VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD MEETING

FEBRUARY 7, 2006

The Lake County Value Adjustment Board met in regular session on Tuesday, February 7, 2006, at 8:30 a.m., in the Board of County Commissioners’ Meeting Room, Lake County Administration Building, Tavares, Florida.  Commissioners present at the meeting were: Jennifer Hill, Chairman; and Robert A Pool.  School Board members present were:  Scott Strong; and Jimmy Conner.  Others present were: Sanford A. “Sandy” Minkoff, County Attorney; LeChea C. Parson, Assistant County Attorney; Ed Havill, Lake County Property Appraiser; Frank Royce, Chief Deputy, Property Appraiser’s Office; Robbie Ross, Director of Tangible Personal Property/Agricultural Operations; and Toni M. Riggs, Deputy Clerk. 

            WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS

Commr. Hill called the meeting to order at 8:30 a.m. and introduced the Value Adjustment Board (VAB) members and those individuals who were present from the Property Appraiser’s Office.  She then turned the meeting over to Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, who would be giving them a brief explanation of today’s procedures.

            Mr. Minkoff introduced Ms. LeChea Parson, the newest lawyer who has joined the County Attorney’s Office this week.

            PROCEDURES

Mr. Minkoff explained that this year there were four special magistrates who made recommendations to the VAB on the various cases, and those are before them today.  Staff asked all of the property owners to submit any exceptions to those, as well as the Property Appraiser. The Property Appraiser’s attorney has submitted exceptions to those reports, as well as a few property owners.  Mr. Minkoff stated that last week he prepared a memo for the VAB dated January 26, 2006 summarizing their positions and giving them some additional thoughts on each of the cases.  Pursuant to the procedure that the VAB adopted earlier, Mr. Minkoff explained that they will not hear any argument from the applicants; they will just consider the special magistrates’ recommendations, and the exceptions, and determine whether or not to uphold those.

The members asked whether they could ask questions of the Property Appraiser and his staff, and Mr. Minkoff clarified that, if they were to ask them to make comments, they would also have to allow the public to comment.

            PETITIONS

            Mr. Minkoff pointed out that, in his memo, he grouped the cases into four categories; they also have the exception submitted by Tommy E. and Denice L. Stephens, Petition 2005-90L, which they did not have at the time of his memo.  He stated that it might be appropriate to take them in those categories, because they involved the same issue in each one of those cases.  

PETITION 2005-8 – JIMMY J. & LINDA S. JAMES

PETITION 2005-9 – JIMMY J. & LINDA S. JAMES 

PETITION 2005-10 – JIMMY J. & LINDA S. JAMES 

PETITION 2005-15 – JUDY A. PAGE

PETITION 2005-16 – JUDY A. PAGE

PETITION 2005-47 – JAMES REILLY

PETITION 2005-48 – MICHAEL J. PERONTI

PETITION 2005-44 – TUSCANOOGA LAKES, LLC/HART CITRUS

PETITION 2005-22 – CARY RADA

PETITION 2005-39 – ROBERTO RODRIGUEZ/IRIS N. AYALA

 

            Mr. Minkoff noted that the first category consists of the following cases, as outlined in his memo:

                                    2005-8             Jimmy J. & Linda S. James

                        2005-9             Jimmy J. & Linda S. James

                        2005-10           Jimmy J. & Linda S. James

                        2005-15           Judy A. Page

                        2005-16           Judy A. Page

                        2005-47           James Reilly

                        2005-48           Michael J. Peronti

                        2005-44           Tuscanooga Lakes, LLC/Hart Citrus

                        2005-22           Cary Rada

                        2005-39           Roberto Rodriguez/Iris N. Ayala

 

            Mr. Minkoff stated that there are some slight differences in these cases.  In Petition 2005-22, Cary Rada, the Property Appraiser also took the position that they did not have agriculture on the property, but the special magistrate recommended overturning the decision of the Property Appraiser and approving the case.  In Petition 2005-39, Roberto Rodriguez/Iris N. Ayala, the information was just received last night, and their exception has just been provided to the Board.  They claim that the reason they paid three times the value of the land was because they had a very expensive house there, but the special magistrate determined that there was no evidence to show you how much the house was worth, so the VAB cannot really go beyond that.  All of these cases show facts that the people paid more than three times the agriculture value for the land, and they do not qualify for agricultural exemption unless there are special circumstances, pursuant to 193.461(4)(c), Florida Statues, as follows:

Sale of land for a purchase price which is three or more times the agricultural assessment placed on the land shall create a presumption that such land is not used primarily for bona fide agricultural purposes. Upon a showing of special circumstances by the landowner demonstrating that the land is to be continued in bona fide agriculture, this presumption may be rebutted.

 

            Mr. Minkoff explained that he has given them a copy of legal cases, and a copy of the Administrative Code, and his recommendation was that special circumstances were more than continuation of agriculture; either the people had to have lost their farm through eminent domain and were replacing it, or they bought property that was adjacent to an existing farm, which are two of the exceptions in F.A.C. 12D, as noted in his memo; it would be something that was over and above just agriculture.  He stated that all of those cases could be decided together.

            Mr. Minkoff explained that Petitions 2005-35 and 2005-36, Mildred Wolfe, are slightly different; the special magistrate recommended granting the agricultural assessment; however, there were no facts that showed there was an agricultural use.  The special magistrate indicated that it was beyond the property owner’s control and is recommending granting these cases.

            Mr. Minkoff explained that Petitions 2005-49, 2005-50, and 2005-51, Walter D. Runkle; 

2005-105 and 2005-106, Eugene J. Coursen; 2005-140, Greg Evans/Jim Elterman/Gary Holmes Golf; and 2005-103, Horne Properties/Leesburg Square Shopping Center; are all valuation cases where the special magistrate determined the value.  The members have from the property owners an attempt to reargue the facts, and the VAB cannot reverse the facts that are made by the special magistrate.

            Mr. Minkoff explained that the sale of land for a purchase price which is three or more times the agricultural assessment placed on the land creates a presumption that it is not used primarily for bona fide agricultural purposes.  On a showing of special circumstances by the land owner demonstrating the land is to be continued in bona fide agriculture, this presumption may be rebutted.  The Statute creates a presumption that, if you pay more than three times the agricultural value, then that it is not agricultural use.  The Administrative Code indicates is that special circumstances are more than just continuing agriculture; there has to be some reason why you paid three times more than the value of it.  Mr. Minkoff reviewed further the language in the Administrative Code, to clarify special circumstances.

            Mr. Minkoff explained that, in the first cases, James, Page, Reilly, Peronti, Tuscanooga Lakes/Hart Citrus, Rada and Rodrigues/Ayala, the Property Appraiser denied the agricultural assessment; the special magistrate recommended that it be granted.  On those cases where the special magistrate determined a factual issue, the VAB does not have the right to change that.  He reminded the VAB members that, if they choose to ask questions of the Property Appraiser and his staff, then they would need to open up the meeting to the members of the public who might be here on these cases.  The procedure that the VAB adopted was that they were not going to have public comment at this meeting.  Their job is to determine whether the special magistrate applied the appropriate law and, in this case, the Property Appraiser says the appropriate law is that you have to have special circumstances; the special magistrate did not find special circumstances; and that is the issue.  In looking at the reports for the first group of cases, it was his opinion that the special magistrate made a mistake of law, because he did not require that there be additional facts.

            Mr. Strong made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Pool, to uphold the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and deny the following cases:

                                    2005-8             Jimmy J. & Linda S. James

                        2005-9             Jimmy J. & Linda S. James

                        2005-10           Jimmy J. & Linda S. James

                        2005-15           Judy A. Page

                        2005-16           Judy A. Page

                        2005-47           James Reilly

                        2005-48           Michael J. Peronti

                        2005-44           Tuscanooga Lakes, LLC/Hart Citrus

                        2005-22           Cary Rada

 

            Under discussion, Mr. Conner asked if it would be unwise to allow the Property Appraiser and those individuals present today to speak the VAB.

            Mr. Minkoff clarified that staff notified everyone that the VAB would not have public comment at the meeting and, because of this direction, there are those not represented here today.

            Mr. Strong explained that he read the information, as well as Mr. Minkoff’s information, and he believes that he is correct; that they did not provide any additional information to overturn the recommendation of the Property Appraiser; the special magistrate did not have a basis of facts for his findings; he would like to follow the letter of the law and believes that Mr. Minkoff has given them some good advise.

            Mr. Conner asked if there was a reason that the special magistrate did not consider special circumstances, and Mr. Minkoff explained that there were no facts presented at the hearing.

            Commr. Hill called for a vote on the motion, which was carried unanimously by a 4-0 vote, to deny the above noted cases.

            PETITION 2005-39 - ROBERTO RODRIGUEZ/IRIS N. AYALA

            Mr. Minkoff stated that, in Petition 2005-39, Roberto Rodriguez/Iris N. Ayala, the information provided to the VAB members indicates that there was almost a 5,000 square foot house on the property and that is why they paid that much money, $850,000; they really did not pay three times over the agricultural value.  At this time, he reviewed the special magistrate’s findings in the case noting that there were no facts at the hearing.  Mr. Minkoff clarified that the VAB members have just received the exception from this applicant, and they cannot make factual re-determinations.  The VAB could send the case back to the special magistrate and ask him to look at it again.

            Mr. Strong asked, when the application was submitted, would it have been incumbent upon the property owner to have an appraisal done to provide that support information to the special magistrate, and to the Property Appraiser.

            Mr. Minkoff explained that it would have been incumbent upon the property owner to show the special circumstances.  If the VAB sent the case back to the special magistrate, it would require another hearing and the VAB would have to meet again; it would probably take two or three weeks.  The VAB cannot reargue the facts; the only argument they can have in front of them today is the law, or whether or not the facts were applied to the law; at the hearing, they did not submit that information.

            Mr. Conner did not think it was particularly wise to send something back to the special master based on evidence that they did not include the first time.

            Mr. Minkoff explained that the special magistrate recommended approval of this case for the same reason as the other cases; they continued the agriculture on eight and half acres; and he ignored the fact that they paid more than three times the value. 

            Commr. Pool explained that he can certainly see that $150.00 a square foot is not uncalled for in a luxury home and, if you start putting those figures on that home, then it would lower the overall value paid for the agricultural land.

            Mr. Minkoff pointed out that, if they paid $850,000 for the ten acres and, even if they showed the home at $750,000, then paying $100,000 for eight acres of agriculture probably is more than three times the assessed value of it, but none of that information was presented; he would think that $8,000 or $9,000 an acre is probably more than three times the assessed agricultural value.

            Commr. Pool explained that he did not know the value of a tree farm but questioned whether the Property Appraiser could give the VAB that information.  In response to the question, Mr. Havill, Property Appraiser, explained that $175 an acre times three would be the assessed value.  At this time, it was clarified that Mr. Havill was answering a question about their schedule in his office; he was not arguing the case; therefore, the VAB would continue to follow policy and not take any public comment from those in the audience.

            On a motion by Mr. Strong, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried by a 3-1 vote, the VAB approved to uphold the recommendation of the special magistrate and grant the exemption in Petition 2005-39, Roberto Rodriguez/Iris N. Ayala.

            Commr. Hill voted “no”.

PETITION 2005-35 - MILDRED WOLFE

PETITION 2005-36 – MILDRED WOLFE

 

            In Petitions 2005-35 and 2005-36, Mildred Wolfe, Mr. Minkoff felt that the facts were clear that they did not have a bona fide agricultural use on January 1.  The property owner indicated that it was circumstances beyond her control that she could not replant the pines; and that was the finding of the special magistrate; there were no more factual findings.  Mr. Minkoff reviewed the language in the special magistrate’s report noting that the pines had been planted ten years ago and the plantings did not take.  It was clarified that, if the petitioner should plant hay in the future, she can come back and have the property reassessed for the agricultural exemption.

            On a motion by Mr. Conner, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously by a 4-0 vote, the VAB approved to reverse the recommendation of the special magistrate to grant the exemption, and to uphold the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and deny the exemption in Petitions 2005-35 and 2005-36, Mildred Wolfe, based on the reasons noted.

PETITION 2005-49 – WALTER D. RUNKLE

PETITION 2005-50 – WALTER D. RUNKLE

PETITION 2005-51 – WALTER D. RUNKLE

PETITION 2005-105 – EUGENE J. COURSEN

PETITION 2005-106 – EUGENE J. COURSEN

PETITION 2005-140 – GREG EVANS/JIM ELTERMAN/GARY HOLMES GOLF

PETITION 2005-103 – HORNE PROPERTIES/LEESBURG SQUARE SHOPPING CENTER

 

            Mr. Minkoff explained that the next four cases are actual valuation cases, Petition 2005-49, Walter D. Runkle; Petition 2005-50, Walter D. Runkle; Petition 2005-51, Walter D. Runkle; Petition 2005-105, Eugene J. Coursen; Petition 2005-106, Eugene J. Coursen; Petition 2005-140, Greg Evans/Jim Elterman/Gary Holmes Golf; and Petition 2005-103, Horne Properties/Leesburg Square Shopping Center.  In all of those cases, they were all the same with exception of Petition 2005-103, Horne Properties/Leesburg Square Shopping Center, where no one showed up for the hearing.  In all of those cases, the special magistrate made factual findings upholding the valuation placed on them by the Property Appraiser.  He pointed out that the appeal simply indicated that the appraisal was wrong, which is a factual finding, which is really not in their purview.

            On a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Mr. Conner and carried unanimously by a 4-0 vote, the Board approved to uphold the decision of the Property Appraiser and deny the following cases:  Petition 2005-49, Walter D. Runkle; Petition 2005-50, Walter D. Runkle; Petition 2005-51, Walter D. Runkle; Petition 2005-105, Eugene J. Coursen; Petition 2005-106, Eugene J. Coursen; Petition 2005-140, Greg Evans/Jim Elterman/Gary Holmes Golf; and Petition 2005-103, Horne Properties/Leesburg Square Shopping Center.

            PETITION 2005-1 – ROBERT A. & WANDA SCHWEIGEL

            Mr. Minkoff explained that Petition 2005-1, Robert A. and Wanda Schweigel, is a disabled veteran exception, as authorized by 196.081, Florida Statutes.  In this case, everyone agreed that the property owner met the requirements of the Statute.  The issue in front of the VAB was that the property owner did not give a letter from the Veteran’s Administration to the Property Appraiser to put it into his possession.  When he reviewed the Statute, he does not find that there is actual requirement that the letter be given to the Property Appraiser; only that he establish that the applicant is entitled to this exemption.  The special magistrate granted the exemption to the Schweigels; it was his opinion that this was the right decision.

            Commr. Hill disclosed that she knows the Schweigels from years ago and understands their neighborhood dispute but not about this case.

            Commr. Pool disclosed that he also knows the Schweigels but not about this case.

            Commr. Hill stated that she feels that Mr. Schweigel has met his obligation; he did give the Property Appraiser some legal reason why he should be exempt; and she understands the findings in this case.

            Mr. Minkoff explained that everyone at the hearing agreed and the Property Appraiser admitted that Mr. Schweigel meets the requirements for the exemption.

            On a motion by Mr. Conner, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously by a 4-0 vote, the VAB approved to uphold the recommendation of the special magistrate and grant the exemption in Petition 2005-1, Robert A. and Wanda Schweigel.

            PETITION 2005-90L – TOMMY E. & DENICE L. STEPHENS

            Mr. Minkoff explained that there was a conflict between Mr. Bruce Duncan’s law firm and the property owners, Tommy E. and Denice L. Stephens, so they had a special magistrate from Orlando to hear the case.  The appeal from the Stephens came in fairly late and after the packet was sent out to the VAB members.  They have before them today the recommendation from the special magistrate, and the objection from the Stephens.  He explained that this was a new issue for them, a complicated one, so the VAB members might want to take a couple of minutes and read the handout; it involves a Save Our Homes dispute.  Without the homestead, the property gets increased to the fair market value, as opposed to being subject to the three percent (3%) limitation but, even though homestead is kind of important in this case, it is really just a small part of it.  The special magistrate has indicated that any time you have a change of ownership, it has to be bumped up to the fair market value, but there are two exceptions; this case does not fit within those exceptions, as he explained.  In this case, there were three owners who owned the property; one of them got the homestead; that owner died; and the other two applied for homestead.  The special magistrate concluded that the two survivors did not have homestead and were not entitled to the Save Our Homes limitations.  The Save Our Homes limitation only goes to the person who has homestead exemption on the property; not to the other joint owners.  If all three had the homestead from the initial time, then it would not be an issue; but only one of them had the homestead.  The special magistrate cited a Supreme Court case, which is fairly close circumstances, where the court held that, even though taxpayers resided on the property as their homestead several years prior to making application and acquiring homestead, they were not entitled to the protection up until the year they actually got homestead in their own name.  If the homestead had been granted to all three of them, they would not have gotten any additional homestead but, if one of them had died, then the homestead would have continued.  Mr. Minkoff reviewed the facts that were found by the special magistrate noting that the petitioners filed for the homestead exemption, and it was granted to them for tax year 2005; they had not previously made application for homestead; and even though they resided on the property, they did not have homestead exemption anywhere else.  He clarified that Mrs. Peterson did not support the Stephens; if she had, they might very well have qualified; but there were no facts in the finding to show that this occurred.

            Commr. Pool stated that he understands the recommendation from the Property Appraiser; the Stephens did not file for the homestead but they thought they had homestead because they owned the property as joint tenants with right of survivorship.  In fact, they filed for a widow’s exemption to help save even more money, and they should have known this but they did not and, as shown, it does involve a lot of money.  He stated that he would try, in this case, to help the home owner who was not informed or was unaware of the consequences.

            Commr. Pool made a motion, which was seconded by Mr. Conner, to overturn the recommendation of the special magistrate to deny the exemption, and to grant the Save Our Homes cap on the assessed value of the property from tax year 2004 to tax year 2005, in Petition 2005-90L, Tommy E. and Denice Stephens.

            Under discussion, Commr. Hill stated that she morally understands the comments made by Commr. Pool, but she wanted to know where the burden is placed when it comes to actually informing the property owner of the law and, in this case, when all three purchased the property.

            Mr. Minkoff clarified that it is the property owner’s obligation to know the laws.

            Mr. Conner wanted to clarify that, from his perspective, the motion on the table does not find fault with the Property Appraiser’s Office.

            Commr. Hill called for a vote on the motion, as noted, which was approved by a 3-1 vote.

            Commr. Hill voted “no”.

            CERTIFICATES OF VALUE

            On a motion by Mr. Conner, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously by a 4-0 vote, the VAB approved the Certificate of Value Adjustment Board, Real Property, pursuant to Section 193.122, Florida Statutes.

            On a motion by Mr. Conner, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously by a 4-0 vote, the VAB approved the Certificate of Value Adjustment Board, Tangible Personal Property, pursuant to Section 193.122, Florida Statutes.

            MINUTES

            On a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Mr. Strong and carried unanimously by a 4-0 vote, the VAB approved the Minutes of February 7, 2006 subject to final review by the County Attorney.

            RECESS

            On a motion by Mr. Conner, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously by a 4-0 vote, at 9:25 a.m., the VAB approved to recess the Value Adjustment Board until further notice.

 

 

 

___________________________

JENNIFER HILL, CHAIRMAN

 

 

 

ATTEST:

 

 

 

 

__________________________

JAMES C. WATKINS, CLERK