LAKE
FEBRUARY
20, 2007
The Lake County Value Adjustment Board (VAB) met on Tuesday,
February 20, 2007, at 8:30 a.m., in the Board of County Commissioners’ Meeting Room,
Commr. Cadwell called the meeting to order, and it was noted
that a quorum was present. He asked Sandy Minkoff,
Mr.
Minkoff,
Petitioners
Contesting Special Master’s Application of Law
Commr.
Cadwell explained that the Memorandum from the
2006-7 Brian & Alane Shank, Trustees
2006-9 David M. Hill
2006-40 John & Jennifer Bennett
2006-43 W. Richard Bennett
2006-68 Jeanne Sutton
2006-107L Cheryl & James Hime
2006-110L Veronica G. Wrinkle
2006-122L Carroll Fulmer
2006-132L/133L William D. Seidle & Betty Seidle et
al
2006-288L Darren Scott Cerier
2006-292 William Vivian
2006-300L John R. Beatty
2006-308L Kathryn P. Reinhardt
Commr.
Cadwell noted that, in the memorandum, it states that the VAB may not dispute
the special master’s findings of fact or consider any evidence not submitted
during the petitioner’s hearing. The
VAB’s role is to consider the accuracy of the special master’s application of
law.
Commr.
Renick stated that, out of the 13 cases, she did want to discuss three of them,
even though she understands the memorandum presented by the
On
a motion by Commr. Renick, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously
by a 4-0 vote, the VAB approved to uphold the recommendations of the special
master and rule in favor of the Property Appraiser to deny the following cases,
as read into the record by Commr. Cadwell; and to pull Petition 2006-40 – John
and Jennifer Bennett, Petition 2006-7 – Brian and Alane Shank, Trustees, and
Petition 2006-107L – Cheryl and James Hime for discussion and separate votes:
2006-9 David M. Hill
2006-43 W. Richard Bennett
2006-68 Jeanne Sutton
2006-110L Veronica G. Wrinkle
2006-122L Carroll Fulmer
2006-132L William D. Seidle & Betty Seidle et al
2006-288L Darren Scott Cerier
2006-292 William Vivian
2006-300L John R. Beatty
2006-308L Kathryn P. Reinhardt
The
Board addressed Petition 2006-40 – John and Jennifer Bennett, and Commr. Renick
explained that it was one thing if they are supposed to be making a decision
based on what the special master had before him, but she had information in her
packet that the special master did not have that shows that there was a cattle
operation.
Mr.
Minkoff explained that, in this process, and with specific timelines, when a
petition is filed, the clerk schedules a hearing before the special master; the
property owners are advised that they are required to submit any information
they would like to present to the special master in advance of the hearing, so
that the Property Appraiser has the information. There is a hearing before the special master,
where the special master makes the findings of fact and gives the VAB
recommendations of law. If a property
owner fails to present the evidence at that hearing, then it is improper for
the VAB to consider it at this meeting, because that was the time, before the
special master, when that evidence was supposed to be given.
Commr.
Renick stated that she and Mr. Minkoff have talked and he knows the problem
that she has with this because it says that they can question the issues of the
special master in terms of applying the law, but she does not think that she is
qualified to do that, yet they are not supposed to question evidence, and she
was given evidence that the special master did not have before him.
Mr.
Minkoff explained that they afforded everyone an opportunity to respond to the
special master’s recommendations, and the Property Appraiser, as well as many
of the property owners, submitted information; they did not attempt to edit
that information to take out factual re-arguments; so the VAB got everything
that everybody filed. He also noted that
the VAB is never the last chance for someone to object to the decision of the
Property Appraiser, because both the Property Appraiser, and the property
owner, is afforded the opportunity to contest, whether there be an exemption
case or a valuation case, in court where there is a change in the burden of
proof. The court re-hears the entire
case and all of the facts, if it gets to the court.
Petition
2006-40 – John and Jennifer Bennett
On
a motion by Mr. Strong, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried by a 3-1 vote,
the VAB approved to uphold the recommendation of the special master to rule in
favor of the Property Appraiser and deny Petition 2006-40 – John and Jennifer
Bennett.
Commr.
Renick voted “no”.
Petition
2006-7 – Brian and Alane Shank
On
a motion by Mr. Strong, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried by a 3-1 vote,
the VAB approved the uphold the recommendation of the special master to rule in
favor of the Property Appraiser and deny Petition 2006-7 - Brian and Alane
Shank.
Commr.
Renick vote “no”.
Petition
2006-107L – Cheryl and James Hime
On
a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Mr. Strong and carried by a 3-1 vote,
the VAB approved to uphold the recommendation of the special master to rule in
favor of the Property Appraiser and deny Petition 2006-107L - Cheryl and James
Hime.
Commr.
Renick voted “no”.
Mr.
Minkoff explained that there were two other cases where the property owners
contested the special master’s recommendations; Petition 2006-86 - Howey in the
Hills, LTD where the special master found that there was no agricultural use on
the property; and Petition 2006-211 – Andrew Colby that involved the
application of a statute involving hurricane damage to the property.
Commr.
Renick stated that she would recuse from voting on Petition 2006-211 – Andrew
Colby, which involves the hurricane damage because, before she knew she was
going to serve on the VAB, the petitioner called her soon after she was elected
to discuss this issue, and she did talk to him.
Petition
2006-86 – Howey in the Hills, LTD
Mr.
Strong made a motion to uphold the recommendation of the special master and
rule in favor of the Property Appraiser to deny the agricultural exemption on
that portion of the property not being used for timber operations, in Petition
2006-86 – Howey in the Hills, LTD.
Commr.
Cadwell seconded the motion for discussion.
Mr.
Minkoff explained that this case was not included in the three times
presumption rule. In this particular case,
the special master determined that there was no agricultural use on the
property as of January 1.
It
was clarified that this case involves two parts; the special master recommended
that the agricultural classification be denied on that portion of the property not
being used for timber operations; and that the agricultural classification for
that portion of the property being used for timber operations be granted. At this time, the VAB is addressing that
portion of property, the citrus grove, which is not being used for timber
operations, and a recommendation of denial.
Chairman
Cadwell called for a vote on the motion, which was carried unanimously by a 4-0
vote, to deny the agricultural exemption on that portion of the property not
being used for timber operations, in Petition 2006-86 – Howey in the Hills,
LTD.
Petition
2006-211 – Andrew Colby
On
a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded Mr. Strong and carried by a 3-0 vote,
the VAB approved to uphold the recommendation of the special master and rule in
favor of the Property Appraiser to deny Petition 2006-211 – Andrew Colby.
Commr.
Renick abstained from voting, as noted in her comments above.
Three
Times Presumption
Mr.
Minkoff stated that there were 19 cases where the Property Appraiser objected
to the recommendation of the special master; 15 of those cases involve one
issue and that is someone purchasing agricultural lands for more than three
times the agricultural valuation. Those
cases on Page 2 of the Memorandum are as follows:
Grant 2006-62 Lori Ann Herrman & Jean-Mark
P. Stark
Grant 2006-64 Good Earth, LLC (Champion)
Grant 2006-46/47/48/49 Benderson Randall Trustee
et al
Grant 2006-30/31/32/33/34/35/36 Drew Pastures
Grant 2006-94/95/96/231L Montverde Investments, LLC
Grant 2006-60 John
M. Nabers
Grant 2006-89 Mayro, LLC
Grant 2006-23/24/25/26 Amanda Eshbaugh
Grant 2006-69/70
Grant 2006-71/72/73 Joshua High &
Julia L. Johnson
Grant 2006-74/75/76/77/78/79 Gordon Tender, LLC/Baker Heritage,
LLC/et al
Grant 2006-59 John & Judy Page
Grant 2006-57 Ronald Ingles
Grant 2006-90/91/92/93 BL Land Investments, LLC
Grant 2006-86 Howey
in the Hills LTD
Mr.
Minkoff explained that there is the Florida Administrative Code section, which
has been presented to the VAB this morning in its entirety, which says that, if
someone pays more than three times the assessed agricultural value of the
property, there has to be special circumstances in order to keep the
agricultural exemption. This same issue
was before the VAB last year, and the VAB asked his office to look at it, and
they made a recommendation that the special master decision overturning the
Property Appraiser be denied, and that the agricultural exemptions be denied at
that time. Their recommendation this
year is different mainly based upon a court case that was decided in their
circuit by Judge G. Richard Singeltary in November where he ruled, based upon a
line of cases that do not only have to do with special circumstances that, if
you are continuing agricultural use on the property, you can still get the
agricultural classification. In these 15
cases, the special master found that agricultural use was on the property, but
this issue is that the people paid three times more and, in most cases, way
more than three times the value of the property. The issue before them is whether or not
special circumstances need to be shown in order to keep the agricultural
classification when you pay in excess of three times the value, or whether or
not just continued agricultural use, even if you paid more than three times the
value, qualifies you for the classification.
Mr. Minkoff noted that the case that was decided by Judge Singeltary, as
noted, is being appealed by the Property Appraiser to the District Court of
Appeal.
Commr.
Cadwell stated that there is a case now that says what the law is in
Commr.
Renick pointed out that the case is under appeal and last year the
Commr.
Cadwell felt that, since there was a case that had been decided in court that
overturned the decision of the special master, he really did not want to see
them having to spend money again, but he felt that they were going to end up in
court no matter what decision they made today, so he did not really feel they
were going to save any money by using that argument. He stated that this was one of his arguments
that there is a case that has been tried; the judge ruled; and if that is what
the law is in
Commr.
Renick made a motion to deny all of those cases that the special master wanted
to grant that fall under the three times rule.
Commr.
Cadwell wanted to clarify the motion, that the VAB would overturn the
recommendations of the special master and uphold the ruling by the Property
Appraiser and deny the cases.
Commr.
Cadwell called for a second to the motion.
Under
discussion, Commr. Stivender stated that this motion would be going against
what the
Commr.
Renick clarified that the motion was to uphold the Property Appraiser’s opinion
and not the special master’s recommendation to grant these cases.
Mr.
Minkoff explained that a 2-2 vote would mean that the motion failed and they
would have to adjourn and come back when they have a full board, because these
are cases where they actually need decisions by the VAB.
Commr.
Cadwell seconded the motion for discussion.
Commr.
Stivender stated that, if Judge Singeltary has already made a statement and is
their local judge, they have to follow that rule, even if it is an appeal.
Mr.
Strong explained that he has served on the VAB for many years, and they have
been provided with a great deal of information, and he believes it supports
upholding the special master’s recommendation.
The local judge’s opinion has gotten to the appellate level, and he is
not sure that it would carry any more weight, and he has taken that into
consideration as well.
Commr.
Cadwell asked the
Mr.
Minkoff explained that, unless these cases were challenged, they would stand;
so unless litigation began, what happens with that other case would not affect
these cases. If the VAB makes a ruling today to uphold the
recommendation of the special master and, if the Property Appraiser did
challenge them, and then the appellate court did rule in the Property
Appraiser’s favor, then the trial court would agree with the Property Appraiser
in these cases when they came to trial.
Discussion
occurred regarding the timing with it being noted that an extension of the tax
role has been done, so a week or two would not have a negative impact on this
process.
Commr.
Renick stated that the issue comes down to whether or not land that is being
purchased for future development should be allowed to maintain the tax break in
the mean time. She stated that the
question is not answered to her satisfaction as long as the case is still in
appeal. She does not think they have a
definitive answer. After reading all of
the information, she is not judging it based on any legal opinion, and she
feels that the question will be answered in appeal.
Commr.
Cadwell explained that the spirit of the law was created to help folks stay in
the agriculture business.
Recess
& Reassembly
At
9:02 a.m., Mr. Strong requested a five minute recess, in order to try and reach
another School Board member.
Recess
& Reassembly
At
9:10 a.m., Commr. Cadwell reconvened the meeting and announced that they were
unable to reach the fifth member of the VAB.
Commr.
Cadwell called for a vote on the motion that was on the floor, to overturn the
special master’s recommendation and uphold the Property Appraiser’s denial in
the 15 cases, as noted.
Commr.
Cadwell and Commr. Renick voted in favor of the motion
Commr.
Stivender and Mr. Strong voted against the motion.
The
vote was 2-2 with it being noted that the motion failed, and the issue would be
rescheduled before a full board.
Late
Filing
Mr.
Minkoff explained that, as noted in the Memorandum, the special master
recommended overturning the Property Appraiser’s denial of an exemption based
on late filing in four cases.
Three
out of the four cases involved agricultural exemptions, Petition 2006-217L –
Carl Rudnick, Agent, Spencer Estates of Florida, LLC; Petitions 2006-167L and
2006-168L – Akron Meadows, LLC; and Petition 2006-231L – Montverde Investments,
LLC; one case, Petition 2006-147L - Gregory F. & Lorraine A. Tighe,
involved a homestead exemption.
Mr.
Minkoff explained that, in the three agricultural exemption cases, as noted,
the special master did not make any specific factual findings to show that
there were any extenuating circumstances for late filing. Their opinion is that, in order to justify
late filing, you have to have extenuating circumstances. There should be factual findings made by the
special master. The recommendation was
that the special master should be overturned and the denials upheld in the
following cases:
2006-217L – Carl
Rudnick, Agent, Spencer Estates of
2006-167L and
2006-168L –
2006-231L
– Montverde Investments, LLC
Mr.
Frank Royce, Chief Deputy, Property Appraiser’s Office, clarified that, even
though Montverde Investments had more than one case, the only one the VAB is
addressing right now is Petition 2006-231L, which is parcel number
01-22-26-15000000C00.
On
a motion by Mr. Strong, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously by
a 4-0 vote, the VAB approved to overturn the recommendations of the special
master and rule in favor of the Property Appraiser’s recommendation of denial,
in the following cases:
2006-217L –
Carl Rudnick, Agent, Spencer Estates of
2006-167L and
2006-168L –
2006-231L
– Montverde Investments, LLC (parcel number 01-22-26-15000000C00)
Mr.
Minkoff explained that, in Petition 2006-147L - Gregory F. & Lorraine A.
Tighe, which was a homestead case, the extenuating circumstances rule is not
involved because the agricultural statute does not apply to this case, and the
recommendation is that this homestead be granted and that the special master be
upheld; and the Property Appraiser does not object to that recommendation.
On
a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Mr. Strong and carried unanimously by
a 4-0 vote, the VAB approved to uphold the recommendation of the special master
and grant the homestead in Petition 2006-147L – Gregory F. & Lorraine A.
Tighe.
Valuation
Hearings
Mr.
Minkoff pointed out that the special master was recommending that the VAB grant
only one valuation case, Petition 2006-302L – James L. and Joan K. Langford,
where he lowered the valuation, and they have not received anything from the
Property Appraiser objecting to his recommendation. The VAB would be approving all of the special
master’s recommendations on the valuation cases.
Commr.
Renick had a question regarding Petition 2006-289 – William Martin Gurley. She stated that she was given information,
and that originally the Property Appraiser had recommended $117,000; when it
came back, it was $118,818. She asked
for clarification of the discrepancy.
Mr.
Royce explained that whatever was on the trim notice would be the actual
amount, the total assessment, which was confirmed.
On
a motion by Mr. Strong, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously by a
4-0 vote, the VAB approved to uphold the recommendation of the special master
on all valuation cases, as noted on the agenda, and as follows:
Deny 2006-121 Ljubica & Slavoljub Stefanovic
Deny 2006-126 Leonard B. Johnson
Deny 2006-214 Veranda Mt. Dora, LLC/Hines
Property Tax Con.
Deny 2006-275 Rosemont Manor LTD
Deny 2006-276 Rosemont Manor II LTD
Deny 2006-277 Clermont RRH, LTD
Deny 2006-134 Patricia M. & Orville Mann,
III
Deny 2006-170 Kohl’s Dept. Stores, Inc. #799
Deny 2006-144 David & Mary Maeder
Deny 2006-156 George A. Bonifacino
Deny 2006-157 George A. Bonifacino
Deny 2006-160-A Kenneth M. Roach
Deny 2006-160-B Kenneth M. Roach
Deny 2006-160-C Kenneth M. Roach
Deny 2006-294L Martin M. & Carole L. Slavin
Deny 2006-301L John W. & Laurie Pierce
Deny 2006-207 Florida Cable, Inc.
Deny 2006-208 Florida Cable, Inc,
Deny 2006-209 Florida Cable, Inc.
Deny 2006-224 Bradford Davis
Deny 2006-163 Nelle Rose Rasmus, Life Estate
Deny 2006-164 Mark E. & Gay B. Meinke
Deny 2006-165 Richard A. & M. Jean Ekstrand
Deny 2006-169 David L. & Teresa A. Brown
Deny 2006-171 Nancy Edenfield for Eric Edenfield
Deny 2006-192 Eric K. & Helen C. Cadwell
Deny 2006-194 Sidney N. & Marie L. Stribling
Deny 2006-195 Rocco J. & Judith A. Colella
Deny 2006-196 Morris Investment Group, LLC
Deny 2006-199 Florida Twin Markets, Inc.
Deny 2006-200 Florida Twin Markets, Inc.
Deny 2006-201 Florida Twin Markets, Inc.
Deny 2006-202 Florida Twin Markets, Inc.
Deny 2006-203 Florida Twin Markets, Inc.
Deny 2006-210 Donald C. & Lucy E. Oblazney
Deny 2006-216 Bjarne & Frances M. Guttormsen
Deny 2006-204 Dan R. & Stasia Warren
Deny 2006-221 John & Janice Daly
Deny 2006-222 John & Janice Daly
Deny 2006-228 John A. & Teresa L. Gaither
Deny 2006-237 South Toler Inc./First American
Tax Valuation
Deny 2006-248 BP America, Inc.
Deny 2006-254 Hertz Equipment Rental
Deny 2006-255 Hertz Equipment Rental
Deny 2006-256 Hertz Equipment Rental
Deny 2006-257 Hertz Equipment Rental
Deny 2006-258 Hertz Equipment Rental
Deny 2006-262 I Star Bowling Centers
Deny 2006-278 Peter J. & Marjorie L.
Lucarelli
Deny 2006-136 Arnold & Sharon Wofse
Deny 2006-158L Donald Stephens
Deny 2006-177 Kmart #4870/Clermont Center, LTD
Deny 2006-289 William Martin Gurley
Deny 2006-295L Veronica V. Brooks, Trustee
Grant 2006-302L James L. &
Joan K. Langford
Deny 2006-303L Judith Mascia & Kenneth Alberici
Deny 2006-183 Lake Utility Services Inc.
Deny 2006-205 A. C. Keller
Deny 2006-218 Billy & Ruby Brewer
Deny 2006-219 Billy & Ruby Brewer
Deny 2006-225 Gwen Seckinger-Brown
Deny 2006-305L Wayne & Jane Frank
Deny 2006-309L John K. Freeman
Deny 2006-313L Sajjad Haider
Deny 2006-198 Battaglia
Properties LTD
Value
Adjustment Board Meeting
Mr.
Minkoff recommended that the VAB meet next Tuesday, February 27, 2007, at 8:30
a.m. The VAB will also have to adopt the
final tax impact to be placed in the newspaper.
Exemption
Hearings
On
a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Renick and carried unanimously
by a 4-0 vote, the VAB approved to uphold the recommendation of the special
master on all cases where they did not receive information either from the
property owner or the Property Appraiser, as follows:
Petition No. Petitioner(s)
Deny 2006-4 CWC Investments, LTD
Deny 2006-5 Cole W. Clayton
Deny 2006-54 Marly M. Vollger
Deny 2006-55 Carl & Liza Vollger
Deny 2006-99 Eagles Landing at Ocoee, Inc.
Deny 2006-158L Donald E. Stephens, et al
Deny 2006-15/16 Knights Lake LLC
Deny 2006-44 Ronald & Debra Chapman
Deny 2006-2 Geraldine W. Hylander
Deny 2006-41 Claude D. Ferguson
Deny 2006-56 Dwayne Negron
Deny 2006-104L Michael R. & Rosemarie T. Steve
Deny 2006-117L Dennis & Lisa Pranouskes
Deny 2006-166L Carl E. Dandy & Angel M. Volturno
Deny 2006-97 Patti Lehman
Deny 2006-105L John & Laurel Connell
Deny 2006-116L Norman L. Evans
Deny 2006-213L Fred S. Thomas
Deny 2006-299L Oscar Jamerson
Deny 2006-51/52 Prem D. Eumnath
Deny 2006-296L Jorge
Deny 2006-297L Andrew Vassos
Deny 2006-306L Cynthia Wilcox-Diaz
Deny 2006-310L Lynnea Hebner et al
Deny 2006-311L Beatrice C. Boyce
Deny 2006-312L Marlene Saxarra
The
meeting was adjourned at 9:23 a.m. The
Chairman announced that the VAB will reconvene on February 27, 2007 at 8:30
a.m.
__________________________________
WELTON G. CADWELL, CHIARMAN
ATTEST:
__________________________
JAMES
C. WATKINS, CLERK