The Osceola County Board of Supervisors voted 3–2 to approve a military service property tax exemption application after a review that concluded the applicant did not meet the assessor’s stated criteria for the benefit.

The exemption request was placed before the board after the county assessor provided a recommendation that the application be disallowed. County staff noted the applicant’s DD-214 showed active-duty service but that the service did not fall within listed war-period dates and did not meet a separate 18‑month continuous-service threshold that had been used in past eligibility determinations.

Board members discussed the statutory criteria and the assessor’s review at length. One supervisor said the assessor had reviewed the application and “does not think it qualifies,” pointing to the dates on the DD‑214. County staff described the mechanics of the homestead/ military exemption: the county reduces valuation by a set dollar amount before taxes are calculated, and the amount had been increased recently from $1,852 to as much as $4,000, according to staff comments.

Supporters on the board said they sympathized with the applicant’s circumstances and moved to approve despite the assessor’s recommendation. A motion to allow the exemption was made by Supervisor Helmers and supported by Supervisor Schulte; the motion passed 3–2.

County staff said the assessor’s office reviews and marks the application boxes that determine eligibility and that applicants are responsible for providing documentation. The assessor noted that some older or hard-to-read DD‑214 forms can delay review and that applicants sometimes provide clearer copies after initial submission.

The board did not cite a specific statute on the record during the public discussion beyond general references to “the code” and eligibility periods for wartime service. The board chair said the matter would be recorded in the assessor’s file and noted the county would continue to follow documentation procedures for future applications.

The county did not provide the applicant’s name in the public discussion, and the board did not identify which supervisors voted yes or no in the roll-call portion beyond recording the 3–2 outcome.