Sarasota County Property Appraiser Bill Furst’s office will no longer increase a homesteaded property’s taxable value for routinely replacing a roof after two homeowners successfully challenged the practice.
Despite the homeowners’ successful challenge to the property appraiser’s interpretation, homeowners who have seen their property values raised over the past decade-plus for new roofs can’t expect to see their taxes reduced.
Even Furst celebrated his loss, as it will mean lower taxes for Sarasota County residents, calling the decision “a win for Sarasota County taxpayers.”
“While the law is clear that the improvements at issue should be taxable, we now have an interpreting legal opinion making it clear that this is not the case in practice,” Furst said. “I’m thankful for the clarity, and glad that Sarasota County residents can keep more of their hard-earned money as a result.”
They can thank Joseph McCarthy. He sought a reduction in the taxable value on his property, arguing before a special magistrate that the property appraiser should treat a simple roof replacement as maintenance and not as a capital improvement like adding a pool or room addition.
The 80-year-old homeowner said during his December hearing that he felt cheated after discovering a 12% increase in his home’s taxable value — well above the 3% allowed by state law for homesteaded property.
The judge agreed.
“The Special Magistrate having reviewed the applicable Florida law finds that the roof replacement on the subject property was not a change, addition or improvement to subject property,” the recommended order said.
The county’s Value Adjustment Board, a panel of local government officials and citizens that considers challenges by property owners to the county appraiser’s valuation, accepted that recommendation in May, reducing the taxable value on McCarthy’s property by about $20,000.
Homeowner asks if roof replacement decision could benefit others
After winning his case, McCarthy asked the five member panel whether this would mean others could also expect reductions in their property’s taxable value if they also were hit with an increase for a roof replacement.
“I thought that was wrong not just for me,” he said he said of the property appraiser’s interpretation. “I think it’s wrong for everybody in the county of Sarasota. So my questions is … is there any relief for anybody else in Sarasota County?”
The lawyer for the board said that body does not have any jurisdiction over what happens at other county offices, with its only mandate to hear the annual petitions on valuations.
Furst, who was first elected in 2008 and is currently running unopposed in his re-election bid this year, had previously said he continued the the policy of his predecessor and that his office had applied that standard for at least the past 15 years.
In a email to the Herald-Tribune, Furst maintained that his interpretation of the applicable state statute was accurate, but also noted his office would no longer view a roof replacement as requiring an increase in taxable value.
Residents who replaced a roof in past years may find it impossible to have earlier increases reduced, given that property owners have a small window to challenge a property appraiser’s assessed value each year after they receive notice from the office each summer.
Costly interpretation for homeowners facing higher taxes, insurance premiums
The cumulative cost to homeowners over the years is unclear, but it could be significant. Homeowners have been under increasing financial pressure in recent years from insurers insisting on newer roofs as a condition for offering coverage. Property values have also skyrocketed, meaning homeowners often see a one-two punch of rising taxes and higher insurance premiums.
Michael Belle, founder of the Belle Law Firm that represented McCarthy, said he thought it was unfortunate that Furst’s office was not “retroactively applying the law as it should have been done” for all these years.
Belle noted that while the initial increase in taxable value for most property owners would only be a couple hundred dollars, that increase compounds over time, growing with each tax year.
The cost to hire a firm to challenge the increase would have been significantly more than the relief granted by a successful petition for an individual valuation, he said. He said this is not uncommon in government agencies.
“As a result, these types of injustices go unfixed for years,” Belle said.
Belle said his office “will be reviewing any and all options” to challenge “the injustice” given the likely tens of thousands of roof replacements that have occurred over more than 15 years that the Sarasota County policy that allowed increases greater than 3% to homesteaded property.
“It’s a huge mess,” he said. “Our property appraiser was interpreting the law differently than every other appraiser in the state. That’s the frustrating part.”
The Herald-Tribune identified the Sarasota Property Appraiser’s office as an outlier among state officials last October in its treatment of a homeowner’s roof replacement.
State law requires home changes, additions and improvements to be assessed and added to a property’s taxable value every year but typically other counties’ appraisers consider roof replacements to be home maintenance, and do not increase a property’s taxable value after a simple replacement.
Taxable value is used to determine how much in local taxes a property owner pays. Save Our Homes — a state constitutional amendment that took effect in 1995 — typically limits increases in assessed values to homestead property to a maximum of 3% a year, but the interpretation that a roof replacement was a capital improvement meant the value could exceed that cap.
