Loading...
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