LAKE COUNTY VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD MEETING

AUGUST 22, 2001

The Lake County Value Adjustment Board met in regular session on Thursday, August 22, 2001, at 9:00 a.m., in the Board of County Commissioner's Meeting Room, Lake County Administration Building, Tavares, Florida. Commissioners present at the meeting were: Catherine C. Hanson, Chairman; Debbie Stivender; and Jennifer Hill. School Board members present were: Jimmy Connor and Kyleen Fischer. Others present were: Sanford (Sandy) Minkoff, County Attorney/Interim County Manager; Ed Havill, Property Appraiser; Frank Royce, Chief Deputy, Property Appraiser's Office; Ginger Casburn, Exemptions Supervisor, Property Appraiser's Office; Robbie Ross, Personal Property and Agricultural Operations Director, Property Appraiser's Office; and Sandra Carter, Deputy Clerk.

The Chairman opened the meeting.

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney/Interim County Manager, informed the members of the Value Adjustment Board that the appeals before them this date dealt with the late filing for homestead exemptions, agricultural classifications, and senior citizen exemptions. He stated that the Value Adjustment Board will be back in late September to hear valuation cases, however, noted that they may hear some additional exemption cases, as well. He stated that, with regard to those cases where people have been denied their exemption or classification, the Board will need to listen to the facts and make their decision based on those facts.

Mr. Jimmy Connor, School Board member, questioned what would constitute a conflict of interest for a member of the Value Adjustment Board.

Mr. Minkoff stated that there would have to be a personal financial loss or gain to the Value Adjustment Board member greater than what there would be to the public at large. He stated that the only time a member of the Value Adjustment Board would have a conflict of interest would be if they had an interest in a parcel of property that would be coming before the Value Adjustment Board for action.

Mr. Frank Royce, Chief Deputy, Property Appraiser's Office, addressed the Board and referred to a packet of information that he had distributed to them, prior to the meeting, containing instructions regarding what an individual needed to do, in order to qualify for the additional senior citizen exemption that is being granted by the State. He stated that his office mailed said information to those individuals who qualified last year for said exemption, instructing them what they needed to do to qualify for the exemption this year. He stated that the senior citizen exemptions before the Board this date were for those people who had filed late for the exemption.

PETITION NO. 2001-2 - ELAINE K. DANWEBER

Mr. Frank Royce, Chief Deputy, Property Appraiser's Office, informed the Board that this case involved a late filing for the senior citizen exemption. He stated that the applicant was granted the exemption last year, however, did not file for it this year until March 7, 2001.

Ms. Elaine Danweber, Applicant, addressed the Board stating that the reason she filed late was because she did not realize that one could file without submitting a copy of their income tax form along with their petition.

On a motion by Mr. Connors, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser's Office and denied a request for a senior citizen exemption for Petition No. 2001-2, Elaine K. Danweber, due to findings of fact and lack of sufficient evidence to overturn the recommendation of denial.

PETITION NO. 2001-3 - AUGUST DIVJAK

Mr. Frank Royce, Chief Deputy, Property Appraiser's Office, informed the Board that this case involved a late filing for the senior citizen exemption. He stated that the applicant filed for the exemption for the first time this year, however, did not file for it until April 3, 2001.

Ms. Divjak, wife of the Applicant, addressed the Board stating that she and her husband were recently married and this was the first year they filed their taxes together. She stated that it was after March when they filed, however, noted that, when they filed, they were informed that they would be eligible for the senior citizen exemption. She stated that they went to the Property Appraiser's Office and filed for it, but it was late.

On a motion by Mr. Connor, seconded by Ms. Fischer and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser's Office and denied a request for a senior citizen exemption for Petition No. 2001-3, August Divjak, due to findings of fact and lack of sufficient evidence to overturn the recommendation of denial.

The Board requested the Property Appraiser's Office to send the applicants coming before them this year notification reminding them to file for their exemption next year.

PETITION NO. 2001-5 - CHARLES B. AND NOMA J. CARPENTER

Mr. Frank Royce, Chief Deputy, Property Appraiser's Office, informed the Board that this case involved a late filing for the senior citizen exemption. He stated that the applicants were granted the exemption last year, however, noted that they did not file for it this year until April 3, 2001.

Mr. Charles Carpenter, Applicant, addressed the Board stating that he did not read the first part of the letter from the Property Appraiser's Office, which directed him to bring a copy of his income tax return to the Property Appraiser's Office when he came in to file for the senior citizen exemption. He stated that he was waiting for his accountant to do his return and once he received it, it was too late to file for the exemption. He stated that he broke his shoulder around that time, as well, which just complicated matters.

Mr. Connor stated that he felt leniency should be given in medical situations such as this one.

On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Mr. Connor and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board overturned the recommendation of the Property Appraiser's Office and granted a senior citizen exemption for Petition No. 2001-5, Charles B. and Noma J. Carpenter, due to the fact that the applicant broke his shoulder around the time of the deadline for filing for the exemption.

PETITION NO. 2001-8 - ALICE M. TIERNEY

Mr. Frank Royce, Chief Deputy, Property Appraiser's Office, informed the Board that this case involved a late filing for the senior citizen exemption. He stated that the applicant filed for the exemption for the first time this year, however, did not file for it until March 19, 2001.

Ms. Alice Tierney, Applicant, addressed the Board stating that she was told by the Property Appraiser's Office that she would probably be eligible for the senior citizen exemption; however, she waited until her tax return was prepared to file the petition, so that she could file a copy of the return along with it and, by the time she filed it, it was too late. She stated that, had she known unless one had extenuating circumstances involved with their late filing that they probably would not be approved, she would not have paid the $15.00 late fee to file the petition and wasted her time, or the Board's time, appearing before them. She stated that people should be informed that, if their only reason for filing late is that they just forgot to file, they will not be approved and it would save a lot of people time and money.

On a motion by Mr. Connor, seconded by Ms. Fischer and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser's Office and denied a request for the senior citizen exemption for Petition No. 2001-8, Alice M. Tierney, due to findings of fact and lack of sufficient evidence to overturn the recommendation of denial.

PETITION NO. 2001-15 - GEORGE H. GOODFELLOW

Ms. Ginger Casburn, Exemptions Supervisor, Property Appraiser's Office, informed the Board that this case involved a late filing for the senior citizen exemption. She stated that the applicant was granted the exemption last year, however, did not file for it this year until March 14, 2001.

Mr. George Goodfellow, Applicant, addressed the Board stating that his wife had always taken care of things such as filing for the Senior Citizen Exemption; however, she had passed away and he forgot to file on time.

Mr. Connor stated that he felt the Board should approve a Senior Citizen Exemption for the applicant, based on two things, (1) the death of his wife, and (2) the mental condition of the applicant, due to his wife's death.

A motion was made by Mr. Connor and seconded by Ms. Fischer to overturn the recommendation of the Property Appraiser's Office and approve a Senior Citizen Exemption for Petition No. 2001-15, George H. Goodfellow, due to the death of his wife and his mental condition, due to her death.

Under discussion, Commr. Hanson stated that she would be voting against the motion, because the applicant's wife died in 1999. She stated that, had she died this year, she would have voted to grant him the exemption.

The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried, by a 4-1 vote.

Commr. Hanson voted "No".

PETITION NO. 2001-21 - JANE A. HELMS

Mr. Frank Royce, Chief Deputy, Property Appraiser's Office, informed the Board that this case involved a late filing for the senior citizen exemption. He stated that the applicant filed for the exemption last year, but withdrew, because her income was over the minimum amount allowed. He stated that she did not file this year until March 6, 2001.

Ms. Jane Helms, Applicant, addressed the Board stating that her only plea was ignorance, noting that a neighbor told her about the exemption, however, told her that she had until March 15, 2001 to file for it. She stated that, by the time she filed, it was too late.

On a motion by Mr. Connor, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser's Office and denied a request for a senior citizen exemption for Petition No. 2001-21, Jane A. Helms, due to findings of fact and lack of sufficient evidence to overturn the recommendation of denial.

PETITION NO. 2001-25 - REINA A. GOMEZ

Mr. Frank Royce, Chief Deputy, Property Appraiser's Office, informed the Board that this case involved a late filing for the senior citizen exemption. He stated that the applicant was granted the exemption last year, however, did not file for it this year until March 20, 2001.

Ms. Reina Gomez, Applicant, addressed the Board stating that she had misunderstood what she was required to do to be eligible for the exemption. She stated that she was on 10 different types of medication and had recently undergone surgery to have her appendix taken out.

On a motion by Mr. Connor, seconded by Ms. Fischer and carried, by a 4-1 vote, the Board overturned the recommendation of the Property Appraiser's Office and granted the senior citizen exemption for Petition No. 2001-25, Reina A. Gomez, due to the applicant's medical condition.

Commr. Hanson voted "No".

PETITION NO. 2001-13 - NANCY E. WHEELER

Mr. Frank Royce, Chief Deputy, Property Appraiser's Office, informed the Board that this case involved a late filing for homestead exemption. He stated that the applicant did not file for the exemption until April 12, 2001. He stated that she moved into her home in August of 1999 and had since then to file for the exemption.

Ms. Nancy Wheeler, Applicant, addressed the Board stating that it was not until she received her mortgage statement that she realized she needed to file for the exemption. She stated that she was a second year registered nursing student, as well as a single mother, and that. she works full time, as well.

On a motion by Mr. Connor, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser's Office and denied homestead exemption for Petition No. 2001-13, Nancy E. Wheeler, due to findings of fact and lack of sufficient evidence to overturn the recommendation of denial.

PETITION NO. 2001-14 - DANIEL S. KELLY

Mr. Frank Royce, Chief Deputy, Property Appraiser's Office, informed the Board that this case involved a late filing for homestead exemption, noting that the applicant did not file for the exemption until March 6, 2001, even though he had since October of 2000 to do so.

Mr. Daniel Kelly, Applicant, addressed the Board stating that his grandfather was diagnosed with cancer shortly after he purchased his home and that he spent a lot of time traveling to and from Pennsylvania, where his grandfather lived, visiting him. He stated that his grandfather passed away in April of this year.

On a motion by Ms. Fischer, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried, by a 4-1 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser's Office and denied homestead exemption for Petition No. 2001-14, Daniel S. Kelly, due to findings of fact and lack of sufficient evidence to overturn the recommendation of denial.

Mr. Connor voted "No".

PETITION NO. 2001-24 - CAROLYN AND JEROME SACK

Mr. Frank Royce, Chief Deputy, Property Appraiser's Office, informed the Board that this case involved a late filing for homestead exemption. He stated that the applicants moved into their home December 22, 2000; however, they did not file for the exemption until March 14, 2001.

Ms. Carolyn Sack, Applicant, addressed the Board stating that she had hip replacement surgery in January of this year and was not released by her orthopedic surgeon until March 13,

2001. She stated that the first thing she did, upon being released, was file for homestead exemption. She stated that her husband works out of town during the week at Cape Canaveral and is only home on the weekends; therefore, he was not able to file for the exemption.

Mr. Sack addressed the Board stating that through March and into April of this year he had to stay at the Cape around the clock, due to the fact that they were constructing a launch pad.

Mr. Royce stated that he had a letter from Mr. Sack's company stating that Mr. Sack worked at the Cape during the month of March, which he noted was after the deadline date.

Ms. Sack stated that she had a letter correcting the letter that Mr. Royce referred to, noting that the secretary in her husband's office had made a mistake.

A motion was made by Mr. Connor and seconded by Ms. Fischer to overturn the recommendation of the Property Appraiser's Office and grant homestead exemption for Petition No. 2001-24, Carolyn and Jerome Sack, due to the medical condition of Ms. Sack at the time of the deadline for filing.

Under discussion, Commr. Hanson stated that, even though Ms. Sack had medical problems, she felt her husband could have filed for the exemption, therefore, would not vote in favor of the motion. She called for a vote on the motion, which failed, by a 3-2 vote.

Commrs. Hanson, Stivender, and Hill voted "No".

PETITION NO. 2001-34 - RONALD S. AND ELEANOR L. DOWD

Mr. Frank Royce, Chief Deputy, Property Appraiser's Office, informed the Board that this case involved a late filing for homestead exemption. He stated that the applicants occupied their home on April 10, 2000, however, did not file for homestead exemption until April 20, 2001. He stated that his office received a letter from the applicants stating that they left the State on February 22, 2001, to take care of their daughter, who had been injured on the job with United Airlines, and their grandchildren and did not return to the State until March 3, 2001.

Mr. Ronald Dowd, Applicant, addressed the Board stating that his daughter, who lives in Seattle, Washington, was disabled, due to her accident, and that she has three small children that he and his wife took care of. He stated that they flew back and forth from Florida to Seattle for three months - January through March, taking care of their daughter and her family.

Mr. Royce interjected that the applicants had eight months to file for the exemption.

On a motion by Ms. Fischer, seconded by Mr. Connor and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser's Office and denied homestead exemption for Petition No. 2001-34, Ronald S. and Eleanor L. Dowd, due to findings of fact and lack of sufficient evidence to overturn the recommendation of denial.

PETITION NO. 2001-10 - DONALD G. WITMER

Mr. Frank Royce, Chief Deputy, Property Appraiser's Office, informed the Board that the applicant asked that his case be rescheduled to another date, due to the fact that he was going to be out of town and would not be able to attend this meeting.

On a motion by Mr. Connor, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved to reschedule Petition No. 2001-10, Donald G. Witmer, to the hearings to be held in September of this year.

PETITION NO. 2001-11 - JUDITH M. CARLSON

Mr. Frank Royce, Chief Deputy, Property Appraiser's Office, informed the Board that

this case involved a late filing for homestead exemption. He stated that the applicant did not file for the exemption until June 7, 2001.

Ms. Ginger Casburn, Exemptions Supervisor, addressed the Board stating that the applicant lived in her home previously, however, had rented another home and moved out of the home in question. She later moved back into the home and did not realize that she needed to file for the exemption again.

Ms. Judith Carlson, Applicant, addressed the Board stating that she and her husband were married for 10 years, before he suffered a traumatic brain injury in 1993. She stated that they moved to Lake County in 1996; however, in 2001, she placed him in an assisted living facility, at which time she filed for a divorce. She stated that she was not aware of the fact that she would have to refile for the exemption, due to the divorce, until she received information from her mortgage company and noticed that her payments had gone up quite a bit.

On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Mr. Connor and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser's Office and denied homestead exemption for Petition No. 2001-11, Judith M. Carlson, due to findings of fact and lack of sufficient evidence to overturn the recommendation of denial.

PETITION NO. 2001-26 - JOHN AND KRISTI CARRIER

Mr. Frank Royce, Chief Deputy, Property Appraiser's Office, informed the Board that this case involved a late filing for homestead exemption. He stated that the applicants moved into their home June 6, 2000, however, did not file for the exemption until March 21, 2001.

Ms. Kristi Carrier, Applicant, addressed the Board stating that her grandfather passed away April 12, 2001. She stated that her grandfather suffered several strokes before he passed away and that she and her husband made several trips to Michigan to see him, each time he had a stroke. She stated that, with being preoccupied with her grandfather's health, she forgot to file on time.

A motion was made by Mr. Connor and seconded by Commr. Stivender to overturn the recommendation of the Property Appraiser's Office and grant homestead exemption for Petition No. 2001-26, John and Kristi Carrier, due to the medical situation that the applicants were faced with and the death of Ms. Carrier's grandfather.

The motion failed, by a 3-2 vote.

Ms. Fischer, Commr. Hanson and Commr. Hill voted "No".

PETITION NO. 2001-6 - JAMES E. ADAMSON

Mr. Robbie Ross, Personal Property and Agricultural Operations Director, Property Appraiser's Office, informed the Board that this case involved a late filing for an agricultural classification, noting that the applicant did not file for the classification until March 7, 2001. He stated that the applicant owns 4.4 acres in Hammock Grove Estates, a subdivision on the west side of Hwy. 33, south of Okahumpka. He stated that the grove has been rehabilitated, to an extent, noting that the owners provided his office with income and expense information from grove care taking operations from Faryna Grove Care and Harvesting and for fruit harvesting from P. H. Freeman & Sons, Inc.

Ms. Adamson, wife of the Applicant, addressed the Board stating that she and her husband were attempting to get their fruit harvested, after a freeze that hit Lake County, when they realized they had missed the March 1, 2001 deadline for filing for the classification. She stated that they obtained an application and filed, but it was five days too late. She stated that, had they known that one does not normally get approved for filing late, unless it involves extenuating circumstances that lean more toward medical circumstances, they would not have taken their time, nor the Board's time, to file an appeal.

On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser's Office and denied an agricultural classification for Petition No. 2001-6, James E. Adamson, due to findings of fact and lack of sufficient evidence to overturn the recommendation of denial.

PETITION NO. 2001-16 - JERRY D. HATFIELD

Mr. Robbie Ross, Personal Property and Agricultural Operations Director, Property Appraiser's Office, informed the Board that, with regard to this case, the applicant filed for an agricultural classification for his citrus grove on time. He stated that the applicant had the grove bulldozed over, in trying to establish a new grove; however, there was a burn ban in effect at the time and he could not burn the piles of dead citrus. He stated that his office reviewed the property in June of this year, however, could not grant the exemption, because the January 1, 2001 deadline had not been met, showing that the property was being used as a bona fide agricultural use. He displayed various pictures of the property, showing that citrus trees have not yet been replanted and that a well has not yet been installed.

Mr. Jerry Hatfield, Applicant, addressed the Board stating that he has had nothing but problems involving his property. He stated that, due to the drought situation that the County has recently been faced with, he has had to have the grove engineered twice, in order to get the drilling permit, which put him five months behind. He stated that none of the problems that he was faced with were as a result of something that he had done or failed to do. He stated that the well driller had eye surgery and could not drill the well; therefore, he could not plant the trees that he had purchased to replant the grove. He stated that he pays monthly for grove care and that he had submitted his grove care bills to the Property Appraiser's Office. He stated that, as of the first week in November, he will have committed $130,000.00 toward his grove. He stated that he has done everything he knows how to do to make it work.

On a motion by Mr. Connor, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board overturned the recommendation of the Property Appraiser's Office and granted an agricultural classification for Petition No. 2001-16, Jerry D. Hatfield, due to the fact that the applicant is trying to do everything he can to get his citrus trees replanted and his grove up and going and has submitted overwhelming evidence to that effect.

PETITION NOS. 2001-19 AND 2001-20 - RONALD K. AND ALISON M. GOODING

Mr. Robbie Ross, Personal Property and Agricultural Operations Director, Property Appraiser's Office, addressed the Board stating that the applicants were requesting an agricultural classification for their property, Lots 17 and 18 in Greenbriar Subdivision, for horse breeding. He stated that, upon inspecting the property, his office found a residence and barn, along with 7 horses, however, noted that the area actually being used for horse breeding consists of approximately 2.6 acres. He stated that the remaining property was not in agricultural use and was not fenced. He stated that his office did not have a problem with granting an agricultural classification on the 2.6 acres, because the applicants provided his office with income expense information, proof of membership in the American Paint Horse Association, registration papers for several horses, breeding agreements, and horse leases; however, he could not grant the classification on the remainder of the property, because it is not currently in agricultural use. He noted that he did not have a problem with increasing the 2.6 acres to 3 acres, should the Board choose to do so.

Mr. Ronald Gooding, Applicant, addressed the Board stating that he and his wife acquired their property in 1999 and built their home and horse barn in 2000. He stated that they filed for their agricultural classification on time, however, did not submit income expenses for the past four years, because they are just getting started in the horse breeding business. He stated that he and his wife were installing the fencing around the property themselves and were trying to complete the installation of it around the entire parcel. He stated that his farm is a horse breeding farm, not a boarding facility. He stated that his horses are registered with the American Paint Horse Association, as indicated by Mr. Ross, and that he owns 10 acres. He stated that all of his property will be used for the horse breeding operation, except for the residence, which sits on approximately one and a half acres. He stated that his farm is not a hobby farm, noting that he has spent over $66,000.00 in capital expenditures, thus far, and has sustained a loss of over $10,000.00, which he hopes to gain back in the near future.

Mr. Ross stated that his staff could see that the applicants were in business, however, noted that they can only grant him an exemption on three of the ten acres, because that is the only amount of acreage that is actually in agricultural use.

On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried, by a 4-1 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser's Office and denied an agricultural classification for 7 of the 10 acres for Petition Nos. 2001-19 and 2001-20, Ronald K. and Alison M. Gooding, however, granted the classification on three of the ten acres, due to the fact that the applicants provided sufficient evidence that said acreage is being used as a bona fide agricultural use.

Mr. Connor voted "No".



PETITION NO. 2001-40L - KIRK HESTAND

Mr. Robbie Ross, Personal Property and Agricultural Operations Director, Property Appraiser's Office, informed the Board that the applicant did not file for an agricultural classification until March 5, 2001 and that he did not file his petition to the Value Adjustment Board, appealing his case, until July 27, 2001. He stated that the deadline for filing a petition was July 19, 2001; therefore, the Board's first action would need to be whether or not to hear the case, due to the late filing of the petition.

Mr. Kirk Hestand, Applicant, addressed the Board stating that he had called the Property Appraiser's Office and asked if he could fax them his petition and was informed that he could. He stated that he faxed it to them March 1, 2001. He stated that he was denied an agricultural classification, therefore, went to the Clermont satellite office and was told that the only thing he could do would be to pay the $15.00 late filing fee and see if the Board would be willing to hear his case. He stated that he had not filed for the classification earlier, because he was not aware that there was a time frame involved.

Mr. Ross stated that his office mailed the applicant a letter stating what his rights were, with regard to the denial; that he would need to provide the Property Appraiser's Office with additional information, if he felt the denial was incorrect; and that his last day for filing a petition with the Value Adjustment Board was July 16, 2001. He displayed a photograph of the property in question, noting that the applicant has a small parcel of his property in agricultural use that his office probably would have granted an agricultural classification on had the applicant filed his petition on time.

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, addressed the Board stating that, due to the fact that the applicant has a small parcel of property that he probably would have been granted an agricultural classification on had he filed his petition on time, he had no objection to the Board hearing the case.

On a motion by Ms. Fischer, seconded by Mr. Connor and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved to hear the case.

Mr. Ross stated that the applicant has requested an agricultural classification for one acre of citrus and eight acres of crop land. He stated that, upon conducting a physical inspection of the property, his office found a small parcel of the property being used as a tree farm/nursery, with the rest of the property being cleared. He stated that the property is not fenced and only a very small area, approximately one acre, is being used for any type of agricultural use. He noted that the entire parcel of property consists of ten acres, with approximately one and one-half acres being considered wetlands.

Mr. Hestand stated that the property is fenced on two sides and of the two sides that are not fenced, one is lake front. He stated that he still has to fence one side of the property, however, noted that he has 4x4s marked out with a string line, so that he can run his fence.

Mr. Ross informed the applicant that, should the Board grant him the classification on the

one acre, he will need to continue to file, as he continues to expand his operation.

Mr. Hestand, Applicant, informed the Board that he plans to continue planting trees, until he reaches the 3,000 tree mark, which he noted will fill the entire acreage.

On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser's Office and denied an agricultural classification for Petition No. 2001-40L, Kirk Hestand, with the exception of one acre that is currently planted with ornamental trees.

Mr. Connor commended the Property Appraiser and his office, noting that he was impressed with the number of cases that came before them this year, which he felt showed how diligently the Property Appraiser's Office worked with people on an individual basis. He stated that he found them to be very well prepared, very professional, and extremely capable and competent with their presentations this date.

Commr. Stivender concurred.

On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Mr. Connor and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser's Office and denied requests involving the following petitions:

Petition No. 2001-4 Alfred and Gloria Bouchard Senior Citizen Exemption

Petition No. 2001-12 Tracey A. Schoonmaker Agricultural Classification

Petition No. 2001-31 Oswald and Joy Lee Agricultural Classification

Petition No. 2001-36 Claire F. and Robert R. Puertas Agricultural Classification

Petition No. 2001-39 Sam and Mary Stiverson Agricultural Classification



It was noted that the following petitions had been withdrawn this date:



Petition No. 2001-9 Dusam Investments, Inc. Agricultural Classification

Petition No. 2001-30 Owen W. Conner, III Agricultural Classification

Petition No. 2001-28 Warren F. Blum, Jr. Agricultural Classification

Petition No. 2001-35 Calvin E. Ulmer Agricultural Classification

Petition No. 2001-37 Jimmy D. Crawford, Agent for Agricultural Classification

Rosemary Pemberton, Trustee

Petition No. 2001-38 Jimmy D. Crawford, Agent for Agricultural Classification

Rosemary Pemberton, Trustee

Petition No. 2001-41L Scott Strong Agricultural Classification



Ms. Fischer stated that she would like for there to be a way to make the Senior Citizen Exemption more clear to the general public and questioned whether some type of automated message could be put on the telephone system for the Property Appraiser's Office, or perhaps be put on the County's telephone system, informing people what they need to do.

Mr. Royce stated that the Property Appraiser's Office tries to make the directions more clear each year and will continue to do so.

Commr. Hanson stated that staff could get with the local press and try to get them to make a special announcement about the matter, as well.

There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting was recessed at 10:45 a.m., to be continued at 9:00 a.m., Wednesday, September 26, 2001.







________________________________ CATHERINE C. HANSON, CHAIRMAN





ATTEST:







________________________________

JAMES C. WATKINS, CLERK



sec/8-22-2001/8-27-2001/boardmin