porn stated that, based on this information, he feels that $526,710 is a fair just value.
Mr. Lane stated that he agrees with some of Mr. Porn's analyses and would like to point out that he does not believe that these buildings have appreciated at all, because he is having to do extensive repairs, and those would not be, in his opinion, the type of medical building to be compared to other medical buildings. He stated that the buildings have actually depreciated and are in need of further repair, and they are not actually comparable to medical buildings. He does agree that the two buildings, that are on the two acres, are not particularly the highest and best use of that property, however, they could not get to that without extensive costs in terms of getting water and sewer to that property. He further stated that the costs would have to be deducted to get the value. From that standpoint, the highest and best use this year is the same thing it was last year, to be able to get someone to rent those old model houses and use them as doctors offices. He stated that, to look at their specific property, and for it to double without any water or sewer, or any other improvement, in one year, especially to increase the building value of that property, is really severe.
On a motion by Mr. Smith, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously by a 4-0 vote, the VAB upheld the assessment of the Property Appraiser, Petition 2000-149, FH/2 LLC, based on the petitioner's failure to provide evidence to arrive at a reduction in just value, and the petitioner failing to overturn the property appraiser's presumption of correctness.
PETITION NO. 2000-183 - LAKE HIGHLANDS MERCATOR PROPERTIES, INC.
PETITION NO. 2000-184 - LAKE HIGHLANDS MERCATOR PROPERTIES, INC.
Mr. Bob Shaker appeared before the VAB and stated that he works with Jaymark who is the associated company with Mercator Properties. Mr. Shaker informed the VAB that they do not plan to contest Petitions 2000-185 through 2000-188, and therefore they are withdrawn.
Mr. Shaker stated that their position is that the appraiser's office was correct in previous years, but this year, for a raw piece of property, with nothing on it, and with nothing being planned with any of the communities, it is incorrect to more than double the value. He stated that it does not have water and sewer to the property, and the zonings have not changed, and the property has not evolved in any form or fashion, so if they were thorough in their evaluation last year, although they would agree that values have increased, they have not more than doubled. Based on an accurate projection from the year before, there cannot be a doubling of increase this year. He stated that, where they have evaluated properties from a year ago to this year, they would not have seen a doubling of values, but maybe a 15% increase, or a 25% increase. Mr. Shaker stated that there are two parcels of property, one of them is a commercial property, and the other is residential, and in both cases, it is not realistic to believe that there is a doubling from an accurate appraisal last year to this year's appraisal.
Mr. Frank Royce, Chief Deputy, Property Appraiser's Office, stated that the current assessment for both properties is $273,700, or $9,246 per acre. Mr. Royce stated that there was a warranty deed recorded on December 21, 1999, and on the deed, it recorded a value of $360,000, which shows that their assessment is at 76% of the sale.
Mr. Shaker stated that they have had a lease on this property for nearly three years. He stated that there may have been something within a family trust, or some characteristic like that, but it did not change hands at arms length with any other owner for the last three years. He stated there is approximately 15 acres of commercial and 15 acres of residential, and it is located at the northeast corner of Citrus Tower Boulevard and Highway 27.
Mr. Smith stated that he could assure Mr. Shaker that the property value is worth more than $9,000 an acre.
Mr. Royce stated that he had three residential acreage sales in the area ranging from $16,000 to $20,125 per acre, and they are assessing this property at $9,246 overall per acre. He noted that the property had been agricultural in years past, and until things start changing down there, they have been looking at it basically as vacant acreage and not considering the commercial use.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Mr. Smith and carried unanimously by a 4-0 vote, the VAB upheld the assessments of the Property Appraiser, Petition 2000-183 and Petition 2000-184, based on the petitioner's failure to show evidence to overturn the Property Appraiser's presumption of correctness.
PETITION NO. 199L - CAROL A. SWANK
Mr. Frank Royce, Chief Deputy, Property Appraiser's Office, explained that the petitioner was protesting the value of their property located on Lake Louisa, Clermont. He further explained that this was also a late application to the VAB.
Commr. Cadwell explained that the VAB can accept a late file, if there were extenuating circumstances, and this Board is pretty stringent on what it considers as extenuating circumstances.
Ms. Carol Swank addressed the VAB and stated that her husband had to undergo some unexpected surgery to have his shoulder rebuilt. He had surgery on September 1, 2000. She stated that they attempted to file their petition at the appraiser's office in South Lake County in Clermont on September 12, 2000, but the office closed at 1:30 p.m. She noted that, on her petition, their estimate of the market value should be $252,000 and not $215,000.
Mr. Royce stated that the deadline to file petition was September 12, 2000, and Mrs. Swank filed it on September 13, 2000. She presented the appraiser's office with a letter explaining the health problems of her husband.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Mr. Smith and carried unanimously by a 4-0 vote, the VAB approved to hear Petition 2000-199L, Carol A. Swank.
Mr. Royce stated that the Swanks purchased the property last year in 1999 for $350,000. The current assessment is $278,843, which is 80% of the sale considering that it was slightly over market.
Mr. Paul Swank appeared before the VAB and stated that they moved from Virginia, and they bought four lots on Lake Louisa Road right down from where his brother lives. He stated that they paid a little more than they probably should have paid, because it was in this locality. Mr. Swank stated that, when they bought the property, there was almost three feet of water under their dock, but today the dock sits about 100 feet from the water, and the boat is still in Virginia. They probably paid over the price, because his brother was nearby, and they were going to share these kinds of things, but they could not sell the property for what they paid for it today. He stated that it is hard to find comparables, because there are not that many houses on Lake Louisa. The houses are not selling, because the houses are so far away from the docks.
Mrs. Swank explained that the property was severely neglected, and they had it inspected, but in the mean time, they found many things that were not brought forth on the inspection. She stated that they did not move into the house until May, 2000, because of problems. They have spent a year getting the place serviceable.
Mr. Swank stated that they feel the property would sell for $315,000 and that is how they come up with their taxable value of $250,000.
Mr. Royce stated that he did have comparables, one being at 10211 Lake Louisa Road, which sold last month for $255,000, and it is much inferior in comparison to the Swank's home. He stated that the assessment of $278,000 is fair.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Ms. Fletcher and carried unanimously by a 4-0 vote, the VAB upheld the assessment of the Property Appraiser, Petition No. 2000-199L, Carol A. Swank, based on the petitioner's failure to show evidence to overturn the Property Appraiser's presumption of correctness.
It was noted that the VAB would wait until tomorrow to take action on those cases where no one appeared at their scheduled time today.
At 3:13 p.m., the Chairman announced that the VAB would recess and reconvene at 9 a.m. on September 28, 2000.
WELTON G. CADWELL, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
JAMES C. WATKINS, CLERK
TMR/BOARDMIN/9-27-00/10-12/00