LAKE COUNTY VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD MEETING

SEPTEMBER 27, 2001

This meeting is a continuance of the Lake County Value Adjustment Board for 2001. The Board met in regular session on Thursday, September 27, 2001, at 9:15 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 (arrived at 10:00 a.m.); Debbie Stivender; and Jennifer Hill. School Board members present were: Jimmy Connor. Ms. Kyleen Fischer was not present, due to another commitment. Others present were: Melanie Marsh, Assistant County Attorney; 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.

Commr. Jennifer Hill, acting as Chairman, opened the meeting, stating that Commr. Catherine Hanson, Chairman, had a prior commitment and would be arriving later.

MINUTES

On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Mr. Connor and carried unanimously, by a 3-0 vote, the Board approved the Value Adjustment Board Minutes of August 22, 2001, as presented.

Ms. Fischer was not present at this meeting.

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

Ms. Melanie Marsh, Assistant County Attorney, informed the Board that there were two criteria that they needed to follow, the first being that the Property Appraiser's Office has the presumption of correctness and the second one being that the applicant cannot present any evidence at this meeting that they did not provide to the Property Appraiser's Office at least five days prior to the meeting. She stated that, should there be any applications that were filed late, the Board could hear them, if they determined there was good cause for them having been filed late, which is interpreted to mean something that is outside the control of the applicant.

PETITION NO. 2001-10 - DONALD G. WITMER

Mr. Frank Royce, Chief Deputy, Property Appraiser's Office, informed the Board that this case involved a request for homestead exemption, which was postponed from the August meeting, because the applicant was unable to appear at that meeting. He stated that the applicant filed for homestead exemption, however, noted that his office could not grant him the exemption. He introduced Ms. Ginger Casburn, Exemptions Supervisor, Property Appraiser's Office, stating that she would explain why the Property Appraiser's Office could not grant the applicant the exemption.

Ms. Casburn stated that her office discovered the applicant is registered to vote in Polk County, not Lake County, and that he is listed as a 2001 homesteader in that county, as well.

Mr. Donald Witmer, Applicant, addressed the Board stating that he did not know where Ms. Casburn obtained her information. He stated that he canceled his homestead exemption in Polk County last year, the same year that he came to Lake County and applied for it. He stated that, if he needed to provide the Board with something from the Polk County Property Appraiser's Office to that effect, he could do so. He stated that he resides in both Lake and Polk counties, however, noted that he made a decision to call his permanent residence Lake County. He stated that he owns three houses - two in Polk County and one in Lake County and that he is currently in the process of building another house in Highlands County. He stated that he is only claiming homestead exemption on the home in Lake County, noting that he resides in it approximately six months out of the year. He stated that the rest of the year he resides in the homes in Polk County and that next year he plans to reside, part-time, in the home in Highlands County. He stated that the law states he can claim homestead exemption in the County that he decides to live in - not where he stays every night, but where he decides to live, and he has decided to live in Lake County.

Mr. Royce stated that the key factor is the fact that the applicant is registered to vote in Polk County, which he noted is a felony, if he resides in Lake County, because it is illegal to claim homestead exemption in one county and vote in another county. He stated that the applicant was informed that, if he registers to vote in Lake County, his office would grant the exemption; however, as of this date, he is still registered to vote in Polk County and, according to the Supervisor of Elections Office, that is his residence, not Lake County.

Mr. Gaylord Wood, Attorney, representing the Property Appraiser's Office, informed the Board that there is a definite relationship between the Voter Registration Law, Chapter 97.052 of the Florida Statutes, and the Homestead Exemption Law. He stated that the uniform application that one is required to sign under oath, when one registers to vote, states that the Supervisor of Elections Office in the County where one registers to vote will notify the Property Appraiser's Office in the County from which one comes that the applicant has registered to vote in their County and that Property Appraiser's Office will cancel one's homestead exemption. He read into the record what the Voter Registration Law states regarding the matter.

A motion was made by Mr. Connor to postpone action regarding this case, until later in the meeting, to allow staff to obtain information from Polk County verifying that the applicant is a homesteader in that county.

Commr. Stivender seconded the motion, for discussion.

Under discussion, Mr. Connor stated that the applicant is entitled to homestead exemption somewhere. He stated that, if he has it in Polk County, he is not entitled to it in Lake County and the Property Appraiser's Office stated they could provide documentation to that effect later this date, which would be the end of this case.

Commr. Hill, acting as Chairman, called for a vote on the motion, which failed, by a 2-1 vote.

Commrs. Stivender and Hill voted "No".

Commr. Hill passed the gavel to Commr. Stivender and made a motion to uphold the recommendation of the Property Appraiser's Office and deny homestead exemption for Petition No. 2001-10, Donald G. Witmer, due to findings of fact and lack of sufficient evidence to overturn the recommendation of denial.

Commr. Stivender seconded the motion.

Commr. Hill called for a vote on the motion, which was carried, by a 2-1 vote.

Mr. Connor voted "No".

Commr. Stivender passed the gavel back to Commr. Hill.

Ms. Fischer was not present at this meeting.

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

PETITION NO. 2001-64 - HUGH BRYSON

Mr. Frank Royce, Chief Deputy, Property Appraiser's Office, informed the Board that the applicant was petitioning the assessment of a duplex that he had purchased in the Birchwood Subdivision, in Leesburg. He stated that the applicant indicated on his petition that there is income involved; therefore, he assumes that it is a rental unit. He stated that the duplex is assessed at $59,468.00, however, noted that it should be $65,570.00, if the income approach was used. He stated that there have been three sales in the subdivision of duplexes that are similar in size - two for $70,000.00 and one for $72,000.00, which he used as comparables.

Mr. Hugh Bryson, Applicant, addressed the Board stating that he felt the assessment on his duplex was too high. He stated that he tried to sell the duplex for $52,000.00 to an individual who had purchased another duplex in the subdivision for that price, but was unsuccessful in doing so.

On a motion by Mr. Connor, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously, by a 3-0 vote, the Board upheld the Property Appraiser's assessment for Petition No. 2001-64, Hugh Bryson, in the amount of $59,468.00, due to findings of fact and lack of sufficient evidence to reduce the assessment.

Ms. Fischer was not present at this meeting.

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

RECESS AND REASSEMBLY

At 9:30 a.m., Commr. Hill, acting as Chairman, announced that the Board would recess until 10:00 a.m., due to the fact that a number of applicants were not present to present their cases.

COMMISSIONERS

At this time, Commr. Catherine Hanson, Chairman, arrived at the meeting.

PETITION NO. 2001-69 - SEARS ROEBUCK & COMPANY

PETITION NO. 2001-70 - CIRCUIT CITY STORES

PETITION NO. 2001-71 AND 2001-72 - WAL-MART STORES

PETITION NO. 2001-74 - TARGET CORPORATION

PETITION NO. 2001-75 AND 2001-76 - OFFICE DEPOT, INC.

PETITION NO. 2001-77 - LOWE'S HOME CENTER

PETITION NO. 2001-78, 2001-79, AND 2001-80 - K-MART CORPORATION

PETITION NO. 2001-81 - MY GIFT COTTAGE.COM/BEALL'S, INC.

PETITION NO. 2001-82 AND 2001-84 - BEALL'S OUTLET STORES

PETITION NO. 2001-85 AND 2001-86 - BEALL'S DEPARTMENT STORES



Mr. Robbie Ross, Personal Property and Agricultural Operations Director, Property Appraiser's Office, informed the Board that the agent representing Petition Nos. 2001-69 through 2001-86, Mr. Charles Garrison, with Property Tax Control, Inc., requested that they be combined under one decision, due to the fact that they all involve the same issue, which is the resale of store fixture equipment, with the exception of one warehouse equipment issue, which involves the Circuit City Stores located at the Christopher C. Ford Industrial Park. He stated that Mr. Garrison used the seven year life guide and effective age of the equipment in his appraisals, to come up with a value, at which time he reviewed the appraisal that was conducted for Sears Roebuck & Company, as an example, to help the Board understand where the agent was coming from, as well as where the Property Appraiser's Office was coming from. He explained how his office came up with their assessments, versus how the agent came up with his appraisals, for the companies being represented this date.

Mr. Ross stated that Mr. Garrison feels a fair market value is derived at by using a straight line, or what is known as cost recovery depreciation, which he noted allows for a piece of equipment to have a zero value at the end of a useful life, even if the equipment is still in use and contributing to the income stream of the business. He stated that state guidelines require the use of an untrended depreciation table, rather than straight line cost recovery depreciation, which takes into consideration salvage value, defined on Page 22 of the Department of Revenue Guidelines as the amount expressed in terms of money that may be expected for the whole property, or a component of the whole property, that is retired from service for use elsewhere. He stated that, if his office used the effective age of six, in a seven year life guide, as Mr. Garrison had used, the indicated value would be $426,218.00, or 36.22% of the original installed cost, and, if they used the nine year method, the value would be $608,679.00, or 51.73% of the original installed cost, which he noted is the guideline set forth by the State, which would cause the assessment to increase by $102,000.00. He stated that, by using an eleven year life, it would cause the indicated value to be $724,791.00, or 62% of the original installed cost, which would cause the assessment to increase by approximately $220,000.00. He stated that his office used the nine year life and broke the equipment down into different categories and associated a different year life for different types of equipment.

Mr. Ross stated that, in 1997, the State redid the guidelines that Property Appraisers use to value personal property, noting that, previous to that, they were using a twelve year life on retail fixtures. He stated that, when Property Tax Control, Inc. started petitioning the County for the first time, they requested that a nine year life be used, which is what the State reduced it to, after Property Tax Control, Inc. and other tax representatives of retail stores met with the State and requested that it be reduced to the nine year life. He stated that the tax representatives are now requesting a seven year life on equipment and have litigated throughout the State, as well as in the Supreme Court, to try to get the State to reduce it to seven years. He noted that other counties have chosen to stay with the nine year life, until they see what the outcome of the litigation will be.

Mr. Charles Garrison, Agent, Property Tax Control, Inc., addressed the Board stating that

the lawsuits Mr. Ross referred to came about as the result of one county arbitrarily raising an assessment on Wal-Mart Stores several years ago, because they felt Wal-Mart was not properly reporting their assets. He stated that Wal-Mart tried to reason with them, however, failed to do so successfully, at which time they engaged his firm to represent them. He stated that his firm determined that the problem was across the board on retailers in Florida, thus, the reason for the large number of petitions. He stated that it was mentioned earlier that tax representatives are litigating throughout the State to try to get the life on equipment reduced to seven years and that he felt one of the most interesting cases involving that issue, at the present time, was one in Hernando County, being Wal-Mart Stores versus Mazourek, which was won by Wal-Mart. He stated that he felt this case was an important point, in that it was controlling for Lake County. He stated that there is very plain language in the Mazourek decision that states, if a Property Appraiser uses sales tax in his valuation method on a cost approach, then the presumption of correctness is lost. He stated that, in addition, the Mazourek decision states that, in coming up with an appraisal, the Property Appraiser has to consider all three approaches to value, which is the cost approach, the market approach, and the income approach. He stated that it is widely held that, for most items of personal property, the income approach is not applicable, in that it is hardly used as an enterprise and one cannot assign an income value to a particular piece of equipment, unless it is a leased piece of equipment and there is a particular lease. He stated that the market value approach has seldom been used by Property Appraisers, noting that the tables themselves say very clearly that there is no connection to market, so they are not evidence of market.

Mr. Garrison referred to a binder of information that his office had provided to the Property Appraiser's Office, which was submitted, for the record, noting that it included a lot of data about market and going into the market and finding out what various types of assets sell for - new, used, and at various stages of their life, which he elaborated on. He stated that, under the Florida Statutes and the Mazourek decision, market value approach has to be given proper consideration. He stated that he had a ton of evidence to show what the market value is, which is substantially lower than what he was asking for, with regard to adjustments in the assessments that he was petitioning this date. He stated that he recognized the fact that the Department of Revenue has not done what is probably its responsibility, which is to calibrate the marshal tables to reflect market values and, instead, have left them as depreciation tables. He stated that he also recognized the fact that counties are given the guidelines by the Department of Revenue, however, emphasized that they are guidelines and that counties are free to depart from those guidelines, when they have evidence to show that they should depart from them. He stated that it is within the discretion of the Property Appraiser and the Value Adjustment Board to find whether the factors are being applied correctly. He stated that he was offering a compromise, in that, instead of arguing the market value and having certified independent appraisers come in and testify, he felt, by using the Department of Revenue index, or seven years for store fixtures and four years for all computer products, it would bring the assessments to a more realistic valuation. He stated that the retailers are being assessed higher than they should be, applying the Florida Statutes, and that the Property Appraiser has lost his presumption of correctness in this County, being within the Fifth District. He asked that the seven year and four year table be applied, giving relief to the retailers.

A motion was made by Mr. Connor and seconded by Commr. Hill to uphold the Property Appraiser's assessment for Petition Nos. 2001-69 through 2001-86, in the amount of $13,823,456.00, due to findings of fact and lack of sufficient evidence to overturn the Property Appraiser's assessment.

Under discussion, Commr. Hanson questioned whether the Property Appraiser's Office had heard anything this date that would change their assessment.

Mr. Gaylord Wood, Attorney, representing the Property Appraiser's Office, stated that he had an additional piece of evidence supporting the Department of Revenue tables, which was not allowed to be submitted in the Alachua County decision, because it was not discovered until approximately one month before the trial, being that Alachua County had significant information that supported the department's present work table at the twelve year life. He stated that he had said information available and could provide Mr. Garrison with a copy of same, as well as the Board, should they choose to see it.

Mr. Garrison stated that the Department of Revenue tried to find appraisers that would support the tables and to his knowledge had not done so. He stated that some appraisers around the State had gotten together a market study that was published, briefly, which was going to be used in the Hernando County trial, however, it was withdrawn.

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

Ms. Fischer was not present at this meeting.

RECESS AND REASSEMBLY

At 11:05 a.m., the Chairman announced that the Value Adjustment Board would recess until 1:45 p.m., at which time the Board would hear the remainder of the cases being presented this date.

PETITION NOS. 2001-146 THRU 2001-148 - TOM GRIZZARD

Mr. Frank Royce, Chief Deputy, Property Appraiser's Office, informed the Board that these cases involved real estate that the applicant, Mr. Grizzard, owns on Lake Griffin.

Ms. Sally Grizzard Musso, sister of the applicant and co-owner of the properties involved, addressed the Board stating that she and her brother filed the petitions involved with these cases, because of the condition of Lake Griffin and the lakefront and the type of property that they are dealing with. She stated that none of the three parcels indicated in the petitions are buildable land, at which time she noted that two of them are boat basins, with no boats in them, because there is no water in the basins, and the third parcel is a very small piece of property located in the Leesburg Lakeshore Mobile Home Park. She stated that it is so small that nothing could be built on it. She stated that they have received very little income this year and, at the present time, have a negative cash flow on the boat basins, because they cannot run a business without water in the lake. She stated that the condition of the boat basins is deplorable, therefore, feels that the assessments should have decreased, not increased, due to the condition of the lake and the lack of water therein.

Mr. Eric Porn, Field Appraiser, Property Appraiser's Office, informed the Board that he appraised the two boat basins together, which comprise approximately 42,000 square feet of usable land. He stated that he appraised the property from a highest and best use standpoint, not as a marina, because it is not producing any income to speak of, however, noted that, even though it is not producing any income, it is still lakefront property.

Ms. Musso stated that she could see the property being assessed at its highest and best use in years to come, but not at the present time, due to the condition of the lake.

Mr. Porn stated that he felt the property could be divided into three lakefront lots, at some point in time, and, based on comparable sales in that area, which range from $78,000.00 to $87,500.00, felt that his appraisal was fair. He stated that the property was assessed at $180,555.00 last year, however, noted that he has it assessed at $238,632.00 this year, based on its highest and best use.

Ms. Musso stated that the parcel of property that is located in Leesburg Lakeshore Mobile Home Park is used as a park for the residents and has no connection to the other two parcels.

Mr. Royce stated that Mr. Grizzard did not make it clear to his office that the third parcel of property, which Ms. Musso pointed out, was part of the mobile home park. He stated that, if it could be established that the parcel in question is part of the mobile home park, as a common area, his office would have no problem in making an adjustment and reducing the assessed value of said parcel. He stated that, if the Board wished to discount that particular parcel as part of the total assessed value, his office would work with the applicant, with regard to it.

Commr. Hanson stated that she felt devaluing the property, because of the low water level, would be setting a tremendous precedent in the County, noting that the water level of lakes in the south Lake County area are worse than they are in the Leesburg area.

On a motion by Commr. Hill, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously, by a 4-0 vote, the Board upheld the Property Appraiser's assessment for Petition Nos. 2001-146 and 2001-147, Tom Grizzard, in the amount of $238,632.00, due to findings of fact and lack of sufficient evidence to overturn the assessment, with the Property Appraiser's Office to meet with the applicant regarding Petition No. 2001-148, to work out any discrepancies there may be.

Ms. Fischer was not present at this meeting.

PETITION NO. 2001-65 - LEONARD A. AND JANE F. SEIDELMAN, SR.

Mr. Frank Royce, Chief Deputy, Property Appraiser's Office, informed the Board that the applicants were protesting the valuation of their home, which is located on a canal in Harbor Shores Subdivision. He stated that it is a home comprised of approximately 1,418 square feet of living area, with a fireplace, air conditioning, boat house, and seawall. He stated that the applicants purchased the home in 1993 for $125,000.00. He stated that his office has it assessed at $110,639.00; however, the applicants feel it should be assessed at $105,639.00.

Mr. Leonard Seidelman, Sr., Applicant, addressed the Board stating that he was asking for a temporary adjustment in his assessment, due to the fact that the canal behind his house has very little water in it and is overgrown with weeds and brush, at which time he displayed three pictures of the canal indicating such, which were presented, for the record. He noted that the County used to keep the canal cleaned out, but are no longer doing so, and he is unable to do it.

On a motion by Mr. Connor, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried unanimously, by a 4-0 vote, the Board upheld the Property Appraiser's assessment of $110,639.00 for Petition No. 2001-65, Leonard A. and Jane F. Seidelman, Sr., due to findings of fact and lack of sufficient evidence to overturn the assessment.

Ms. Fischer was not present at this meeting.

PETITION NO. 2001-66 - JOSEPH F. AND MARY A. SANTOS

Mr. Frank Royce, Chief Deputy, Property Appraiser's Office, informed the Board that the applicants live in The Villages of Lady Lake. He stated that they live in a one year old single family home, which they purchased in January of 2000 for $292,700.00. He stated that the current assessment is $232,535.00, which is approximately 79% of the sale price.

Mr. Joseph Santos, Applicant, addressed the Board stating that he and his wife moved to Lake County from south Florida, where they had lived for 30 years. He stated that, in south Florida, they assess homes at 72% of the sale price, rather than the 79% that Lake County assesses them at. He stated that he was questioning an $8,000.00 increase in the assessment of his land, in less than two years, noting that the Property Appraiser's Office increased it $8,000.00 more than what he paid for it.

Mr. Royce informed the Board that one cannot buy just land in The Villages. He stated that one has to have a contract to build a house, when they purchase land, as a package deal. He stated that, for a home that is valued at almost $300,000.00, it is unrealistic to think that the land is only worth $18,000.00. He stated that, in reality, it is probably unrealistic to think that it is worth the $26,250.00 that his office has it assessed at. He stated that the contract amount means nothing in the real world, it is just a figure on paper. He stated that his office is assessing the property as a total package and how they got to their figure is irrelevant. He stated that he felt $26,250.00 for the land, for a $292,700.00 house, is not out of line.

Ms. Santos discussed what she felt was a disadvantage, being that a proposed sports complex will back up to their home, which they feel will lower the value of their home. She noted that it took a neighbor of theirs one year to sell his home, because everybody that viewed it loved it, but, when they found that a sports complex was going to be constructed behind it, they walked away from it. She displayed two pictures of the property where the sports complex is scheduled to be constructed, which were submitted, for the record.

On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried unanimously, by a 4-0 vote, the Board upheld the Property Appraiser's assessment for Petition No. 2001-66, Joseph F. and Mary A. Santos, in the amount of 232,535.00, due to findings of fact and lack of sufficient evidence to overturn the assessment.

Ms. Fischer was not present at this meeting.

RECESS AND REASSEMBLY

At 2:35 p.m., the Chairman announced that the Value Adjustment Board would recess until 2:45 p.m.

PETITION NO. 2001-154 - PENNBROOKE UTILITIES, INC.

Mr. Robbie Ross, Personal Property and Agricultural Operations Director, Property Appraiser's Office, informed the Board that Pennbrooke Utilities, Inc. was petitioning the assessed value of their water/wastewater treatment plant, servicing the Pennbrooke Fairways Subdivision, in Leesburg. He stated that they will argue that the fair market value of the water/wastewater system is $1,600,000.00, which is based on an offer from a competing utility company, however, noted that the Property Appraiser's Office has it assessed at $2,975,476.00.

Mr. Art Erickson, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, Florida Leisure Communities, the company that owns Pennbrooke Utilities, Inc., addressed the Board, on behalf of Mr. Tom Bankowski, Operator/General Manager, Pennbrooke Fairways Subdivision. He stated that his firm deals in real estate development/home building and that the utility operation has always been a secondary asset to the firm. He stated that they did not know much about the water/wastewater treatment business, or the value of the plant, until this year. He stated that, in looking at last year's assessment versus this year's assessment, he noticed an increase in value, at which time he called the Property Appraiser's Office and spoke with Mr. Ross about the matter. He stated that, in hind sight, his firm should have been before the Value Adjustment Board a long time ago, because they feel the assessment has been high for several years. He noted that they are learning about the business as they go.

Mr. Ross informed the Board as to how his office came up with their assessment, however, noted that he would make a recommendation to amend the assessment and go with the straight cost of the plant, which would be $2,028,418.00, for both water and wastewater.

On a motion by Mr. Connor, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously, by a 4-0 vote, the Board upheld the Property Appraiser's amended assessment for Petition No. 2001-154, Pennbrooke Utilities, Inc., in the amount of $2,028,418.00, due to the findings of fact and lack of sufficient evidence to overturn the assessment.

Ms. Fischer was not present at this meeting.

PETITION NO. 2001-164l - TIM AND JAYNE STEWART

Mr. Frank Royce, Chief Deputy, Property Appraiser's Office, informed the Board that the applicants were late in filing a petition to the Value Adjustment Board; therefore, they would have to explain why the petition was filed late and the Board would have to decide whether or not to hear the case.

Ms. Jayne Stewart, Applicant, addressed the Board and explained why her petition was filed late.

On a motion by Mr. Connor, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously, by a 4-0 vote, the Board approved to hear the case.

Ms. Fischer was not present at this meeting.

Mr. Royce informed the Board that the applicants purchased their home in May of 2000 for $159,000.00. He stated that the assessment was originally $131,793.00, however, noted that his staff revisited the home, as requested by the applicants, and made some adjustments, so the current assessment is $129,618.00.

Ms. Stewart informed the Board that, when she and her husband purchased their home it was assessed at $89,036.00. She stated that they expected their assessment to increase, but they did not expect it to increase from $89,036.00 to $94,700.00 the first year and then from $94,700.00 to $131,793.00 the second year. She stated that such a large increase was going to cause a hardship on her family. She stated that they expected to have an increase in their taxes, but not such a large one in such a short period of time.

Mr. Royce brought to the attention of the Board the fact that, in 1994, Florida voted in the Save Our Homes Amendment, which became law in 1995, requiring that, once a parcel of property is sold, it must be assessed at market value. He stated that, as long as homestead exemption stays on a home, the assessment can only be increased a maximum of 3% of the CPI, or the market value of the home. He stated that the taxes cannot be based on what they were the previous year, they have to be based on the current market value of the home.

A motion was made by Mr. Connor to uphold the Property Appraiser's assessment for Petition No. 2001-164L, Tim and Jayne Stewart, in the amount of $129,618.00, due to findings of fact and lack of sufficient evidence to overturn the assessment.

Commr. Stivender seconded the motion, for discussion.

Under discussion, Mr. Connor stated that, even though the Board agreed with the applicant that her assessment went up a lot in one year, based on the law, they could not give her the relief she was seeking, unless some overwhelming and convincing evidence that the assessment was not accurate had been presented. He stated that the Board did not have much choice in a matter such as this one.

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

Ms. Fischer was not present at this meeting.

There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Value Adjustment Board, the meeting was recessed at 3:25 p.m., until September 28, 2001, at 9:15 a.m.







________________________________ CATHERINE C. HANSON, CHAIRMAN



ATTEST:







________________________________

JAMES C. WATKINS, CLERK



sec/9-27-2001/10-02-2001/boardmin