VAB Minutes 03/07/2016 March 7, 2016
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
Naples, Florida, March 7, 2016
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Value Adjustment Board,
in and for the County of Collier, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in
REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex,
East Naples, Florida, with the following members present:
ACTING CHAIRMAN: Tim Nance, BCC Member
Tom Henning, BCC Member (absent)
Erika Donalds, School Board Member
William Poteet, Citizen Member
Rebecca Earney, Citizen Member
ALSO PRESENT:
James F. Morey, Esq., Counsel to the Board
Abe Skinner, Property Appraiser
Bruce D. Stephens, Property Appraiser's Office
Jeep Quinby, Property Appraiser's Office
Page 1
COLLIER COUNTY VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
MEETING AGENDA
Board of County Commission Chambers
Collier County Government Complex
3299 Tamiami Trail East, 3rd Floor
Naples, FL 34112
March 7, 2016 @ 9:00 am
VAB Members and Alternates (*):
Tom Henning (County Commissioner, District 3)
Tim Nance (County Commissioner, District 5)
Erika Donalds (Collier County School Board, District 3)
Rebecca Earney (Homestead Citizen Member)
Bill Poteet (Business Citizen Member)
*Donna Fiala (Alternate VAB Member, BCC, District 1)
*Penny Taylor (Alternate VAB Member, BCC, District 4)
*Georgia Hiller (Alternate VAB Member, BCC, District 2)
*Julie Sprague (Alternate VAB Member, CCSB, District 4)
*Roy Terry (Alternate VAB Member, CCSB, District 5)
*Kathleen Curatolo (Alternate VAB Member, CCSB, District 2)
*Kelly Lichter (Alternate VAB Member, CCSB, District 1)
1. Pledge of Allegiance
2. Roll Call (meet quorum requirements per F.S. 194)
3. Introduction
A. Introduction and overview of VAB by James Morey— Legal Counsel to the
Collier County Value Adjustment Board (VAB)
4. Appointment of VAB Chairperson (must be a BCC representative)
5. Agenda and Minutes
A. Approval of today's agenda
Page 1
March 7, 2016
B. Approval/Acceptance of Minutes from October 5, 2015 VAB meeting
6. General Business Discussion
A. Updates from the Department of Revenue and/or the Current Session of the
Florida Legislature affecting VAB
1) DOR-PTO Workshop dated February 11, 2016
2) HB 7023/SB 160; HB 499/SB 766
B. General Update 2015 VAB Process: Hearings and Correspondence
1) Hearings Overview
2) Correspondence
(a) Sheila Anderson w/CPS, Inc.: #2015-00240
(b) David Cook: #2015-00634
(c) Stephen E. Thompson, Esq. regarding Petitions: #2015-00355,
#2015-00360 and #2015-00367
C. Recommendation to maintain the VAB Contract Appointments:
Special Magistrates and Legal Counsel for the 2016 VAB
1) Reappointment of Attorney Special Magistrates for 2016
(a) Davia Mazur (Contract #13-6047)
(b) Ellen Chadwell (Contract#13-6047)
2) Reappointment of Appraiser Special Magistrates for 2016
(a) Scott Watson (Contract #13-6046)
(b) Mark Pelletier (Purchase Order)
3) Reappointment of VAB Legal Counsel Contract for 2016 VAB
(a) Bond, Schoeneck & King, PLLC (Contract #13-6045)
7. Public Comment
8. Adoption of Special Magistrates' Recommendations for 2015 VAB
• Homestead Exemption Petitions
• Other Legal Determination Petitions: Not Substantially Complete
• Portability Transfer Petitions
Page 2
March 7, 2016
• Tangible Personal Property
• Tax Petitions: Residential and Commercial
9. Adoption of the 2015 Certification of the Value Adjustment Board
— Tangible Personal Property
10. Adoption of the 2015 Certification of the Value Adjustment Board
— Real Property
11. Set date for 2016 VAB Organizational Meeting:
Monday, August 1, 2016 @ 9:00 am OR Monday, August 8, 2016 @ 9:00 am
12. Sine Die
Page 3
March 7, 2016
March 7, 2016
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
Welcome to the Collier County Value Adjustment Board meeting of
March the 7th.
Please rise and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance.
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you.
Mr. Morey, I guess we need a roll call attendance.
MR. MOREY: Yes. Thank you.
For the record, Attorney James Morey with the firm Bond,
Schoeneck & King, counsel to the VAB.
If we could -- if you would just signify by saying you're here.
Citizen Member Rebecca Earney?
CITIZEN MEMBER EARNEY: Here.
MR. MOREY: Commissioner Mr. Nance?
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Here.
MR. MOREY: School Board Member Erika Donalds?
SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER DONALDS: Here.
MR. MOREY: And Citizen Member Mr. Poteet?
CITIZEN MEMBER POTEET: Here.
MR. MOREY: Thank you. We do have a quorum.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you, Mr. Morey. Would you
please lead us through the introduction and overview for today's
activities.
MR. MOREY: Yes, my pleasure.
We do -- I do want to introduce some folks that are with us from
the Property Appraiser's Office. We have the Property Appraiser, Mr.
Skinner. We have counsel to the Property Appraiser; we have Mr. Jay
Wood. We have Mr. Bruce Stephens and Mr. Jeep Quinby present.
Thank you for being here. Welcome.
MR. QUINBY: You're welcome.
Page 2
March 7, 2016
MR. MOREY: So the first thing that we want to do -- first step
we need to do is appoint the chairperson for the proceedings, and it --
Mr. Nance, much to your chagrin, it must be a member of the BCC.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Is there a motion?
CITIZEN MEMBER POTEET: I'll move that Commissioner
Nance is the Chair.
SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER DONALDS: Second.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: There's been a motion and a second.
Any discussion?
Hearing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye.
CITIZEN MEMBER EARNEY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Aye.
SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER DONALDS: Aye.
CITIZEN MEMBER POTEET: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Any opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Here we go.
MR. MOREY: All right. Mr. Chairman, if I could, just a quick --
very, very, very quick overview of the VAB process.
So in counties with more than 75,000 citizens, population more
than 75,000, the VAB appoints special magistrates to hear the
petitions. So Collier County falls into that category.
This board is really a function of oversight; appoints the special
magistrates to hear the petitions. The Clerk's Office does yeoman's
work behind the scenes; scheduling, getting everything ready, notices,
et cetera. Property Appraiser's well represented in those hearings.
And the written decisions of the magistrates are boiled down to
writing, and they must -- by statute they must conform to a certain
form. They must have written findings of fact, and a conclusion of law
must comply with the statute.
The purpose of the VAB is to afford taxpayers critical rights.
Page 3
March 7, 2016
Taxpayers have a bill of right in Florida -- bills of rights, including the
right to know -- know their assessment, how things are arrived at,
including right to due process, be given notice, be given an opportunity
to be heard, have an opportunity to get in front of the VAB, the right to
redress, to be entitled to refunds, to be entitled to ask and challenge
their assessment and, of course, right to confidentiality.
So the right to challenge their assessment, that's what the critical
function of the VAB is for, and you serve a very critical function.
We had 635 petitions filed. Many of them -- many of the
petitions are worked out and settled. Compromises are done. Many are
withdrawn. The vast majority of them get worked out. We have 213
decisions, written decisions, that we will address later in the meeting.
So that's a quick -- very quick overview of the process.
And the next would be to look at the agenda, approve today's
agenda.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Very good.
Board members, you've had a chance to look over today's packet.
Is there a motion to approve today's agenda?
SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER DONALDS: So moved.
CITIZEN MEMBER POTEET: Second.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: There's a motion and a second to
approve today's agenda.
Any comments?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Hearing none, all those in favor, signify
by saying aye.
CITIZEN MEMBER EARNEY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Aye.
SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER DONALDS: Aye.
CITIZEN MEMBER POTEET: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Any opposed, like sign.
Page 4
March 7, 2016
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Passes unanimously.
Approval and acceptance of the minutes from the October 5th
Value Adjustment Board meeting. Is there a motion?
SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER DONALDS: I move to approve
the minutes from the October 5, 2015, meeting.
CITIZEN MEMBER POTEET: Second.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: There's a motion and a second to
approve and accept the minutes from October 5.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Hearing none, all those in favor, signify
by saying aye.
CITIZEN MEMBER EARNEY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Aye.
SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER DONALDS: Aye.
CITIZEN MEMBER POTEET: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Any opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN NANCE: That's approved as well.
All right. General business discussion.
MR. MOREY: So each year the Department of Revenue does
hold workshops to review potential rule changes, ways to make the
process better, or to address changes that are necessary. And this year
there were some rule changes. There's also some legislation that will
affect the VAB process. Nothing earth shattering or changing the
process terribly or in a terribly meaningful way, but there are some
changes.
Most notably, the rule changes -- all the administrative rules have
changed to reflect that the property record card will now come out
from the Appraiser's Office.
Page 5
March 7, 2016
It's -- actually our system is pretty good. The Axia System, the
card gets loaded right onto the system, and when the notice goes out of
the hearing, that property record card comes out automatically. But it's
now kind of-- that process is codified now.
Some other legislation, just a quick update. I believe this one has
just been sent to the Governor for signature, and this is for 2014/2015
for deployed service members. They will have the ability, if they were
deployed during those years, to apply for refunds, and that's -- I believe
that's going to be signed soon.
The other change -- and, again, this county does a really good job
with this. But now it's going to be in the statute that the assessments
must be certified by June 1 of the year following the tax year,
applicable tax year. Here we are. We're meeting on -- we're well
within the time frame. But there are some counties that that's a
challenge, and you can imagine the repercussions and issues that has
with budgeting and what have you.
So that -- the time frame's going to be June 1, and that's likely --
I'm not sure where that is. I think it went through the House and the
Senate. I'm not sure if it's on to the Governor yet. But that's just a
quick update of rules and law changes.
Next, general update, just go through the -- I already told you
about the hearings; 213 decisions that were rendered; 635 some-odd
petitions filed.
We did get some correspondence. Part of our VAB process is we
must respond to any complaints or any questions that people have, and
we do, throughout the year, do that, and we had a few. You have the
correspondence in there, but one person -- this was a representative of
a petitioner -- kind of took issue with the hearing room and the
availability of space in the hearing room and wrote and kind of
complained about that.
We believe that the hearing room -- it's open to the public. It's
Page 6
March 7, 2016
posted. Ifs in a public building. It accommodates many, many
hearings, but we certainly wanted to respond and take in the
correspondence and respond.
We also received, from one of the petitioners -- and I believe you
have in your packet this gentleman, Mr. Cook's. He had some -- took
some issue with not being able to be here for the hearing, and then he
just questioned why he wouldn't be entitled to a homestead exemption.
And there were obvious reasons, and the magistrate found that he
was not entitled to it. But, again, we correspond and we listen to folks
and want to try to work through any issues they raise.
And then, finally, we had some correspondence regarding --
which I believe you'll hear in the public comment coming up, but
correspondence from Mr. -- Attorney Steve Thompson regarding some
petitions and the opportunity to possibly have it heard de novo, heard
over again by the Board, and we'll hear that upcoming. And we
corresponded and gave our opinion as to whether that would be wise or
not or even permissible, and we'll get to that shortly.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: So, Mr. Morey --
MR. MOREY: Yes.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: -- these documents are being approved to
go into the record; is that correct?
MR. MOREY: Correct, yes.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Does that require action by the Board?
MR. MOREY: It does not require -- it's already part of-- it's
already part of the record.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay, fine. No action item then?
MR. MOREY: No. I just wanted to go through and keep you
apprised of what was going on.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Yes, sir. Thank you.
MR. MOREY: And the next items under C is to -- the contract
appointments with regard to special magistrates and legal counsel for
Page 7
March 7, 2016
2016 VAB year.
2015, there were two-year -- contracts executed with up to two
years to be renewed -- the possibility of being renewed. So we just
need to revisit those and renew them and update them for 2016 coming
up.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Very well. I will make a motion to
reappoint attorney special magistrates for 2016, Davia Mazur and
Ellen Chadwell.
SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER DONALDS: Second.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: There's a motion and a second. Any
discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Hearing none, all those in favor, signify
by saying aye.
CITIZEN MEMBER EARNEY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Aye.
SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER DONALDS: Aye.
CITIZEN MEMBER POTEET: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Any opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN NANCE: All right. That's approved.
I will also make a motion for the reappointment of appraiser
special magistrates for 2016, Scott Watson and Mark Pelletier.
SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER DONALDS: Second.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: There's a motion and a second. Any
discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Hearing none, all those in favor, signify
by saying aye.
CITIZEN MEMBER EARNEY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Aye.
Page 8
March 7, 2016
SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER DONALDS: Aye.
CITIZEN MEMBER POTEET: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Any opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN NANCE: And, finally, I will make a motion for the
reappointment of Value Adjustment Board legal counsel contract for
2016 to Bond, Schoeneck & King, PLLC.
SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER DONALDS: Second.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: There's a motion and a second on the
floor. Any discussion?
CITIZEN MEMBER POTEET: Do you think we need it?
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Hearing none, all those in favor, signify
by saying aye.
CITIZEN MEMBER EARNEY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Aye.
SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER DONALDS: Aye.
CITIZEN MEMBER POTEET: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Any opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you.
Mr. Morey, that takes us to public comment, unless you have
something on those items.
MR. MOREY: No. Thank you very much. We are now at
public comment, and I believe we are going to hear from Mr. Stephen
Thompson.
MR. THOMPSON: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen of the
Board.
On behalf of my client, Neapolitan Enterprises, we appreciate the
opportunity to speak with you this morning.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you.
MR. THOMPSON: Formerly I was with the firm of Roetzel &
Page 9
March 7, 2016
Andress. I've seceded from that union and now am with my own firm,
Thompson & Lewis, here in Naples. I've represented Neapolitan
Enterprises in one capacity or another since 1987.
Neapolitan, over the years, has felt that the county appraiser's
office has done a very fair and accurate job of appraising their
properties. They've been a Collier County taxpayer for over 50 years;
however, we're here today because in the recent assessments of 2014
and 2015, there's an anomalous -- an anomaly in the increase of the
valuation.
Year over year, there have been modest increases commensurate
with the rising property values, and we have not contested that in over
10 years and, generally, when we've had a concern, amicably settled
that with the county Appraiser's Office before coming to the Board;
however, this case we have -- a technical difficulty. Oh, there it is,
okay. Second time around got it.
We're concerned and contest the valuation of three parking
parcels that serve the Third Street South shopping district that I believe
you're all personally familiar with.
These two parcels are highlighted in yellow in the attached slide.
To the north, at the left of the screen, is parking part -- is Parcel A,
which is dedicated to parking. It has a gazebo on it, and it's used only
for that parking purpose at present other than the occasional live
nativity scene in the Christmas season.
Parking Parcels KI and K2 combined on this depiction as Parcel
K are in the center west side of the Third Street South shopping district
and are dedicated fully to parking uses.
We believe that the county appraiser erroneously assessed the
parking parcels by appraising them as vacant unencumbered
commercial properties, which is not the case.
The appraiser's staff admitted at the special magistrate's hearing
that they did not know about and did not consider a special -- not a
Page 10
March 7, 2016
special, but a resolution of the City of Naples when they reached their
valuation of these parcels.
This resolution, 11-12928 and its predecessors, it's just the
culmination of a number of resolutions of the City of Naples that have
been imposed on these properties over the years to provide for parking
and restrict the areas used as parking as servient parcels serving the
benefited operating commercial properties so the parking requirements
of the City of Naples could be established.
The provision of this resolution that restricts the parking parcels
to this servient use is Paragraph 2 under the resolution which states that
the necessary restrictions shall be filed with the Clerk of Courts
providing that the parking areas depicted on the plan shall been
encumbered for the purpose of providing parking for Buildings B, C,
D, E, F, and it recites the buildings depicted on the site plan.
As was custom with the City of Naples in this resolution and all
previous resolutions in order to impose these restrictions on the
parking parcels, the resolutions are recorded in the public records, as
you can see this one was.
The lettered buildings, which -- now it won't show up on this, so
I'm not sure -- the pointer.
But the lettered buildings, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, and J are all
served by these two dedicated parking parcels.
The parking is required in order for the commercial properties to
operate legally. Without this parking, they cannot operate. The City
of Naples would shut them down.
Florida Statute Section 193.011 has criteria which is required to
be considered by the county appraisers in their valuation of property.
In this case it's our contention the County Appraiser's Office missed
application of Subsection 2 which requires them to consider all
recorded encumbrances such as the City of Naples resolution which
limits the use of the parking parcels to servient parking for benefited
Page 11
March 7, 2016
properties.
The county appraisers admitted failure to consider the impact of
the city resolution at the special magistrate's hearing as a practical
effect, resulting in double taxation of these parking lots.
Any highest-and-best-use analysis of the combination of the
developed properties that operate as retail stores and so on and the
parking parcels must first take into account this required parking
mandated by the City of Naples resolution because it restricts the use
of those parking parcels to just that, parking.
If we reverse this slide -- I guess it won't go there. So let's see.
There we are. This historical valuation of Neapolitan parking parcels
was presented at the special magistrate's hearing.
If you look at this year over year, in years previous to 2013, the
increase in the assessed value was relatively modest, again, rising with
perceived property values that the county Appraiser's Office
determined; however, beginning with the Year 2014, there was a 135
percent increase in the county appraiser's valuation of these parcels.
We believe that this is when the county appraiser changed the way that
properties were appraised, and this change is the basic reason why
Neapolitan is contending this valuation.
The reason Neapolitan did not contest the 2014 valuation is that --
is because the Neapolitan employee responsible for reviewing TRIM
notices was, that summer, out caring for a dying husband. This is just
the practical reason why it was not appealed last year.
While she was gone, the temporary employee that was replacing
her did not realize the import of the TRIM notice when it came in and
did not raise that to the management of Neapolitan Enterprises.
As a result, when the tax bill came out and the increase was
discovered, Julian Stokes, an expert local appraiser, was hired,
engaged Neapolitan Enterprises to begin preparation of protesting this
year's tax valuation, which is before you today.
Page 12
March 7, 2016
Normally the Property Appraiser enjoys a presumption of
correctness under the statute, but this presumption is also limited by
that same statute. In fact, as applied here, any presumption of
correctness that the county appraiser may have enjoyed was lost as a
matter of law when he failed to consider the recorded City of Naples
resolution. That missed one of the eight statutorily mandated criteria
that the county appraiser must consider in reaching just and fair
valuation of any property. That flaw was compounded by the Special
Magistrate's recommendation to this board when he adopted the county
appraiser's recommendation of value.
Not only did Neapolitan make this point at the hearing before the
Special Magistrate, but even if the taxpayer had failed to do so, the
Special Magistrate was still required by the statute to consider all eight
criteria, not just seven of them.
Further, we would have tried to present you with some of the
dialogue that went along at the special magistrate's hearing from the
county appraiser's staff; however, two court reporters were unable to
discern what was said due to the poor quality of the recording. One
said the quality of the recording prohibited my ability to transcribe it.
The other said it was not of sufficient quality to produce a transcript
that I am willing to certify as correct.
And so we could not present to you today the dialogue that took
place, but I'm sure that my following representation will be recognized
by those who were present there as having taken place.
The further demonstration of the improper valuation and analysis
by the county Appraiser's Office was exposed at the hearing when they
speculated that underground parking, new covered parking decks, and
various forms of high-rises with second and third story retail office or
even residential uses were, in fact, the proper measure of what these
parking lots could be put to in terms of use and what could be expected
of them in the immediate future.
Page 13
March 7, 2016
That is not remotely the case. It was amply testified by Barbara
Walker, the president of Neapolitan Enterprises, at the special
magistrate's hearing.
Requiring these properties to be developed and assessing them at
a developed use is improper analysis. It is not an immediately
expected use. The immediately expected use of these parking lots in
the future is as parking lots; otherwise, we have to shut down what
we're doing. We have to go back into the City of Naples for rezoning
application for conditional use approval. There's a lot of hurtles and a
lot of expense that would be required of the taxpayer in order to justify
the valuation proposed by the county Appraiser's Office.
We do not believe that it would be fair of Collier County, this
board, or the Appraiser's Office to impose those costs and that process
on this taxpayer.
In conclusion, Neapolitan Enterprises respectfully requests this
board to find the Special Magistrate's recommendation and the county
appraiser's valuation are improper based on the plain language of the
statute and to enter a decision in accordance with the Neapolitan
appraiser's recommendation that's in your record below lowering the
collective assessment on the parking parcels from $8,841,419 to a fair
and just value of$2,000,996 in 2015.
Specifically, Lot K1 we believe should be assessed at a million,
two hundred thirty-seven and thirty-three thousand -- seven hundred
thirty-three, and Lot K2 at $536,025, and Lot A, which is the one at the
north with the little gazebo on it, at $1,366,532. Of the parking
parcels, it's the only one that has any unused parking, 13 spaces that
are not allocated under the city resolution, and it has some open area
that arguably could be developed as something small but is
economically unfeasible to do so.
Thank you. We'd be happy to entertain any questions that you
may have.
Page 14
March 7, 2016
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Board members, any questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Hearing none.
CITIZEN MEMBER POTEET: Not at this time.
SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER DONALDS: Thank you.
MR. THOMPSON: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you very much.
Does the Property Appraiser's staff have any comments they
would like to make on it? I'd just like to ask a question of the Property
Appraiser's staff, if possible.
MR. SKINNER: Sure.
MR. WOOD: Sure. Yes. Gaylord Wood for the Property
Appraiser's Office.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you, sir. Is your -- are you
confident and you're asserting to the Board that the methodologies
you've used to assess the properties mentioned here are consistent with
your methodologies used elsewhere across the county and you're
confident that your appraisal is fair and just?
MR. WOOD: Yes, sir. The same techniques were used on this
property as to all similar properties in the same class in Collier County.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you very much.
CITIZEN MEMBER POTEET: I have a question. In Mr.
Thompson's presentation, was there anything in his presentation that
you disagreed with?
MR. WOOD: Yes. If you'll look at Paragraph 8 of the Special
Magistrate's recommendation, it says, and I quote, Mr. Thompson
asserts in his post hearing summary that the Property Appraiser's
Office, quote, failed to consider a recorded encumbrance limiting the
use of the parking parcels to servient parking use, end quote.
The petitioner never specifically asks the Property Appraiser's
Office if he did or did not contract the restriction. I listened to the
Page 15
March 7, 2016
audio file twice, and the Property Appraiser's Office never states he
failed to consider the restrictions of the resolution.
CITIZEN MEMBER POTEET: Second question. Is it the
petitioner's responsibility to bring forth the encumbrances to the
Property Appraiser's Office, or is that something the Property
Appraiser's Office should look at automatically?
MR. WOOD: That's a good question. We normally look at
anything that's recorded in the public records and that deals with the
particular property. And I would point out that even though Mr.
Thompson talks about, quote, an appraisal by Mr. Stokes, the record is
very clear that Mr. Stokes was not acting in his capacity as an
appraiser. Even though he holds the "member of the Appraisal
Institute" designation, he never performed an appraisal on any of these
properties.
And -- so, also, it would be totally improper for this board to
make any decision relative, you know, to establishing a value. This
county's over 75,000, and you just can't do it.
CITIZEN MEMBER POTEET: My concern is not on what Mr.
Stokes did. It's basically whether there was a misstep in the procedure
that -- should the encumbrance have been played into the assessment
of the property, and that's my entire question.
MR. WOOD: The assessment was considered. I mean, the
encumbrance was considered.
CITIZEN MEMBER POTEET: Okay.
MR. THOMPSON: May I respond to Mr. Wood?
CHAIRMAN NANCE: No, sir. I think it's been rightfully
considered by the Board. Thank you.
That takes us to 8, Mr. Morey, unless there's further comment
from board members. Any further comment on this item?
SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER DONALDS: I just have a
question about the issue with the recording and ability to transcribe
Page 16
March 7, 2016
after the fact. Is that an ongoing issue? Has it been resolved? Has this
come up before?
MR. SKINNER: Ask the Clerk of the Court.
MR. MOREY: We can check with the Clerk. I was not aware
that there was an issue. There was -- in 2014 there was one occasion
where the tape did not work, the recording didn't work, and we ended
up rehearing that particular matter for that very reason, because we are
required to have a recording for the record. I was not aware of the
quality until just now, so...
MR. WOOD: The Axia system contains a digital recording with
a very good mic system, and I have personally listened to several of
the recordings. I didn't listen to this one, but I've had no problem with
the recording setup.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Well, certainly, if it is a problem or has
been a problem, and most certainly if it is an ongoing problem, we just
need to make sure that we have the proper technology to do that,
because is -- are these hearings typically transcribed in all events?
MR. WOOD: No.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: They're not, okay. So the recording is
deemed to be sufficient.
MR. MOREY: The recording is the record.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. Thank you.
SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER DONALDS: And just one more
question. Was there a change in the methodology between 2013 and
2014? Because there was a dramatic difference.
MR. WOOD: No. And the law of Florida is that each year's
assessment stands on its own unconnected with the assessment for any
prior or subsequent year. That's a case called Keith Investments, Inc.,
versus James, 220 So. 2nd, 695, a Fourth District case in 1968.
SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER DONALDS: Okay. So -- but I
think -- and just to make sense of it -- I understand what you're saying,
Page 17
March 7, 2016
but going from 800,000 -- or I can't remember the numbers -- to, you
know, a dramatic increase and just looking at it from the petitioner
saying that there was a change in methodology -- I understand what
you're saying from a legal perspective, but is there any explanation for
MR. WOOD: There's no change in methodology.
SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER DONALDS: Okay.
MR. WOOD: The Property Appraiser considers the three
approaches to value every year.
SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER DONALDS: Okay. Thank you.
MR. MOREY: Thank you.
And if I could just comment on -- so as I stated earlier on where
the county's 75,000 population or more, we appoint the special
magistrates to hear these cases, make the decisions, and issue the
written decisions. So when this issue arose, we did look at the written
decisions. We looked at the three petition -- there's three decisions. It
was very clear that both sides were represented in the hearing. It was
very clear that there was -- the hearings went on for some time.
There's very detailed findings of fact.
And so the written decision has detailed findings of fact, has a
conclusion of law. It conforms to the statute. Whether someone
agrees with the decision or not, a petitioner who does not agree with
the decision has the ability to appeal in the Circuit Court within 30
days of the rendering of the decision, which will be the adoption of the
final petition. So they can -- the petitioner has the ability for further
appeal and have it reviewed.
SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER DONALDS: Thank you.
MR. MOREY: You're welcome.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: All right. Mr. Morey, I think that takes
us to Item 8.
MR. MOREY: It does. So this is the point in our meeting where
Page 18
March 7, 2016
we would adopt the special magistrates' recommendations for 2015.
They are in order by category. So we have homestead exemption
petitions, legal determination petitions, portability transfer petitions,
tangible property -- tangible personal property, and then residential and
commercial. And this would be an opportunity to adopt -- vote to
adopt the special magistrates' decisions.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: The indication here is the legal
determination petitions are not substantially complete. The notes that
I'm reading says that. What does that mean, sir?
MR. MOREY: That --
MR. WOOD: I believe those were cases where people were
complaining that their buildings should not have been on the tax roll.
Pursuant to 192.042 of the statute, we had a few of those where if a
building is not, quote, substantially completed as of January 1, no
value is placed on the improvements, which is --
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. So that's stating --
MR. WOOD: That's what that is.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: That's stating that the physical facilities
are not substantially complete, not that the --
MR. MOREY: Decision.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: -- dealing with the petitions is
incomplete?
MR. WOOD: Correct.
MR. MOREY: Correct. That's the type of petition that it is.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. All right.
MR. MOREY: No. The decisions are complete.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: All right. Sir, do we need to take these
item by item, or can we approve those as -- in total.
MR. MOREY: I would suggest taking them item by item by
category.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay, board members. Let's consider
Page 19
March 7, 2016
homestead exemption petitions.
SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER DONALDS: I just have one
question about one of the recommendations, if I could.
On the first page, there's a couple that have the decision as
granted but there's no change in the taxable value. What is the
situation -- like, the second and third one on the first page, for instance.
MR. MOREY: It is possible that they were looking for -- that
could possibly be an exemption, that they're looking for exemption
versus challenging the value.
SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER DONALDS: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: All right. Let's consider the magistrate --
approval of magistrates' recommendations for 2015 homestead
exemption petitions.
SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER DONALDS: Move to approve.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: There's a motion to approve. I will
second it.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Hearing none, all those in favor, signify
by saying aye.
CITIZEN MEMBER EARNEY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Aye.
SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER DONALDS: Aye.
CITIZEN MEMBER POTEET: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Any opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Likewise, the magistrate
recommendations for legal determination petitions: Not substantially
complete.
SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER DONALDS: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: I will second.
Page 20
March 7, 2016
There's a motion and a second. Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Hearing none, all those in favor, signify
by saying aye.
CITIZEN MEMBER EARNEY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Aye.
SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER DONALDS: Aye.
CITIZEN MEMBER POTEET: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Any opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you.
Regarding the portability transfer petitions. I'll move to approve.
SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER DONALDS: Second.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: There's a motion and a second. Any
discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Hearing none, all those in favor, signify
by saying aye.
CITIZEN MEMBER EARNEY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Aye.
SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER DONALDS: Aye.
CITIZEN MEMBER POTEET: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Any opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you.
Regarding tangible personal property recommendations. I'll
move approval.
SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER DONALDS: Second.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: There's a motion and a second. Any
discussion?
(No response.)
Page 21
March 7, 2016
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Hearing none, all those in favor, signify
by saying aye.
CITIZEN MEMBER EARNEY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Aye.
SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER DONALDS: Aye.
CITIZEN MEMBER POTEET: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Any opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN NANCE: And, finally, recommendations on tax
petitions for residential and commercial. I'll move approval.
SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER DONALDS: Second.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: There's a motion and a second. Any
discussion? Hearing none --
CITIZEN MEMBER POTEET: This includes the Neapolitan's
petition?
MR. MOREY: Yes, it does.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: It would be all inclusive, yes, sir.
MR. MOREY: Yes.
CHAIRMAN'NANCE: Yes, it's all inclusive.
MR. MOREY: Yes.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Further questions?
CITIZEN MEMBER POTEET: I would like to address it just
separately on that one item.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: You would like to approve them all with
the exception of that item?
CITIZEN MEMBER POTEET: Neapolitan, that was here for the
presentation.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. I'll accept --
MR. MOREY: There are three. I apologize; excuse me. There
are three subject petitions. So you want to vote all but those three at
this time; is that what you're proposing?
Page 22
March 7, 2016
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Mr. Poteet is requesting that the motion
be to approve those petitions with the exception of those three items
that the petitioner brought forward. I will accept that motion if the
second will accept it also? Who was the second?
SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER DONALDS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. Fine. Any further comments on
that item?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Hearing none, all those in favor, signify
by saying aye.
CITIZEN MEMBER EARNEY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Aye.
SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER DONALDS: Aye.
CITIZEN MEMBER POTEET: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Any opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. That passes.
So, Mr. Poteet, do you have a follow-up motion on those?
CITIZEN MEMBER POTEET: First I wanted to know, what are
the options for us on the Neapolitan issue, just to pass, adopt, or is
there recommendations we can make, et cetera?
MR. MOREY: The statute is -- the statute is fairly clear --
actually it's very clear, that if the magistrate decisions contain findings
of facts and conclusions of law in conformance with the statute, the
Board shall adopt them. That does not take away the rights of the
taxpayer to continue to seek redress. In fact, they have specific rights
to appeal to the Circuit Court.
We had this occasion once, I believe, three years ago. There was
a citizen that appeared before us on a homestead matter. Actually, it
was a substantially-not-complete issue. And the Board at that time
adopted the magistrate's decision because it contained findings of fact,
Page 23
March 7, 2016
conclusions of law, conformed to statute, they adopt it -- adopted it.
It would be my recommendation to do that and follow the statute.
It's a very slippery slope, I think, if we deviate from that, and then
you're going to start hearing, you know, volumes of evidence and
make judgments. I think it would be a very dangerous precedent.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Yes. This is not a quasi-judicial board,
is it?
MR. MOREY: No. Under our -- again, under the statute, given
the size of the county, the function of the Board is really one of
oversight, and the decisions are to be done by the magistrates of which
then you would adopt. That's the way it's set up.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: So the courts are the remedy if there's an
error in fact or following the law?
MR. MOREY: Absolutely. If there was an issue with due
process, if there was an issue, you know -- if there wasn't substantial
competent evidence in the record to support the particular finding, yes,
these folks would have the ability to appeal to the Circuit Court.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. Mr. Poteet, you requested that the
item be exempted, so I'm going to let you make a motion that's
whatever you feel like you want to bring to a vote.
CITIZEN MEMBER POTEET: Okay. I'm going to make a
motion that we approve, but the reason I brought it this way --
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Yes, sir.
CITIZEN MEMBER POTEET: -- I had concerns when there was
not a transcript that the plaintiff could come -- the petitioner could
come and actually read. I mean, according to the testimony, he had a
hard time doing it. I just thought that was where it was unfair. And
I'm only interested in fairness on this entire process. I'm not trying to
overturn the magistrate's decision, but I just wanted to make sure the
petitioner had a fair hearing here with us.
And so I will make the motion that we approve, but I am
Page 24
March 7, 2016
concerned about the process.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: I think fairly said, and the comments by
board members should be so noted in the proceedings.
That having said, there's a motion.
SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER DONALDS: I'll second Mr.
Poteet's motion.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: There's a motion and a second to
approve the final contested item. Any further comments?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Hearing none, all those in favor, signify
by saying aye.
CITIZEN MEMBER EARNEY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Aye.
SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER DONALDS: Aye.
CITIZEN MEMBER POTEET: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Any opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay, thank you.
So the petitioner has further remedy.
MR. MOREY: Absolutely. From the date -- now that it's
adopted and it's an adopted final decision, they will have the ability to
appeal to the Circuit Court.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you.
SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER DONALDS: I have a question
real quick.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Yes, ma'am.
SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER DONALDS: If the petitioner is
victorious over the Property Appraiser, they pay their own attorney's
fees, though?
MR. MOREY: The petitioner.
SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER DONALDS: Any attorney's fees?
Page 25
March 7, 2016
MR. MOREY: Yeah. The petitioner pays theirs, yes, yes.
And if something's overturned or remanded for another decision,
there's the ability to adjust the tax rolls accordingly when and if that
happens. And I don't know how long it takes to get an appeal taken. It
really depends on the docket.
SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER DONALDS: Thank you.
MR. MOREY: You're welcome.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: All right, sir. I believe that takes us to
Item 9.
MR. MOREY: It does. So Item 9, this is -- I'll read off the
assessment. This is for the certification of the tangible personal
property values.
So what was submitted to the Property Appraiser, to the Value
Adjustment Board, the tangible personal property in the amount of
$1,684,564,589.
The net change in taxable value due to the actions of the Board by
adopting the magistrate decisions is zero, so that the tangible personal
property value to be certified is $1,684,564,589.
SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER DONALDS: Move to approve.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Second.
There's a motion and a second. Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Hearing none, all those in favor, signify
by saying aye.
CITIZEN MEMBER EARNEY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Aye.
SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER DONALDS: Aye.
CITIZEN MEMBER POTEET: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Any opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN NANCE: That's a unanimous passage.
Page 26
March 7, 2016
Item No. 10.
MR. MOREY: Item No. 10 is the certification of Value
Adjustment Board for the real property values for tax roll Year 2015.
The assessment roll, as submitted by the appraiser prior to the board
action, is $68,404,151,492, and the net change in taxable value due to
the actions of the Board by adopting the magistrates' decisions, is a net
change reduction of$2,437,936, for a taxable value, incorporating all
those changes due to the action of the Board, of$68,401,713,556.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: I move approval.
SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER DONALDS: Second.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: There's a motion to approve and a
second. Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Hearing none, all those in favor, signify
by saying aye.
CITIZEN MEMBER EARNEY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Aye.
SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER DONALDS: Aye.
CITIZEN MEMBER PO'1'EET: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Any opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN NANCE: All right, Mr. Morey.
That takes us to the next future date for the Value Adjustment
Board to convene.
MR. MOREY: And there are two dates, both of which the
commissioners' chambers here are available, and that would be either
August 1 or August 8th, and you can choose whichever date makes
sense.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: All right. Is there a choice by board
members? I will tell you, Board Members and Mr. Morey,
unfortunately, I will be unable to attend either one of those dates. I
Page 27
March 7, 2016
will be out of town, so we will have to depend on Commissioner
Henning or one of the other alternates for those -- either one of those
meeting dates. So I won't comment on your choice for the date. I'll let
you determine what's best for you.
CITIZEN MEMBER EARNEY: I'm in the same boat as you, sir.
I won't be here then.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: So Ms. Earney --
SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER DONALDS: For either one?
CITIZEN MEMBER EARNEY: No.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: So Ms. Earney will not be here either, so
that's going to put significant pressure on Mr. Poteet unless he plans on
going fishing in early August.
CITIZEN MEMBER POTEET: No. Mr. Poteet intends to be
someplace in Collier County at that point.
SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER DONALDS: I am here for both.
So it, really, I think depends on Mr. Henning.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: We need to have -- we either need to
have Commissioner Henning or one of the alternate BCC members in
attendance.
So, Mr. Morey, you've got your work cut out for you to reach out
to these elected officials and see what their availability is going to be.
MR. MOREY: Okay. We will.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: So are we going to -- are we going to
make a decision at this time, or are we going to allow staff to work out
the quorum considerations and come back to the Board?
CITIZEN MEMBER POTEET: Do you have a preference?
SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER DONALDS: No.
CITIZEN MEMBER POTEET: I would prefer the 1st over the
8th.
SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER DONALDS: That's fine with me.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: All right. Well, since you are the ones
Page 28
March 7, 2016
that are going to be here, Mr. Morey, I would assume that you work on
-- start with August the 1st as the first choice and see what can be
arranged.
MR. MOREY: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Any other comments from board
members?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Hearing no further good for the county,
we'll remain in recess until that August date is established.
Thank you very much.
SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER DONALDS: Thank you.
Page 29
March 7, 2016
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 9:42 a.m.
VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
/' '
CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
DWIGHT BROCK, CLERK
5:52.
..est as„tathairman d. tAl.,i
signature- 0y
These minutes approved by the Board on b ( 1 116 , as
presented t./ or as corrected .
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT
REPORTING SERVICES, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS, NOTARY
PUBLIC/COURT REPORTER.
Page 30