Laserfiche WebLink
B. 2016 Special Magistrates' Recommendations <br />ON MOTION by Vice Chairman Solari, SECONDED by <br />School Board Member Searcy, the Board unanimously <br />accepted the Special Magistrates' recommended decisions, <br />pulling Petitions 2016-003, 2016-007, 2016-008 and 2016-046 <br />for discussion. <br />MOTION WAS MADE by Vice Chairman Solari, <br />SECONDED by Citizen Member Heckman, to accept the <br />Special Magistrates' recommended decisions for Petitions <br />2016-007 and 2016-008. <br />School Board Member Searcy referred to Petition 2016-008 and asked how the PAO <br />missed the value by $666,580. Attorney Anthony Guettler, representing the owner of <br />the property for Petition 2016-008, stated that the property was new construction <br />and the improved values were higher than their cost. He pointed out that a detailed <br />fee appraisal was done on the unique properties which included a main house and a <br />guest house. He added that one of the issues was whether the two properties with <br />the main house and a guest house should be assessed separately or together. PAO <br />Manager Bruce Goodwyn stated the reason for the difference in the values was that <br />the PAO only does a mass appraisal of the properties and when there is a fee <br />appraisal done, it includes the inside of house, so cost figures can get skewed. <br />Chairman Adams CALLED THE QUESTION and by a 5-0 vote, the Motion <br />carried. <br />Chairman Adams called for Petitioner John Brenner, Petition 2016-003. Mr. <br />Brenner wanted to appeal the decision made by the Attorney Special Magistrate at <br />his November 28, 2016 VAB Hearing on Portability. <br />Mr. Brenner reviewed a timeline of events in regards to his granted Homestead <br />Exemption and the denial of his portability request for the 2016 Tax year on his <br />subject property at 945 Bowline Drive. He also discussed both the Florida Statute <br />for Portability and the information on the PAO website. He summarized that the <br />two main issues were that he was denied his Portability because of late application <br />and delayed the ability to adjust the market value of the original house from <br />$467,000 to $1,065,000. <br />PAO Attorney Eric Barkett referred to the complexity of the Portability Statute <br />with regard to the Market Value issue specifically; there was absolutely no legal <br />question, in his opinion, that it was handled properly by the PAO. <br />Value Adjustment Board <br />2016 Tax Cycle Final Meeting <br />Page 3 <br />-7- <br />