2016 MARTIN COUNTY VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD Martin County Commission Chambers 2401 SE Monterey Road, Stuart, FL Friday, April 7, :00 AM

Transcription

1 Carolyn Timmann Clerk of the Circuit Court and Comptroller 216 MARTIN COUNTY VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD Martin County Commission Chambers 241 SE Monterey Road, Stuart, FL Friday, April 7, 217 1: AM I. Call to Order A. Roll Call B. Approve Agenda Meeting Agenda II. Board Business A. Approve Minutes of the February 7, 217 Value Adjustment Board meeting B. Review of petitions for potential conflict of interest C. Consideration of Special Magistrate recommendations 1. Petition Consideration of Special Magistrate recommendation Comment from Petitioners and/or Property Appraiser Final action on Special Magistrate recommendation 2. Petition Consideration of Special Magistrate recommendation Comment from Petitioners and/or Property Appraiser Final action on Special Magistrate recommendation D. Consideration of Notice of Tax Impact of Value Adjustment Board and advertisement of such notice pursuant to Chapter , Florida Statutes E. Consideration of Final Certification of the 216 Value Adjustment Board 1. Certification of the Value Adjustment Board for Real Property 2. Certification of the Value Adjustment Board for Tangible Personal Property F. Consideration of extension of the Value Adjustment Board Agreement for Legal Services through the 217 Organizational Meeting III. IV. Public Comment Adjournment 216 Board Members Sarah Heard, Chair, Board of County Commissioners Doug Smith, Member, Board of County Commissioners Rebecca Negron, Member, Martin County School Board Robert Makemson, Citizen Appointee, Board of County Commissioners Gregg Callewaert, Citizen Appointee, Martin County School Board

2 Item II A Carolyn Timmann Clerk of the Circuit Court and Comptroller 216 MARTIN COUNTY VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD Martin County Commission Chambers 241 SE Monterey Road, Stuart, FL Friday, April 7, 217 1: AM VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD AGENDA ITEM II A SUMMARY TITLE: Approve Minutes of the February 7, 217 Value Adjustment Board meeting SUMMARY: The Board is asked to review the Minutes the February 7, 217 Value Adjustment Board meeting RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to approve the Minutes of the February 7, 217 Value Adjustment Board meeting

3 Carolyn Timmann Clerk of the Circuit Court and Comptroller 216 MARTIN COUNTY VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD Martin County Commission Chambers 241 SE Monterey Road, Stuart, FL VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD MEETING MINUTES PRESENT Sarah Heard, Value Adjustment Board Chair, Board of County Commissioners Rebecca Negron, Martin County School Board Robert Makemson, Board of County Commissioners Citizen Appointee Gregg Callewaert, School Board Member Citizen Appointee ALSO PRESENT Carrie Lavargna, Value Adjustment Board Attorney Michelle Jones, Deputy Clerk Christina Hunter, Deputy Clerk M.K. Vettel, Deputy Clerk Laurel Kelly, Property Appraiser Michael Cooper, Property Appraiser s Office Don Defenthaler, Property Appraiser s Office

4 I. Call to Order a. Roll Call The meeting was called to order at 1:2 a.m. Deputy Clerk, Christina Hunter called the roll. Four Value Adjustment Board members were present, establishing a quorum. b. Approve Agenda MOTION: So moved [approve the agenda]. Moved by Robert Makemson, seconded by Gregg Callewaert, motion carried unanimously. II. Board Business A. Approve minutes of the October 17, 216 Organizational Meeting MOTION: So moved [approve the minutes of the Organizational Meeting]. Moved by Rebecca Negron, seconded by Gregg Callewaert, motion carried unanimously. B. Review petitions for potential conflicts of interest. Robert Makemson disclosed a conflict with Petition #216-6 (Yacht & Country Club), as he lived there. Value Adjustment Board Attorney, Carrie Lavargna announced her conflict with Petition #216-3 (Phillip Quick), as he was a family friend. C. Consideration of Special Magistrate recommendations. The Board read through the magistrates recommendations for the parties present (# and #216-3).

5 D. Comments from Petitioners and/or Property Appraiser regarding individual petitions. Petition Petitioner, Sherry L. Cooper and Don Defenthaler addressed the Board regarding errors in the magistrate s recommendation regarding Ms. Cooper s 216 homestead exemption. Ms. Cooper, Mr. Defenthaler, and Ms. Lavargna were in agreement that the recommendation should be remanded back to the magistrate to correct the inaccuracies. MOTION: So moved [remand it back to the magistrate to correct the fact that Ms. Cooper did apply for and received the 216 homestead exemption]. Moved by Robert Makemson, seconded by Gregg Callewaert, motion carried unanimously. Petitioner, Sherry L. Cooper addressed the Board regarding her homestead exemption, which was lost when her mother passed away in 215 (the property was in joint ownership). Ms. Cooper asserted that she filed for homestead in 1998 (for 1999). Don Defenthaler informed the Board that the Property Appraiser s Office had no record of her application for homestead. Ms. Cooper was unable to provide a copy of her application. MOTION: Deny this request regarding the 1999 exemption. Moved by Robert Makemson, seconded by Gregg Callewaert, motion carried unanimously. E. Final action on Special Magistrate recommendations MOTION: So motioned [approval all decisions but the #216-6]. Moved by Gregg Callewaert, seconded by Robert Makemson, motion carried unanimously. MOTION: So motioned [approve #216-6]. Moved by Gregg Callewaert, seconded by Rebecca Negron, carried 3-, with Robert Makemson abstaining. Michael Cooper addressed the Board regarding Petition # He requested the Board remand the recommendation back to the magistrate to clarify the language regarding the density of beehives required to obtain an agricultural designation.

6 MOTION: So moved [reconsider Petition #216-3]. Moved by Robert Makemson, seconded by Gregg Callewaert, motion carried unanimously. MOTION: So moved [remand Petition #216-3 back to the special magistrate for a correction on the number of beehives per acre]. Moved by Robert Makemson, seconded by Gregg Callewaert, motion carried unanimously. III. Public Comment There was no public comment. IV. Recess, Value Adjustment Board, February 7, 217 The meeting recessed at 1:4 a.m. Carolyn Timmann, Clerk of the Circuit Court and Comptroller Sarah Heard, Value Adjustment Board Chair Minutes approved

7 Item II B Carolyn Timmann Clerk of the Circuit Court and Comptroller 216 MARTIN COUNTY VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD Martin County Commission Chambers 241 SE Monterey Road, Stuart, FL Friday, April 7, 217 1: AM VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD AGENDA ITEM II B SUMMARY TITLE: Review of petitions for potential conflict of interest SUMMARY: The Board is asked to review the attached Special Magistrate recommendations list for any potential conflicts. RECOMMENDED ACTION: If there are no conflicts no action will be required.

8 Petition # Folio # Petitioner Name Value Adjustment Board Special Magistrate Recommendations Value Adjustment Board Meeting April 7, 217 1: AM Owner Name Taxable Value BEFORE AFTER Reduction in Taxable Value QUICK PHILLIP ROSS TR QUICK PHILLIP ROSS TR $222,469 $222,469 $ DENIED QUICK PHILLIP ROSS TR QUICK PHILLIP ROSS TR $95,27 $95,27 $ DENIED COOPER SHERRY L COOPER SHERRY L $566,2 $566,2 $ DENIED Decision Total Petitions 2 Total Taxable Value Before Change $883,876 Total Taxable Value After Change $883,876 Total Taxable Value Reduction $ 3/23/217 Page 1 of 1

9 Item II C1 Carolyn Timmann Clerk of the Circuit Court and Comptroller 216 MARTIN COUNTY VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD Martin County Commission Chambers 241 SE Monterey Road, Stuart, FL Friday, April 7, 217 1: AM VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD AGENDA ITEM II C1 SUMMARY TITLE: Consideration of Special Magistrate recommendation for petition (Phillip Quick, petitioner) SUMMARY: At the February 7, 217 meeting, the property appraiser addressed the Board regarding the recommended decision for petition The Appraiser justified the twentyfive (25) hive per acre requirement for agricultural classification based upon interviews with approximately (1) beekeepers in the surrounding area. As a result, the Board remanded the recommended decision to the magistrate to correct the language regarding the density of beehives required to receive an agricultural classification. The Board is asked to consider the Special Magistrate recommended decision: Please review the Special Magistrate s Recommended Decision on the following page. Board will allow comment: Petitioners and Property Appraiser representatives will have the opportunity to address the Board regarding the recommended decision. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to take final action on the recommended decision for petition

10 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD EXEMPTION, CLASSIFICATION, OR ASSESSMENT DIFFERENCE TRANSFER PETITION DR-485XC R. 11/12 Rule 12D-16.2 Florida Administrative Code Effective 11/12 The actions below were taken on your petition in the County of Martin County These actions are a recommendation only, not final These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections (8)(l), , (2), , and , Florida Statutes.) Petition # Parcel ID Petitioner name QUICK PHILLIP ROSS TR Property 568 SW MOORE STREET The petitioner is: taxpayer of record taxpayer s agent address PALM CITY, FL 3499 other, explain: Decision Summary Denied your petition Granted your petition Granted your petition in part Value before Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from Action Value after TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Board Action Rule 12D-9.25(1), F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 3. Exempt value,* enter if none 4. Taxable value,* required 242, ,27. 5,. 95, , ,27. 5,. 95, , ,27. 5,. 95,27. *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section (7), F.S.) Exemption, Classification, or Assessment Difference Transfer Homestead Widow/er Blind Totally and permanently disabled veteran Low-income senior Disabled Disabled veteran Use classification, specify APIARY Parent/grandparent assessment reduction Deployed military Use exemption, specify Transfer of homestead assessment difference Other, specify Reasons for Decision Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate The finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Daniel C. Stump Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Michelle Jones Michelle Jones 12/7/216 Signature, VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at AM PM. Address If the line above is blank, please call or visit our web site at Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Daniel C. Stump 11/29/216 Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature, VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties

11 Findings of Fact: A. List of Property Appraiser Exhibits/Witnesses: The Property Appraiser was represented by Attorney Gaylord Wood and he presented two witnesses, Michael Cooper and Dawn Jaschinski, both employed by the Property Appraiser. The following exhibits were presented by the Appraiser: The Petition filed by the property owner, Philip Quick, with attachments for single joint petition and the two notices of disapproval, one for each adjacent parcel; Letter from Martin County Clerk to Petitioner requesting his preferences to receive notices; TRIM Notice and property tax record for each parcel; Property Appraiser's evidence to taxpayer requesting evidence; Notice of Hearing mailed to Petitioner; Petitioner's lease agreement with amendment; Appraiser's letter to property owner requesting more information concerning his lease agreement; Annual Certificate of Beekeeper Registration issued to property owner's beekeeper, BEE BARF APIARIES; Inspection notes of Dawn Jaschinski along with Agricultural Classification Checklist According to the Florida Statute and Administrative Code; Blog posted by Brendhan J. Horne on February 2, 215 on the Palm Beach County Beekeepers Association web site; Four (4) colored photographs taken by the Appraiser's office on Jan. 2, 216,Five (5) taken on Feb. 2, 216 and an aerial photo taken on Jan. 23, 216 of both parcels. B. List of Petitioner exhibits/witnesses: The Petitioner, Philip Quick, produced no exhibits or witnesses, other than himself. C. Summary of evidence presented by Property Appraiser: The Appraiser said that the two parcels were inspected on January 2, 216. There were no bee hives on parcel 5688 Moore St.. There were tenants on the property and they confirmed that there were no bee hives on their parcel. The Appraiser counted twelve (12) hives on parcel 568, which East of parcel The Appraiser also requested from Petitioner copies of any pollination contracts that the beekeeper had and none were produced. The Appraiser justified its Twelve (12) Hive per acre requirement for agricultural classification based upon interviews with approximately ten (1) beekeepers in the surrounding area. When the Appraiser's attorney questioned the Petitioner concerning both leases that it had with different beekeepers the Petitioner answered that he collected no money from his lessees. D. Summary of evidence presented by Petitioner: Petitioner presented no witnesses or evidence but did testify on his own behalf. He stated that he had no idea how many bee hives, if any, were on his parcels on January 1, 216. He presented no evidence that disproves the fact that he had a residential use for parcel 5688, i.e. his residential tenants. Petitioner stated that there have been 5 hives on each parcel since April of 216. He also stated that his petition for AG Classification was denied on Feb. 24, 216 and he filed his Petition with the VAB on March 3, 216. E. Magistrates analysis and findings of facts presented: The Magistrate finds the following relevant facts: 1. Petitioner was denied completely on parcel 5688 and was granted AG Classification for.5 acre only on parcel Petitioner never received any rent money on either lease he hade with the beekeepers. 3. Petitioner has no proof, photographic or any other type, of any hives that are located on either subject parcel. 4. There are no pollination contracts in evidence to establish an apiary business being conducted on the subject parcels, which are both owned by Petitioner and are located in Martin County, Florida. Conclusions of Law: The Magistrate indicated to the Petitioner that Petitioner had the burden of proof to show that the Appraiser erred in denying his Petition for Agricultural Classification. The Magistrate phrased his questions to Petitioner in a manner that would allow the Pettioner to sustain his burden if the answeres were supplied. However. Petitioner failed to supply any answers that would enable him to meet his burden of proof. D. Classification Petition DENIED. The statutory criteria that applies to this petitioner s requested classified use is FL STAT The property appraiser s denial of the classification was valid under the Florida statutes. The admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the property appraiser s classification of the property is correct.

12 This recommended decision has been corrected to modify the language regarding the density of beehives required to receive an agricultural classification. DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD EXEMPTION, CLASSIFICATION, OR ASSESSMENT DIFFERENCE TRANSFER PETITION The actions below were taken on your petition in the County of Martin County These actions are a recommendation only, not final These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections (8)(l), , (2), , and , Florida Statutes.) Petition # Parcel ID Petitioner name QUICK PHILLIP ROSS TR Property 568 SW MOORE STREET The petitioner is: taxpayer of record taxpayer s agent address PALM CITY, FL 3499 other, explain: Decision Summary Denied your petition Granted your petition Granted your petition in part Value before Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from Action Value after TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Board Action Rule 12D-9.25(1), F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 3. Exempt value,* enter if none 4. Taxable value,* required 242, ,27. 5,. 95, , ,27. 5,. 95, , ,27. 5,. 95,27. *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section (7), F.S.) Exemption, Classification, or Assessment Difference Transfer Homestead Widow/er Blind Totally and permanently disabled veteran Low-income senior Disabled Disabled veteran Use classification, specify APIARY Parent/grandparent assessment reduction Deployed military Use exemption, specify Transfer of homestead assessment difference Other, specify Reasons for Decision Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) *CORRECTIVE* DR-485XC R. 11/12 Rule 12D-16.2 Florida Administrative Code Effective 11/12 Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate The finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Daniel C. Stump Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Michelle Jones Michelle Jones 2/15/217 Signature, VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at AM PM. Address If the line above is blank, please call or visit our web site at Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Daniel C. Stump 2/15/217 Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature, VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties

13 Findings of Fact: A. List of Property Appraiser Exhibits/Witnesses: The Property Appraiser was represented by Attorney Gaylord Wood and he presented two witnesses, Michael Cooper and Dawn Jaschinski, both employed by the Property Appraiser. The following exhibits were presented by the Appraiser: The Petition filed by the property owner, Philip Quick, with attachments for single joint petition and the two notices of disapproval, one for each adjacent parcel; Letter from Martin County Clerk to Petitioner requesting his preferences to receive notices; TRIM Notice and property tax record for each parcel; Property Appraiser's evidence to taxpayer requesting evidence; Notice of Hearing mailed to Petitioner; Petitioner's lease agreement with amendment; Appraiser's letter to property owner requesting more information concerning his lease agreement; Annual Certificate of Beekeeper Registration issued to property owner's beekeeper, BEE BARF APIARIES; Inspection notes of Dawn Jaschinski along with Agricultural Classification Checklist According to the Florida Statute and Administrative Code; Blog posted by Brendhan J. Horne on February 2, 215 on the Palm Beach County Beekeepers Association web site; Four (4) colored photographs taken by the Appraiser's office on Jan. 2, 216,Five (5) taken on Feb. 2, 216 and an aerial photo taken on Jan. 23, 216 of both parcels. B. List of Petitioner exhibits/witnesses: The Petitioner, Philip Quick, produced no exhibits or witnesses, other than himself. C. Summary of evidence presented by Property Appraiser: The Appraiser said that the two parcels were inspected on January 2, 216. There were no bee hives on parcel 5688 Moore St.. There were tenants on the property and they confirmed that there were no bee hives on their parcel. The Appraiser counted twelve (12) hives on parcel 568, which East of parcel The Appraiser also requested from Petitioner copies of any pollination contracts that the beekeeper had and none were produced. The Appraiser justified its Twenty-Flve (25) Hive per acre requirement for agricultural classification based upon interviews with approximately ten (1) beekeepers in the surrounding area. When the Appraiser's attorney questioned the Petitioner concerning both leases that it had with different beekeepers the Petitioner answered that he collected no money from his lessees. D. Summary of evidence presented by Petitioner: Petitioner presented no witnesses or evidence but did testify on his own behalf. He stated that he had no idea how many bee hives, if any, were on his parcels on January 1, 216. He presented no evidence that disproves the fact that he had a residential use for parcel 5688, i.e. his residential tenants. Petitioner stated that there have been 5 hives on each parcel since April of 216. He also stated that his petition for AG Classification was denied on Feb. 24, 216 and he filed his Petition with the VAB on March 3, 216. E. Magistrates analysis and findings of facts presented: The Magistrate finds the following relevant facts: 1. Petitioner was denied completely on parcel 5688 and was granted AG Classification for.5 acre only on parcel Petitioner never received any rent money on either lease he hade with the beekeepers. 3. Petitioner has no proof, photographic or any other type, of any hives that are located on either subject parcel. 4. There are no pollination contracts in evidence to establish an apiary business being conducted on the subject parcels, which are both owned by Petitioner and are located in Martin County, Florida. Conclusions of Law: The Magistrate indicated to the Petitioner that Petitioner had the burden of proof to show that the Appraiser erred in denying his Petition for Agricultural Classification. The Magistrate phrased his questions to Petitioner in a manner that would allow the Pettioner to sustain his burden if the answeres were supplied. However. Petitioner failed to supply any answers that would enable him to meet his burden of proof. D. Classification Petition DENIED. The statutory criteria that applies to this petitioner s requested classified use is FL STAT The property appraiser s denial of the classification was valid under the Florida statutes. The admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the property appraiser s classification of the property is correct.

14 Item II C2 Carolyn Timmann Clerk of the Circuit Court and Comptroller 216 MARTIN COUNTY VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD Martin County Commission Chambers 241 SE Monterey Road, Stuart, FL Friday, April 7, 217 1: AM VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD AGENDA ITEM II C2 SUMMARY TITLE: Consideration of Special Magistrate recommendation for petition (Sherry Cooper, petitioner) SUMMARY: At the February 7, 217 meeting, Ms. Cooper and a representative from the Property Appraiser s Office addressed the Board regarding the details of the homestead exemption on the recommended decision. As a result, the Board remanded the recommended decision to the magistrate to correct the status of the petitioner s 216 homestead exemption to reflect that she did apply for, and was granted, the exemption for 216. The Board is asked to consider the Special Magistrate recommended decision: Please review the Special Magistrate s Recommended Decision on the following page. Board will allow comment: Petitioners and Property Appraiser representatives will have the opportunity to address the Board regarding the recommended decision. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to take final action on the recommended decision for petition

15 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD EXEMPTION, CLASSIFICATION, OR ASSESSMENT DIFFERENCE TRANSFER PETITION DR-485XC R. 11/12 Rule 12D-16.2 Florida Administrative Code Effective 11/12 The actions below were taken on your petition in the County of Martin County These actions are a recommendation only, not final These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections (8)(l), , (2), , and , Florida Statutes.) Petition # Parcel ID Petitioner name COOPER SHERRY L Property 1214 SE INDIAN RIVER (DR The petitioner is: taxpayer of record taxpayer s agent address HOBE SOUND, FL other, explain: Decision Summary Denied your petition Granted your petition Granted your petition in part Value before Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from Action Value after TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Board Action Rule 12D-9.25(1), F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 3. Exempt value,* enter if none 4. Taxable value,* required 616,2. 616,2. 5,. 566,2. 616,2. 616,2. 5,. 566,2. 616,2. 616,2. 5,. 566,2. *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section (7), F.S.) Exemption, Classification, or Assessment Difference Transfer Homestead Widow/er Blind Totally and permanently disabled veteran Low-income senior Disabled Disabled veteran Use classification, specify Parent/grandparent assessment reduction Deployed military Use exemption, specify Transfer of homestead assessment difference Other, specify Reasons for Decision Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate The finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Schmidt, David W. Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Michelle Jones Michelle Jones 12/7/216 Signature, VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at AM PM. Address If the line above is blank, please call or visit our web site at Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Schmidt, David W. 12/6/216 Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature, VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties

16 Findings of Fact: The Property Appraiser's Office (PA) was represented by Karen Leary and Gaylord Wood, Esq. Susan Litzenberg observed. The petitioner was present and testified. The subject property was acquired in 1992 by the petitioner and her mother Donna as joint tenants with right of survivorship. Donna Cooper applied for homestead exemption for 1993 and had the exemption until her death in 215. The petitioner acknowledged that she lived in Palm Beach County at the time the subject property was purchased and maintained her homestead at the Palm Beach County address. The petitioner sold the Palm Beach County home in She entered into evidence a copy of the deed from the sale of the Palm Beach County property. The deed recited language that the property being sold was not the homestead of the petitioner and that the subject property was her homestead. The petitioner claims that she filed for homestead exemption in 1998, but the PA has no record of the application and the petitioner did not produce a copy of the application. Donna Cooper died in July, 215. In August, 215, the PA sent a letter to the petitioner advising her that the property would no longer be eligible for homestead exemption due to the death of Donna Cooper. The petitioner did not apply for homestead exemption for 216 and filed this petition after receiving the 216 TRIM notice and becoming aware that the property did not have the homestead exemption for ad valorem tax purposes. The petitioner testified that she relied on her application in 1998 as the basis for not applying for 216 following her mother's death. The petitioner entered into evidence an affidavit from Michael Stewart over the hearsay objection of Mr. wood. The petitioner argued that the assertions in the affidavit by Mr. Stewart regarding a conversation with an investigator/inspector from Martin County support her position that she applied for homestead exemption in A review of the affidavit indicates that the assertions by Mr. Stewart are vague and do not support her claim. The PA cited F.S. Section (1)(a), which implements the homestead exemption and requires a timely application by March 1 to obtain the exemption for that year. The provision further specifies that failure to timely file results in a waiver for that year. That application of the statute was upheld in Zingale v. Powell, 885 So.2d 277 (Fla. 24), also cited by the PA. The PA also cited Parish v. Pier Club Apartments LLC, 9 So.2d 683 (Fla. 4th DCA 25), which states at 684, 685: Before addressing the specifics of the trial court's ruling and the arguments raised, it is helpful to set forth some general principles regarding ad valorem taxation and the language of section First, "[u]nless expressly exempted" all real property in the state is subject to taxation (1), Fla. Stat. (24).1 Second, by statute, real property is assessed "according to its just value" on January 1st of each year (1), Fla. Stat. Third, "[e]very person or organization who, on January 1, has the legal title to real or personal property... shall, on or before March 1 of each year, file an application for exemption...." (1)(a), Fla. Stat. The failure to apply for the exemption by March 1 generally waives the exemption for that year. Id. Fourth, statutes providing for an exemption from ad valorem tax are to be strictly construed, see Dade County Taxing Auths. v. Cedars of Lebanon Hosp. Corp., 355 So.2d 122, 125 (Fla.1978), and any ambiguity is to be resolved against the taxpayer and against exemption, see Markham v. PPI, Inc., 843 So.2d 922, 925 (Fla. 4th DCA 23). "The burden is on the claimant to show clearly any entitlement to tax exemption." Volusia County v. Daytona Beach Racing & Recreational Facilities Dist., 341 So.2d 498, 52 (Fla.1976). The petitioner failed to produce any evidence to support her contention that she applied for homestead exemption in Based on the petitioner's failure to prove by the greater weight of the evidence that she did apply for homestead exemption in 1998, and the fact that she did not apply for homestead exemption in 216 by March 1, the petition should be denied. Conclusions of Law: The petitioner failed to prove that she is entitled to the homestead exemption for 216. This was not a denial of the exemption by the PA for 216, as the exemption was removed for 216 due to the death of Donna Cooper in 215. The petitioner failed to prove that she applied for the homestead exemption in 1998 and acknowledged that she did not apply for 216.

17 The status of the petitioner s 216 homestead exemption has been corrected to reflect that she did apply for, and was granted, the exemption for 216. DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD EXEMPTION, CLASSIFICATION, OR ASSESSMENT DIFFERENCE TRANSFER PETITION *CORRECTIVE* The actions below were taken on your petition in the County of Martin County These actions are a recommendation only, not final These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections (8)(l), , (2), , and , Florida Statutes.) Petition # Parcel ID Petitioner name COOPER SHERRY L Property 1214 SE INDIAN RIVER (DR The petitioner is: taxpayer of record taxpayer s agent address HOBE SOUND, FL other, explain: Decision Summary Denied your petition Granted your petition Granted your petition in part Value before Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from Action Value after TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Board Action Rule 12D-9.25(1), F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 3. Exempt value,* enter if none 4. Taxable value,* required 616,2. 616,2. 5,. 566,2. 616,2. 616,2. 5,. 566,2. 616,2. 616,2. 5,. 566,2. *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section (7), F.S.) Exemption, Classification, or Assessment Difference Transfer Homestead Widow/er Blind Totally and permanently disabled veteran Low-income senior Disabled Disabled veteran Use classification, specify Parent/grandparent assessment reduction Deployed military Use exemption, specify Transfer of homestead assessment difference Other, specify Reasons for Decision Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) DR-485XC R. 11/12 Rule 12D-16.2 Florida Administrative Code Effective 11/12 Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed. Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate The finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Schmidt, David W. Schmidt, David W. 2/21/217 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Michelle Jones Michelle Jones 3/3/217 Signature, VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on 2/7/217 at 1: AM PM. Address Commission Chambers 241 SE Monterey Road Stuart, FL If the line above is blank, please call or visit our web site at Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature, VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties

18 Findings of Fact: The Property Appraiser's Office (PA) was represented by Karen Leary and Gaylord Wood, Esq. Susan Litzenberg observed. The petitioner was present and testified. The subject property was acquired in 1992 by the petitioner and her mother Donna as joint tenants with right of survivorship. Donna Cooper applied for homestead exemption for 1993 and had the exemption until her death in 215. The petitioner acknowledged that she lived in Palm Beach County at the time the subject property was purchased and maintained her homestead at the Palm Beach County address. The petitioner sold the Palm Beach County home in She entered into evidence a copy of the deed from the sale of the Palm Beach County property. The deed recited language that the property being sold was not the homestead of the petitioner and that the subject property was her homestead. The petitioner claims that she filed for homestead exemption in 1998, but the PA has no record of the application and the petitioner did not produce a copy of the application. Donna Cooper died in July, 215. In August, 215, the PA sent a letter to the petitioner advising her that the property would no longer be eligible for homestead exemption due to the death of Donna Cooper. The petitioner applied for 216 homestead exemption on August 1, 215 and was granted the homestead exemption for 216 and filed this petition after receiving the 216 TRIM notice and becoming aware that the property did not have the homestead exemption for ad valorem tax purposes. The petitioner entered into evidence an affidavit from Michael Stewart over the hearsay objection of Mr. Wood. The petitioner argued that the assertions in the affidavit by Mr. Stewart regarding a conversation with an investigator/inspector from Marti n County support her position that she applied for homestead exemption in A review of the affidavit indicates that the assertions by Mr. Stewart are vague and do not support her claim. The PA cited F.S. Section (1)(a), which implements the homestead exemption and requires a timely application by March 1 to obtain the exemption for that year. The provision further specifies that failure to timely file results in a waiver for that year. That application of the statute was upheld in Zingale v. Powell, 885 So.2d 277 (Fla. 24), also cited by the PA. The PA also cited Parish v. Pier Club Apartments LLC, 9 So.2d 683 (Fla. 4th DCA 25), which states at 684, 685: Before addressing the specifics of the trial court's ruling and the arguments raised, it is helpful to set forth some general principles regarding ad valorem taxation and the language of section First, "[u]nless expressly exempted" all real property in the state is subject to taxation (1), Fla. Stat. (24). Second, by statute, real property is assessed "according to its just value" on January 1st of each year ( 1 ), Fla. Stat. Third, "[e]very person or organization who, on January 1, has the legal title to real or personal property... shall, on or before March 1 of each year, file an application for exemption...." ( 1 )(a), Fla. Stat. The failure to apply for the exemption by March 1 generally waives the exemption for that year. Id. Fourth, statutes providing for an exemption from ad valorem tax are to be strictly construed, see Dade County Taxing Auths. v. Cedars of Lebanon Hosp. Corp., 355 So.2d 1 22, 1 25 (Fla.1978), and any ambiguity is to be resolved against the taxpayer and against exemption, see Markham v. PPI, Inc., 843 So.2d 922, 925 (Fla. 4th DCA 23). "The burden is on the claimant to show clearly any entitlement to tax exemption." Volusia County v. Daytona Beach Racing & Recreational Facilities Dist., 341 So.2d 498, 52 (Fla.1976). The petitioner failed to produce any evidence to support her contention that she applied for homestead exemption in Based on the petitioner's failure to prove by the greater weight of the evidence that she did apply for homestead exemption in 1998, and the fact that she did apply for 216 homestead exemption on August 1, 215, the petition should be denied. Conclusions of Law: The petitioner was granted homestead exemption for 216. This was not a denial of the exemption by the PA for 216, as the exemption was removed for 216 due to the death of Donna Cooper in 215. The petitioner failed to prove that she applied for the homestead exemption in 1998 and the petitioner was granted homestead exemption for 216.

19 Item II D Carolyn Timmann Clerk of the Circuit Court and Comptroller 216 MARTIN COUNTY VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD Martin County Commission Chambers 241 SE Monterey Road, Stuart, FL Friday, April 7, 217 1: AM VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD AGENDA ITEM II D SUMMARY TITLE: Consideration of Notice of Tax Impact of the Value Adjustment Board and advertisement of such notice pursuant to Chapter , Florida Statutes SUMMARY: The Board is asked to consider the Notice of Tax Impact of the Value Adjustment Board and advertisement of such notice pursuant to Chapter , Florida Statutes. The attached notice represents all changes in taxable value and shift in taxes as a result of board action. These values have been independently verified by the Property Appraiser s office. Also attached is a detailed list outlining a brief description for each petition that was granted a change in value. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to approve the attached Notice of Tax Impact of Value Adjustment Board and advertisement of such notice.

20 Chapter 194 Section Florida Statutes - The Florida Senate Page 1 of 2 3/23/217 The Florida Senate 216 Florida Statutes Title XIV TAXATION AND FINANCE Chapter 194 ADMINISTRATIVE AND JUDICIAL REVIEW OF PROPERTY TAXES SECTION 37 Disclosure of tax impact. Entire Chapter Disclosure of tax impact. (1) After hearing all petitions, complaints, appeals, and disputes, the clerk shall make public notice of the findings and results of the board in at least a quarter page size advertisement of a standard size or tabloid size newspaper, and the headline shall be in a type no smaller than 18 point. The advertisement shall not be placed in that portion of the newspaper where legal notices and classified advertisements appear. The advertisement shall be published in a newspaper of general paid circulation in the county. The newspaper selected shall be one of general interest and readership in the community, and not one of limited subject matter, pursuant to chapter 5. The headline shall read: TAX IMPACT OF VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD. The public notice shall list the members of the value adjustment board and the taxing authorities to which they are elected. The form shall show, in columnar form, for each of the property classes listed under subsection (2), the following information, with appropriate column totals: (a) In the first column, the number of parcels for which the board granted exemptions that had been denied or that had not been acted upon by the property appraiser. (b) In the second column, the number of parcels for which petitions were filed concerning a property tax exemption. (c) In the third column, the number of parcels for which the board considered the petition and reduced the assessment from that made by the property appraiser on the initial assessment roll. (d) In the fourth column, the number of parcels for which petitions were filed but not considered by the board because such petitions were withdrawn or settled prior to the board s consideration. (e) In the fifth column, the number of parcels for which petitions were filed requesting a change in assessed value, including requested changes in assessment classification. (f) In the sixth column, the net change in taxable value from the assessor s initial roll which results from board decisions. (g) In the seventh column, the net shift in taxes to parcels not granted relief by the board. The shift shall be computed as the amount shown in column 6 multiplied by the applicable millage rates adopted by the taxing authorities in hearings held pursuant to s. 2.65(2)(d) or adopted by vote of the electors pursuant to s. 9(b) or s. 12, Art. VII of the State Constitution, but without adjustment as authorized pursuant to s. 2.65(6). If for any taxing authority the hearing has not been completed at the time the notice required herein is prepared, the millage rate used shall be that adopted in the hearing held pursuant to s. 2.65(2)(c). (2) There must be a line entry in each of the columns described in subsection (1), for each of the following property classes: (a) Improved residential property, which must be identified as Residential. (b) Improved commercial property, which must be identified as Commercial. (c) Improved industrial property, utility property, leasehold interests, subsurface rights, and other property not properly attributable to other classes listed in this section, which must be identified as Industrial and Misc. (d) Agricultural property, which must be identified as Agricultural. (e) High water recharge property, which must be identified as High Water Recharge.

21 Chapter 194 Section Florida Statutes - The Florida Senate Page 2 of 2 3/23/217 (f) Historic property used for commercial or certain nonprofit purposes, which shall be identified as Historic Commercial or Nonprofit. (g) Tangible personal property, which must be identified as Business Machinery and Equipment. (h) Vacant land and nonagricultural acreage, which must be identified as Vacant Lots and Acreage. (3) The form of the notice, including appropriate narrative and column descriptions, shall be prescribed by department rule and shall be brief and nontechnical to minimize confusion for the average taxpayer. History. s. 24, ch ; s. 15, ch ; s. 6, ch ; s. 5, ch ; s. 6, ch ; s. 6, ch Disclaimer: The information on this system is unverified. The journals or printed bills of the respective chambers should be consulted for official purposes. Copyright State of Florida.

22 TAX IMPACT OF VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-529 R. 12/9 Rule 12D-16.2 Florida Administrative Code Martin County Tax Year Members of the Board Honorable Doug Smith Board of County Commissioners, District No. 1 Honorable Sarah Heard Board of County Commissioners, District No. 4 Honorable Michael DiTerlizzi School Board, District No. 5 Citizen Member Citizen Member Gregg Callewaert Robert Makemson Business owner within the school district Homestead property owner The Value Adjustment Board (VAB) meets each year to hear petitions and make decisions relating to property tax assessments, exemptions, classifications, and tax deferrals. Summary of Year's Actions Number of Parcels Reduction in Shift in Type of Property Exemptions Assessments* Both County Taxable Value Taxes Granted Requested Reduced Requested Withdrawn or settled Due to Board Actions Due to Board Actions Residential $ $ Commercial $ 2,424,822 $ 66,399 Industrial and miscellaneous $ 1,46,74 $ 17,794 Agricultural or classified use 7 13 $ $ High-water recharge $ $ Historic commerical or nonprofit $ $ Business machinery and equipment $ $ Vacant lots and acreage $ 68,2 $ 1,156 TOTALS $ 3,539,582 $ 85,349 All values should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. *Include transfer of assessment difference (portability) requests. If you have a question about these actions, contact the Chair or the Clerk of the Value Adjustment Board. Chair's name Sarah Heard Phone ext. Clerk's name Michelle Jones Phone ext.

23 Property Type TAX IMPACT OF VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD Parcel Number Reduction in County Taxable Value Due to Board Actions Shift in Taxes Due to Board Actions Commercial $12,11. $1, $1,15,47. $18, $12,35. $1, $. $11, $1. $4, $23,871. $11, $884,2. $16,53.41 Total: $2,424,822. $66, Industrial and miscellaneous $1,46,74. $17, Total: $1,46,74. $17, Vacant Lots and acreage $68,2. $1, Total: $68,2. $1, Grand Total: $3,539,582. $85,349.15

24 Item II E1 Carolyn Timmann Clerk of the Circuit Court and Comptroller 216 MARTIN COUNTY VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD Martin County Commission Chambers 241 SE Monterey Road, Stuart, FL Friday, April 7, 217 1: AM VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD AGENDA ITEM II E1 SUMMARY TITLE: Consideration of Final Certification of the 216 Value Adjustment Board for Real Property SUMMARY: The Board is asked to consider the attached Certification of the Value Adjustment Board for Real Property which contains the taxable value figures as provided by the Property Appraiser s office. All board members and counsel must read the procedures checklist page. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to approve the attached Certification of the Value Adjustment Board for Real Property for the Tax Roll Year 216.

25 CERTIFICATION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD Section , Florida Statutes DR-488 R. 12/9 Page 1 of 2 Rule 12D-16.2 Florida Administrative Code Tax Roll Year The Value Adjustment Board of Martin County, after approval of the assessment roll below by the Department of Revenue, certifies that all hearings required by section , F.S., have been held and the Value Adjustment Board is satisfied that the Check one. Real Property Tangible Personal Property assessment for our county includes all property and information required by the statutes of the State of Florida and the requirements and regulations of the Department of Revenue. On behalf of the entire board, I certify that we have ordered this certification to be attached as part of the assessment roll. The roll will be delivered to the property appraiser of this county on the date of this certification. The property appraiser will adjust the roll accordingly and make all extensions to show the tax attributable to all taxable property under the law. The following figures* are correct to the best of our knowledge: 1. Taxable value of real property tangible personal property assessment roll as submitted by the property appraiser to the value adjustment board $ 2. Net change in taxable value due to actions of the Board $ 3. Taxable value of real property tangible personal property assessment roll incorporating all changes due to action of the value adjustment board $ 16,857,889,541 3,539,582 16,854,349,959 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. Signature, Chair of the Value Adjustment Board Date Continued on page 2

26 Certification of the Value Adjustment Board DR-488 R. 12/9 Page 2 of 2 PROCEDURES Tax Roll Year The value adjustment board has met the requirements below. Check all that apply. The board: 1. Followed the prehearing checklist in Chapter 12D-9, Florida Administrative Code. Took all actions reported by the VAB clerk or the legal counsel to comply with the checklist. 2. Verified the qualifications of special magistrates, including if special magistrates completed the Department s training. 3. Based the selection of special magistrates solely on proper qualifications and the property appraiser did not influence the selection of special magistrates. 4. Considered only petitions filed by the deadline or found to have good cause for filing late. 5. Noticed all meetings as required by section , F.S. 6. Did not consider ex parte communications unless all parties were notified and allowed to object to or address the communication. 7. Reviewed and considered all petitions as required, unless withdrawn or settled by the petitioner. 8. Ensured that all decisions contained the required findings of fact and conclusions of law. 9. Allowed the opportunity for public comment at the meetings where the recommended decisions of special magistrates were considered or board decisions were adopted. 1. Addressed all complaints of noncompliance with the provisions of Chapter 194, Part I, Florida Statutes, and rule Chapter 12D-9, F.A.C., that were called to the board s attention. All board members and the board s legal counsel have read this certification. The board must submit this certification to the Department of Revenue before it publishes the notice of the findings and results required by section , F.S. On behalf of the entire value adjustment board, I certify that the above statements are true and that the board has met all the requirements in Chapter 194, F.S., and Department rules. After all hearings have been held, the board shall certify an assessment roll or part of an assessment roll that has been finally approved according to section , F.S. A sufficient number of copies of this certification shall be delivered to the property appraiser to attach to each copy of the assessment roll prepared by the property appraiser. Signature, chair of the value adjustment board Date