BCC MEETING MINUTES

LAKE COUNTY VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD MEETING

SEPTEMBER 29, 1994

The Lake County Value Adjustment Board met on Thursday, September 29, 1994, at 9:00 a.m., in the Board of County Commissioner's Meeting Room, Lake County Administration Building, Tavares, Florida. Commissioners present at the meeting were: Catherine C. Hanson, Chairman; Welton G. Cadwell, and Don Bailey. School Board members present were: Patricia H. Hart, and Judy Pearson. Others present were: Ed Havill, Lake County Property Appraiser; Frank Royce, Senior Appraiser, Property Appraiser; Tim Hoban, Senior Assistant County Attorney (departed at 11:15 a.m.); Bruce Duncan, Assistant County Attorney (arrived at 11:15 a.m.); and Marlene S. Foran, Deputy Clerk.

Ms. Patricia Hart gave the innovation and led the Pledge of Allegiance.

Commr. Hanson, Chairman, announced that the Value Adjustment Board would reconvene at this time.

PETITION NO. 1994-56 Mt. Plymouth Enterprises, Inc.

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the Board that the petitioner was appealing the assessment in the amount of $44,160.00.

Mr. Charles D. Porter, representing Mt. Plymouth Enterprises, Inc., appeared before the Board and explained that the parcel was described as lake bottoms within the Mt. Plymouth Subdivision, and the parcel was unmarketable.

Mr. Havill noted that Florida law allows wetlands to be assessed at $45.00 per acre, and stated that his recommendation was to lower the assessment to $8,280.00.

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Ms. Pearson and carried unanimously, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and approved the assessment, in the amount of $8,280.00, for Mt. Plymouth Enterprises, Inc.

PETITION NO. 1994-54 Joelle H. Harris

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the Board that the petitioner was appealing the assessment in the amount of $97,493.00.

Ms. Joelle Harris appeared before the Board and reviewed supporting documents indicating that they had purchased the land for $16,750.00, and the house was constructed in 1993 in an amount of $75,719.00. She stated that the fair market value of the property, as of January 1, 1994, was $92,469.00.

Mr. Havill presented three comparables to the property, distributed photographs for the Board's review, and stated that the assessment was fair.

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and approved the assessment in the amount of $97,493.00, for Joelle H. Harris.

PETITION NO. 1994-62 Paul J. Halyard

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the Board that the petitioner was appealing the assessment, in the amount of $44,552.00, and explained that this was a vacant lot with access to Lake Minnehaha. He stated that the petitioner indicated that the property, as of January 1, 1994, was valued at $25,000.00; however, noted that the petitioner purchased the property in 1986 for $30,000.00.

Mr. Paul J. Halyard appeared before the Board and distributed photographs indicating the view from the property at the time that the property was purchased, and the view from the property at this time showing a foliage tent that has been erected immediately adjacent to the west property line. At this time, he presented a brief history of the property.

Mr. Havill presented three comparables to the property and stated that it was his recommendation to the Board to reduce the assessment from $44,552.00 to $36,000.00.

On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and approved the assessment, in the amount of $36,000.00, for Paul J. Halyard.

PETITION NO. 1994-66 Yahya Kiwan

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the Board that the petitioner was appealing the assessment in the amount of $96,229.00.

Mr. Yahya Kiwam appeared before the Board and explained that he constructed the house himself and directed the Board's attention to a cost analysis of the home, in the amount of $65,230.47.

Mr. Havill explained that, under Florida law, the Property Appraiser must take into consideration the fair market value. He described the square footage of the home and noted that the land was assessed at $18,000.00, and the improvements were assessed at $77,642.00 plus $587.00. He presented three comparables, and stated that the assessment was fair.

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Ms. Hart and carried unanimously, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and approved the assessment, in the amount of $96,229.00, for Yahya Kiwan.

PETITION NO NUMBER Elizabeth & Paul Wilder

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the Board that the petitioner was appealing the assessment in the amount of $31,000.00.

Ms. Elizabeth Wilder appeared before the Board and explained that she and her husband own Lot 20/20A of Lake Jem Villas and explained that, at the time they purchased the property, they were under the assumption that they were purchasing two buildable lots, however, they learned that the Land Development Regulations had changed the rural village designation of Lake Jem. She stated that it was suggested that they do a family lot split, which enabled them to sell one lot to a family member of direct lineal descent, and the lot split was approved on January 25, 1994. She stated that, as of January 1, 1994, lot 19/19A and lot 20/20A were still unbuildable. She stated that she has submitted a copy of the approval of the subdivision, dated January 25, 1994, and a letter from Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director, Development Regulation Services Division, confirming that, as of January 1, 1994, Lake Jem Villa Lots 19 and 19A were unbuildable lots of record. At this time, Ms. Wilder played a portion of the tape from the Value Adjustment Board Hearing, on September 30, 1993, in which Mr. Havill indicated that they would only be assessed on the land only if the final inspection of the house was after January 1, 1994.

Ms. Wilder referred to Florida Statute Chapter 93.132, which requires a government agency to inform the Property Appraiser if a property has been lowered in value because of governmental rules and regulations.

Mr. Frank Royce, Senior Appraiser, presented comparables to the property and stated that they were assessing the property separately because they were under separate ownership.

Ms. Wilder stated that she does not object to the assessment of $31,000.00 on lot 19/19A, as of January 1, 1995, because they will be able to build; however, as of January 1, 1994, they did not know whether they would be allowed a family lot split and, at that point, could not build.

At this time, Mr. Havill recommended to the Board that the assessments for the lots be lowered to $22,500.00, and the property will be reviewed for 1995.

On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Ms. Hart and carried unanimously, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and approved the assessments for lots 19 and 20 in the amount of $22,500.00 per lot, for Elizabeth and Paul Wilder.

PETITION NO. 1994-68 Meadows, Inc.

PETITION NO. 1994-69 Meadows, Inc.

PETITION NO. 1994-70 Meadows, Inc.

PETITION NO. 1994-73 Leesburg Land & Mortgage Ltd.

PETITION NO. 1994-74 Sunbank National Association

PETITION NO. 1994-75 Sunbank National Association

PETITION NO. 1994-76 Sunbank National Association

PETITION NO. 1994-77 Sunbank National Association

PETITION NO. 1994-78 Sunbank National Association

PETITION NO. 1994-79 Sunbank National Association

PETITION NO. 1994-80 Sunbank National Association

PETITION NO. 1994-81 Sunbank National Association

PETITION NO. 1994-82 Sunbank National Association

PETITION NO. 1994-83 Sunbank National Association

PETITION NO. 1994-84 Sunbank National Association

PETITION NO. 1994-85 Sunbank National Association

PETITION NO. 1994-86 Sunbank National Association

PETITION NO. 1994-87 Sunbank National Association

PETITION NO. 1994-88 Sunbank National Association

PETITION NO. 1994-89 Sunbank National Association

Mr. Dave Zacum, Appraiser, appeared before the Board and presented his credentials. He stated that he represents several petitions before the Board this date, and he requested that Petition No. 1994-68, and Petition No. 1994-69, Meadows, Inc., be withdrawn at this time.

On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Ms. Hart and carried unanimously, the Board approved to withdraw Petition No. 1994-68 and Petition No. 1994-69, Meadows, Inc.

Mr. Zacum requested that Petition No. 1994-70, Meadows, Inc., and Petition No. 1994-73, Leesburg Land & Mortgage Ltd., be withdrawn at this time.

On a motion by Ms. Hart, seconded by Ms. Pearson and carried unanimously, the Board approved to withdraw Petition No. 1994-70, Meadows, Inc., and Petition No. 1994-73, Leesburg Land & Mortgage Ltd.

Mr. Zacum stated that he would like to address Petition No. 1994-87, Petition No. 1994-88, and Petition No. 1994-89, and stated that he would be discussing the difficulty in appraising branch banks. He stated that anticipating next year's Value Adjustment Board, he would like to make several remarks at this time, to allow the Board to make observations and judge the veracity of what he may say in 1995. He stated that the assessment on the combined parcels of the above mentioned petitions was, in the amount of $1,007,777.00, was comprised of three folio numbers, and was used as a bank. He stated that the banking industry has gone through a disruption as far as use is concerned, and stated that, historically, the appraisal field has identified branch banks and other similar category properties as special purpose or special use properties. He noted that there were three approaches to value and discussed the cost approach, the market approach and income approach. He discussed the cost approach on the subject property and stated that the major portion of the square footage, which was built in 1984, had been depreciated under the Property Appraiser's system, and the improvement was on the roll at ninety-seven (97%) percent good, which results in a three (3%) depreciation. He stated that there were different types of depreciation and discussed economic obsolescence. He stated that often we look at the market and income approach to value in order to support what has been done under the cost approach. If the market and income approach does not support the cost number, an adjustment is made in the cost approach, generally in the area of the depreciation factor. He explained that, if he took the assessment of the subject property and went out in the market place and rented it, he would have to achieve a net operating income of $105,816.00, which was the equivalent of $21.16 net rent. He stated that the banks are respectfully visiting counties and requesting that the Property Appraisers review their assessments.

At this time, Mr. Zacum requested that the following petitions be withdrawn:

Petition No. 1994 - 74; Petition No. 1994-75; Petition No. 1994-76; Petition No. 1994-77; Petition No. 1994-78; Petition No. 1994-79; Petition No. 1994-80; Petition No. 1994-81; Petition No. 1994-82; Petition No. 1994-82; Petition No. 1994-83; Petition No. 1994-84; Petition No. 1994-85; Petition No. 1994-86; Petition No. 1994-87; Petition No. 1994-88; and Petition No. 1994-89.

On a motion by Ms. Hart, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board withdrew the following petitions:

Petition No. 1994-74; Petition No. 1994-75; Petition No. 1994-76; Petition No. 1994-77; Petition No. 1994-78; Petition No. 1994-79; Petition No. 1994-80; Petition No. 1994-81; Petition No. 1994-82; Petition No. 1994-82; Petition No. 1994-83; Petition No. 1994-84; Petition No. 1994-85; Petition No. 1994-86; Petition No. 1994-87; Petition No. 1994-88; and Petition No. 1994-89.

The motion carried by a 4 - 0 vote.

Commr. Cadwell was not present for the discussion or vote.

RECESS AND REASSEMBLY

At 10:20 a.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess for 40 minutes, and reconvene at 11:00 a.m.

PETITION NO. 1994-94 Austin C. and June E. Davis

PETITION NO. 1994-95 Austin C. and June E. Davis

PETITION NO. 1994-96 June E. Davis

Mr. and Mrs. Austin C. Davis appeared before the Board to appeal the assessments on three parcels, which are commercial properties. Ms. Davis explained that they were considering purchasing the adjacent property to their parcels and learned that there was a difference in the assessments on the adjacent buildings. She explained that Dora Manor, Lot 11, was a duplex and was not in line with the buildings next door or with the building on Lot 8. She stated that they purchased the three parcels as a building complex at $41.39 per square foot for the 56,078 square feet and that they received a reassessment on Lot 8, in the amount of $73,267.00, which is $31.16 per square foot. She stated that they were requesting a reassessment on the remaining two buildings. She stated that the buildings on Lot 9 and Lot 10 are not in line with the appraisals on Lots 8, 11, and 12.

Mr. Frank Royce, Senior Appraiser, informed the Board that the appraisal, which included an appraisal from Mr. Larry King, Appraiser, for the total properties was in the amount of $265,000.00. He stated that the three properties were originally assessed at $327,557.00, and after further review, all buildings have been lowered to $254,630.00.

Ms. Davis stated the appraisal performed by Mr. King used comparables in the City of Eustis and the City of Tavares, and she requested that the buildings adjacent to her property be used as comparables. Ms. Davis stated that they were requesting all buildings be assessed in the amount of $223,526.80.

At this time, Mr. Royce suggested that the Board postpone this request until September 30, 1994, to allow staff to perform a field check of the properties in question.

Mr. Frank Driggers, Review Appraiser, appeared before the Board to discuss the location of the properties and stated that the adjacent buildings were not comparable to the properties in question.

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, stated that the figures are correct and recommended that the Board approved the assessment in the amount of $254,630.00. He stated that the entire area would be evaluated for 1995.

On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Ms. Hart and carried unanimously, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and approved the assessment, in the amount of $254,063.00, for Austin C. and June E. Davis.

PETITION NO. 1994-97 Baker Groves, Inc.

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the Board that the petitioners were appealing the assessment, in the amount of $517,730.00, on a new professional office plaza located on U.S. Highway 441.

Mr. Bill Baker, President, Baker Groves, Inc., and Mr. Walter Hogan, Partner, appeared before the Board and explained that the property was .87 acres, the land value in 1992 and 1993 was $8,700.00, and the land value in 1994 was $107,438.00. He stated that a fair market value on the land would be $30,000.00 per acre.

Mr. Havill explained that the property received a green belt exemption in 1993 and had not been assessed at market value. Mr. Havill presented two comparables to the property. Mr. Frank Royce, Senior Appraiser, and Mr. Frank Driggers, Review Appraiser, further discussed comparables to the property. Mr. Havill stated that the assessment was fair and recommended that the Board approve the assessment.

On a motion by Ms. Hart, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and approved the assessment, in the amount of $517,730.00, for Baker Groves, Inc.

PETITION NO. 1994-115 Charles Wayne Properties, Inc.

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the Board that the petitioner was appealing the assessment, in the amount of $1,723,582.00, on a shopping plaza known as Grove Square, located in the City of Eustis.

Mr. Howard Rohrbacher, Jr., representing Charles Wayne Properties, Inc., appeared before the Board and explained that income and expense statements had been provided for the shopping plaza. He explained that Winn-Dixie had a short term lease in the plaza, and the rent roll was $146,942.00. He discussed the factors used in figuring the value of the property using a 10.5 % cap rate, which indicates a value of approximately $1,550,000. He requested consideration of the geographical area of the plaza, a change in market trends, and the short term lease of the Winn-Dixie store.

Mr. Frank Royce, Property Appraiser, reviewed the information submitted by the petitioner, and it was noted that the Property Appraiser's information was inconsistent with the information provided to Mr. Rohrbacher by the petitioner.

Ms. Patricia Hart suggested that this issue be postponed until the Property Appraiser and Mr. Rohrbacher have had the opportunity to reevaluate the information.

Mr. Bruce Duncan, Assistant County Attorney, clarified that Mr. Rohrbacher was requesting the opportunity to explain to Mr. Royce why the figures are correct, and that he was not proposing to submit any new information.

Mr. Havill recommended that the Board postpone this request until September 30, 1994, at 11:30 a.m.

PETITION NO. 1994-44 Green Thumb Garden Center

PETITION NO. 1994-45 Green Thumb Garden Center

PETITION NO. 1994-46 Green Thumb Garden Center

PETITION NO. 1994-98 Charles R. Bone

PETITION NO. 1994-58 Wilder Corporation of Delaware

PETITION NO. 1994-108 Borislav S. Vatev

PETITION NO. 1994-109 Borislav S. and Radka D. Vatev

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Ms. Hart and carried unanimously, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and approved the following assessments:

Petition No. 1994-44 Green Thumb Garden Center $47,057.00

Petition No. 1994-45 Green Thumb Garden Center $49,160.00

Petition No. 1994-46 Green Thumb Garden Center $52,389.00

Petition No. 1994-98 Charles R. Bone $95,368.00

Petition No. 1994-58 Wilder Corporation of Delaware $372,960.00

Petition No. 1994-108 Borislav S. Vatev $115,394.00

Petition No. 1994-109 Borislav S. and Radka D. Vatev $157,954.00

RECESS & REASSEMBLY

At 12:10 p.m., the Chairman announced that the meeting would recess for lunch, and reconvene at 2:00 p.m.

PETITION NO. 1994-134 Southside Associates Ltd.

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the Board that the petitioner was appealing the assessment on the Southside Shopping Center in the amount of $2,220,511.00.

Mr. Christopher E. Hines, Vice President, Real Estate Tax Services, Inc., representing the petitioner, appeared before the Board and noted that actual income expense information, and a copy of the rent roll, dated January 1994, had been submitted to the Property Appraiser. He stated that the contention by the owners of the shopping center was that actual income, when reviewed, reflects aged leases, at which time he discussed the rent roll. He stated that the owner's opinion of the fair market value was in the amount of $1,500,000.00.

Mr. Frank Royce, Senior Appraiser, discussed the method of figuring the assessment for the property in question using the income of $387,000.00. He stated that the assessment, in the amount of $2,220,511.00, was correct.

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and approved the assessment, in the amount of $2,220,511.00, for Southside Associates, Ltd.

CHARLES SENDELBACH

Commr. Hanson presented a letter addressed to Mr. Ed Havill, dated September 20, 1994, requesting an extension to file a petition on parcels 1286182, 1264430, 1820201, and 1565278.

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the Board that the assessments were fair.

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board approved to deny a request from Mr. Charles Sendelbach for an extension to file a petition to appeal the assessments on parcels 1286182, 1264430, 1820201, and 1565278; and to authorize the Board's Secretary to write a letter notifying Mr. Sendelbach of said action.

RECESS & REASSEMBLY

At 2:30 p.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess, and reconvene at 2:45 p.m.

PETITION NO. 1994-138 Hamlin & Hilbish Funeral Director, Inc.

It was noted that no one was present to discuss this appeal.

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and approved the assessment, in the amount of $314,844.00, for Hamlin & Hilbish Funeral Director, Inc.

PETITION NO. 1994-151 Marshall Fruman, DPM

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the Board that the petitioner was appealing the assessment in the amount of $136,693.00.

M. L. Fruman, DPM, appeared before the Board and requested a Special Masters hearing, noting that it was not proper for the Value Adjustment Board to evaluate adjustments. He stated that the Property Appraiser has increased his assessment by sixty-five (65%) percent and explained that the land was valued at $88,900.00; at which time Mr. Havill indicated that the structure was valued $88,900.00 and the land was valued at $49,016.00.

Mr. Frank Driggers, Review Appraiser, appeared before the Board and stated that he had conveyed to Dr. Fruman's office that all of Mount Dora had received an evaluation for 1994. He provided a brief history of the property, and stated that the total taxable value of the property was $138,693.00. At this time, he presented comparables to the property, noting a sixty (60%) percent increase in the taxes for 1994. He discussed Dr. Fruman's request for a Special Master, and stated that it was his feeling that a Special Master would review the property and question why the assessment was low.

Dr. Fruman stated that, based on the footage that has been presented, the evaluation of the property in question was based on a land value of $1,000,000.00 per acre. In response to a question presented by Mr. Havill, he stated that he had $125,000.00 of insurance on the building. At this time, he again requested a Special Master to hear this case, noting a conflict of interest in having School Board Members and Board of County Commissioners setting as the Value Adjustment Board.

Mr. Havill recommended that the Board approve the assessment as stated.

At this time, Mr. Havill reviewed the appeal process, and directed Dr. Fruman to contact the Property Appraiser's office on November 1, 1994 for further information on the deadline to file a law suit against the Property Appraiser.

PETITION NO. 1994-152 Howard and Pamela Lind

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the Board that the petitioners were appealing the assessment, in the amount of $46,284.00, and explained that this was a mobile home on a lot that was purchased in March 1992 for $48,000.00.

Mr. Howard Lind appeared before the Board and discussed the specific reasons why he purchased the property for $48,000.00. He stated that the mobile home was assessed at approximately $9,000.00. He stated that the property was seven (7) acres of sand spurs and weeds.

Mr. Frank Royce, Senior Appraiser, noted that the property had an agricultural classification on the property prior to Mr. Lind purchasing the property. He stated that the homesite was assessed at $5,000.00 per acre, and the remaining acreage was assessed at $4,500.00 per acre. He noted that surrounding land was being assessed at $5,000.00 per acre.

At this time, Mr. Havill presented comparables to the property.

At this time, Mr. Havill directed Mr. Lind to contact the Property Appraiser's office on November 1, 1994 for further information on the deadline to file a law suit against the Property Appraiser.

PETITION NO. 1994-156 Paul W. Bryan, III

Mr. Frank Royce, Senior Appraiser, informed the Board that the petitioner was appealing the assessment in the amount of $105,323.00.

Mr. Paul Bryan appeared before the Board and stated that the assessment for 1993 was, in the amount of $91,997.00, and the assessment for 1994 indicates a 14.49% increase over 1993. He discussed just values and presented comparables that had been previously submitted to the Property Appraiser. He stated that the fair market value of the property was approximately $85,000.00, and that he would accept the 1993 assessment in the amount of $91,997.00 for 1994.

Discussion occurred regarding the above mentioned comparables, and Mr. Royce presented the Property Appraiser's comparables to the property.

Mr. Havill recommended that the Board reduce the assessment to $95,000.00.

On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Ms. Hart and carried, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and approved the assessment, in the amount of $95,000.00, for Paul W. Bryan, II.

The motion carried by a 4 - 0.

Commr. Cadwell was not present for the discussion or vote.

PETITION NO. 1994-169 William R. Tschida

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the Board that the petitioner was appealing the assessment, in the amount of $229,643.00, for a child care center located in the Golden Triangle area. He explained that the property sold in 1988 for $250,000.00.

Mr. William R. Tschida appeared before the Board and explained that the land was purchased in 1988 for $250,000.00; and discussed the income of the facility, which has decreased from $343,000.00 in 1990 to $186,000.00 in 1993. He presented a comparable sale of a similar building, which sold in October 1993 for $165,000.00. He noted that a government housing project had been built adjacent to his property, and has had a negative effect on his property. He stated that part of the appraisal process for commercial property was the income and comparable sales, which have gone down. At this time, Mr. Tschida responded to questions presented by the Property Appraiser, and noted that the property in question was on the market for sale last year for $250,000.00.

Mr. Havill presented an advertisement of the property, which indicated that the asking sale price last year was $360,000.00. He presented facts discrediting the facts presented by Mr. Tschida and presented comparables to the property. At this time, he recommended that the Board approve the assessment as stated.

Mr. Royce stated that, using the income approach based on the information provided by Mr. Tschida, the property would be valued at $500,007.00.

Ms. Hart stated that, based on the income and on the comparables, the assessment was in line; however, she was sympathetic to the decrease in revenue.

PETITION NO. 1994-173 Reginald A. Fechtel

PETITION NO. 1994-174 Reginald A. Fechtel

Mr. Frank Royce, Senior Appraiser, informed the Board that Petition No. 1994-173 and Petition No. 1994-174, Reginald A. Fechtel, have been withdrawn.

On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Ms. Pearson and carried unanimously, the Board approved to withdraw Petition No. 1994-173, and Petition No. 1994-174, for Reginald A. Fechtel.

PETITION NO. 1994-157 Timothy E. McKenna

It was noted that no one present wished to discuss this appeal.

PETITION NO. 1994-175 Pleny DuPree

Mr. Ralph Keeler, representing Pleny DuPree, appeared before the Board and presented comparables located in Lake Joanna Estates to the property in question. He stated that the estimated fair market value of the property was $119,242.00.

Mr. Mike Bryie, Deputy Appraiser, appeared before the Board to present comparables to the property.

Mr. Havill reviewed the comparables and recommended that the Board approve the assessment as stated.

Mr. Keeler stated that replacement value cannot be looked at for the assessed value because houses are not selling for replacement value.

PETITION NO. 1994-190 Albert and Debra Bori

Mr. Frank Royce, Senior Appraiser, informed the Board that the petitioners were appealing the assessment, in the amount of $54,331.00. He stated that the assessment has been reduced to $51,420.00.

Mr. and Mrs. Albert Bori appeared before the Board. Mr. Bori presented a copy of the plat illustrating the road, which cuts through the property, and discussed said plat. He explained that they had paid less for the property because it was less desirable compared to the other five acre lots. At this time, he presented an aerial photograph of the property illustrating the location of the road in question, and the location of a double wide mobile home.

Mr. Royce recommended that the Board reduce the assessment to $41,000.00.

On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and approved the assessment, in the amount of $41,000.00, for Albert and Debra Bori.

PETITION NO. 1994-213 Diane Knight

Mr. Frank Royce, Senior Appraiser, informed the Board that the petitioner was appealing the assessment in the amount of $18,000.00.

It was noted that no one present wished to discuss the appeal with the Board.

PETITION NO. 1994-50 Maziar Namvar

It was noted that no one present wished to discuss this appeal with the Board.

PETITION NO. 1994-51 M. K. Mazuji

It was noted that no one present wished to discuss this appeal with the Board.

PETITION NO. 1994-52 Bijan and Moloud Namvar

It was noted that no one present wished to discuss this appeal with the Board.

PETITION NO. 1994-53 Nowjar Namvar

It was noted that no one present wished to discuss this appeal with the Board.

PETITION NO. 1994-55 Lloyd Singleton Farms, Inc.

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the Board that the petitioner was appealing denial of agricultural classification and noted that the petitioner would have qualified for an agricultural classification had he filed by March 1, 1994. He stated that the property has a tree farm on approximately sixty acres, and the remaining twenty (20) acres was vacant. Mr. Havill noted that this was a new agricultural classification.

Mr. Lloyd Singleton appeared before the Board and explained that he had purchased the property on December 30, 1993, as an existing tree farm, and he plans to continue to operate the farm as an oriental tree nursery. He stated that he made the assumption that the agricultural classification would carry forward since the use of the property had not changed.

Commr. Cadwell made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Bailey, to grant an agricultural classification for Singleton Farms, Inc.

Commr. Hanson stated that she could not support the motion as the Board had not granted agricultural classification to previous petitioners.

Mr. Bruce Duncan, Assistant County Attorney, clarified that, once the property was sold, the existing agricultural classification was terminated, and it was up to the new property owner to see that the agricultural classification continued.

At this time, Commr. Bailey withdrew his second to the motion.

Mr. Singleton explained that at the time that he purchased the property on December 30, 1994, it was under a quit claim deed because he was in the process of arranging the financing, and he did not file the warranty deed or go to the final closing until April 28, 1994.

Commr. Cadwell requested that his motion be withdrawn at this time.

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and denied the agricultural classification, for Singleton Farms, Inc.

The motion carried by a 4 - 0 vote.

Ms. Judy Pearson was not present for the discussion or vote.

PETITION NO. 1994-65 Lykes Bros., Inc.

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the Board that the petitioner would have qualified for agricultural classification had the green belt card been returned in 1993, and noted that a green card had not been sent to the petitioner in 1994 because they had not returned the card in 1993. He noted that the exemption had been approved for 1992.

Ms. Michele Carr, representing Lykes Bros., Inc., appeared before the Board and explained that a green card had been sent in for 1993.

Mr. Havill recommended that the Board grant the agricultural classification.

On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and approved agricultural classification for Lykes Bros., Inc.

PETITION NO. 1994-63 Lykes Bros., Inc.

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the Board that the petitioner was appealing the denial the agricultural classification and explained that the property had not had an agricultural classification since 1988.

Ms. Michele Carr, representing Lykes Bros., Inc., appeared before the Board and stated that the property was purchased in 1979, and that they have not had green belt since 1988. She stated that the property changed from a citrus grove to pine trees in 1988, and that Lykes Bros. became aware that they did not have an agricultural classification on the property after receiving an increase in value of 116% for 1994. She stated that they are requesting an agricultural classification and that the assessment be reviewed.

Mr. Havill explained that a new application was required when the property changed from a citrus grove to pine trees. He stated that the property has been assessed at market value since it does not have an agricultural classification.

Mr. Frank Royce, Senior Appraiser, noted that land in the area was selling for $15,000.00 per acre, and the property in question was assessed for $12,000.00 per acre.

PETITION NO. 1994-111 Thomas O. Haselton

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the Board that a green card had not been mailed out to the petitioner and, therefore, he was appealing the disapproval of agricultural classification.

Mr. John Weatherford, Attorney, representing Thomas O. Haselton, appeared before the Board and stated that the property was purchased in 1962, and approximately twelve (12) acres were sold in 1988 to the Audubon Society, at which time, the green card was no longer mailed. He discussed property owned by Mr. Haselton on the north that has a continuing agricultural exemption and approximately fifty (50) acres of contiguous land, ten of which was not allowed the agricultural exemption. He explained that Mr. Haselton had not filed for agricultural classification for this year because a green card had not been mailed to him.

Mr. Havill explained that the property has not had agricultural classification since 1988, and stated that the six and one-half (6 1/2) dry acres does not meet the ten (10) acre minimum; however, had he referenced the contiguous adjacent property, he would have received an agricultural classification. He explained that the petitioner should file for green belt in January or February of 1995 and note on the application that said acreage was contiguous to the adjacent property. At this time, Mr. Havill recommended approval of the agricultural classification for this property.

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Ms. Hart and carried unanimously, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and approved the agricultural classification for Thomas O. Haselton.

PETITION NO. 1994-192 The Umatilla Fruit Company, Inc.

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the Board that the petitioner, Mr. Charles M. Calhoun, was appealing the disapproval of application for agricultural classification and explained that the agricultural classification was lost in 1989. He stated that the property was rezoned by the County in the mid sixties to Light Manufacturing, and the problem with the request was a letter from Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director, Development Regulations, indicating that, based on the fact that the applicant had discontinued the agricultural operations for twelve (12) consecutive months, reestablishment of agricultural uses on the site would be in violation of the Land Development Regulations.

Mr. Richard Langley, Attorney, representing Mr. Charles M. Calhoun and The Umatilla Fruit Company, Inc., appeared before the Board and provided a brief history of the property in question. He stated that the exemption was lost in 1990, and the property was planted in pine trees in 1993. He noted that a copy of the contract, and a copy of the check, which paid for the planting of the pine trees in 1993, were attached to the exhibits. He discussed the Robbins v. Yusem case, and the legislative intent of agricultural exemption, which was to provide the land owner every possible advantage, and the burden falls on the Property Appraiser to demonstrate that The Umatilla Fruit Company was not in good faith. He stated that the Calhoun family has acted in good faith, and the testimony would indicate that they have never offered the property for sale, it has never been platted or rezoned for resale by the Calhoun family, and the property has been in the family for sixty years.

Mr. Havill requested that he have his attorney present for the discussion on this request, and stated that it was his recommendation to postpone this request until September 30, 1994, at 9:00 a.m. He explained that the problem was that green belt was last given to the property 1988. He noted that the application for green belt for 1994 was filed on time and was a new application, however, was denied because of the discontinuous use and the zoning.

Mr. Bruce Duncan, Assistant County Attorney, stated that there are a line of cases which state that zoning cannot preclude someone from continuing to keep their agricultural exemption; however, the Robbins v. Yusem case states that it must be a legal use and that it was the burden of the property owner to show that there was a legal conforming use on the property. He stated that there still was the question as to whether the burden was still on the property owner to show a legal conforming use on the non-agricultural rezoned land. He stated that Mr. Stubbs' letter was written under the grandfather clause, which indicates that, as long as you continue to use it after the zoning, you can keep the agricultural zoning, however, if you stop, you lose the grandfather right and must reapply and start from the beginning. The question was whether there was a period of time that the property in question was not used as agricultural.

At this time, Mr. Havill read, for the record, the letter from Mr. Greg Stubbs.

There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Value Adjustment Board, the meeting recessed until September 30, 1994, at 9:00 a.m.

CATHERINE C. HANSON, CHAIRMAN

ATTEST:

JAMES C. WATKINS, CLERK

MF\BOARDMIN\9-29-93\10-25-94