OFFICIAL MEETING MINUTES
OF THE
VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD (VAB)
PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA
JUNE 3, 2010
THURSDAY COMMISSION
9:04 A.M. CHAMBERS
1. CALL TO ORDER
1.A. Roll Call
Commissioner Karen T. Marcus, Chair - Absent
School Board Member William Graham, Vice-Chairman
Commissioner Steven L. Abrams
Citizen-At-Large Scott Johnston
Citizen-At-Large Stormet Norem
VAB Legal Counsel Heidi Juhl, Esq.
Clerk & Comptroller Board Services Administrator Grant J. Skolnick, Esq.
Deputy Clerk Barbara Strickland
2. RECONSIDERATION REQUESTS
VAB Legal Counsel Heidi Juhl, Esq. stated that:
· Petitioners who sought reconsiderations from the VAB had submitted written requests for rehearings.
· Property appraisers and petitioners were present today.
· Requests for rehearings from individuals who were not present would also be considered.
2.A.
DISCUSSED: Petition 2009-3970
Peter Lucas, the petitioner, stated that his appeal was based on information provided by the property appraiser’s direct sales comparison. He said that:
· The arbitrator present at his hearing said that the only issue of importance was the cost per square foot.
· The direct sales comparison materially misrepresented the facts of his home.
o Comparables 3, 4, and 5 from the list provided at his hearing should not have been included, because they were listing prices and not sales prices. Those selections grossly inflated the cost of his home.
o Comparables 1 and 2 were actually sold during the timeframe specified. The taxable number was not used, but the number listed as the value of the homes was. Discounts that were applied inflated the values of the two comparables listed by the property appraiser.
o The actual costs per square foot with tax values applied reduced the value of his taxable assessment by approximately $400,000.
o The document provided to the mediator materially misrepresented the facts.
Commissioner Abrams commented that it was unclear to him in the written summary whether Mr. Lucas’ arguments were raised at the hearing. Mr. Lucas replied that:
· When he appealed the decision, he was given three different sets of properties, and he faxed many pages to the County in response.
· Prior to the hearing, he was sent another list of properties, and he faxed additional pages.
· The hearing was delayed, and he was sent a third list, which differed from the other two lists.
· He was unable to provide an analysis within the time allotted, because he was about to leave town.
· After he returned, the decision was made and the mediator’s comment was that all that mattered was the cost per square foot.
2.B.
DISCUSSED: VAB Responsibilities
Jeffrey Clyman, the County property appraiser attorney, stated that:
· His comments would be helpful to the VAB in deciding whether to grant a second hearing.
· The VAB determined that it should rely on qualified attorneys and appraisers to hear property owners’ grievances concerning assessments that were excessive, or improperly denied an exemption or a classification.
· The VAB hired attorneys who were experienced in reading and interpreting statutes, regulations and documents within Dade, Broward and Palm Beach Counties, as well as appraisers who were knowledgeable in property valuations.
· The VAB should consider that:
o The special magistrates heard grievances, and they listened to witnesses’ testimony and arguments.
o Documentary evidence provided to the magistrates by property owners and appraisers led to questions from the magistrates to determine appropriate actions.
o In cases of delayed hearings, magistrates requested additional information to evaluate decisions. Ample time was allowed each petitioner.
o Taxpayers were allowed to question the property appraiser’s staff about methods of reaching assessments and making decisions. All petitioners had the right to be represented by professional tax agents, attorneys, or designates to appear on their behalf.
o The County’s VAB hearing process, from October 2009 through May 2010, was lengthy. At conclusion, some petitioners obtained relief and others did not.
o Results that were unsatisfactory to petitioners did not necessarily justify a second hearing. Petitioners retained the right to hearings at the County courthouse.
o Additional evidence had been supplied to Mr. Lucas in timely fashion, and Mr. Lucas had every opportunity to refute that evidence. He did not demonstrate good cause to schedule another hearing.
Ms. Juhl responded that this VAB had routinely entertained hearing requests through the years, unlike many VABs throughout Florida. She said that:
· New rules for granting reconsiderations meant that the standard for granting them had changed the flexibility of VABs to grant rehearings.
· Under the new rules, if a recommended decision met three statutes listed under Rule 12D-9, the VAB was bound to approve it. Discretion was eliminated.
· Florida counties were split in their applications of the new rules.
· The VAB was allowed to vote on each petitioner’s case individually as presented.
MOTION to approve denying the request for rehearing on Petition 2009-3970 submitted by Peter Lucas, based on the staff recommendation and testimony provided. Motion by Commissioner Abrams, seconded by Stormet Norem, and carried 4-0. Commissioner Marcus absent.
2.C.
DISCUSSED: Petition 2009-18559
Dr. Richard Barfield, the petitioner, stated that he had submitted a summary with exhibits regarding his petition. Ms. Juhl confirmed that the six-page summary was accompanied by 21 pages of attachments, and that all materials were reviewed by staff and summarized for the VAB. Commissioner Abrams suggested that this petition be taken up at the conclusion of the other petitions.
School Board Member William Graham stated that Dr. Barfield’s appeal would not be heard, but the VAB would decide whether to grant a rehearing later.
2.D.
DISCUSSED: Petition 2009-9841
Christopher Karch, the petitioner, stated the following:
· On September 14, 2009, he submitted an online petition and awaited a response that did not occur.
· Within a nine-month period, he had sent four letters to the VAB requesting an initial hearing.
· Following correspondence with Ms. Juhl, he understood that he was expected to provide proof that he was not notified of a VAB hearing. No proof existed that a hearing notice had been sent.
· He submitted a sworn, notarized affidavit to VAB staff that he had not received a hearing notice. He had paid the $15.00 fee, and he wanted a hearing to present his evidence and hear the County’s evidence.
Commissioner Abrams commented that a hearing should be scheduled when a petitioner had not been granted an initial hearing, and had provided a sworn affidavit.
Ms. Juhl remarked that sometimes petitioners claimed that they did not receive hearing notices. She said that Mr. Karch was not required to prove a negative, but an explanation instead. He had telephoned the VAB the week before his hearing to relate his plans to be out of town, and to say that he had not received a hearing notice, she added.
She concluded that the VAB had not received a response from Mr. Karch, and that a correct mailing address for him had been verified. All of the VAB information was on a Web site, she noted, where Mr. Karch had filed his petition.
MOTION to approve granting a request for rehearing for Petition Number 2009-9841. Motion by Commissioner Abrams, seconded by Scott Johnston, and carried 4-0. Commissioner Marcus absent.
2.E.
DISCUSSED: Petition 2009-5047
Howard Cohen, the petitioner, stated that:
· He requested the VAB to reconsider its decision because he was told that a mathematical error was discounted on the property appraiser’s paperwork because the appraiser never used a round number, such as the petition’s property value of $400,000.
· If the incorrect improvement value was considered, the requested reduction apparently had been applied.
· The magistrate refused to consider the appraised comparable neighboring properties that were submitted by the petitioner. Documentation supporting the petitioner’s position had been submitted to the VAB’s attorney.
· At the initial hearing, a property appraiser’s representative testified that she had viewed his paperwork only five minutes earlier, and she was unfamiliar with the comparables or an arm’s length transaction.
· The magistrate advised him after the initial hearing to request another hearing.
· No explanations were offered to him concerning the mathematical error.
MOTION to approve denying the request for rehearing for Petition 2009-5047. Motion by Commissioner Abrams, seconded by Mr. Norem, and carried 4-0. Commissioner Marcus absent.
(CLERK’S NOTE: Discussion of item 2.C. resumed at this time.)
Mr. Graham stated that Dr. Barfield’s request for a rehearing would be discussed at this time, and he reminded Dr. Barfield that the discussion would be narrowly framed within the parameters of due process.
Dr. Barfield stated that:
· His written requests for an informal conference with the property appraiser were denied five times.
· Ms. Juhl sent him a letter stating that special magistrates were not required to rule and complete a decision form immediately after a hearing, but were permitted to defer ruling within a reasonable amount of time.
· He disagreed with the VAB Rules shown on page 12, number 6, because they were written to indicate that a special magistrate would render a decision at the conclusion of the hearing, and a completed form would be provided to the petitioner.
· He believed that the March 2009 hearing regarding 2008 taxes on his Jupiter Inlet Colony property had concluded. The Property Appraiser’s Office corrupted the entire VAB process with the Other Building and Yard Improvements category that was briefly mentioned in a letter written by Mr. Clyman 20 days following the hearing, because it adjusted a final assessment at 22 percent higher without his presence or knowledge.
Mr. Graham stated that latitude was given to Dr. Barfield in his detailed presentation. All that Dr. Barfield had shared, he said, could be presented at a rehearing or at Level Three of the process in a courtroom.
MOTION to approve denying a request for rehearing on Petition 2009-18559. Motion by Mr. Norem, seconded by Mr. Johnston, and carried 4-0. Commissioner Marcus absent.
2.F.
DISCUSSED: Petition 2009-10825
VAB Supervisor Gloria Madison stated that Mr. Heglund’s name was a late addition to the petitioners, and that his name did not appear on today’s list. Ms. Juhl reported that a companion petition, 2009-10827, was heard in tandem with 2009-10825.
Ronald Heglund, the petitioner, stated that he needed values confirmation for both petitions. He read part of a VAB letter:
Under proposed findings of facts, see worksheet for Petition 2009-10827.
He stated that no worksheet was attached to the letter, and he continued:
Petitioner applied for permanent and total disability for both parcels at issue, and only one parcel can qualify for exemption.
Mr. Heglund said that he had never applied for a disability exemption.
Ms. Juhl commented that:
· The petitioner did not appear at the initial hearing, but part of the exemption was granted by the property appraiser.
· A disability exemption was granted, and the magistrate was informed by the property appraiser of this fact.
Mr. Heglund stated that he had applied for valuation of the property and homestead exemption on one contiguous parcel that was assigned two parcel numbers. Ms. Juhl responded that two separate magistrates would have heard petitions for an exemption and an assessed value appeal.
Mr. Heglund responded that:
· He attended one hearing on both homes, but the hearing was shortened because of time.
· He had requested a continuance or rehearing.
· No information was presented or discussed on the homes’ values, but homestead exemption was discussed.
· A unity of title did not exist on the two parcels.
· His grandparents built both houses, 40 feet apart; he lived in one that his mother had quit-claimed to him in 2004.
Commissioner Abrams commented that this substantive issue could not be settled at this hearing. Ms. Juhl said she agreed that the recommended decision needed to be revised to reflect that no disability existed.
MOTION to approve denying the request for rehearing on the exemption matter, and to approve granting the request for rehearing on the petition to assess value. Motion by Commissioner Abrams, and seconded by Mr. Norem.
Mr. Norem commented that Mr. Heglund had received an exemption that he did not want.
AMENDED MOTION to approve granting the request for rehearing on the assessed value but not for the exemption, and to approve granting the ability for the petitioner to appeal the exemption matter to the circuit court, carried 4-0. Commissioner Marcus absent.
2.G.
DISCUSSED: Petition 2009-6259
Jane Yudell, the petitioner, stated that she had discovered, after her husband’s death, that the property had not received a homestead exemption, and that a reassessment had not been requested at a March 2009 hearing. Her deceased husband’s business partner was the original petitioner at the initial hearing, she said, and he had since passed away.
MOTION to approve granting the request for rehearing. Motion by Mr. Johnston, seconded by Mr. Norem, and carried 4-0. Commissioner Marcus absent.
3. APPROVAL OF THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATES’ RECOMMENDATIONS
3.A.
Approve the Special Magistrates’ Recommendations for the Hearings Held from November 6, 2009, through May 20, 2010.
Ms. Juhl stated that written reconsideration requests had been submitted by petitioners who were not present.
MOTION to approve staff recommendations and the remaining petitions for reconsideration requests. Motion by Commissioner Abrams.
Mr. Norem recommended that Petition 2009-18923 from Daniel Petrocchi be excluded from the reconsideration requests.
AMENDED MOTION to approve staff recommendations on the remaining petitions for reconsideration requests, excluding Petition 2009-18923, of Daniel Petrocchi. Motion by Commissioner Abrams, seconded by Mr. Norem, and carried 4-0. Commissioner Marcus absent.
Mr. Clyman requested that the VAB reconsider its approval of a petition filed on behalf of CVS Pharmacies (CVS). He said he believed that a rehearing would be futile.
Commissioner Abrams clarified that his motion incorporated the up-to-date recommendations of staff. Ms. Juhl stated that the recommendations under consideration remained unchanged.
Mr. Clyman said he requested that the VAB reconsider its position regarding the granting of a rehearing concerning CVS. He stated that:
· The two-and-a-half-hour VAB hearing was held before a special magistrate who was a licensed general state appraiser, and employed at one of the leading appraisal firms in the county.
· He found nothing in the taped hearing that demonstrated bias towards CVS or Ms. Sheila Anderson, the petitioner.
· He believed that Ms. Anderson overstepped boundaries as a tax advocate at the hearing because she constantly interrupted the magistrate during his attempts to bring forth evidence and make a decision.
· The special magistrate believed that the assessments of CVS could have been calculated at $40 per foot, and the property appraiser’s assessment had amounted to less than that.
· The special magistrate found that the evidence provided to support the alleged value of the property was not supportable and did not meet the burden of proof.
· CVS was in litigation with the Property Appraiser’s Office and the VAB concerning the previous two years’ tax assessments. The CVS attorney could obtain the court’s permission to amend his complaint to include 2009.
Ms. Juhl stated that the VAB was dismissed from the litigation, and that the petitioner had ample opportunity to present her case.
Mr. Graham stated that the approved motion complied with counsel’s recommendation. He added that approval of the recommendations would exclude petitions that were granted rehearings today.
AMENDED MOTION to approve the Special Magistrates’ recommendations for the hearings held from November 6, 2009, through May 20, 2010, excluding the rehearings granted today, carried 4-0.
4. MOTION TO APPROVE – The Minutes of the VAB Meeting of April 7, 2010
MOTION to approve the April 7, 2010, VAB minutes. Motion by Mr. Johnston, seconded by Commissioner Abrams, and carried 4-0.
5. MOTION TO AUTHORIZE – The Clerk to the VAB to Solicit and Hire Special Magistrates for the 2010 VAB Season, Pursuant to Chapter 194.035(2), F.S.
A. Attorney Special Magistrates for Exemption Hearings
B. Appraisal Special Magistrates for Assessment Hearings
C. Compensation rate of $90 an hour for Special Magistrates
MOTION to approve authorizing the Clerk to the VAB to solicit and hire Special Magistrates for the 2010 VAB season, pursuant to Chapter 194.035(2), F.S. Motion by Mr. Norem, and seconded by Commissioner Abrams.
Mr. Graham stated that the motion included authorization to solicit and hire Special Magistrates for exemption hearings and assessment hearings at a compensation rate of $90 per hour.
UPON CALL FOR A VOTE, the motion carried 4-0. Commissioner Marcus absent.
6. PUBLIC COMMENTS - None
7. BOARD COMMENTS - None
8. STAFF COMMENTS - None
9. ADJOURNMENT
At 10:25 a.m., the chair declared the meeting adjourned.
ATTESTED: APPROVED:
Clerk Chair