Fillable PINELLAS COUNTY VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD MEETING AGENDA FIRST (Pinellas County Clerk of the Circuit Court and Comptroller)

Fill Online, Printable, Fillable, Blank PINELLAS COUNTY VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD MEETING AGENDA FIRST (Pinellas County Clerk of the Circuit Court and Comptroller) Form

Use Fill to complete blank online PINELLAS COUNTY CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT AND COMPTROLLER pdf forms for free. Once completed you can sign your fillable form or send for signing. All forms are printable and downloadable.

PINELLAS COUNTY VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD MEETING AGENDA FIRST (Pinellas County Clerk of the Circuit Court and Comptroller)

On average this form takes 18 minutes to complete

The PINELLAS COUNTY VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD MEETING AGENDA FIRST (Pinellas County Clerk of the Circuit Court and Comptroller) form is 51 pages long and contains:

  • 0 signatures
  • 29 check-boxes
  • 57 other fields

Country of origin: US
File type: PDF

Use our library of forms to quickly fill and sign your Pinellas County Clerk of the Circuit Court and Comptroller forms online.

BROWSE PINELLAS COUNTY CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT AND COMPTROLLER FORMS

Related forms
Fill has a huge library of thousands of forms all set up to be filled in easily and signed.
Fill in your chosen form
Sign the form using our drawing tool
Send to someone else to fill in and sign.
find another form
 
PINELLAS COUNTY VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
MEETING AGENDA
FIRST CERTFICATION OF THE TAX ROLLS
OCTOBER 7, 2020
9:00 A.M.
Agenda Page No.
1. Welcome and Roll Call
2. Citizens Wishing to Address the VAB
3. Approval of Minutes of Meeting of July 27, 2020… ............................................... 2-9
4. Approval of the First Certification of the 2020 Tax Rolls. ................................. …10-11
5. Final VAB Meeting - Scheduled Following Completion of all Hearings
6. Other Business .........................................................................................................12-78
7. Adjournment
1
Virtual Meeting, July 27, 2020
The Pinellas County Value Adjustment Board (VAB) met online using the Zoom virtual meeting
platform at 1:00 P.M. on this date with the following members present:
Dave Eggers, County Commissioner, Chair
Kenneth T. Welch, County Commissioner, Vice-Chair
Michael A. J. Bindman, Citizen Appointee (School Board)
Carol Cook, School Board Member
Frank L. Makowski, Citizen Appointee (Board of County Commissioners)
Also Present:
Ken Burke, Clerk of the Circuit Court and Comptroller
Rinky Parwani, VAB Counsel
Katherine Carpenter, Manager, Board Records
Other Interested Individuals
Chris Bartlett, Senior Board Reporter, Deputy Clerk
AGENDA
1.
Appointment of VAB Counsel
2.
Introduce and Provide Contact Information for VAB Members and Staff
a.
Letter of Qualifications to Serve as VAB Counsel
b.
Approval of 2020 Contract for VAB Counsel
c.
Approval of VAB Counsel Verification Form
3.
VAB Counsel to Provide Overview of Process
4.
Citizens Who Wish to Comment on the VAB Process
5.
Approval of Minutes of Meeting of May 20, 2020
6.
Appointment of Special Magistrates (Attorneys)
7.
Appointment of Special Magistrates (Appraisers)
8.
Recommend the VAB grant authority to the Clerk to utilize Attorney Special
Magistrates from the recommended list for Good Cause Determinations
9.
Authorization to Hold an Optional Orientation Meeting for New Special
Magistrates
10.
Links to DOR Rules and Florida Statutes for the VAB Process
11.
Filing Fee of $15.00
12.
Process for Handling Duplicate Petitions
13.
Process for Handling Late Filed Petitions and Good Cause Determinations
14.
Process for Holding Hearings Utilizing Telephonic or Electronic Means
15.
Compensation for Special Magistrates
16.
Deadlines for Recommendations and Approval of Special Magistrate
Acknowledgement Forms
17.
Approval of VAB Brochure
18.
Approval of 2020 Pinellas County VAB Internal Operating Procedures
19.
Authorization to Hire Temporary Help
20.
VAB Tentative Schedule and Future Meeting – Certification of the Tax Rolls
21.
VAB Statistics for Previous 3 Years
22.
Adjournment
2
July 27, 2020
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Eggers called the meeting to order at 1:00 P.M.
APPOINTMENT OF VAB COUNSEL
a.
Letter of Qualifications to Serve as VAB Counsel
b.
2020 Contract for VAB Counsel - Approved
Chair Eggers introduced the items, noting that Florida Statutes require that the first item on the
agenda be the appointment of VAB Counsel. In response to queries by the members, Mr. Burke
indicated that Attorney Parwani’s Letter of Qualifications remains similar to the one submitted in
the previous year; and that she has served as VAB Counsel for several years. No one appeared in
response to the Chair’s call for persons wishing to be heard.
Mr. Bindman moved, seconded by Commissioner Welch and carried unanimously, that the 2020
contract for VAB Counsel be approved.
c.
VAB Counsel Verification Form – Approved
Upon presentation by Chair Eggers, Commissioner Welch moved, seconded by Ms. Cook, that the
VAB Counsel Verification Form be approved to comply with Department of Revenue (DOR) Rule
12D-9.014. Upon call for the vote, the motion carried unanimously.
CONTACT INFORMATION OF VAB MEMBERS AND STAFF
At the Chair’s request, those in attendance introduced themselves and confirmed that their contact
information found in the agenda packet is correct. Chair Eggers referred to Agenda Item No. 10
and noted that copies of the DOR Rules and Florida Statutes governing the VAB process have
been included in the packet and distributed to each of the members.
OVERVIEW OF THE VAB PROCESS
Attorney Parwani summarized the VAB process, emphasizing that it is an administrative way for
constituents to address property tax issues to avoid court hearing costs. She indicated that a
property owner can file petitions contesting tax valuation, homestead exemption status, or
3
July 27, 2020
classification and receive an informal hearing by a Special Magistrate who considers the evidence
and makes a recommendation to the Board, which, in turn, reviews it for compliance with the law;
and that if the constituent is unhappy with the Board’s decision, he or she can file a petition to the
Circuit Court.
CITIZEN COMMENTS REGARDING THE VAB PROCESS
No one appeared in response to the Chair’s call for citizens who wish to comment on the VAB
process.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF MEETING OF MAY 20, 2020 – APPROVED
Upon presentation by Chair Eggers, Mr. Makowski moved, seconded by Commissioner Welch
and carried unanimously, that the minutes of the meeting of May 20, 2020 be approved.
APPOINTMENT OF ATTORNEY SPECIAL MAGISTRATES – APPROVED
In response to queries by the members, Attorney Parwani related that she has reviewed the
applications for compliance and those who qualified are presented in the agenda packet; and that
it is at the Board’s discretion as to how many and who should be hired. Mr. Burke indicated that
as directed by the Board, preference is given to Magistrates from Pinellas County when assigning
hearings, and Ms. Carpenter provided input.
Following discussion, Commissioner Welch moved, seconded by Mr. Bindman and carried
unanimously, that the appointments be approved.
APPOINTMENT OF APPRAISER SPECIAL MAGISTRATES – APPROVED
Chair Eggers noted that one applicant did not submit all required documentation, and Attorney
Parwani clarified that all of the submitted applications are qualified for appointment; and that one
of the applicants did not submit a writing example, which is one of the Board’s requirements;
whereupon, Ms. Cook moved, seconded by Commissioner Welch, that the Board approve the
appointments of those applicants who completed all of the requirements.
4
July 27, 2020
Responding to query by Mr. Makowski, Mr. Burke indicated that as directed by the Board,
preference is also given to Appraiser Special Magistrates who reside in Pinellas County when
assigning hearings; and that Ms. Carpenter could provide a document showing how past hearings
have been distributed, to which she agreed.
Upon the Chair’s call for the vote, the motion carried unanimously.
RECOMMEND THE VAB GRANT AUTHORITY TO THE CLERK TO UTILIZE ATTORNEY
SPECIAL MAGISTRATES FROM THE RECOMMENDED LIST FOR GOOD CAUSE
DETERMINATIONS – APPROVED
Chair Eggers introduced the item, and Ms. Carpenter related that Attorney Special Magistrates are
qualified to complete good cause determinations and have done so in recent years; and that the
Board can delegate authority to the Clerk to continue assigning determinations in this manner;
whereupon, Ms. Cook moved, seconded by Commissioner Welch, that the authority be granted.
In response to queries by Mr. Makowski, Attorney Parwani discussed the benefits of utilizing
Attorney Special Magistrates, and Mr. Burke provided input, noting that using one Special
Magistrate maintains consistency. Mr. Makowski stated that is beneficial to train more than one
person as it provides alternatives when needed and Mr. Burke responded, indicating that the
authority would allow the Clerk to utilize any of the qualified Magistrates; and that his office
would follow direction from the Board, and discussion ensued.
Upon call for the vote, the motion carried unanimously.
OPTIONAL ORIENTATION MEETING FOR NEW SPECIAL MAGISTRATES –
NOT AUTHORIZED
Upon presentation of the item, Mr. Bindman moved, seconded by Commissioner Welch, that
authorization be granted.
Responding to query by Mr. Burke, Attorney Parwani indicated that the scheduling of orientation
for Magistrates is at the discretion of the Board; and that Pinellas County Magistrates are already
well trained, and discussion ensued. In response to query by Chair Eggers, Ms. Carpenter stated
that Magistrates are paid for a minimum of two hours at the hourly rate while attending orientation
or other events; and that all but two Magistrates attended orientation last year.
5
July 27, 2020
Mr. Bindman amended his motion, stating that the Board should not hold an orientation session
for the 2020 VAB cycle, and Ms. Cook seconded the amended motion. Upon call for the vote, the
motion carried unanimously.
LINKS TO DOR RULES AND FLORIDA STATUTES FOR THE VAB PROCESS
Reiterating his earlier remarks, Chair Eggers indicated that copies of the DOR Rules and Florida
Statutes governing the VAB process have been included in the packet and distributed to each of
the members.
FILING FEE
Ms. Cook moved, seconded by Commissioner Welch and carried unanimously, that the filing fee
be set at $15.00.
PROCESSES FOR HANDLING DUPLICATE PETITIONS (ITEM NO. 12) AND LATE FILED
PETITIONS AND GOOD CAUSE DETERMINATIONS (ITEM NO. 13), AND FOR HOLDING
HEARINGS UTILIZING TELEPHONIC OR ELECTRONIC MEANS (ITEM NO. 14) –
APPROVED
Mr. Burke indicated that at the Board’s discretion, Agenda Items Nos. 12 through 14 may be
considered for approval together, and Chair Eggers concurred. Mr. Bindman moved, seconded by
Ms. Cook and carried unanimously, that the Board approve all three processes as proposed.
COMPENSATION FOR SPECIAL MAGISTRATES – APPROVED AT $125 PER HOUR
Chair Eggers indicated that the current rate of compensation is $125 per hour; that a Magistrate
has asked the Board to consider increasing the rate to $150 per hour; and that based on the previous
year, the increase would cost approximately $27,000, and Ms. Carpenter concurred.
Chair Eggers shared information regarding compensation rates in other counties, noting that
Hillsborough and Pasco Counties pay $125 per hour; that Manatee and Sarasota Counties pay $150
and $200 per hour, respectively; and that similar to Hillsborough and Pasco Counties, Pinellas
County does not reimburse Magistrates for mileage.
6
July 27, 2020
Mr. Makowski moved, seconded by Commissioner Welch, that the Board compensate Magistrates
at the rate of $125 per hour. Upon call for the vote, the motion carried unanimously.
DEADLINES FOR RECOMMENDATIONS AND APPROVAL OF SPECIAL MAGISTRATE
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FORMS – APPROVED
Mr. Burke related that unlike other counties, Pinellas County has no penalty for when Special
Magistrates do not turn in their recommendations on time; and that as a result, a Magistrate may
sometimes prioritize recommendations for other counties before Pinellas.
Ms. Carpenter indicated that if the forms are approved, the deadline would be extended from 10
business days to 15 business days, similar to Hillsborough and other counties which set a deadline
of 21 calendar days; and that a monetary penalty of $100 per day past the deadline would be
imposed if the recommendation is late. Attorney Parwani noted that the Board would have the
discretion to waive the penalty on a case-by-case basis.
Commissioner Welch moved, seconded by Mr. Bindman and carried unanimously, that the Special
Magistrate Acknowledgement Forms be approved.
VAB BROCHURE (ITEM NO. 17) AND 2020 PINELLAS COUNTY VAB INTERNAL
OPERATING PROCEDURES (ITEM NO. 18) – APPROVED
Chair Eggers indicated that Agenda Items Nos. 17 and 18 would be considered for approval
together; whereupon, Mr. Makowski moved, seconded by Commissioner Welch, that the items be
approved.
Ms. Carpenter noted that the Internal Operating Procedures make reference to an orientation
session; and that the Procedures may need to be amended to reflect the Board’s earlier vote to not
conduct an orientation session this cycle.
Upon call for the vote, the motion carried unanimously as stated.
7
July 27, 2020
HIRING TEMPORARY HELP – AUTHORIZED
Responding to query by Chair Eggers, Ms. Carpenter indicated that the compensation rate for
temporary workers is at the Clerk’s discretion.
Commissioner Welch moved, seconded by Mr. Makowski and carried unanimously, that the
authorization be granted.
VAB TENTATIVE SCHEDULE
Chair Eggers stated that VAB hearings will begin in October; and that the Board will remain in
session until all hearings have been completed. He indicated that the First Certification of the Tax
Rolls will be included at the October 7 meeting, which is to be held at 9:00 A.M. in the Clerk’s
Large Conference Room, located on the fourth floor of the Pinellas County Courthouse.
VAB STATISTICS FOR PREVIOUS 3 YEARS
Chair Eggers noted that statistics for the past three years have been included in the agenda packet.
Mr. Makowski commented that the approval rate of cases in Hillsborough County differs from
Pinellas County, and brief discussion ensued. Attorney Parwani indicated that it is difficult to
compare approval rates between counties, as the types of properties differ and the number of part-
time residents is not equal.
Mr. Burke provided an update regarding a lawsuit against the County regarding a hearing and
Board decision from the previous VAB cycle, indicating that it is still an active case.
Responding to query by Mr. Makowski regarding expenditures, Mr. Burke noted that personnel
benefits are related to the administration of VAB matters by Clerk’s staff, and Ms. Carpenter
provided information regarding the reporting of VAB hours and the tasks completed by Board
Records in support of the VAB, and discussion ensued.
8
July 27, 2020
ADJOURNMENT
Upon motion by Commissioner Welch, seconded by Mr. Makowski, Chair Eggers adjourned the
meeting at 2:06 P.M.
Chair
9
2020
INITIAL CERTIFICATION OF
THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
Section 193.122(1), Florida Statutes
DR-488P
N. 12/09
Rule 12D-16.002
Florida Administrative Code
Tax Roll Year
The Value Adjustment Board of Pinellas County has not completed its hearings and certifies on
order of the Board of County Commissioners according to sections 197.323 and 193.122(1), F.S.,
that the
(Check one). Real Property Tangible Personal Property
assessment roll for our county has been presented by the property appraiser to include all property
and information required by the statutes of the State of Florida and the requirements and regulations
of the Department of Revenue.
On behalf of the entire board, I certify that we have ordered this certification to be attached
as part of the assessment roll. We will issue a Certification of the Value Adjustment Board
(Form DR-488) under section 193.122(1) and (3), F.S., when the hearings are completed.
The property appraiser will make all extensions to show the tax attributable to all taxable
property under the law.
10/7/2020
Signature, Chair of the Value Adjustment Board Date
10
INITIAL CERTIFICATION OF
THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
Section 193.122(1), Florida Statutes
DR-488P
N. 12/09
Rule 12D-16.002
Florida Administrative Code
Tax Roll Year 2020
The Value Adjustment Board of Pinellas County has not completed its hearings and certifies on
order of the Board of County Commissioners according to sections 197.323 and 193.122(1), F.S.,
that the
(Check one.) Real Property Tangible Personal Property
assessment roll for our county has been presented by the property appraiser to include all property
and information required by the statutes of the State of Florida and the requirements and regulations
of the Department of Revenue.
On behalf of the entire board, I certify that we have ordered this certification to be attached
as part of the assessment roll. We will issue a Certification of the Value Adjustment Board
(Form DR-488) under section 193.122(1) and (3), F.S., when the hearings are completed.
The property appraiser will make all extensions to show the tax attributable to all taxable
property under the law.
10/7/2020
Signature, Chair of the Value Adjustment Board Date
11
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT,
IN AND FOR PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA
APPELLATE DIVISION
NEIL J. MORAN, and
LYNN ANDREWS
Petitioners,
Case No.
v.
LT Case No. 2019-0001
VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD FOR
PINELLAS COUNTY
Respondent.
/
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS UNDER RULE FLA. R. APP. P.
9.100
Petitioners, NEIL J. MORAN and LYNN ANDREWS, petition this
Honorable Court pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.100 to issue a Writ of Mandamus to
the VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD FOR PINELLAS COUNTY (“VAB”)
requiring the VAB to approve the recommendation of Special Magistrate Rutland,
issued on October 19
th
, 2019, pertaining to Petitioner’s parcel of land being classified
as bona fide agricultural, and in support, states as follows:
INTRODUCTION AND FACTS ON WHICH PETITIONERS RELY
1.
Petitioners are taxpayers in Pinellas County, and this is an action
seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the VAB to issue a final order pursuant to
12
Rule 12D-9.031(3), Florida Administrative Code, that Petitioners parcel of land
qualifies as agricultural under Fla. Stat. §193.461.
2.
On or about February 15, 2018, Petitioners filed an application for their
property to be classified as Agricultural Land pursuant to Fla. Stat. §193.461. (See
Appendix at Exhibit 1)
3.
On or about May 27, 2019, the Pinellas County Property Appraiser
denied their application for Property Tax Exemption or Classification. (See
Appendix at Exhibit 2)
4.
On or about July 8, 2019, Petitioners appealed the Property Appraiser’s
decision to the VAB for Pinellas County pursuant to Fla. Stat. §194.011 and were
assigned a special magistrate pursuant to Rule 12D-9.010, Florida Administrative
Code. (See Appendix at Exhibit 3)
5.
The parties met on October 12
th
, 2019, and a full evidentially hearing
was held in front of Special Magistrate Rutland. For the Property Appraiser, staff
attorney Alex Luca appeared. For the Petitioners, Lynn Andrews, Neil Moran, and
witness Todd McLendon appeared.
6.
At the conclusion of the hearing, Special Magistrate Rutland ruled in
favor of the Petitioners and granted the tax exemption. On October 18, 2019, a
thorough written opinion was released. (See Appendix at 4)
13
7.
Because the Petitioners prevailed in the hearing, the Property Appraiser
complied the property at issue was classified as agricultural (See Appendix at 5).
8.
However, at the VAB’s yearly meeting to approve the slate of cases for
the prior year, an unrelated party, the City of Largo, appeared at the meeting and
made a lengthy statement during the meeting against the Petitioners agricultural
classification. The City’s representative, the city’s community standards manager,
did not speak to other cases pending approval, just the Petitioner’s case.
9.
Speaking about the neighborhood, the city’s representative states that
“a lot of effort and money and time has been spent by the City of Largo to redevelop
that area.”
10.
The city representative then gives a one-sided account of the facts of a
related nuisance case, before directly asking the VAB to deny the magistrate’s
recommendation because the city’s representative believed that the Petitioners were
using their agriculture exemption to avoid local zoning and nuisance law.
11.
VAB meetings are recorded per Florida law and the Petitioners are
currently securing a transcript of the proceedings. However, it is abundantly clear
from the audio of the proceedings that the City of Largos representative changed the
outcome of the VAB meeting.
12.
Soon after these remarks were made, the board members are heard
discussing at length how they can “undo” the magistrate’s recommendation.
14
13.
A VAB member asked the VAB’s attorney to how to fix what was
perceived as a problem. The question asked to the attorney was “again, I get back
to, what, what action can we take today to change that magistrate’s decision.”
14.
The VAB attorney is then heard on the audio incorrectly telling the
board that they can send it back to another magistrate, when in reality the VAB was
limited by Rules 12D-9.031(2-3), Florida Administrative Code, which only gave the
board the power to review the magistrates recommended order as to form, to ensure
that the recommended order is written correctly.
15.
The VAB attorney makes clear that she considers the magistrate’s
written in compliance with Florida law. The attorney state plainly that “it is in
compliance with the law, the recommendation is written correctly.”
16.
Nonetheless, in order to appease a third-party, the City of Largo, the
VAB opted to send the case back to a “different’ magistrate to achieve a different
outcome. (See Appendix at 6).
JURISDICTION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW
17.
This Court has jurisdiction under Fla. R. App. P. 9.030(c)(3), which
reads, in pertinent part, the “Circuit Courts may issue writs of mandamus . . . and all
writs necessary to complete the exercise of the courts’ jurisdiction.”
15
18.
The circuit court has jurisdiction on this tax matter due to Florida
Administrative Code 12D-9.001(p) and Article V, Section 5(b), of the Florida
Constitution.
19.
Jurisdiction to issue an extraordinary writs follows appellate
jurisdiction generally. See Wovas v. Tousa Homes, Inc., 940 So. 2d 1166 (Fla. 2d
DCA 2006).
20.
“Mandamus is a recognized remedy to require a public official, who is
clothed with the authority, to discharge his duty.” Dante v. Ryan, 979 So. 2d 122,
1123 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008); Browning v. Young, 993 So. 2d 64, 65 (Fla. 1st DCA
2008) (stating that mandamus is a civil remedy to compel a public official to
discharge a ministerial duty); Fair v. Davis, 283 So. 2d 377, 378 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973)
(“mandamus is a remedy by which administrative officials or agencies may be
coerced to perform ministerial duties which they have a clear legal duty to perform”).
21.
“[T]o be entitled to a writ of mandamus the petitioner must have a clear
legal right to the requested relief, the respondent must have an indisputable legal
duty to perform the requested action, and the petitioner must have no other adequate
remedy available.” Sowell v. State, 136 So. 3d 1285, 1288 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014).
16
ARGUMENT
22.
Petitioners are taxpayers that are requesting that the VAB follow their
mandated procedures and approve their property as agricultural per the
recommendation of Special Magistrate Rutland.
23.
Petitioner, upon a proper appeal pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 193.461(2),
proved to the magistrate that their land was a used primarily for bona fide
agricultural purposes as defined by Fla. Stat. §193.461(b).
“For each petition not withdrawn or settled, special
magistrates shall produce a written recommended decision
that contains findings of fact, conclusions of law, and
reasons for upholding or overturning the property
appraiser’s determination. Conclusions of law must be
based on findings of fact. For each of the statutory criteria
for the issue under administrative review, findings of facts
must identify the corresponding admitted evidence, or lack
thereof. Each decision shall contain sufficient factual and
legal information and reasoning to enable the parties to
understand the basis for the decision, and shall otherwise
meet the requirements of law. The special magistrate and
board clerk shall observe the petitioner’s right to be sent a
timely written recommended decision containing
proposed findings of fact and proposed conclusions of law
and reasons for upholding or overturning the
determination of the property appraiser. After producing a
recommended decision, the special magistrate shall
provide it to the board clerk.” Rule 12D-9.030, F.A.C.
24.
After this was done, the VAB did not have discretion to deny the
magistrate’s recommendation. (See Pace v. Singletary, 633 So. 2d 516 (Fla 2d DCA
17
1994) (Writs of Mandamus are appropriate when the official duty refused is
ministerial and not discretionary).
25.
The only power the VAB had during the March meeting is enumerated
by Rule 12D-9.031, Florida Administrative Code. This Rule allows the board to
verify that the written recommended order complies with Sections 194.301,
194.034(2), and 194.035(1), Florida Statutes.
26.
The Rule advises that “The board . . . may rely on board legal counsel”
for assistance with determining whether the recommended order is written correctly.
Rule 12D-9.031(2), Florida Administrative Code.
27.
However, “if the board determines that a recommended decision meets
the requirements (of the above cited sections of Florida Statutes), the board shall
adopt the recommended decision.” Rule 12D-9.031(3), Florida Administrative
Code. (emphasis added).
28.
In this matter, the entire record is captured on audio recording. The
Petitioners are indigent and have put in a request of the quasi-judicial board to front
the costs for transcription as required by Fla. Stat. § 57.081(1). When the
transcription is available, the Petitioners will supplement the appendix with the full
transcript. If the VAB denies the request for transcription, the Petitioners will seek
an order from this Court requiring compliance with Fla. Stat. § 57.081(1) so that a
transcript can be procured.
18
29.
However, for the time being, the Petitioners allege that the October
Magistrate’s Recommendation complied on its face with Sections 194.301,
194.034(2), and 194.035(1), Florida Statutes. This is a determination that this Court
can make without the benefit of a transcript.
30.
Further, the Petitioners allege that the audio from the March 2020 VAB
Final Hearing makes clear that the VAB wished to overturn the decision of Special
Magistrate Rutland.
31.
However, the VAB is without discretion to overturn the decision of the
magistrate in this instance.
32.
Again, the only power the VAB had in March was to ensure that the
form of the recommended order was correct. This duty is a ministerial duty.
33.
The form of the recommended order in question is indeed correct. From
there, the Rule makes clear that the recommended order “shall” be adopted.
34.
Specifically, Special Magistrate Rutland’s written recommended order
makes clear that, after hearing testimony from the Property Appraiser and
Petitioners, the magistrate determined that Petitioners’ land was being used for
agricultural purposes, as breeding birds is considered agricultural due to the open-
ended definition of agriculture as stated in Florida Statute §193.461(e)(5).
Specifically, based off very recent case law, aviculture is considered beneficial to
19
humans and thus exotic birds are considered “farm product.” McLendon v. Nikolits,
211 So. 3d 92 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017).
35.
The Special Magistrate then took into account the 7 factors to be
considered for land to be used for “bona fide” agricultural purposes; noting that no
one factor can be the basis of a denial. Fla. Stat. § 193.461(b)(1)
36.
The factors to be considered under Florida law are:
a.
The length of time the land has been so used.
b.
Whether the use has been continuous.
c.
The purchase price paid.
d.
Size, as it relates to specific agricultural use, but a minimum acreage
may not be required for agricultural assessment.
e.
Whether an indicated effort has been made to care sufficiently and
adequately for the land in accordance with accepted commercial
agricultural practices, including, without limitation, fertilizing,
liming, tilling, mowing, reforesting, and other accepted agricultural
practices.
f.
Whether the land is under lease and, if so, the effective length, terms,
and conditions of the lease.
g.
Such factors as may become applicable.
20
37.
The Special Magistrate, weighing all the factors under Florida law, as
well as the testimony of the parties and evidence presented, found in favor of the
Petitioners.
38.
The Special Magistrate found that there was continuous usage of the
property as a farm with no interruption, at that time, of one year and eleven months.
(See Appendix at 4).
39.
The purchase price of the land and it being owned instead of leased
were not considered factors in the Special Magistrate’s decision; the purchase price
was not addressed in the hearing and the land had no lease agreement as it was
bought. Id.
40.
She had found that the size of the property, though small is within
industry standards, from the testimony of Mr. McLendon who stated that the type of
birds that Petitioners were breeding is functional in the sized lot, and that it was a
viable commercial business. Id.
41.
Being in compliance with FWC requirements for exotic bird breeding
was also taken into “relevant and credible evidence” to the property being a kept and
cared for as agricultural site. Id.
42.
The only factor the Special Magistrate found in opposition of the
Petitioner was its zoning but the magistrate correctly stated in the order that “zoning
21
in and of itself is not a basis for denial.” See also Schultz v. Love PGI Partners, LP,
731 So. 2d 1270 (Fla. 1999).
43.
The Special Magistrate granted the petition, finding that the Petitioners
“engaged in the good faith commercial agricultural use of the land and is thus
qualified for the agricultural classification.” The Special Magistrate then remanded
the matter back to the Property Appraiser “to reflect the grant of the agricultural
classification.” Id.
44.
The Petitioners underwent the expense and stress of having a tax
hearing in front of a special magistrate and member of the Florida bar. At this
hearing, they won. The Petitioners should not be put through the expense and stress
of having additional hearing after hearing until they lose, all to appease a third-party.
CONCLUSION
45.
In the instant case, Petitioners filed an appeal to the Pinellas County
Property Appraiser and appeared before the VAB via an appointed special
magistrate. Live testimony was elicited and each side had opportunity to cross-
examine witnesses. Exhibits were introduced into evidence and considered.
46.
The Special Magistrate’s recommended decision found that Petitioners’
land did qualify as bona fide Agricultural Land.
22
47.
The recommended decision plainly complies with the statutory
requirements and the counsel for VAB admitted this fact in a hearing, yet the VAB
refuse to comply with Rule 12D-9.031(3), Florida Administrative Code.
48.
Instead, the VAB is violating the principal of res judicata and
attempting to find a new, friendlier magistrate to a local municipality’s position,
which is an inappropriate use of VAB time and taxpayer money.
49.
Based on the audio from the hearing, the VAB developed a clear intent
that they do not want to grant the Petitioner’s agricultural classification. However,
there is nothing in Florida law that would allow the VAB to shop the case to a new
magistrate until they receive the recommended order the VAB desires.
50.
The VAB’s duty during the March 2019 Final Hearing was not
discretionary, but ministerial, in that the board was simply to check and see if the
recommended order contained the appropriate findings of fact and conclusions of
law. Moreover, no mechanism exists compliant with due process that would allow a
new hearing in this matter.
51.
The Petitioners have no other adequate remedy at law and are currently
facing a “rehearing” with a new judge which violates res judicate, and thus
Petitioners constitutional rights, and Florida law with respect to Rule 12D-9.031(3),
Florida Administrative Code. Should the Petitioners prevail again at this rehearing,
there is nothing stopping the VAB from seeking the opinion of a third or fourth
23
magistrate. For this reason, the Petitioners cannot be said to have an adequate remedy
at law.
52.
For the above reasons, the Court should issue a Writ of Mandamus
ordering the VAB to comply with Florida law and approve the Magistrate Rutland’s
decision, which will confer agricultural tax exempt status to the Petitioners.
WHEREFORE, Petitioners, NEIL J. MORAN and LYNN ANDREWS,
respectfully request that this Court enter an Order to the Value Adjustment Board of
Pinellas County to finalize and approve the recommended order of the Special
Magistrate, issued on October 19
th
, 2019.
Respectfully submitted May 4, 2020,
/s/ Michael Warren
Warren Law Firm, PLLC
Florida Bar No. 125162.
447 3rd Ave N., Ste. 406
St. Petersburg, FL 33701
Tel. (727) 954-3720
michael@thewarrenlawfirm.com
24
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Michael Warren certifies that on May 4, 2020, a copy of this document was served
by electronic service on the persons listed below.
Alexander Luca, Staff Counsel
Pinellas County Property Appraiser
1319 Normandy Circle
Palm Harbor, FL 34683-5344
Tel. (727) 453-3338
aluca@pcpao.org
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
Michael Warren certifies that this petition has been prepared in full compliance with
the requirements concerning fonts set forth in Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure
9.100(l). Specifically, the petition has been computer-generated in Times New
Roman 14-point font.
25
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT,
IN AND FOR PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA
APPELLATE DIVISION
NEIL J. MORAN, and
LYNN ANDREWS
Petitioners,
Case No. _______________
v. LT Case No. 2019-0001
VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD FOR
PINELLAS COUNTY
Respondent.
_______________________________/
APPENDIX TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
Submitted by Michael R. Warren, Attorney for Appellants, on April 24th,
2020. Warren Law Firm, PLLC. 447 3
rd
Avenue North, Ste. 406, St. Petersburg,
FL 33701. Email: michael@thewarrenlawfirm.com.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Michael Warren certifies that on May 4, 2020, a copy of this document was
served by electronic service on the persons listed below.
Alexander Luca, Staff Counsel
Pinellas County Property Appraiser
1319 Normandy Circle
Palm Harbor, FL 34683-5344
Tel. (727) 453-3338
aluca@pcpao.org
26
INDEX TO APPENDIX
1. Petitioners application for agriculture exemption, dated February 15
th
, 2018;
2. Notice of denial of application, dated June 27
th
, 2019;
3. Petition for hearing, dated July 8, 2019;
4. Decision of Special Magistrate Rutland, dated October 19
th
, 2019;
5. Letter from Property Appraiser changing tax status, dated October 23
rd
,
2019;
6. Email to Petitioners informing them of need to send case back to “different”
magistrate, sent on March 11
th
, 2020.
27
28
EXHIBIT
1
29
EXHIBIT
2
30
EXHIBIT
3
31
DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
EXEMPTION, CLASSIFICATION, ASSESSMENT DIFFERENCE
TRANSFER, CHANGE OF OWNERSHIP OR CONTROL,
OR QUALIFYING IMPROVEMENT PETITION
The actions below were taken on your petition in
These actions are a recommendation only, not final These actions are a final decision of the VAB
If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit
court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(l), 194.036, 194.171(2), 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.)
Petition #
Parcel ID
Petitioner name
The petitioner is: taxpayer of record taxpayer’s agent
other, explain:
Property
address
Decision Summary Denied your petition Granted your petition Granted your petition in part
Lines 1 and 4 must be completed
Value from
TRIM Notice
Value before Board
Action
Value presented by property appraiser
Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C.
Value after
Board Action
1. Just value, required
2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable
3. Exempt value,* enter “0” if none
4. Taxable value,* required
*All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.)
5HDVRQIRU3HWLWLRQ
Homestead
Widow/er
Blind
Low-income senior
Disabled
Disabled veteran
Parent/grandparent assessment reduction
Deployed military
Transfer of homestead assessment difference
Totally and permanently disabled veteran
Use classification, specify
Use exemption, specify
Qualifying improvement
Other, specify
Reasons for Decision
Fill-in fields will expand or add pages, as needed.
Findings of Fact
Conclusions of Law
Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate The finding and conclusions above are recommendations.
Signature, special magistrate
Print name
Date
Signature, VAB clerk or special representative
Print name
Date
If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at AM PM.
Address
If the line above is blank, please call or visit our web site at
Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board
Signature, chair, value adjustment board
Print name
Date of decision
Signature, VAB clerk or representative
Print name
Date mailed to parties
DR-485XC
R. 01/17
Rule 12D-16.002
F.A.C.
Eff. 01/17
County.
Change of ownership or control
2019-0001 Page 1 of 1
Pinellas
✔
2019-0001
28-29-15-38988-033-0050
MORAN, NEIL J
1117 BEVERLY AVE
LARGO, FL 33770-
✔
✔
111,081.00
111,081.00
111,081.00
54,827.00
54,827.00
45,604.00
29,827.00
29,827.00
29,827.00
25,000.00
25,000.00
20,604.00
✔
agricultural
The petition was granted and remanded to the Property Appraiser. The Petitioner did not request a continuation hearing or
waived such hearing.
The decision is being issued in order that any right the Petitioner may have to bring an action in circuit court is not
impaired.
✔
Lori Rutland
11/12/2019
Ken Burke
11/12/2019
■
(727) 464-3458
https://vabpetitions.pinellasclerk.org/2019/
Lori Rutland
Ken Burke
EXHIBIT
4
DR-485R
N. 12/09
Rule 12D-16.002
Florida Administrative Code
VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
REMAND TO PROPERTY APPRAISER
To: Property Appraiser From: Clerk or Special Magistrate
Name
Name
Address Address
The value adjustment board or special magistrate has:
Determined that the property appraiser's
value is incorrect (section 194.301, F.S.).
Granted a property classification.
Include findings of fact on which remand decision is based or reference and attach Form DR-485V, Form DR-485XC, or
other document with these items completed.
Include conclusions of law on which remand decision is based or reference and attach Form DR-485V, Form DR-485XC, or
other document with these items completed.
Appropriate remand directions to property appraiser:
The board retains authority to make a final decision on this petition.
Section 1. Completed by Value Adjustment Board or Special Magistrate
Petition #
County
Parcel ID Date
Section 2. Completed by Property Appraiser
Provide a revised just value or a classified use value and return this form to the clerk of the Board.
Just valuation: Classified use valuation:
OR
Previous
Revised
Signature, Property Appraiser
Print name
Date
Use additional pages, if needed.
Petition No: 2019-0001RemandReceived On: 10/19/2019 1:07:14 PM
33
2019-0001
Pinellas
28-29-15-38988-033-0050
10/19/2019
Board Records Department 315 Court Street, Fifth
Floor
Clearwater, FL 33756
■
(See Attached)
(See Attached)
(See Attached)
See attached memorandum from the Property Appraiser's Office
See attached memorandum from the Property Appraiser's Office
Remand Findings of Fact:
Present at the hearing for the Petitioner, Neil Moran, was his authorized representative, Lynn
Andrews, and witness Todd McLendon, and for the Property Appraiser's office, staff attorney Alex
Luca. All parties were sworn in by the Special Magistrate prior to providing testimony. The Petitioner
was appealing the denial of Ms. Andrews application for the agricultural classification for the subject
property which is located at 1117 Beverly Avenue, Largo.
Mr. Luca testified that the application for the agricultural classification in this case was for a single
residential parcel and the use specified was the raising of exotic birds. He stated that the application
was denied because the property was not used primarily for bona fide agricultural purposes. He
further testified that the determination of whether the property is used for bona fide agricultural
purposes is based on a review of the totality of all relevant elements and facts and that in this case the
primary use of the property is as a residential home.
Mr. Luca further stated that the applicant had not received a business license or a business tax receipt
both of which he stated were required to operate a business within the City of Largo. He noted that
the applicant had been cited for this in 2018 and that there was ongoing litigation between the
municipality and the applicant relating to the use of the property as a business and nuisance. He stated
that this information was relevant as it went to the “good faith” use of the property as a bona fide
agricultural operation.
Mr. Luca continued his testimony and stated that the subject property was not zoned for agricultural
use. Specifically, he stated that the property is zoned CRD which permits a mixture of residential,
neighborhood commercial, office and other commercial purposes. He noted that while this factor was
not enough in and of itself to deny the application for agricultural classification that it was another
factor supporting the Property Appraisal’s decision.
The other factors that Mr. Luca discussed as reasons for the denial were the size of the property and
the length of time of use. As to size, Mr. Luca testified that the property is small in size being .131
acres in total with the home and front yard taking approximately 66% of the total square feet of the
lot, leaving approximately .044 acres for the bird operation if the total back yard is used. As to the
issue of size in terms of industry standards, he referenced another Florida bird breeding operation in
Palm Beach County which was the subject of a Florida court case wherein the Court of Appeal found
that a 5-acre parcel qualified for the agricultural classification for aviculture. He noted the much
larger size of that parcel in comparison to the property at issue.
Another factor cited by the Property Appraiser as a basis for denial was the length of time that the
property had been used. Mr. Luca stated that the purported agricultural use of the property had been
brief at one year and 11 months.
Mr. Luca further cited to the following Florida law as support of the Property’s Appraiser’s decision
to deny the Petitioner’s application: Fla. Stat. Sect.'s 193.461(3) (b, 193.461(5), FAC 12D-5.001 and
the case of McLendon v. Nikolits, 211 So.3d 92 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017).
In response to questions from Ms. Andrews, Mr. Luca confirmed that there are no minimum size
requirements under Florida law for the agricultural classification but noted that size is a specific
statutory factor that can be reviewed. He further acknowledged that he had been to only one bird
breeding operation and the only other one he was aware of was Mr. McLendon’s but stated that if Ms.
Andrews wanted to bring others to his attention, he would review them. He noted that an informal
conference was held with Ms. Andrews and that she did not provide information as to other Florida
Petition No: 2019-0001RemandReceived On: 10/19/2019 1:07:14 PM
34
aviculture operations at that time.
In support of their case the Property Appraiser submitted the following documents which the Special
Magistrate admitted into evidence as the P.A.'s Comp. Ex. A.: homestead exemption statement, Fla.
Stat. Sect.'s 193.461(3)(b, 193.461(5),FAC 12D-5.001 and the case of McLendon v. Nikolits, 211
So.3d 92 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017),printout of McLendon property from Palm Beach County Property
Appraiser site, aerial photo and property record card of subject property, Warranty Deed, Notice of
Disapproval, Petitioner’s Documents including Petition, Application for Classification, income and
expense questionnaire, Notice of Disapproval, 2018 and 2017 Schedule F, the case of McLendon v.
Nikolits, 211 So.3d 92 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017),AGO 13-01, FWC Memorandum dated 05-24-17, Office
of General Counsel letter dated 04-21-10, Fla. Stat. Sect. 823.14 and Sect. 193.461, Bob Crawford
letter dated 01-18-95, and statement regarding appearance of Mr. McLendon at hearing.
Ms. Andrews began her case by calling her witness, Mr. McLendon. Mr. McLendon testified that he
has twenty years of experience in the commercial bird breeding business. He stated that he knew of
Ms. Andrews and her operation and that they were both members of various professional groups
pertaining to aviculture. He further testified as to the industry standard for size of operation and stated
that the size of the operation will vary depending on the size of the bird being bred. He noted that on
his five-acre property in Palm Beach County he raised Macaw parrots which are large in size. He
stated that he currently has 500 birds on his property and that his birds weigh approximately 1200
grams in comparison to the type of parrot raised by Ms. Andrews which weighs approximately 100
grams. Thus, he noted that he needs more property in order to raise the larger birds. He further noted
that the value of birds being raised in different operations can also vary widely from $3000.00 to as
little as $10.00 a bird.
Ms. Andrews testified that she has been raising birds for forty years and that she has a bird breeder
license. She stated that she is also a member of the Organization of Professional Aviculturists, the
Florida Federation of Aviculture and the American Federation of Aviculture. She further testified that
she has a commercial agricultural operation on the subject property where she raises parrots and has
approximately 86 birds on site. She stated that the birds are sold at the Wagon Wheel Flea Market and
to pet stores. She further testified that she files an IRS Schedule F, (profit and loss from farming) and
that she had an approximately $7000.00 profit for 2018.
Ms. Andrews stated that the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission was responsible for
the standards and rules applicable to Aviculture and noted that they had specific requirements by
species for things such as minimum cage size required. She stated that Florida has very stringent
regulations and that her operation has passed all inspections and requirements. Ms. Andrews stated
that there is no lease in place for the subject property and that she is the domestic partner of Mr.
Moran the property owner.
As to the legal issues Ms. Andrews stated that under Florida, specifically Fla. Stat. Sect. 205.064 (1)
that a local business tax receipt was not required of any person engaging in the selling of farm
products that were grown or produced by such person in the state. Mr. McLendon also testified that
he did not have a business license for his aviculture operation. She further stated that aviculture was a
“farm product” as defined in the Florida “Right to Farm Act”, Fla. Stat. Sect. 823.14 and Sect.
193.461 and thus entitled to the protections afforded by the Act.
In support of her case the Petitioner submitted the following documents which the Special Magistrate
admitted into evidence as the Pet.'s Comp. Ex. 1.: Petition, Application for Classification, income and
expense questionnaire, Notice of Disapproval, 2018 and 2017 Schedule F, the case of McLendon v.
Petition No: 2019-0001RemandReceived On: 10/19/2019 1:07:14 PM
35
Nikolits, 211 So.3d 92 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017),AGO 13-01, FWC Memorandum dated 05-24-17, Office
of General Counsel letter dated 04-21-10, Fla. Stat. Sect. 823.14 and Sect. 193.461, Bob Crawford
letter dated 01-18-95, statement regarding appearance of Mr. McLendon at hearing and Fla. Stat.
Sect. 205.064.
At the conclusion of the hearing the Special Magistrate informed the parties that she would be taking
the matter under advisement to review the testimony given, the documents submitted into evidence
and the applicable legal authority.The Special Magistrate reviewed the testimony of the parties; the
documents admitted into evidence and the applicable Florida law and makes the following findings.
The subject property is a small lot which is .131 acres in size which is located in a neighborhood that
is zoned for residential and commercial use, (CRD). There is a single-family home on the lot which is
receiving the benefit of the homestead exemption. The majority of the property (66%) is taken up by
the homestead area leaving approximately .044 of the property (back yard) in use for the raising of
small parrots by Ms. Andrews.
The Property Appraiser’s Notice of Disapproval stated that the Petitioner’s application was denied as
the property was not used for bona fide agricultural purposes under Fla. Stat. Sect. 193.461(b)(1) and
that the zoning does not permit agricultural use; the size for the specific use is small within industry
standards, and that the agricultural use has been brief. In his testimony, Mr. Luca also stated that the
Petitioner did not have a business license from the City of Largo and that there was ongoing litigation
as to code violations and nuisance issues.
There was no contention by the Property Appraiser that aviculture across the board could not qualify
for the agricultural classification rather the denial addressed the specific attributes of this operation.
The Special Magistrate finds that based on the specific language of Fla. Stat.Sect.193.461 (5) and
current Florida case law (McLendon v. Nikolits, 211 So.3d 92 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017)) interpreting
same that aviculture is a “farm product” that is eligible for the agricultural classification.
AS to the issue of the zoning of the subject property the Special Magistrate finds that the property is
zoned CRD and that this zoning does not permit agricultural use. The Special Magistrate further finds
that zoning is a factor that can be considered under Florida law for entitlement to the classification but
that zoning cannot be the sole basis for the denial.
As to the size of the property being too small for the industry standard, Mr. Luca relied on the size of
Mr. McLendon’s property of five acres as an example of the prevailing industry standard. Mr.
McLendon at the hearing testified to the issue of the industry standard and stated that his property is
the correct size for the type of bird that he is raising and that the size of Ms. Andrew’s operation was
appropriate for the much smaller bird that she is raising.
The Special Magistrate finds that the area being used by Ms. Andrews is very small. However, the
Special Magistrate further finds that Mr. McLendon by virtue of his many years of experience in this
field, his involvement in professional organizations governing aviculture and his current bird breeding
operation is an expert in this field. Therefore, the Special Magistrate finds credible his testimony that
the size of Ms. Andrew’s operation meets industry standards for the type of bird that she is raising.
The Special Magistrate also finds that although the space is small that Ms. Andrews has 86 birds on
the property. The Special Magistrate further finds that Ms. Andrews was able to generate a profit of
approximately $7000.00 for 2018 from her operation conducted on this small space.
As to the issue of the length of time of the agricultural use being too brief to qualify for the
classification the Special Magistrate finds that Ms. Andrews operation had been in place for 1 year
Petition No: 2019-0001RemandReceived On: 10/19/2019 1:07:14 PM
36
and 11 months at the time of application in February of 2018. At the time of the hearing it had been
operational for over two and a half years. Ms. Andrew’s Schedule F’s in evidence showed that she
made a small profit in 2017 and a much larger one in 2018 and she testified that this reflects that her
business is now established and growing. The Special Magistrate finds that the relevant and credible
evidence at the hearing established that length of time Ms. Andrew’s was in operation was sufficient
and not a basis for denial.
Mr. Luca testified at the hearing that the Petitioner’s lack of a business license and ongoing litigation
on code violations and nuisance with the City of Largo were also factors considered by the Property
Appraiser. The Petitioner contends that a business license is not required for her operation under
Fla.Stat.Sect.205.064.
The Special Magistrate notes that these factors were not listed on the Notice of Disapproval and
further finds that she is limited to making a determination as to whether or not the subject property
qualifies for the agricultural classification under Fla. Stat. Sect. 193.461. Therefore, the Special
Magistrate makes no findings on the necessity of a business license or any other matter which is the
subject of ongoing litigation between the Petitioner and the City of Largo.
The Special Magistrate finds that the Petitioner’s evidence was sufficient to prove by a preponderance
of the evidence that a bona fide agricultural operation was in place on the subject property as of
January 1, 2019. Therefore, the Special Magistrate is recommending a grant of the petition.
Remand Conclusions of Law:
Under Florida Statute 194.301(2) (d), the Petitioner challenging the denial of an agricultural
classification has the burden of proof to establish entitlement to the classification. See also: Bystrom
V. Union Land Development, Inc., 477 So.2d 585,(Fla.3d DCA 1985). Pursuant to Florida Statute
Section 192.042, the applicable date for assessment of property in Florida is January 1 of the tax year
in question.
Entitlement to the agricultural classification is governed by Florida Statute Section 193.461(3)(b)
which states in part that: "Only lands that are used primarily for bona fide agricultural purposes shall
be classified agricultural. The term “bona fide agricultural purposes” means good faith commercial
agricultural use of the land. Thus, in order to qualify for the classification, the commercial
agricultural use must be both “primary” and “bona fide”.
As to the issue of whether aviculture can qualify under the statute, Subsection (5) of the statute
includes a number of examples of the types of activities whose purpose is agricultural and states:
For the purpose of this section, the term “agricultural purposes” includes, but is not limited to,
horticulture; floriculture; viticulture; forestry; dairy; livestock; poultry; bee; pisciculture, if the land is
used principally for the production of tropical fish; aquaculture as defined in s. 597.0015; algaculture;
sod farming; and all forms of farm products as defined in s. 823.14(3) and farm production.
The Court in McLendon v. Nikolits, 211 So.3d 92 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) held that the term “farm
product” used in the statute is defined by section 823.14(3) as “any animal…useful to humans”. The
Court also referenced the language in 193.461(5) of the phrase “includes, but is not limited to” as
showing the Legislature’s intent of inclusivity not exclusion. Thus, the Court stated that although
aviculture was not explicitly listed in either statute that it encompassed “animals useful to humans”
Petition No: 2019-0001RemandReceived On: 10/19/2019 1:07:14 PM
37
and thus was a “farm product” eligible for the agricultural classification.
Section 193.461(3)(b)(1) governs the issue of “bona fide” and states:
1. In determining whether the use of the land for agricultural purposes is bona fide, the following
factors may be taken into consideration:
a. The length of time the land has been so used.
b. Whether the use has been continuous.
c. The purchase price paid.
d. Size, as it relates to specific agricultural use, but a minimum acreage may not be required for
agricultural assessment.
e. Whether an indicated effort has been made to care sufficiently and adequately for the land in
accordance with accepted commercial agricultural practices, including, without limitation, fertilizing,
liming, tilling, mowing, reforesting, and other accepted agricultural practices.
f. Whether the land is under lease and, if so, the effective length, terms, and conditions of the lease.
g. Such other factors as may become applicable.
The Special Magistrate weighed all the factors required by Florida Statute Section 193.461 and
considered the testimony of the parties, as well as the documents and photographs submitted into
evidence. In this case, applying the factors of the statute, the length of time that the land has been
used for agricultural purposes: the property had been in use at the time of application for one year and
eleven months and there was no interruption in that use. The purchase price paid for the property was
not addressed at the hearing and that was not a factor in this decision. The size of the property is
small however the relevant and credible evidence at the hearing established that it is in keeping with
industry standards and that this was a commercial operation not a hobby. The relevant and credible
evidence presented at the hearing established that the property was being kept and cared for in
compliance with requirements of the FWC for the stated agricultural purpose of bird breeding. As to
the existence of a lease agreement, the relevant and credible evidence at the hearing established that
the property was not leased. Other factors considered by the Special Magistrate were zoning and
profitability. The relevant and credible evidence established that the property was not zoned for
agricultural use and the Property Appraiser stipulated that reasonable expectation of a profit was not
an issue in this case.
The only factor that weighed against a finding of a bona fide agricultural operation in this case was
the zoning and under Florida law zoning in and of itself is not a basis for a denial. See: Schultz v.
Love PGI Partners, LP, 731 So.2d 1270, (Fla. 1999). All other factors established that as to the
portion of the property at issue that the Petitioner as of January 1, 2019 engaged in the good faith
commercial agricultural use of the land and is thus qualified for the agricultural classification.
Therefore, the Special Magistrate is recommending a grant of the petition.
Remand Directions:
The Special Magistrate is remanding this matter back to the Property Appraiser to (within ten days of
remand) revalue the back yard portion of the property (.044 acres) to reflect the grant of the
agricultural classification.
Petition No: 2019-0001RemandReceived On: 10/19/2019 1:07:14 PM
38
MIKE TWITTY, MAI, CFA
Pinellas County Property Appraiser
www.pcpao.org mike@pcpao.org
MAIN BRANCH - COURTHOUSE
NORTH COUNTY
MID COUNTY
SOUTH COUNTY
315 Court St., 2nd Floor
Clearwater, FL 33756
Office: (727) 464-3207
Fax: (727) 464-3448
Hearing Impaired:
Office: (727) 464-3370
Commercial Appraisals:
Office: (727) 464-3284
Exemptions:
Office: (727) 464-3294
Fax: (727) 464-3408
Residential Appraisals:
Office: (727) 464-3643
Tangible Personal Property
Office: (727) 464-8484
Fax: (727) 464-8488
29269 US Hwy 19 N
Clearwater, FL 33761
Office: (727) 464-8780
Fax: (727) 464-8794
Customer Service Center
Walk-In @ Tax Collector
13025 Starkey Rd
Largo, FL 33773
Office: (727) 464-3207
Fax: (727) 464-3448
1800 66TH St. N
St. Petersburg, FL 33710
Office: (727) 582-7652
Fax: (727) 582-7610
MAIL: PO Box 1957 – Clearwater, FL 33757
M E M O R A N D U M
To: Clerk to the Value Adjustment Board (Board Records)
From: Alexander Luca, Staff Counsel
Representing Mike Twitty, MAI, CFA
Pinellas County Property Appraiser
Date: October 23, 2019
RE: VAB Petition 2019-0001 (Neil Moran represented by Lynn Andrews)
Parcel #: 28-29-15-38988-033-0050
Property Appraiser’s Response to Remand
The Property Appraiser has reviewed the remand with the referenced petition and
adjusted the value to reflect the agricultural classification. The prior assessed value of the
subject property was $54,827 with a taxable value of $25,000
The new assessed value associated with the property is $45,604 and $20,604 taxable with
the agricultural classification applied to .044 acres as ordered by the magistrate’s written
decision.
-
Received On: 10/23/2019 12:48:50 PM Remand (Back from PAO) Petition No: 2019-0001
39
EXHIBIT
5
40
EXHIBIT
6
IN
THE
CIRCUIT
COURT
FOR
THE
SIXTH
JUDICIAL
CIRCUIT
IN
AND
FOR
PINELLAS
COUNTY,
FLORIDA
APPELLATE
DIVISION
NEIL
J.
MORAN,
et
al.,
Petitioners,
-
v.
’
.
Ref.
No.
20-000018AP-88B
UCN:
522020AP00001
8XXXXCI
VALUE
ADJUSTMENT
BOARD
FOR
PINELLAS
COUNTY,
Respondent.
x
/
ORDER
DIRECTING
RESPONDENT
TO
FILE
A
RESPONSE
TO
STATUS
REPORT
THIS
CAUSE'came
before
the
Court
on
the
Petitioner’s
Motion
for
Extension
of
Time
to
File
Amended
Appendix
and
Status
Report
on the
Transcript,
Both
.filed
on
June
22,
2020.
Petitioner
submitted
gtranscript,
which
they
indicate
was
rebeived
by
Respondent
and
is
accurate.
Respondéfit
is
directed
to
respond
to
Petitioner’s
Status
Report.
If
Respondent
agrees
to
the‘use
of
the
provided
transcript,
it
must
provide
certification
that
it is a
verbatim
transcript
pursuant
to
Florida
AdministrafiVe
Code Rule
12D-9.035.
Therefore,
it is
ORDERED
that
Respondent
sh: .11
file
a
response
and/or
a
certification
within
fifteen
(1 5)
days
of the date
of this
order.
‘
DONE
AND
ORDERED
in
Chambers
at
St.
Petersburg,
in
Pinellas
County,
Florida, on
thisbihdayof
Ajggwj:
,2020.
PkMELA A.M.
CAMPBELL
Circuit
Judge,
Appellate
Division
Copies
fumished
to:
MICHAEL
WARREN
$13}
3‘
a
Er:
’3'“
"~
3E.“
35
”Fl
WARREN
LAW
FIRM,LLC
5:37.:
“-3
m
r-
“;
g
._
447
3RDAVE
N.,STE
406
‘
{322mg}
r;
.
.
.
c3
__
~
ST
pETERSBURG,FL33701
-
zggbx
L
.
.4
(=5
-
'
345mg
$3.5
'
A :rJ
m
ALEXANDER
LUCA,
STAFF
COUNSEL
327.,
\
a
:2
{3
PINELLAS
COUNTY
PROPERTY
APPRAISER
3:1;
€11
a
g1
1319
NORMANDY
CIRCLE
Lip
53‘
5.?
g
PALM
HARBQRJL
34683
953:1.
:33)
-
0.5
fl,
:5.
‘
a
3
«.3
41
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA
CIVIL DIVISION
NEIL MORAN and LYNN ANDREWS,
Petitioners, Case No.: 2020-AP-00018
v.
VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD OF
PINELLAS COUNTY, an
administrative body,
Defendants.
__________________________________/
ACCEPTANCE OF SERVICE
The undersigned hereby acknowledges receipt of a copy of the Petition For
Writ of Mandamus Under Rule FLA. R. APP. P. 9.100 in the above referenced action
filed May 4, 2020 and emailed to counsel below on September 28, 2020 and accepts
same on behalf of the VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD OF PINELLAS COUNTY,
an administrative body, in lieu of actual and formal service of process. Defendant
will serve its responsive pleading on or before October 19, 2020.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been
furnished by Electronic Mail to: Michael Warren, Warren Law Firm, PLLC 447 3
rd
Avenue North, Suite 406, St. Petersburg, Florida 33701
micahel@thewarrenlawfirm.com, this 29th day of September, 2020.
/s/ Rinky S. Parwani
Rinky S. Parwani
Counsel to the Value Adjustment Board
Pinellas County
Florida Bar No. 629634
9905 Alambra Avenue
Tampa, FL 33619
rinky@parwanilaw.com
service@parwanilaw.com
(813)
51
4-8280
(813)
51
4-8281 FAX
Filing # 114103460 E-Filed 09/29/2020 11:25:15 AM
42
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA
CIVIL DIVISION
NEIL MORAN and LYNN ANDREWS,
Petitioners, Case No.: 2020-AP-00018
v.
VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD OF
PINELLAS COUNTY, an
administrative body,
Respondent.
__________________________________/
RESPONSE TO PETITIONERS’ STATUS REPORT AND OBJECTION TO
ACCOMPANYING COPY OF TRANSCRIPT AS INCOMPLETE AND
UNCERTIFIED
C
OMES NOW, the Respondent, Value Adjustment Board of Pinellas County
(VAB or Value Adjustment Board), by and through undersigned counsel, and files
this Response and says:
The Petitioner failed to serve the Value Adjustment Board of Pinellas County
(VAB or Value Adjustment Board) as required by Florida Rules of Appellate
Procedure 9.100. The VAB accepted formal service as a courtesy by its counsel on
September 28, 2020. The Court ordered a response to the Petitioner’s Status Report
on August 6, 2020 prior to the VAB accepting service.
THE TRANSCRIPT CANNOT BE CERTIFIED AS COMPLETE AND
VERBATIM
The VAB objects to the transcript as incomplete and inaccurate. The very top
of the transcript states “This document provide a largely unedited version of a
transcript produced using an automated voice-recognition software and should not
Filing # 114395126 E-Filed 10/05/2020 09:06:57 AM
43
be relied upon for complete accuracy or used as a verbatim transcript, as it will
contain additions, deletions, and/or words that did not translate correctly.” It only
includes one particular meeting concerning the Petition to the Value Adjustment
Board, does not included the two factual hearings held by 2 separate magistrates on
October 7, 2019, and on May 6, 2020. It also does not include the VAB meeting
held on May 20, 2020. It also does not include any of the documents or exhibits in
the VAB file, including the final recommendation issued by the VAB.
(Respondent’s Appendix 1) The transcript as proposed by the Petitioner is
incomplete. The clerk’s office does not have the ability to transcribe the hearings
and a third party must be hired by the Petitioners to obtain an appropriate transcript
for the Writ of Mandamus.
PURSUANT TO STATUTE, PETITONERS MUST PAY FOR THE
ENTIRE TRANSCRIPT FOR THE WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO SUPPORT
THE CLAIMS IN THE PETITION
Florida Statutes do not provide for indigent parties to receive a transcript free
of charge for purposes of a writ of mandamus petition. The statute only provides
transcripts from administrative agencies where there is an appeal. Florida Statute
57.081 provides as follows for indigent parties:
Any indigent person, except a prisoner as defined in s. 57.085
, who is
a party or intervenor in any judicial or administrative agency
proceeding or who initiates such proceeding shall receive the services
44
of the courts, sheriffs, and clerks, with respect to such proceedings,
despite his or her present inability to pay for these services. Such
services are limited to filing fees; service of process; certified copies of
orders or final judgments; a single photocopy of any court pleading,
record, or instrument filed with the clerk; examining fees; mediation
services and fees; private court-appointed counsel fees; subpoena fees
and services; service charges for collecting and disbursing funds; and
any other cost or service arising out of pending litigation. In any appeal
from an administrative agency decision, for which the clerk is
responsible for preparing the transcript, the clerk shall record the cost
of preparing the transcripts and the cost for copies of any exhibits in the
record. A party who has obtained a certification of indigence pursuant
to s. 27.52 or s. 57.082 with respect to a proceeding is not required to
prepay costs to a court, clerk, or sheriff and is not required to pay filing
fees or charges for issuance of a summons. (emphasis added).
Unfortunately, this case is framed as a Writ of Mandamus and not
appropriately as an appeal, and therefore the clerk is not required to provide
the transcript free of charge to the Petitioners. The Petitioners must pay for
an appropriate certified transcript for the purposes of a Writ of Mandamus.
45
Wherefore, the Value Adjustment Board respectfully requests this case
be dismissed with prejudice for the failure of the Petitioners to follow the
Court’s Rules.
Respectfully Submitted,
/s/ Rinky S. Parwani
Rinky S. Parwani
Counsel to the Value Adjustment Board
Pinellas County
Florida Bar No. 629634
9905 Alambra Avenue
Tampa, FL 33619
rinky@parwanilaw.com
service@parwanilaw.com
(813) 514-8280
(813) 514-8281 FAX
46
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been
furnished by Electronic Mail to: Michael Warren, Warren Law Firm, PLLC 447 3
rd
Avenue North, Suite 406, St. Petersburg, Florida 33701
michael@thewarrenlawfirm.com, and Alexander Luca, Pinellas County Property
Appraiser, 1319 Normandy Circle, Palm Harbor, Florida 34683 aluca@pcpao.org
this 5th day of October, 2020.
/s/ Rinky S. Parwani
Rinky S. Parwani
Counsel to the Value Adjustment Board
Pinellas County
Florida Bar No. 629634
9905 Alambra Avenue
Tampa, FL 33619
rinky@parwanilaw.com
service@parwanilaw.com
(813) 514-8280
(813) 514-8281 FAX
47
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
Rinky S. Parwani certifies that this document has been prepared in full compliance
with the requirements concerning fonts set forth in Florida Rule of Appellate
Procedure 9.100(1). Specifically, the petition has been computer-generated in Time
New Roman 14-point font.
48
Filing # 114395126 E-Filed 10/05/2020 09:06:57 AM
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
Download
Save PDF to desktop
Email
Email completed PDF
Send for Signing
Email for others to sign
Print
Print document
Choose a Field
Click on a field and
select the person that should complete it
Want to add a signature?
You can add a signature field
and assign it to someone else
to sign
Choose a Field
Click on a field and
select the person that should complete it

PINELLAS COUNTY VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD MEETING AGENDA FIRST (Pinellas County Clerk of the Circuit Court and Comptroller)

This document is locked as it has been sent for signing.

You have successfully completed this document.

Other parties need to complete fields in the document. You will recieve an email notification when the document has been completed by all parties.

This document has been signed by all parties.

Completed 15 January 2021

Message

View Audit Log
Print With Audit Log
Duplicate Document