09/14/2020 (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. VAB Organizational Meeting of July 1, 2019 .......................................................1 -7 ON MOTION by Vice Chairman Flescher, SECONDED by Chairman Tim Zorc, the Board voted unanimously to approve the Value Adjustment Board Organizational Meeting Minutes of July 1, 2019 as written. 6. 2019 VAB Recap..............................................................................................................8 VAB Clerk Terri Collins -Lister reviewed the VAB Recap of the 2019 Tax Year. 7. APPROVE AND ADOPT THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATES' RECOMMENDATIONS AS THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD'S DECISION AND AUTHORIZE DISTRIBUTION OF FORM DR485V, PURSUANT TO SECTION 194.032, F.S. A. 2019 Special Magistrates' Recommendations.......................................................... 9 Chairman Tim Zorc presented the 2019 Special Magistrates' Recommendations for review. Citizen Member Heckman referred to Petition 2019-029 and inquired on the recommended reduction of $1,524,603 by the Special Magistrate. Attorney Canda Brown, representing the Property Appraiser's Office (PAO), objected to the 21.5% recommended reduction on Petition 2019-029. Real Estate Appraiser Stephen Boyle, representing the taxpayer for Petition 2019- 029, addressed the reduction, explaining that the parcel was three legal lots of record, but was assessed as three individual lots even though they were combined as a single lot under single ownership. Attorney Brown detailed the reasons why the PAO objected to the reduction made by the Special Magistrate for Petition 2019-029 and referred to case law and F.S. 194.301. She mentioned that in the Special Magistrate's decision, it stated that the PAO had failed to consider the first and eighth criteria in F.S. 193.011; however, the eight factors are considered when using the comparable sales method. She also added that the Special Magistrate had done her own research and considered evidence outside of the hearing; therefore, the PAO was not able to provide rebuttal evidence. A discussion followed on the subject property and the admission of evidence after the fact, and the VAB's role when adopting the Special Magistrate recommendations. VAB Attorney Michelle Napier pointed out that the Special Magistrate, at the hearing for Petition 2019-029, announced that she would be doing her own research without any objection from either party. She agreed that the Special Magistrate needed to make corrections to the recommendation. -3-