December 6, 2016

Via email (bapplegate@seminolecountyfl.gov)

A. Bryant Applegate
Seminole County Attorney
1101 East First Street
Sanford, FL 32771
Re:

Incoming Tax Collectors Objection to Transfer of all Tax Collector Real

Property to County by Outgoing Tax Collector

Dear Mr. Applegate:

As we have previously discussed, this firm has the pleasure of representing Seminole
County Tax Collector-elect Joel Greenberg.
I am in receipt of an agenda item scheduled for the Seminole BCCs December 13, 2016
meeting, in which the BCC will consider a proposal made by the outgoing Tax Collector Ray
Valdes, to transfer to the County, for no consideration whatsoever, over $5.6 million worth of
real estate owned by the Seminole County Tax Collectors office.
Tax Collector-elect Greenberg has addressed his strenuous objection to this proposed
action under separate cover, a copy of which is attached. I write to address the legal issues
attendant to this proposal, with a focus on the findings Mr. Wilkes made in his November 11,
2016, and December 1, 2016, memoranda.
Both memoranda proceed from a general legal position that prior to the 2011 revision to
Section 197.332, Fla. Stat., tax collectors were without legal authority to hold title to real
property. However, this legal position is entirely inconsistent with a long history of past
Seminole County practice and actions.
On January 8, 2008, the Seminole County BCC adopted Resolution 2008-R-6, which in
its recitals acknowledged that the Tax Collector plans to establish one or more additional branch
offices for the provision of such state and local services, and which authorized the Tax
Collector to conduct such county business as he agrees to undertake at any and all of his branch
offices, now and in the future, under applicable constitutional, statutory, and regulatory law.
Less than two months later, Mr. Valdes purchased for $3,144,800, the two office
buildings located at 805 and 845 Primera Blvd. in Lake Mary. The Seminole BCC was fully
aware of this transaction, and has taken numerous actions consistent with and affirming the
transactions legality, and the Tax Collectors legal right to hold the properties, since that time.
Such purchase was budgeted for in Mr. Valdes DOR-approved budget, a copy of which was
submitted to the BCC pursuant to Section 195.087(2), Fla. Stat. Thereafter, the Seminole County
COUNSEL TO EXTRAORDINARY FAMILIES, BUSINESSES & LEADERS WORLDWIDE SINCE 1973
324 W. MORSE BOULEVARD WINTER PARK, FLORIDA 32789
TELEPHONE: (407) 645-3735 FACSIMILE: (407) 628-5670 TOLL FREE: (866) 789-VOSE
INTERNATIONAL TEL. (LONDON, ENGLAND): +44 (0)20 3355 1473 INTERNET: WWW.VOSELAW.COM

A. Bryant Applegate, Seminole County Attorney

December 6, 2016
Page 2 of 3
Sheriff entered into an agreement with the Tax Collector to lease the 805 Primera Blvd. building,
paid for each year with funds budgeted by the BCC for this purpose.
Further, notwithstanding the memorandas legal assertion that prior to the 2011 statutory
revisions tax collectors were without legal authority to hold title to real property, as indicated in
AGO 97-02, cited in both memoranda, as far back as 1997, the Department of Revenue, in
reviewing requests for branch offices contained in a tax collectors budget, has approved a new
branch office for the tax collector, if justified Indeed, DORs 2008 budget approval of the
purchases of the Lake Mary properties was entirely consistent with this recognized DOR
practice.
Both memoranda rely on the general reasoning set forth in AGOs 78-135 and 97-02.
While Attorney Generals Opinions are generally entitled to careful consideration, Florida law is
clear that courts will give great weight to the statutory interpretation of an agency entrusted with
the implementation and enforcement of a particular set of laws.1 Here, the Department of
Revenues approval of Mr. Valdes 2008 purchase of the Lake Mary properties, together with its
approval year after year of Tax Collector budgets recognizing substantial Facility Lease Income
from the lease of the 805 Primera Blvd. to the Sheriff, clearly indicate that DOR, statutorily
entrusted with the regulation of tax collector budgets, saw nothing legally impermissible or
irregular about this arrangement.
As a result, any argument or assertion that there is some legal imperative that, all of a
sudden, the 805 Primera Blvd. property must be immediately conveyed to the County, represents
an abrupt and complete reversal of the Countys longstanding and consistent position and actions
on the matter, and also runs entirely contrary to DORs numerous budgetary determinations over
the past several years.
Likewise, the assertion that there is a legal imperative to immediately transfer the
Altamonte property to County ownership because construction is not imminent has no basis in
fact or law. The mere fact that Mr. Valdes has thus far been ineffective in bringing the new
Altamonte branch office to completion cant conceivably be used to justify depriving his elected
successor of title to the property. Indeed, this assertion runs contrary to Mr. Valdes pretextual
justification for the transfer, to be of assistance to the incoming Tax Collector to build on this
site.
On this point, in addition to the patent insincerity of Mr. Valdes involuntary assistance
of Mr. Greenberg by giving away the Altamonte property, Mr. Valdes stated justification for the
property transfer is entirely meritless. He posits that by re-annexing (presumably he means deannexing, or the statutory correct term, contraction) the Altamonte property out of the city limits,
the applicable minimum density on the parcel will lessened, allowing the construction of a
smaller building.

See, generally, Heftler Const. Co. v. Fla. Dept. of Rev., 334 So.2d 129, 132 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976) (Construction of
a statute by the administrative agency charged with its enforcement and interpretation is entitled to great weight.),
citing State v. Fla. Dev. Comn., 211 So.2d 8 (Fla. 1968).

A. Bryant Applegate, Seminole County Attorney

December 6, 2016
Page 3 of 3
First off, whether the County actually holds title to a parcel is entirely irrelevant to
whether the parcel can be de-annexed out of the boundaries of a municipality. As a result, the
thought that the Tax Collectors Altamonte property must be owned by the County in order for it
to be de-annexed into the jurisdiction of the unincorporated County is entirely specious.
Further, I have been informed that the Tax Collectors Altamonte property is subject to
an interlocal agreement of long standing between Seminole County and the City of Altamonte
Springs, intended to eliminate enclaves and effectuate sound annexation practices. Deannexation of this parcel would run counter to this interlocal, and would be entirely contrary to
the municipal boundary contraction criteria set forth in Ch. 171, Fla. Stat. As such, Altamonte
Springs staff have communicated to Mr. Greenberg that the City will firmly oppose the deannexation of this parcel.
In short, the thought that there is some legal imperative to transfer these properties to the
County is without merit. The notion that there is some newly discovered pressing urgency in
addressing these matters so precipitously has no legal or factual basis, other than the exploitation
of a disgruntled lame duck politician who lost an election. I urge you to advise your
Commissioners accordingly.
Thank you once again for your professionalism throughout this matter. As always, I am
at your disposal to offer any further thoughts on these issues.
Sincerely,

Wade C. Vose
cc:

The Honorable Joel Greenberg