Agenda 10-01-19 Item 8-a - Minutes

Browse Search

13 1 John Roberts said there is a recorded easement on the plat, which provides access 2 across the land that is subject to this issue. 3 John Guibert said there is ingress and egress easement, but one must pay recreational 4 fees to Lake Orange, Inc. (including a dock, pier, boat, etc.) 5 Commissioner McKee referred to page 22 of the abstract, and asked if the value of 6 $512,000 is solely for the acreage, or for the acreage and improvements. 7 Nancy Freeman said that would include the land and his improvements. 8 Commissioner McKee asked if the land in question (0.39 acres) would give the financial 9 impact that is shown. 10 Nancy Freeman said the adjusted value would show the difference between the 11 $512,000 and the $482,000, which would give the value of the 0.39 acres. 12 Commissioner Bedford referred to page 22, and said the value is $1,622.43, but page 16 13 says $1,658.15, and she asked if she should consider one of these numbers over the other. 14 Nancy Freeman said page 16 is the information John Guibert provided, and page 22 is 15 from staff. 16 Chair Rich said the Board will go with what is on page 22. 17 Commissioner Marcoplos said it looks like Lake Orange and the Guiberts were both 18 paying taxes on this land, and asked if this is correct. 19 Nancy Freeman said yes. 20 Commissioner Marcoplos said he is curious about the state law, as it seems to be a 21 major part of this story. 22 John Roberts said he does not think he can explain this. He said if it is proved to be a 23 double taxation issue, it can be corrected, which has been done. He said the Guiberts provided 24 a new survey, which shows the difference in ownership, and going forward the County can 25 correct this. He said prior to the date on which the survey was recorded, the surveys and 26 evidence is conflicting, and the tax department does not have clear evidence to say who paid 27 what, and how much. 28 Commissioner Marcoplos asked if a clear deed was needed. 29 John Roberts said all of these plats that were recorded in error, and closing attorneys 30 and real estate agents were not doing their jobs in pointing these issues out. He said this 31 allowed for confusion, and he does know of any way to record something that is retroactive. 32 Commissioner Marcoplos said in the end the County received double taxes for this land. 33 Nancy Freeman said the County taxed based on the deeds that were recorded, and 34 once the deed was changed the County was able to change that which is taxed, and will 35 continue to do so moving forward. She said as the line had not been previously defined, there 36 was no way for the County to know what was being taxed and what was not, or by whom. 37 Commissioner Marcoplos said the County may not have known, but the overlappage 38 meant that the money was coming in from both parties for that piece of land. 39 Michael Burton said yes, there was an overlappage. 40 Commissioner Dorosin said the real issue is that the County has collected twice on the 41 same piece of property, at no fault of the County, but due to conflicting claims. He said the first 42 recorded plat show that Lake Orange owned the land, and as this was first, it should be the 43 defining thing. He said Lake Orange believed it owned the land, paid taxes on the land, and 44 has not contested the new plat that has been filed. He said there is a legal concept called 45 "unjust enrichment," where one receives a benefit that was undeserved. He said one could take 46 a narrow view of the phrase double taxation to mean one taxpayer got charged twice for the 47 same thing, or one could take a broader view, which would say that the same parcel of land got 48 charged twice. He said this case does not seem to involve a dispute between the parties over 49 land ownership, and the appropriate thing to do would be to refund the taxes, as the property 50 was double taxed. He said it would be a different case if no one had paid the taxes.