OFFICIAL MINUTES OF MARION COUNTY VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD. December 13, 2013

Transcription

1 OFFICIAL MINUTES OF MARION COUNTY VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD The Marion County Value Adjustment Board, by its appointed Special Magistrate, met in County Commission Chambers at 9:02 a.m. on Friday, at the Marion County Governmental Complex located in Ocala, Florida. Value Adjustment Board (VAB) Attorney Thomas J. Dobbins, Trow & Dobbins, P.A. and Special Magistrate John C. Trentelman were present. The following employees of the Property Appraiser's Office were present: Robin Reaves, Director of Customer Service, Lee Ulsberger, Agricultural Appraiser and Thomas Keen. Also present was the Property Appraiser's Office counsel Vanessa Thomas, with the law firm of Forman, Hanratty, Thomas, and Montgomery, P.A. Mr. Dobbins noted that pursuant to Rule 12D (5) of the Florida Mr. Dobbins advised of the VAB process pursuant to Florida Statute (FS) requiring partial payment of taxes in order to avoid denial of the petition. He stated the Board could not guarantee that the process would be concluded on or before April 1, 2014; therefore, if a portion of the taxes were not paid under the statute as required, the Board would be required to deny the petition regardless of the Special Magistrates recommendation. Mr. Dobbins advised that the Property Appraiser's Office would help calculate the minimum tax to be paid in order to comply with the Statute. Petition by Robert and Janine Woodsford, seeking adjustment of property value was read into the record. It was noted that the petitioner was present and that the Taxpayer Information Sheet was received. Mr. Trentelman swore in the Petitioner, Janine Woodsford and Robin Reaves, Ms. Reaves advised that the petition concerned an application for the 2013 homestead exemption, which was denied due to the fact that the applicants did not own and occupy the property as of January 1, She stated the petitioners acquired title to the property by a deed, dated and signed by the seller on January 4, Ms. Reaves noted the petitioners filed a timely application for homestead exemption on which it was indicated that they moved into the home on January 5, She stated FS required that the owners have title and exempt use on January 1 st in order to qualify for the exemption. Ms. Reaves noted homestead exemption was granted for Page 1 of 5

2 Ms. Woodsford advised that the closing for the home was originally scheduled on December 28, 2012; however, the sellers were coming from out of State and could not travel due to weather conditions. She stated it was the intention of the buyers and sellers to close prior to the end of the year. Mr. Trentelman advised that the Statute was very specific in regard to the January 1 sl deadline for homestead exemption, noting it was unfortunate that it did not occur for the petitioner. In response to Mr. Trentelman, Ms. Woodsford stated she moved into the home on January 5, She noted that she had lived in a rental home prior to this purchase. Ms. Reaves presented an evidence packet to the Special Magistrate. Ms. Woodsford presented a 2 page handout that included a copy of the Residential Contract for Sale and Purchase for the subject property. recommendation to the VAB. There was a recess at 9:11 a.m. The meeting resumed at 9:12 a.m. Petition by Hsing Hsung Chuang. seeking adjustment of property value was read into the record. It was noted that this was a telephonic hearing to be held in conjunction with the Marion County Value Adjustment Board and Department of Revenue (DOR) Rules. The Deputy Clerk dialed tile telephone number provided by the petitioner, which was answered by Susan Chuang, representing the applicants. Mr. Dobbins requested clarification in regard to the letter written by the petitioner and whether or not she was requesting to have the hearing rescheduled. Ms. Chuang clarified that she would like to proceed today with the telephonic hearing. Mr. Dobbins noted that pursuant to Rule 12D (5) of the Florida Mr. Dobbins advised of the VAB process pursuant to FS requiring partial payment of taxes in order to avoid denial of the petition. He stated the Board could not guarantee that the process would be concluded on or before April 1, 2014; therefore, if a portion of the taxes were not paid under the statute as required, the Board would be required to deny the petition regardless of the Special Magistrates recommendation. Mr. Dobbins advised that the Property Appraiser's Office would help calculate the minimum tax to be paid in order to comply with the Statute. Page 2 of 5

3 Mr. Trentelman swore in the Petitioner, Susan Chuang and Thomas Keen, Mr. Keen presented an evidence packet to the Special Magistrate. He advised that FS directed that the Property Appraiser shall, on an annual basis, classify for assessment purposes all lands within the County as either agricultural or nonagricultural. Only lands that were used primarily for bona fide agricultural purposes shall be classified agricultural. The subject property was located with legal access from NW 64 th Terrace, near northwest Highway 225A and west Highway 326. The size of the property was 60 acres and was a vacant parcel. The purchase price paid for the property in 2007 was $1,525, There was no current present value of the property as agricultural land and no proof of income produced by the property. There had not been any productivity of the land for any length of time; therefore, no continuous use. The Property Appraiser's Office received a lease agreement for the land in March 2008 from the petitioner that was to be used by Sue Lee of Happy Faith Farm. There had been multiple inspections on the property from July 1, 2009 to April 25, 2013 in which there had been no agricultural use of the property. Another inspection was performed on September 25, 2013, which showed that grass had been mowed, but not hayed. There had been no indicated effort made to care sufficiently and adequately for the land in accordance with the accepted commercial agricultural practices, including fertilization, tilling, mowing, reforestation or other accepted agricultural practices. In addition there had not been sufficient management of fire lands or any underbrushing. Therefore, in the opinion of the Property Appraiser's Office the property did not qualify for agricultural classification based on requirements set by FS In response to Mr. Trentelman, Mr. Keen stated the petitioner did not participate in an evidence exchange. Ms. Chuang advised that since 2009 the farm had been rented to a retired veteran to utilize; however, due to health reasons, he was unable to hay in exchange for using the farm. She addressed a section of the farm that had persimmon and papaya trees planted and questioned if that part of the property could be considered agricultural. Mr. Trentelman questioned if the property was hayed or worked agriculturally in Ms. Chuang stated the renters tried to hay with a smaller machine; however, it was not strong enough to pick up the hay. She noted in early 2012 the property was hayed once. Mr. Trentelman addressed the pictures in the evidence packet provided by the Property Appraiser's Office, noting in 2013 it appeared that part of the property had been mowed; however, there was no evidence of commercial haying. Ms. Chuang advised that in 2013 she had hired a company called Ground Tech who assured her that the part of the property that could be hayed for animal feed was done. In response to Mr. Trentelman, Mr. Keen advised that upon inspection of the property there were multiple thorn bushes that would have to be removed in order to properly hay the property. Ms. Thomas requested the petitioner provide the Property Appraiser's Office with a copy of the lease agreement with the 3 rd party renters to perform agricultural activities on the property. Ms. Chuang stated she would provide a copy. recommendation to the VAS. In response to Mr. Trentelman, Ms. Chuang stated she understood FS regarding partial payment of taxes in order to avoid denial of the petition. Page 3 of 5

4 There was a recess at 9:35 a.m. The meeting resumed at 9:38 a.m. Petition by Ruben Sierra, seeking adjustment of property value was read into the record. It was noted that the petitioner was present and that the Taxpayer Information Sheet was received. Mr. Dobbins noted that pursuant to Rule (5) of the Florida Mr. Dobbins advised of the VAB process pursuant to FS requiring partial payment of taxes in order to avoid denial of the petition. He stated the Board could not guarantee that the process would be concluded on or before April 1, 2014; therefore, if a portion of the taxes were not paid under the statute as required, the Board would be required to deny the petition regardless of the Special Magistrates recommendation. Mr. Dobbins advised that the Property Appraiser's Office would help calculate the minimum tax to be paid in order to comply with the Statute. Mr. Trentelman swore in the Petitioner, Ruben Sierra and Lee Ulsberger, Mr. Ulsberger presented an evidence packet to the Special Magistrate. He advised that FS directed that the Property Appraiser shall, on an annual basis, classify for assessment purposes all lands within the County as either agricultural or non-agricultural. Only lands that were used primarily for bona fide agricultural purposes shall be classified agricultural. The subject property was located with legal access from NW 150 th Avenue, approximately 1.5 miles west of US Highway 27. The size of the property was 91 acres and considered an improved parcel with horse barns and an office. The subject property was purchased from TO National Bank on January 30, 2013 by Just for Fun Stable, Inc. Mr. Ulsberger advised that because the petitioner did not take ownership until after January 1, 2013, Just for Fun Stables was not utilizing the property until after the first of the year. He stated TO National Bank foreclosed on the property on October 12, 2012 and never filed an application for agricultural classification. The Property Appraiser's Office received an application for agricultural classification on September 5, 2013 from Just for Fun Stables. Mr. Ulsberger stated the subject property was last inspected on October 3, 2013 and would qualify for agricultural classification for the 2014 tax roll. It was the opinion of the Property Appraiser's Office that the property did not qualify for agricultural classification based on requirements set by FS Page 4 of 5

5 Mr. Sierra advised that the property was purchased through the foreclosure process, noting he had been working on purchasing the property since 2012, but the process was slow and was not able to be completed until January 30,2013. In response to Mr. Trentelman, Mr. Sierra advised that in 2012, the property was being utilized for agricultural purposes when it was foreclosed upon and continued to be used agriculturally even after the bank took it over. He stated tenants utilized the horse track before and after he purchased the property. General discussion ensued. In response to Mr. Trentelman, Ms. Thomas clarified that when the bank was issued the Certificate of Title, was where the property lost the agricultural exemption. recommendation to the VAS. Mr. Dobbins advised that hearings would reconvene on January 16,2014 at 9:00 a.m. There being no further business to address, the meeting was thereupon adjourned at 9:52 a.m. Attest: Earl Arnett, ehairman David R. Ells ermann, Clerk Page 5 of 5