APRIL 12, 2010

The Lake County Value Adjustment Board met in regular session on Monday, April 12, 2010, at 10:00 a.m., in the Board of County Commissionersí Meeting Room, Lake County Administration Building, Tavares, Florida.† Present at the meeting were:† Commr. Jimmy† Conner, Chairman; Larry Metz, Lake County School Board representative; Ralph Smith, and Will Walker, citizen members.† Commr. Stewart was absent.† Others present were:† Leigh Tucker, Counsel for the Value Adjustment Board; and Brenda Law, Deputy Clerk.

call to order

The Chairman called the meeting to order.

approval of minutes

The Chairman asked for approval of the Minutes of October 27, 2009.† Ms. Leigh Tucker recommended the Board approve the Minutes.

On a motion by Mr. Walker, seconded by Mr. Smith and carried unanimously by a 4-0 vote, the Board approved the Minutes of October 27, 2009, as presented.

consideration of recommendations of Special Magistrate DENISE LYN FOR 2009 exemption petitions


Ms. Tucker reviewed the color-coded spreadsheet listing all petitions before the Board with their respective recommendations by Special Magistrate Denise Lyn.† She explained that Ms. Lynís recommendations for the petitions under Category 1 granted the Petitionersí request for relief; those under Category 2 denied the Petitionersí request for relief; those under Category 3 were withdrawn by the property owner; and those under Category 4, were granted by the Property Appraiserís office prior to a hearing.† She asked that the spreadsheet be submitted into evidence by a member of the Board.

On a motion by Mr. Smith, seconded by Mr. Walker and carried unanimously by a 4-0 vote, the Board approved the spreadsheet and asked that it be submitted into evidence.

Ms. Tucker asked if there were any questions on the recommendations presented.† There being no questions, she requested that the recommendations of the Special Magistrate in each of the categories be accepted by the Value Adjustment Board.

Mr. Metz moved that the Board approve the recommendations of the Special Magistrate for the cases listed on the spreadsheet which had been accepted into the record. Mr. Walker seconded the motion.

The Chairman asked for any discussion on the recommendations.

Mr. Smith questioned whether they were discussing the Category 2 recommendations.

Ms. Tucker explained that the two categories containing recommendations from the Special Magistrate were those in Categories 1 and 2.† She commented that the recommendations in Category 3 were withdrawn and did not require any action by the Board.

Mr. Smith stated that he would like to discuss Petition Nos. 2009-2 and 2009-3.† He commented that after reading through the information, the decision was based on aerial photographs made sometime prior to January 1, 2009, which was the date required by law.† He questioned how aerial photographs could be weighed into evidence when he presumed the photographs were not taken on that specific date.

Ms. Tucker responded by stating that Ms. Lyn considered all appropriate evidence she had before her which was to be considered by a Special Magistrate.† She noted that Ms. Lyn did, in fact, take that into consideration and at that time she had the ability to weigh the gravity of the evidence.† She commented that clearly, in Ms. Lynís estimation, the gravity of that evidence rules to the level of denial.

Mr. Smith stated that he could not support the denial of Petition Nos. 2009-2 and 2009-3.† He continued by commenting that he also thought that George LeClercq, Petition No. 2009-11, was being penalized because the parties were married. He commented that if they were cohabiting it would not be an issue and, therefore, he would not support the Special Magistrateís recommendation on Petition No. 2009-11.

The Chairman stated that there was a motion on the floor to approve the recommendations of the Special Magistrate and asked if there were any other discussions.† He called for a vote on the motion to uphold the recommendations of the Special Magistrate.† The motion carried unanimously by a 3-1 vote.† Mr. Smith voted ďno.Ē

Discussion of procedures for 2009 valuation petitions

Ms. Tucker stated that the next Board meeting, to consider the Special Magistrateís recommendations for valuation petitions, would cover a large number of petitions.† She questioned whether it would be easier when reviewing the petitions for the Board to have them in numerical order as they were in the books today, or if they would prefer they be separated by color-coded categories.

Mr. Metz commented that for the quantity of petitions submitted today having the petitions in numerical order worked well.† He stated, however, for a larger volume of cases perhaps it would be helpful to separate them by colored tabs and within that tab, numerically by case number.

Ms. Tucker referred to the left-hand side of the spreadsheet which indicates the petition number in numerical order.† She stated that she could arrange the petitions in numerical order within each colored category, rather than combining all categories numerically.

Commr. Conner stated that having the petitions in order by color would be beneficial to the Board.

Ms. Tucker noted that the books would be prepared accordingly for the next meeting.† She commented that Mr. Frank Royce, Chief Deputy, Property Appraiserís Office, requested the record be made clear with regard to Petition No. 2009-696, noting that it was recommended that this Petition be granted.† She explained that while the Board today accepted the recommendations of the Special Magistrate, that the recommendation for Petition No. 2009-696 was that it be transferred to Orange County, not that the Petitionerís relief was requested for the valuation change.† She remarked that since the record was now clear on this issue there was no further action required by the Board.


Ms. Tucker stated that the Special Magistrate recommendations on valuation petitions were due on April 9, 2010, noting that they should be in her office today.† She noted that the Special Magistrates were doing a great job and believed that all the recommendations would be returned in a timely manner.† She remarked that they should be able to schedule a meeting within the last two weeks of May and thus conclude their Value Adjustment season.


There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the VAB, the meeting was adjourned at 10:10 a.m.