Laserfiche WebLink
4. INTRODUCTIONS <br />Introductions were made individually by all present. <br />5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES <br />A. VAB Organizational Meeting of July 1, 2019 .......................................................1 -7 <br />ON MOTION by Vice Chairman Flescher, SECONDED by Chairman Tim Zorc, the <br />Board voted unanimously to approve the Value Adjustment Board Organizational <br />Meeting Minutes of July 1, 2019 as written. <br />6. 2019 VAB Recap..............................................................................................................8 <br />VAB Clerk Terri Collins -Lister reviewed the VAB Recap of the 2019 Tax Year. <br />7. APPROVE AND ADOPT THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATES' <br />RECOMMENDATIONS AS THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD'S DECISION <br />AND AUTHORIZE DISTRIBUTION OF FORM DR485V, PURSUANT TO <br />SECTION 194.032, F.S. <br />A. 2019 Special Magistrates' Recommendations.......................................................... 9 <br />Chairman Tim Zorc presented the 2019 Special Magistrates' Recommendations for <br />review. Citizen Member Heckman referred to Petition 2019-029 and inquired on the <br />recommended reduction of $1,524,603 by the Special Magistrate. <br />Attorney Canda Brown, representing the Property Appraiser's Office (PAO), <br />objected to the 21.5% recommended reduction on Petition 2019-029. <br />Real Estate Appraiser Stephen Boyle, representing the taxpayer for Petition 2019- <br />029, addressed the reduction, explaining that the parcel was three legal lots of record, <br />but was assessed as three individual lots even though they were combined as a single <br />lot under single ownership. <br />Attorney Brown detailed the reasons why the PAO objected to the reduction made by <br />the Special Magistrate for Petition 2019-029 and referred to case law and F.S. 194.301. <br />She mentioned that in the Special Magistrate's decision, it stated that the PAO had <br />failed to consider the first and eighth criteria in F.S. 193.011; however, the eight <br />factors are considered when using the comparable sales method. She also added that <br />the Special Magistrate had done her own research and considered evidence outside <br />of the hearing; therefore, the PAO was not able to provide rebuttal evidence. A <br />discussion followed on the subject property and the admission of evidence after the <br />fact, and the VAB's role when adopting the Special Magistrate recommendations. <br />VAB Attorney Michelle Napier pointed out that the Special Magistrate, at the hearing <br />for Petition 2019-029, announced that she would be doing her own research without <br />2019 VAB Final Meeting Page 2 <br />May 20, 2020 <br />