BCC Board Meeting Minutes

THE LAKE COUNTY VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD MEETING

AUGUST 21, 2002

The Lake County Value Adjustment Board met in regular session on Wednesday, August 21, 2002, 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; Debbie Stivender; and Jennifer Hill. School Board members present at the meeting were: Kyleen Fisher and Scott Strong. 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; Ginger Casburn, Exemptions Supervisor, Property Appraiser’s Office; and Toni M. Riggs, Deputy Clerk.

VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, informed the Board that this entire scheme of the value adjustment process was changed by the legislature in session this year, with an effective date beginning next tax year. Assuming that they do not change it again in the next session, which is a possibility, because there is a lot of controversy over the changes, most of these hearings will be conducted by special masters, and the Value Adjustment Board (VAB) will only conduct legal determinations and will not be doing fact finding like they are doing now.

Mr. Minkoff explained that typically there are two kinds of complaints on the exemption cases before them today. The petition has to be filed by March 1st for homestead exemption, or agricultural valuation. If it is not timely filed, the Property Appraiser normally denies them, and the people can come to the VAB and give a good reason why they filed late. A good reason has to be something that is significant, as he explained. Beyond the late files, sometimes an individual will file a late petition to the VAB, with two being noted on the agenda today. The VAB will have to hear whether or not there was a good reason for them to file the petition late. Once the VAB decides it can hear the petition and, if it is not a late filing, they will be questioned about whether or not they are entitled to homestead, or whether or not they have a bonifide agricultural operation on their property. Mr. Minkoff clarified that, if the petition was late to claim the exemption, or the valuation, or if the petition to the VAB was late, the first issue and the only issue is why was it late and should they hear it at all. He reminded the VAB that the Property Appraiser normally is entitled to a presumption of correctness, so the applicant has the burden to give them evidence to show why the Property Appraiser is incorrect in his determination.

Commr. Cadwell, Chairman, explained that the VAB is made up of three County Commissioners and two School Board members.

HOMESTEAD EXEMPTIONS

PETITION 2002-4 - SAL & GUSSIE SAIEVA

Ms. Ginger Casburn, Exemptions Supervisor, Property Appraiser’s Office, explained that the petitioners were not denied the exemption, because she did not have a 2002 application for them. She did have a 2003 application that states they moved into their residence in 2002.

The petitioners, Mr. Sal Saieva and Ms. Gussie Saieva, addressed the VAB, and Mr. Saieva explained that they were in the process of building their home, for about a year and a half and, in the interim, he got sick and was hospitalized. He was out of work for five months. Mr. Saieva stated that his wife was taking care of him, and she was also ill. He stated that they had letters with them today from the doctors, but that they forgot to file.

Mr. Frank Royce, Chief Deputy, Property Appraiser’s Office, stated that the petitioners filed for the homestead exemption in June, 2002 for the 2003 tax roll and, on their application, they stated that they moved into their home in 2002. He explained that an individual has to be a resident and live in his home January 1st of the year that they are applying for the homestead.

Mr. Saieva stated that he and his wife moved into their home in January, 2002.

Ms. Saieva explained that they got their Certificate of Occupancy in October and closed in October, and they moved in at that time and, therefore, they were in their home January 1st.

Ms. Casburn stated that she did not have a 2002 application from the petitioners, and she only has their application for 2003, which would be approved.

Commr. Stivender made a motion, which was seconded by Ms. Fischer, to hear Petition No. 2002-4, Sal and Gussie Saieva.

Under discussion, Mr. Saieva explained that he had his operation February 19, 2002, and he had another operation, in July, 2001, and he has had constant medical problems since that time.

Ms. Casburn explained that the petitioners indicate on their 2003 application that they have drivers licenses that were issued in 2002.

Mr. and Mrs. Saieva stated that they were Florida residents in 2001, and they had drivers licenses in 2001.

Ms. Casburn pointed out that the 2003 application shows that they got their drivers licenses on January 29, 2002.

Mr. Saiva explained that they had renewed their licenses on that date.

Commr. Cadwell stated that he did not know how the VAB could hear the case, since there was no application made for 2002, and it was not a late application, because there was not an application.

Commr. Cadwell called for a vote on the motion to not hear Petition No. 2002-4, Sal and Gussie Saieva, with the motion being carried by a 3-2- vote.

Commr. Stivender and Ms. Fischer voted “no”.

It was clarified by legal staff that the motion upheld the recommendation from the Property Appraiser for denial of the homestead exemption, based on the findings that the petitioners filed a 2003 application for the homestead exemption, in June, 2002, and there was no record of an application for 2002.

SENIOR EXEMPTION

PETITION NO. 2002-5 - VINCENT S. PALMISANO

Ms. Ginger Casburn, Exemptions Supervisor, Property Appraiser’s Office, explained that the petitioner filed late for the senior exemption. Ms. Casburn explained that she had information from Mr. Palmisano stating that he had to go out of state and take care of a very ill daughter. She asked Mr. Palmisano to submit letters from the doctor verifying the dates, and to have them to her by May 8, 2002. She never received the information. The Property Appraiser’s Office feels the petitioners had time before they left to file for the senior exemption.

Mr. Vincent Palmisano, petitioner, explained that his daughter was suffering from manic depression and, while he and his wife were up north, their notice for the exemption was in the mail. They left in November and did not get back until May. Mr. Palmisano stated that the money involved that they can save next year is not worth him creating another problem for the family. He explained that it is not possible to get paperwork from the medical staff without involving his daughter and her husband and possibly creating more of a problem.

Ms. Casburn explained that the petitioner applied toward the end of the year for the senior exemption, and next year will be based on the 2002 income. She mailed a reminder the last day of 2001 hoping that it would get into all of the households that had the exemption previously. The deadline to file is March 1st

Commr. Cadwell stated that the Board can still take action knowing that the petitioner made a conscious decision not to provide supporting documents to establish extenuating circumstances.

At this time, Commr. Cadwell noted that the VAB would not hear Petition No. 2002-5, Vincent S. Palmisano, for the lack of a motion.

HOMESTEAD EXEMPTIONS (CONTINUED)

PETITION NO. 2002-9 - FRANK A. MARRO

Ms. Ginger Casburn, Exemptions Supervisor, Property Appraiser’s Office, explained that the petitioner filed for the homestead exemption on April 17, 2002. The deadline to file is March 1st. On the paper that was submitted from the title company, it plainly states that the deadline is March 1st.

Mr. Frank A. Marro, petitioner, addressed the VAB and stated that he has been a resident of Florida since he finished college, and he has owned about 14 properties. Mr. Marro stated that it was a very unfortunate situation where he never received a copy of his deed. He stated that this is a case where there was either a lost deed, or it was never sent to him. Mr. Marro stated that he has never been able to file for homestead exemption in the State of Florida without a copy of a deed. He was given instructions, when he closed on his house December 7, 2001, that he needed a copy of the deed. Mr. Marro stated that he got a copy of his deed on April 2, 2002, and he immediately filed for homestead exemption. He now understands that he would have been able to file for the homestead just on a closing statement. Mr. Marro stated that these are extenuating circumstances beyond his control, since he did not have a copy of his deed. He stated that he followed the law but, unfortunately, he was late in filing, and he did not feel that he should be penalized.

Ms. Casburn explained that they do take applications for homestead but, if they do not have a deed in their hand, they do not grant that application, until there is a deed recorded in Lake County. They do not use closing statements to give homestead. They do wait for that deed to be recorded, and then they go by the date on the deed. She pointed out again that the letter states that he needs a deed and that the deadline is March 1st. She noted that this is the letter that the petitioner submitted as extenuating circumstances.

On a motion by Mr. Strong, seconded by Ms. Fischer and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the VAB upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and denied the homestead exemption for Petition 2002-9, Frank A. Marro, based on the March 1st deadline, and the petitioner failing to demonstrate extenuating circumstances for filing late.

SENIOR EXEMPTION

PETITION NO. 2002-5 - VINCENT S. PALMISANO (CONTINUED)

After clarification from Mr. Minkoff, Commr. Cadwell noted that the Board needed to make a motion on this case.

On a motion by Commr. Hill, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the VAB upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser denied the senior exemption for Petition No. 2002-5, Vincent S. Palmisano, based on the March 1st deadline, and the petitioner making a conscious decision not to provide supporting documents to establish extenuating circumstances.

HOMESTEAD EXEMPTIONS (CONTINUED)

PETITION NO. 2002-14 - JACQUES & JOSIANE PAUL

Ms. Ginger Casburn, Exemptions Supervisor, Property Appraiser’s Office, explained that the petitioners filed in a timely manner for the homestead exemption, unfortunately, they do not have permanent immigration cards. Ms. Casburn explained that they have an employee card, and an indefinite asylum card. The documentation submitted states that an asylum status does not give you the right to remain permanently in the United States, and an asylum may be terminated. Therefore, they did not feel there was the permanency they needed.

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, explained that, in order to get homestead, you have to own property and have it be your permanent residence. In reviewing the documentation, it is possible that their residence might not be permanent, but it is also possible that it could be permanent, if circumstances do not change. He stated that, if they were here because of fear of persecution, if there was not a change, then this might be approval for permanency. Mr. Minkoff stated that the VAB may wish to hear from the applicants.

The petitioners, Mr. Jacques Paul and Ms. Josiane Paul, addressed the VAB, and Ms. Paul stated that they appealed to the VAB, because they believe that, based on the documentation they have today, they are granted indefinitely the political asylum in the United States. She stated that the green card is not the only documentation that allows people to stay in the country, and there are other categories of immigrants.

On a motion by Mr. Strong, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the VAB approved to hear Petition No. 2002-14, Jacques and Josiane Paul.

Mr. Frank Royce, Chief Deputy, Property Appraiser’s Office, stated that the Property Appraiser is interpreting the documentation to mean that it does not grant permanent residency. He stated that normally the green card establishes residency, and they have an indefinite asylum approval but it does not give someone the right to remain permanently in the United States. He noted that the documentation says that the asylum may be terminated, if you no longer have a well founded fear of persecution because of fundamental change in circumstances.

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, stated that the problem he has with this application is that it is going to open the door for other people to come in with these (indefinite asylum cards). He stated that right now you must have a green card to get homestead, and this will set a precedent in the future, if the VAB gives them homestead, based on this piece of paper.

Ms. Paul stated that, with the asylum status, they can stay in the country, unless the situation in their country changes. She stated that they are paying taxes and doing everything that a person with a green card does. They are eligible for green cards, but it would take a long time to get them.

Ms. Casburn stated that they have many people that are in the process of getting the permanent immigration card, and they do not grant them homestead until they actually have it, because all of the paperwork that goes with it says that it is not permanent, until they actually issue the card.

It was noted that the asylum status does not prevent the Pauls from getting green cards, and there is no guarantee that someone will get a green card just because they applied for one.

They could very well be denied a card.

Mr. Minkoff stated that, if a person enters the country and claims asylum, because they are being persecuted by the government of another country, we may allow them to stay and not grant them permanent residency status, but they may stay here the rest of their lives, unless the circumstances in their country changes, or another country accepts them. In regards to the question of permanency, the Statute does not really address this issue, and he does not know if there is any case law, because this is an issue he has never researched.

On a motion by Mr. Strong, seconded by Ms. Fischer and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the VAB upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and denied the homestead exemption for Petition No. 2002-14, Jacques and Josiane Paul, based on the applicants not establishing permanent residency.

PETITION NO. 2002-16 - CAROL DENISE MCGUIRE

Ms. Ginger Casburn, Exemptions Supervisor, Property Appraiser’s Office, explained that the petitioner filed for the homestead exemption on March 28, 2002. The deadline to file is March 1st. Ms. Casburn stated that Ms. McGuire has owned the property since July, 2000 as noted on the deed.

Ms. Carol McGuire, petitioner, addressed the VAB and stated that, in regards to the late filing, she did file on March 28, 2002. Mr. McGuire stated that she has been living on the property since March 1, 2001. She testified that the extenuating circumstances were related to a very difficult divorce. She and her husband owned the property jointly for about two and a half years. At this time, the petitioner presented further testimony about her difficult situation and that her divorce was final May 30, 2002, when she was granted the property. At that time, her husband signed a quit claim deed in July, 2002.

On a motion by Mr. Strong, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried by a 3-2 vote, the VAB approved to hear Petition No. 2002-16, Carol Denise McGuire, based on the VAB finding that the divorce was the extenuating circumstance to allow the late filing.

Ms. Fischer and Commr. Cadwell voted “no”.

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, clarified that the motion will reflect that the VAB found that the divorce was the extenuating circumstance to allow the late filing.

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, stated that Ms. McGuire and her husband owned the property together on March 1, 2001, so they had until March 1, 2002 to file for homestead, and either one of them could have filed for it. He clarified that Ms. McGuire or her husband could have pre-filed on March 2, 2001 for the 2002 homestead. Mr. Havill stated that the problem his office has is that neither of the married people came in after March 1, 2001 to file for homestead for 2002, and she filed late, on March 28, 2002.

Ms. Fischer made a motion to deny Petition No. 2002-16, Carol Denise McGuire.

The motion died for the lack of a second to the motion.

Through further discussion, it was explained that Mr. and Mrs. McGuire lived in one home; they went through a divorce; and she moved into the rental property, which they jointly owned.

Mr. Havill stated that he would not have a problem if the VAB went against the Property Appraiser, because of the extenuating circumstances. He explained that anyone can file for homestead exemption, but they will be denied if they do not meet all of the requirements.

Ms. Fischer asked if at any time did Ms. McGuire present Mr. Havill’s Office any kind of proof from her attorney that documentation was withheld from her by her husband.

Ms. McGuire stated that she could not afford an attorney at that time, and it took her until January to get a loan to hire an attorney. She noted that she never attempted to contact The Haven for assistance.

Mr. Minkoff stated that there is a judicial bias in favor of granting homesteads, when you truly qualify. The March date is there because, if they did not have a date, it would be impossible to administer the system, but generally homestead is a constitutional entitlement, so there is a judicial bias to grant it, if you can find extenuating circumstances.

On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Mr. Strong and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the VAB overturned the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and approved the homestead exemption for Petition No. 2002-16, Carol Denise McGuire, based on the VAB establishing that the divorce was the extenuating circumstance for the VAB to hear the case and rule in favor of the applicant

PETITION NO. 2002-19 - ANN HALES AND ARTHUR HALES

Ms. Ginger Casburn, Exemptions Supervisor, Property Appraiser’s Office, explained that the petitioner filed for the homestead exemption on June 1, 2002. The deadline to file is March 1st.

Ms. Ann Hales, the petitioner, addressed the VAB and stated that she did not believe that she meets the extenuating circumstances that were defined in the beginning. Ms. Hales stated that this is the first time that they have filed for homestead, and this is the first time they have owned property in Florida. After they bought their house in June, 2001, they inquired about the procedure to file for homestead exemption, and they were told that they were all set. They got their ad valorem tax notice, in their name and with their loan number, and it said that they had the $25,000 exemption.

Ms. Casburn explained that, if someone buys a property that previously had homestead on it, as a courtesy, she automatically sends a letter explaining about homestead, and that the homestead that is there will be removed, and you will need to come in and file an application.

On a motion by Mr. Strong, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the VAB upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and denied the homestead exemption for Petition No. 2002-19, Ann Hales and Arthur Hales, based on the March 1st deadline, and the petitioner failing to demonstrate extenuating circumstances for filing late.

PETITION NO. 2002-19 - JEFFREY W. HASLEY

Ms. Ginger Casburn, Exemptions Supervisor, Property Appraiser’s Office, explained that the petitioner moved into his home in May, 2001. Mr. Hasley filed for the homestead exemption on March 13, 2002. The deadline to file is March 1st.

Mr. Jeffrey Hasley, petitioner, addressed the VAB and stated that his home was in foreclosure, and he was of the understanding that the foreclosure nullified the homestead exemption.

Ms. Casburn noted that the papers she received from Mr. Hasley were dated February 26, 2002, and he could have filed anytime from May, 2001 until March 1st. She stated that everything on his application would have been approved except that he is still registered to vote in Orange County and, under Florida law, he must register in the County where he has his homestead, even before they can grant him homestead for 2003.

On a motion by Mr. Strong, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the VAB upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and denied the homestead exemption for Petition No. 2002-19, Jeffrey W. Hasley, based on the March 1st deadline, and the petitioner failing to demonstrate extenuating circumstances for filing late.

AGRICULTURAL EXEMPTIONS

PETITION NO. 2002-1 - DEBORAH L. JOSWIG

Mr. Robbie Ross, Tangible Personal Property and Agricultural Operations Director,

stated that the petitioner filed for the agricultural exemption after the March 1st deadline.

Ms. Deborah Joswig, the petitioner, addressed the VAB and presented testimony about her long illness. Ms. Joswig stated that she became ill November; and she continues to struggle with her health problems, even though they are now under control. She lives in Pinellas County where she and her husband have a business and, because she was in and out of the hospital, her husband had to run the business without her, as well as care for their children.

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, stated that he would have no problem with the VAB hearing this case on late filing.

On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Ms. Fischer and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the VAB approved to hear Petition No. 2002-1, Deborah L. Joswig.

Mr. Robbie Ross, Tangible Personal Property and Agricultural Operations Director, explained that the property is along Highway 450 about three miles west of Umatilla. Mr. Ross reviewed an aerial of the site , Parcel 7, which is a burned out grove, and explained that they are in the process of trying to put this into pasture.

Ms. Joswig stated that they have 20 acres of active grove, and they are putting the rest to pasture. She testified that they are still working on the fence, so they can get the cows that they ordered. Ms. Joswig stated that they thought they would have it done, but she got sick. She explained that, when they purchased the property, it was a viable agricultural operation, because it was a orange crop grove. They bought 127 acres and only 20 acres was a working orange grove.

Mr. Ross stated that the Property Appraiser has no problem granting the classification on the working citrus (20 acres), but they would have to request that the VAB uphold the recommendation of denial on the remaining acreage.

Ms. Joswig explained that the fencing is done now along Highway 450, and they will be getting their cows in about a month.

Mr. Havill explained that the application for an agricultural classification states that, as of January 1, 2002, this is an agricultural operation but, the petitioners are in the process of getting a commercial agricultural operation and, from all indications, they will have it finished by the end of this year and, by next January 1st, they should qualify for this classification.

Mr. Ross stated that, in looking at the pictures, this is a new fence and, on the other side of the fence, the grass is high and there is some sour root stock, so it is really not cleared property where they could actually go in and cut hay. He stated that helooked at the citrus grove where there is no fence, and there is no fence on the back side of the property. He stated that they will determine the acreage from the aerial that they can approve for the agricultural classification.

On a motion by Commr. Hill, seconded by Ms. Fischer and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the VAB upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and denied the agricultural exemption on the property, less the 20+ acres that are active, for Petition 2002-1, Deborah L. Joswig, based on the property not being used primarily for bonafide agricultural purposes.

COMMISSIONERS

At 9:55 a.m., Commr. Cadwell turned the chairmanship over to Commr. Stivender.

AGRICULTURAL EXEMPTIONS (CONTINUED)

PETITION NO. 2002-6 - JERRY D. AND NANCY E. NEWTON

Mr. Robbie Ross, Tangible Personal Property and Agricultural Operations Director, stated that the petitioners are being denied an agricultural classification on one of their two pieces of properties they own in the Pine Lakes area of Lake County. The property in question is a 10 acre tract that has a mobile home that was recently placed on the property. The denial was sent in June. Mr. Ross stated that Mr. Newton kindly provided him with some information for his horse business. A reinspection of the property was done on August 15, 2002, and he still found this property not in use, because there is no fence around the property, and there are no horses running on it.

Mr. Jerry Newton, petitioner, addressed the VAB and stated that he went through this same process last year. Mr. Newton explained that he has two 10 acre tracts, and he is raising a new type of registered horse. He provided documentation to the Property Appraiser last year, and his application was approved. He stated that this year he had to reseed the property, so he could not put the horses back on the property for almost a year. So he took down the fence on the inner part of the wooded area and moved it to the outside of the property, with 90 percent of it being complete. At this time, Mr. Newton explained the reasons for changing horses from one pasture to another and noted that he has a total of 20 acres, which are two 10 acre tracts.

Mr. Ross explained that the Property Appraiser has no problem granting the classification on the one 10 acre tract. It was clarified that Mr. Newton had horses on the one 10 acre tract last year, and they approved the classification, but they are denying the classification this year on that same tract, because he is changing the horses from one pasture to another, he is relocating the fence, and he is reseeding the property. Mr. Ross explained that each year stands on its own and this year, from the evidence before them, there is not an agricultural use on this one 10 acre tract.

On a motion by Commr. Hill, seconded by Mr. Strong and carried by a 4-0 vote, the VAB upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and denied the agricultural exemption, on the described 10 acre tract, for Petition 2002-6, Jerry D. and Nancy E. Newton, based on the property not being fenced, and the lands not being used primarily for bonafide agricultural purposes.

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

PETITION NO. 2002-7 - PATTI NORMAN

Mr. Robbie Ross, Tangible Personal Property and Agricultural Operations Director, stated that the petitioner applied for an agricultural classification on a 10.2 acre tract of land in South Lake County. He referred to an aerial of the property and stated that Ms. Norman purchased the property in May, 2001, for $87,000. Her application was received in their office on February 7, 2002. The application listed no income and expense information, nor any lease information. He noted that the property was agricultural before Ms. Norman purchased it.

Ms. Patti Norman, petitioner, addressed the VAB and testified that, when she purchased the property, it was her goal eventually to build on it and live there. She is using the property exactly how the prior owners were using it. It is being mowed and used for hay, and she did not incur any expenses, because the adjacent property owners are mowing it, and she gives the hay to them for mowing the property. Ms. Norman pointed out that about five acres of the property are wetlands, and the property cannot really be used for anything. She is working on getting a lease for the property for cows, and she does not feel that the denial is justified.

When Commr. Stivender questioned whether Ms. Norman had a letter or affidavit from the adjacent property owners about their arrangement for mowing, Ms. Norman indicated that she was never told that one was required or that she could submit one.

Mr. Ross stated that the previous owner had the agricultural exemption for pasture being used for hay. He explained that, in order for them to be able to classify the property, it has to be used by the owner, or be leased by the owner to somebody else to use for a bonifide agricultural business. In this case, Ms. Norman has testified that she purchased the property as a residential lot that she was hoping to build on one day but, until then, she decided that she would obtain the agricultural classification. Mr. Ross stated that she has no contract with anyone for hay services; she has no contract or lease with anybody to run cows on the property; she has no income and expenses from what they would consider as farming practices such as fertilizing, if she is growing hay. He talked to Ms. Norman on June 26, 2002 and asked for additional information to support her request for the classification.

Mr. Frank Royce, Chief Deputy, Property Appraiser’s Office, explained that the assessment is based on market price of the property, which would be, in this case, $87,000. The portion of the property could be wetlands and assessed at $45,000 but the value of the property is in the uplands, which is where the larger value per acre is set. The Florida Statutes states that the agricultural classification can be denied based on the purchase price paid being greater than three times the value of the agricultural land.

On a motion by Mr. Strong, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried by a 4-0 vote, the VAB

upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and denied the agricultural exemption, for Petition No. 2002-7, Patti Norman, based on the lands not being used primarily for bonafide agricultural purposes.

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

COMMISSIONERS

At 10:15 a.m., Commr. Stivender returned the chairmanship over to Commr. Cadwell, Chairman.

PETITION NO. 2002-8 - MARK T. & KATHLEEN Y. DRAPER

Mr. Robbie Ross, Tangible Personal Property and Agricultural Operations Director, stated that the petitioner is requesting an agricultural classification on 15 acres located on the north side of Lake Lincoln Lane. Mr. Ross contacted Mr. Draper yesterday to get some additional information from him concerning his pasture. He explained that Mr. Draper is in the process of reworking his fences; he had to move his cows off the property after January 1st to the property to the west, to enable him to get his fences where he could actually keep his cows on his property. Mr. Ross stated that the cows were there as of January 1, 2002; the cows have been removed from the property to allow the owner to rework the fence and rework irrigation lines. He asked Mr. Draper to provide him with some income and expense information. Mr. Ross asked that the VAB postpone hearing this case, until he and Mr. Draper could meet and discuss this information. It was noted that Mr. Draper was present and had information with him today.

It was noted that the VAB had no problem allowing Mr. Ross time to speak with Mr. Draper, and therefore, postponed taking action on the petition.

PETITION NO. 2002-22 - WILLIAM F. GRUNER, JR.

Mr. Robbie Ross, Tangible Personal Property and Agricultural Operations Director, stated that the petitioner requested an agricultural classification on a seven acre parcel located on the east side of Emeralda Road. The property is located near the St. Johns River Water Management District’s (SJRWMD) Emeralda Marsh property. Mr. Gruner purchased the property in May, 2001, for $35,000; it was a vacant naturally wooded lot at the time of purchase.

Mr. Gruner, the petitioner, addressed the VAB and testified that he intends to continue to build his barn, and to keep all of the property tree lined. Mr. Gruner further testified that he intends to do nothing with the trees, and to just let them grow.

Mr. Ross explained that, in order to grant Mr. Gruner the classification for a timber tract, they have to see a potential that the property owner is going to cut the trees, or harvest the trees for income at some time. Sometimes he will request a forestry management plan from property owners that have timber but, in this case, Mr. Gruner is testifying that he is not going to do anything with the trees, therefore, by Florida law, they cannot grant the agricultural classification.

Mr. Gruner stated that, since 1947, the property owner has had the agricultural classification, and it has always been tree lined, and he is keeping the same classification as the previous owner.

On a motion by Commr. Hill, seconded by Ms. Fischer and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the VAB upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and denied the agricultural exemption, for Petition No. 2002-22, William F. Gruner, Jr., based on the lands not being used primarily for bonafide agricultural purposes.

PETITION NO. 2002-23 - JOY LOTHROP

PETITION NO. 2002-10 - VINCENZO BERTUCCI

PETITION NO. 2002-28L - JOHN V. AND LYNNDA ANGELO

PETITION NO. 2002-29L - JOHN S. BARONE

Commr. Cadwell announced the balance of the cases on the agenda, with it being noted for the record that the no one was present to present the case.

On a motion by Commr. Hill, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the VAB upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and denied the

following petitions, due to the petitioner, or representative, not being present to provide evidence to overturn the decision of denial:

Petition No. 2002-23 - Joy Lothrop - Homestead Exemption

Petition No. 2002-10 - Vincenzo Bertucci - Agricultural Exemption

Petition No. 2002-28L - John V. And Lynnda Angelo - Homestead Exemption

Petition No. 2002-29L - John S. Barone - Homestead Exemption

RECESS & REASEMBLY

At 10:25 a.m., Commr. Cadwell announced that the VAB would recess for five minutes.

PETITION NO. 2002-8 - MARK T. & KATHLEEN Y. DRAPER (CONTINTUED)

Mr. Robbie Ross, Tangible Personal Property and Agricultural Operations Director, stated that, after meeting with Mr. Draper, he is going to grant the agricultural classification. Mr. Ross noted that the VAB should consider it as a withdrawal.

It was noted for the record that Petition 2002-8, Mark T. and Kathleen Y. Draper, has been withdrawn.

At 10:30 a.m., Commr. Cadwell recessed the VAB meeting until October 2, 2002 at 9 a.m.

WELTON G. CADWELL, CHAIRMAN

ATTEST:

JAMES C. WATKINS, CLERK

TMR/BOARDMIN/8-21-02/8-30-02