BCC Board Meeting Minutes

THE LAKE COUNTY VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD

OCTOBER 2, 2002

The Lake County Value Adjustment Board met in regular session on Wednesday, October 2, 2002, 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: Welton G. Cadwell, Chairman; Debbie Stivender; and Jennifer Hill. School Board members present at the meeting were: Jimmy Conner and Scott Strong. Others present were: Sanford A. Minkoff, County Attorney; Ed Havill, Property Appraiser; Frank Royce, Chief Deputy, Property Appraiser’s Office; Robbie Ross, Tangible Personal Property and Agricultural Operations Director, Property Appraiser’s Office; Ginger Casburn, Exemptions Supervisor, Property Appraiser’s Office; and Toni M. Riggs, Deputy Clerk.

MINUTES

On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Mr. Strong and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the VAB approved the Minutes of August 21, 2002, as presented.

VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, explained that most of the cases today and tomorrow are valuation cases, but there are still a few exemption cases, or agricultural cases. If a case is here on a late filing or an exemption or agricultural valuation, or a late filing of a petition, the first item for the VAB to decide is whether or not they want to hear the case. The late filing has to be excused by some reason that is outside of the control of the applicant, such as illness. On the valuation cases, the property appraiser is entitled to a presumption of correctness. The information the VAB has today is the information that has been previously furnished to the property appraiser by the applicants, and the property appraiser can object to information, if it was not provided to them prior to the hearing.

PETITION 2002-28L - JOHN V. AND LYNNDA ANGELO

Mr. Frank Royce, Chief Deputy, Property Appraiser’s Office, stated that this is a late filing application for homestead. The petitioners moved into their property on April 10, 2001 and filed on March 25, 2002. The deadline to file is March 1st.

Ms. Lynnda Angelo addressed the VAB and stated that, at the end of January, she went to California to visit her mother who had cancer, and she was only going to be there for a week but, when she got there, the doctors only gave her mother two weeks to live and, not knowing those circumstances when she got there, she extended her stay to be with her mother. Her mother passed away on March 12, 2002. When she got back, she immediately filed for the homestead. Her husband was here, but they were under the impression that they both had to file for the exemption.

Commr. Cadwell felt that this was a case that falls under the parameters for extenuating circumstances, and he would entertain a motion. There being none, Commr. Cadwell passed the gavel to Commr. Stivender.

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Mr. Conner and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the VAB overturned the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and approved the homestead exemption for Petition 2002-28L, John V. And Lynnda Angelo, based on the petitioner demonstrating extenuating circumstances for filing late.

VALUATIONS

PETITION 2002-31 - RICHARD C. SCOTT

Mr. Frank Royce, Chief Deputy, Property Appraiser’s Office, stated that the petitioner is contesting the valuation on his property. His house overlooks Lake Woodward, and the trim notice went out at $50,875. The petitioners requested a reappraisal, which they did and it is now assessed at $55,608 based on a new roof, fireplace, and central heat and air that had not been previously assessed.

Ms. Scott explained that she talked with the appraiser, and he explained that it had been increased in value because it was lake access, but it is not lake access. The two lots in the back are owned privately.

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, explained to the VAB that the last year’s appraisal has no relevance to this year’s assessment. They have to look at market value each year, and they found improvements that were not assessed. It was noted that the house is a rental unit.

Ms. Scott explained that she filed a petition because of the appraiser’s stance on the matter, that the property was solely based on lake access.

On a motion by Mr. Conner, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the VAB upheld the recommendation of the property appraiser and approved the assessment in the amount of $55,608 for Petition 2002-31, Richard C. Scott, based on the taxpayer failing to furnish evidence required to derive at a reduction in just value.

EXEMPTION

PETITION 2002-55L - KAHYA KIWAN

Mr. Robbie Ross, Tangible Personal Property and Agricultural Operations Director, stated that the applicant is petitioning to have an agricultural classification granted on his property for blueberries. He filed for the agricultural classification on September 9, 2002. The deadline to file is March 1st. Mr. Ross noted that this is a new classification.

Commr. Cadwell explained that the VAB has to determine whether it will hear the case and, in order to hear the case, the VAB will have to decide whether there were extenuating circumstances that caused the petitioner to file late.

Mr. Yahya Kiwan stated that he bought the property two years ago, and the property had the agricultural exemption. Last year, Mr. Kiwan received information from the property appraiser telling him that he was late in filing for the exemption, and he was given an application, which he sent back in November of last year. He received a letter this year showing that nothing had changed. When he inquired about the denial, he was told that the appraiser never received the application.

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, explained that the court cases have held that, if the person who owns the property chooses to use the mail, the post office is their agent, not the appraiser’s agent. If the appraiser does not receive it, the petitioner has not filed.

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, stated that, if there was evidence of mailing, such as the returned green card from a certified mail, it might meet the test of the law, but not just an assertion that it was mailed.

Mr. Conner made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Stivender, to uphold the recommendation of the property appraiser and deny the agricultural exemption for Petition 2002-55L, Kahya Kiwan, based on there being no compelling evidence. to overturn the denial.

Under discussion, Mr. Ross explained that agricultural classifications can only be filed between January 2nd and March 1st.

Commr. Cadwell called for a vote on the motion, which was carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote.

VALUATIONS

PETITION 2002-149 - DALE BARTCH - SUSAN HAIRSTON, AGENT

Mr. Frank Royce, Chief Deputy, Property Appraiser’s Office, stated that the property is located in Eustis and is a five unit apartment building, which was built in 1984. The current assessment is $149,000, and the property appraiser had three comparable properties, which were reviewed at this time. Mr. Royce stated that, based on the facts, the property appraiser believes that the current assessment is true and correct.

Ms. Susan Hairston, Agent, stated that she had submitted with her petition a rent history for the Eustis Townhouses. Ms. Hairston stated that, over the course of the last two years, their ability to rent those units has gone down, and they even tried dropping the rent and, from her personal contact with the area, it has to do with the neighborhood, because a lot of the businesses located behind the townhouses have closed. She feels that the market influencing its value does not substantiate the nearly $16,000 increase in its value. It was noted by Ms. Hairston that the substantial evidence presented was the rent history of the property.

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, explained that there are different methods of determining values, and the income approach is one of the methods that could be considered. When appraisers look at income approach, they look at potential income and not necessarily actual, so they discount the management issues.

Mr. Strong made a motion to hear Petition 2002-149, Dale Bartch.

It was noted that the case was not filed late, and a motion was not needed to hear it.

Mr. Royce referred to the information submitted by the applicant that reflected a total income of $22,850 and stated that there were no expenses presented to them. In looking at the market and sales, it verifies the assessment being presented and, in looking at the income for the current year, 2001, it would establish an assessment in the amount of $155,000.

Ms. Hairston stated that the management has not changed in the past 12 years, and she did not have the expense information with her.

On a motion by Mr. Conner, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried by a 4-1 vote, the VAB upheld the recommendation of the property appraiser and approved the assessment of $149,000 for Petition 2002-149, Dale Bartch, based on the taxpayer failing to furnish evidence required to derive at a reduction in just value.

Mr. Strong voted “no”.

PETITION 2002-150 - DALE BARTCH - SUSAN HAIRSTON, AGENT

Mr. Frank Royce, Chief Deputy, Property Appraiser’s Office, stated that the petitioner is protesting the assessment of a pre-engineered metal building of 7,200 square feet. It is located in Tavares and was built in 1988, and the current assessment is $138,496. The property appraiser had three comparable properties, which were reviewed at this time.

Ms. Susan Hairston, Agent, stated that the petition was based on the decline of their income. They had to drop the rent in order to attract tenants, and now they have the influence of the construction on Highway 441. Ms. Hairston stated that she did not feel an increase in value was justified, and she was not comfortable with the comparables presented by the property appraiser, but she did not have other comparables to offer at this time.

Mr. Royce explained that, in looking at the income information that had been submitted and considering expenses at 30%, which is generous, it would show a value of $157,000 for the property.

On a motion by Mr. Conner, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the VAB upheld the recommendation of the property appraiser and approved the assessment of $138,496 for Petition 2002-150, Dale Bartch, based on the taxpayer failing to furnish evidence required to derive at a reduction in just value.

PETITION 2002-56 - KLAUS H. F. PETERS AND DOROTHEA E. PETERS

Mr. Frank Royce, Chief Deputy, Property Appraiser’s Office, stated that this is a vacant piece of property on a small lake located in Altoona. The assessment went out at $17,854 and the property appraiser’s office has looked at the property and reduced it to $15,533. The assessment is based on the value they see as of January 1st.

Mr. and Mrs. Peters addressed the VAB and Mr. Peters stated that he feels that $12,000 is high enough for an empty lot. Mrs. Peters stated that she consulted with someone in the real estate field who told her that he did not know of any lots sold on the chain of lakes at that price.

Mr. Royce presented two comparable lots sold in the area, one for $25,000 and the other at for $22,300.

On a motion by Mr. Strong, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the VAB upheld the recommendation of the property appraiser and approved the assessment of $15,533 for Petition 2002-56, Klaus H. F. Peters and Dorothea E. Peters, based on the petitioners failing to furnish evidence required to derive at a reduction in just value.

PETITIONS 2002-50, 2002-51, 2002-52, AND 2002-53 - WALTER E. NILL

Mr. Frank Royce, Chief Deputy, Property Appraiser’s Office, stated that these are four separate parcels, but they are connected because they abut one another. He explained that they are located near Sugarloaf Mountain and the Turnpike and are a little over 20 acres. He stated that three of the parcels are assessed at $8,350 per acre, and one parcel (7.94 acres) at $5,000 per acre. Mr. Royce stated that they have comparables in the area selling in excess of $11,000 and $13,000 per acre. He stated that Mr. Nill has presented a variety of information to them, and some of the comparables he has chosen to look at on the tax roll are properties that have the agricultural classification, therefore, the assessment has no baring in relationship to Mr. Nill’s parcels.

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, stated that a property can be zoned by the County as agriculture, but yet they do not qualify for the green belt and a reduction in the assessment, and Mr. Nill’s properties do not qualify for the reduction in the assessment, because they have to look at the market value for his properties.

After some discussion, it was clarified that Mr. Nill needed to present information to the VAB protesting the value of his property by showing comparable sales that are of a lower price, or an appraisal, and he had not presented any of this information to the property appraiser.

Mr. Conner explained that the VAB considers all testimony and evidence submitted by the petitioner but, by law, they have to assume the property appraiser’s assessment is accurate unless the petitioner can show otherwise. He further explained that it was not appropriate for Mr. Nill to appear at the hearing today and ask for explanations.

Mr. Nill referred to parcel 9-1, which was assessed in 1999 at $10,500 for the five acres and stated that, from 1988 to 1999, the value stayed about the same. In the year 2000, it was $21,250; 2001 it was $21,250; and in 2002 it was $41,750. He asked for the formula that was used by the appraiser’s office to assess the property.

Commr. Cadwell explained that there was a time frame for Mr. Nill to meet with the property appraiser to review his questions, and today he needs to provide evidence to the VAB as to why the assessment is incorrect.

Mr. Conner noted that he had asked Mr. Nill earlier for evidence, and Commr. Cadwell had asked him for evidence, and he has yet to produce anything for consideration by the VAB.

Mr. Conner made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Hill, to uphold the recommendation of the property appraiser and approve the assessment for Petitions 2002-50, 2002-51, 2002-52, and 2002-53, Walter E. Nill, based on the petitioner failing to furnish evidence required to derive at a reduction in just value.

Under discussion, Commr. Cadwell asked Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, whether, under the rules of the VAB, there was a problem with the motion, and the questions that have been asked of Mr. Nill.

Mr. Minkoff explained that it was certainly a decision of the Chairman and VAB.

Commr. Cadwell called for a vote on the motion, which was carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote.

RECESS & REASSEMBLY

At 9:50 a.m., Commr. Cadwell announced that the VAB would take a ten minutes recess.

PETITION 2002-54 - EDWARD G. WATKINS

Mr. Frank Royce, Chief Deputy, Property Appraiser’s Office, stated that the petitioner is here protesting the assessment on a six acre tract. It has an easement off of Highway 27, and there is a 45 year old residence on the property that has been vandalized. Last year the property appraiser reduced the value of that residence from $22,000 to $5,000. Three years ago Mr. Watkins lost the agricultural classification on the property, and the land was reassessed this year. The trim notice showed an assessment of $37,773. The property appraiser looked at the property again and noticed that there was an old garage that has no value. The assessment has been adjusted to $36,624. Mr. Royce explained that there are comparables in the area, from $6,500 per acre; $7,271 per acre; and $8,830 per acre, which verifies the total assessment of $36,624 for six acres. He explained the access from each of the comparable parcels. The land is assessed at $30,800 and the home is assessed at $5,824. He explained that there is a value of a residence no matter what condition it is in because of impact fees, water and sewer, etc., which is attributed to the building.

Mr. Edward G. Watkins stated that he provided the property appraiser with a letter explaining his situation. Mr. Watkins stated that, when he moved his homestead exemption to another piece of property, which is an adjoining piece of property, they automatically took away his agricultural exemption, after 32 years, without notifying him. He requested that the appraiser reappraise the property, which he did but now the assessment is $15,400 higher this year.

Mr. Royce explained that Mr. Watkins has an easement to the property, so he is not landlocked, and therefore, that is not an issue, and he is confident that the comparables support the assessment of $6,104 per acre including the home value. The vacant lands around there are selling from $6,500 to $8,800 per acre. He explained that the agricultural classification, and the homestead, went off the same year, which caused the first large increase on the tax notice to Mr. Watkins. When the agricultural classification goes off, they try to give the property owner a year to try and bring back that use, but there is no agricultural use at this time. The land use went from agricultural to vacant residential.

Mr. Conner stated that it sounds as if the house has no value to it, and it could even have a negative value to it. He stated that Mr. Watkins has not met the requirement of the law, to present evidence to them that the assessment is inaccurate, but he was asking if the property appraiser would be willing to reduce the $5,000 from the value of the home.

Mr. Royce stated that he would not be willing to reduce the value of the home, because there is a value to it. It comes out to be $6,104 an acre, when considering the total value of the property ($36,624), which is way below what vacant property is selling for in the area.

On a motion by Mr. Conner, seconded by Mr. Strong and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the VAB upheld the recommendation of the property appraiser and approved the assessment of $36,624 for Petition 2002-54, Edward G. Watkins, based on the taxpayer failing to furnish evidence required to derive at a reduction in just value.

PETITION 2002-86 - R. DEWEY BURNSED, AS TRUSTEE - LAKES & SPRINGS

Mr. Conner asked whether the School Board members have a legal conflict in this case, Petition 2002-86, Lakes & Springs, since Mr. Walt McLin’s law firm represents the Lake County School Board.

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, asked if the School Board members own an interest in the property, or receive any payments from Mr. McLin’s law firm. If not, he did not believe they have a conflict of interest.

Commr. Hill disclosed that she had spoken to Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney, in regards to this case, and Commr. Stivender disclosed that she had also spoken to Mr. Richey.

Mr. Frank Royce, Chief Deputy, Property Appraiser’s Office, explained that this case has to do with 48 individual lots that the developer owns in a subdivision called Lakes and Springs. There were originally 82 lots. The 48 lots are being assessed according to the market that has developed within the subdivision and sales that have taken place in the subdivision. The petitioner believes there should be a discount to the developer for the time that he has to hold the lots, until they sell. Mr. Royce stated that there has not been a value placed on each individual lot by the petitioner, but he only states that they should be assessed at 65% to 70% of the appraiser’s estimated value.

Mr. Walter McLin stated that he and Mr. Dewey Burnsed and another person are the owners and developers of Lakes and Springs Subdivision. Mr. McLin explained that Lakes and Springs was platted in 1997 and, since that time, there remains 48 unsold lots out of a total of 82 lots. The lots are being sold at an average of six per year. In the year 2002 through today’s date, they have sold three lots. Mr. McLin stated that they do not challenge the fair market value of each individual lot, because that is the sales price, but they do challenge the appraisal method by not taking into consideration the fact that these lots cannot be sold as they are presently assessed. They are assessed at fair market value for the sale of an individual lot, but they do not sell all of these lots in one year. The question is whether there is a legal basis to provide a developer with a bulk sales discount. Mr. McLin stated that there is case law in Florida that upholds this method of appraising, and they come before the VAB today to suggest that it is unrealistic to assess 100% of the fair market value on an individual lot basis, when the reality of sales suggest there should be a bulk sales discount. He stated that an earlier case was decided by the Fifth District Court of Appeal in Marion County involving Marion Oaks.

Mr. Royce stated that he would like to protest because the property appraiser has not been given these court cases ahead of time, and they have not had the ability to read them or have their attorney review them, and he is not sure that the County Attorney is familiar with them. Mr. Royce stated that the VAB needs to know that this property is in litigation with the property appraiser for last year’s assessment.

Mr. McLin stated that, when they appeared before the VAB two years ago, there was a question as to whether or not the property appraiser could apply a discounted bulk sale basis in this environment, and the law in Florida allows that type of appraisal to take place under these circumstances, and there is a legal basis to challenge the appraiser’s method in this situation.

Mr. McLin stated that they have asked Mr. Larry King, State Certified General Real Estate Appraiser (SRA), to present testimony and evidence as to what the bulk sale discount, or the time value of money, would be on this property. Mr. King has been appraising property in Lake County for the last 32 years, and his reputation as an appraiser, and his methodology used in this case, would give the VAB the factual basis for allowing the bulk sales discount on all of these lots.

Mr. McLin stated that the current assessment for the 48 lots is $1,600,000 and, by applying a discount rate, it reduces that assessed value to $1,000,000 which represents 60% of the assessed value and a 40% bulk sales discount. Mr. McLin stated that Mr. Steve Richey is the attorney representing them here today.

Mr. Royce stated that it has been asked by the property appraiser’s office that Mr. King be allowed to present a written appraisal, or a written report, and their office does not have a problem with that report, because it is based on the same information that was presented to the VAB the prior year.

Mr. Larry King, SRA, addressed the Board and referred to his appraisal report, which showed the lot sales to date and stated that he will be addressing only those 48 lots, which have a total assessment of $1,690,716. The current ad valorem taxes on the 48 lots is $27,210. Mr. King explained that, in the past six years, since this subdivision has been in existence, they have sold slightly less than six lots per year. He is projecting that it is going to take eight more years, at six lots a year, to sell out this subdivision. He explained that, in the State of Florida, all real property is assessed at full market value less the cost of the sale and usually these costs run between 15% and 20%. If these were assessed properly, they would be assessed between 80% and 85%. In his report, there is a list of all of the asking prices, or the projected sales prices, for a total of $2,053,000. The assessment is $1,690,716 and this is 82.4% of what the developers are asking for the lots. Mr. King stated that he, nor Mr. McLin, contest the individual assessments, but they are not going to sell 48 lots in one year. He explained the definition of market value and stated that, as shown in his report, he has chosen to discount these sales at 7.5%, which is what commercial money is going for at local banks and, if you discount the $2,053,000 over eight years, it would be a projected sell out at these prices of $1,540,000. In his calculations, he shows a discounted value estimate of $1,000,000. He explained that all of the lakefront lots have been sold with the exception of one lot, and most of the canal front lots have been sold, so the lots remaining are mostly the interior lots.

Mr. Minkoff explained that the fact that there may be different appraisal methods would not invalidate the appraiser’s method, because what the taxpayer has to show is that the property appraiser has not considered the criteria that are in the constitution in the Statutes, or that he is doing this differently than the way he is doing other property within Lake County. So the fact that they are different does not mean that the VAB would overturn one or the other. A year or so ago, the VAB decided not to adopt the method that the property owner is putting forward, which is currently in litigation, where a judge is going to make a decision, so one alternative is to ask the applicant to include this property in that litigation, but there is a question as to whether or not the VAB has already made a judicial decision, because it is the exact same argument that was made a year or two ago, and the VAB determined against the property owner.

Mr. McLin stated that he does not feel that there is any question in the law that each year’s property assessment stands on its own. There is no precedent for last year’s assessment being a basis for this year’s assessment and everything changes. What happens between those two years further substantiates the facts that this is not going to be a sell out subdivision, unless it is sold in bulk and, if it sold in bulk, it has to be a discounted price. The property is appraised as if it going to be sold out in one year, and there is law that says a bulk discount on platted lots that do not sell at one time is a valid appraiser’s method, and there is case law that has reversed trial judges for not accepting that when the property appraiser presented his position. Mr. McLin stated that there are two methods of appraisal and one is just as correct as the other. The facts better support their argument two years later than it did then, because they now have the history of two more years.

Mr. Royce explained that the property appraiser does not use bulk assessment, and they assess each lot individually.

Mr. Conner wanted to know if the VAB would be setting a precedent for every other developer, if it decides to apply the bulk discount in this situation.

Mr. McLin explained that, through their investigation, they found that Marion County, Sumter County, and Citrus County all apply bulk discounts.

In response to Mr. McLin’s argument about a bulk discount, Mr. Royce stated that they have not sold all of the lots, and they have not marketed them all as a package. Mr. Royce presented information showing the asking prices, as of January 1, 2001. There are eight sales that are higher than the asking prices; there are three parcels that are listed higher in the new manual as far as asking price; and a market has been established here. There are 48 individual lots being assessed at 82.4% of market, which is a fair assessment. Mr. Royce stated that every subdivision in Lake County is assessed exactly the same way, at the value the market is showing in that particular subdivision or, in a comparable subdivision. The only time you see a bulk sale in Lake County is when there has been a problem with a subdivision, and there is a foreclosure. There have been some sales of numerous lots to builders and developers in south Lake County, and there has been no discount sale price to those developers. They are paying full market value.

Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney, addressed the VAB and stated that, in looking at the information presented by Mr. Royce, it confirms Mr. King’s testimony that the lots that have been sold are premium lots and what is left are not premium lots. Mr. King’s testimony was that, basically, over the next eight years, the increased sales costs will negate the increased value. They are here today showing that what they said a couple of years ago is exactly right, that this was a slow moving subdivision, with about six sales a year, which has been documented and justifies them asking the VAB to apply a different methodology in valuing this property other than the way the proper appraiser has historically done in Lake County.

Mr. Richey stated that anybody that wants to present competent evidence to the property appraiser, or the VAB, has a burden of bringing forth evidence comparable to what they are presenting to them, to justify a different kind of assessment value and system than what is being applied by the property appraiser. This does not mean that there will be substantial increases, or decreases, in the tax rolls of Lake County, but it simply means that, under a certain set of circumstances, Mr. Havill’s office may find the current method he is using is inappropriate and the proposed method that they are presenting is appropriate. They are in litigation, and they are showing a track record for a couple of years that supports what they said the last time they were before the VAB. They are talking about current value of a bulk sale, and the 48 lots, and the documentation presented by Mr. King, shows an eight year sell out, and nobody is going to pay them 82.4%, which is the value put on the property by the property appraiser. It is reasonable to assume that, over the next eight years, their sales are going to be basically the same, their values are going to be basically the same, and that is why they feel the discount is appropriate as proposed, about $1 million. He stated that the property appraiser has not acted in bad faith in presenting the appraisals of values, but they legitimately feel that this is an appraisal method that has been accepted by surrounding counties and has been substantiated and upheld by the courts.

Commr. Cadwell stated that he was on the VAB when this case came before them the last time and, at that time, he was concerned about two things, one, he thought the applicant was underestimating the rate of sale, because of the market at that time, and two, how it was going to affect other areas. He explained that, even though the VAB cannot change the way the property appraiser does business, they can, on a case by case basis, accept other methods. Commr. Cadwell stated that he did not think it would open a big door to every subdivision, but he did feel that the rate of sale is going to be one of those things in fairness and, if there are subdivisions where the rate of sale is such that it can be documented, he felt it was a fair way to look at it. When this came to the VAB before, he voted against it and spoke out strongly against it, because he did not know what it was going to do and he felt the applicant was underestimating the rate of sale.

Commr. Stivender made a motion, which was seconded by Mr. Strong, to overturn the

the assessment of the property appraiser and approve the bulk sales discount rate, at a value of $1 million, based on the facts presented to the VAB, the rate of sales in the subdivision, and the subdivision standing on its own merits.

Under discussion, Mr. Royce explained that there are 48 assessments and he needs direction on the value to be placed on each lot.

After some discussion, Commr. Cadwell clarified that the County Attorney’s Office, with the Clerk’s Office, will establish the percentage that will reduce the value to $1 million.

Mr. Conner stated that he would give consideration to try and give some bulk discount, if that is what the rest of the members want to do, but they need to be very concerned about some kind of precedent they may be setting for themselves, in terms of allowing the criteria. He feels that the specifics, such as the history of the slow sales, make this case stand out but he questioned the wisdom of accepting this large of a discount. He sated that he would be more comfortable if the percentage was adjusted because a 50% discount was too much and $1 million is a lot of bulk discount.

Commr. Cadwell called for a vote on the motion, which was carried by a 4-1 vote.

Mr. Conner voted “no”.

Mr. Conner stated for the record that he would have voted for the motion, if there had been a third alternative.

It was noted that there were no more petitioners present at this time. Mr. Minkoff suggested that the VAB wait until the end of tomorrow to take action on those petitions where no one was present.

RECESS & REASSEMBLY

At 11:05 a.m., Commr. Cadwell noted that the Board would recess until 1 p.m.

PETITION 2002-62 - JEFFREY L. MANDLER, ESQ.

PETITION 2002-63 - JEFFREY L. MANDLER, ESQ.

PETITION 2002-64 - JEFFREY L. MANDLER, ESQ.

PETITION 2002-65 - JEFFREY L. MANDLER, ESQ.

At 1 p.m., Commr. Cadwell reconvened the meeting and informed the VAB members that Mr. Mandler has called and will not be attending the meeting today, but he would still like to have his cases heard.

Commr. Cadwell noted that he will not be able to attend the meeting tomorrow, and he would like the VAB to appoint Commr. Stivender to Chair the meeting.

On a motion by Mr. Conner, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the VAB approved the appointment of Commr. Stivender to Chair the VAB meeting tomorrow.

Mr. Conner noted that Ms. Kyleen Fischer, the alternate member from the School Board, will be attending the meeting tomorrow in his place.

In regard to Petitions 2002-62 through 2002-65, Jeffrey L. Mandler, Esq., Mr. Conner stated that the Chairman has opened the public hearing and placed the information received from the applicant on record and, in seeing no justification for overruling the property appraiser, because no further evidence will be offered, he saw no reason to proceed with the cases.

On a motion by Mr. Conner, seconded by Commr. Stivender, and carried unanimously by a 5- vote, the VAB upheld the recommendation of the property appraiser and approved the assessments for Petition 2002-62, Petition 2002,63, Petition 2002-64, and Petition 2002-65, based on the taxpayer failing to furnish evidence required to derive at a reduction in just value.

PETITION 2002-228L - BARBARA ANN WEBER

Mr. Frank Royce, Chief Deputy, Property Appraiser’s Office, explained that a late petition has been received this morning in the mail, and he asked if the VAB wanted to add it to the schedule for tomorrow.

At this time, Mr. Royce asked that the Deputy Clerk contact the applicant to see if she can appear tomorrow at 10:30 a.m., or 1:30 p.m.

PETITION 2002-164 - ROBERT MELE RIBAR - FISHERMANS COVE RV PARK

PETITION 2002-165 - ROBERT MELE RIBAR - FISHERMANS COVE RV PARK

Commr. Cadwell informed the VAB that Petitions 2002-164 and 2002-165 have been withdrawn by the applicant.

PETITION 2002-141 - RONNIE C. AND DORITA V. DAVIS

C/O EASLEY, MCCALEB & ASSOC.

Mr. Frank Royce, Chief Deputy, Property Appraiser’s Office, explained that he has provided the VAB with information showing a sales comparison of apartment buildings that have sold in Lake County, and he has broken them down into sales per square foot, sales per unit, the assessed value, the assessed value per unit, and the assessed value per square foot. Mr. Royce explained that, on January 30, 2002, the property appraiser sent to every apartment complex in Lake County a questionnaire asking that it be completed and returned an received by their office, by April 15, 2002. He also explained that, in order to have any income and expense data considered by their office, either in house, or before the VAB, the data must be received by their office, by April 15, 2002. The questionnaire was not returned on any of the three cases before the Board from Easley, McCaleb & Associates, but the property appraiser’s office did receive information through the petition process. Mr. Royce also noted that none of the petitions before the VAB today, for apartment complexes, including these three petitions, have an authorization from the property owner that Mr. Mann can act in their behalf, and he would request that this information be presented before he hears from Mr. Mann.

Mr. Clark D. Mann, CRA, Vice President, Easley, McCaleb & Associates, Inc., addressed the Board and presented the authorization, for Petitions 2002-141 and 2002-143, which were accepted by Mr. Royce. Mr. Mann stated that there is an error in Petition 2002-142, and he feels that all they need to do is verify the information.

Mr. Royce stated that the trim notice for this particular parcel went out at $16,031,033 and, prior to the hearings, the property appraiser has reduced the assessment to $13,655,565. He explained that this is located in Clermont, and it is a 14 building apartment complex with 312 units, on 20 acres, on Highway 27. The land sold in 2000 for $1,350,000 and the land is currently assessed at $1,123,000. The apartment building is assessed at $12,415,000. As shown on the comparison sheet, the building costs per square foot is $39.80; if you use the Marshall and Swift cost service, which is used throughout the country, the new cost per square foot for this type of construction ranges from $39.84 to $94.43. He explained the square footage of the clubhouse and noted that the complex has pools and tennis courts, and it is an extremely nice complex. The petitioner is asking for a value of $6,700,000 which would be $17,502 per unit, or $16.52 per square foot. Mr. Royce noted that the overall assessment per square foot is $41.31 and includes the land.

Mr. Mann explained that the information he provided supports a range of value from $7,100,000 to $10,400,000 depending on how you produce a value on the property use and the actual rents. They stabilized this one at 85% occupancy, with shows the first year at 18% occupancy, but today it is at 90%. He has adjusted the pro forma at 90% and reduced the expenses, which shows the highest amount to be $10,400,000. At this time, Mr. Mann reviewed the pro forma income calculation he provided for Raintree of Lake County.

On a motion by Mr. Scott, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the VAB upheld the recommendation of the property appraiser and approved the assessment of $13,655,565 for Petition 2002-141, Ronnie C. And Norita V. Davis, c/o Easley, McCaleb & Associates, based on the taxpayer failing to furnish evidence required to derive at a reduction in just value.

PETITION 2002-142 - ROSEMONT MANOR APTS.

C/O EASLEY, MCCALEB & ASSOC.

Mr. Frank Royce, Chief Deputy, Property Appraiser’s Office, stated that the total of the two parcels is $1,947,125 which is a little lower than last year, as a result of depreciation and miscellaneous expenses. The appraisal last year on one parcel was $1,230,297 and the other was $721,552 for a total of $1,951,849.

Mr. Clark D. Mann, CRA, Vice President, Easley, McCaleb & Associates, Inc., stated that, after reviewing the information with Mr. Royce, he had no problem with the property appraiser’s assessment, and he was officially withdrawing the petition at this time.

PETITION 2002-143 - LAKEBREEZE APARTMENTS

c/o EASLEY, MCCALEB & ASSOC.

Mr. Frank Royce, Chief Deputy, Property Appraiser’s Office, stated that this is a 36 unit apartment complex on David Walker Drive, Tavares, which was built in 1994. The current assessment is $918,841. The assessment per unit is $25,523 or $35.43 per square foot. The petitioner is requesting $700,000 or $13,240 per unit or $18.38 per square foot.

Mr. Clark D. Mann, CRA, Vice President, Easley, McCaleb & Associates, Inc., reviewed the pro forma income calculation he had presented and stated that the assessment has increased from $696,614 to $918,841. Mr. Mann stated that the assessment should have increased based on the analysis of actual projection of revenues, which creates a range of value of approximately $457,000 to $705,000. He reviewed the information provided noting that the assessment is based on 90% occupancy, with a $3,000 expense level capitalized at a total of 12%, which indicates a value of $747,000. Mr. Mann stated that, if you use $2,500 for the expenses and go through the same scenario, it creates an upper limit of $855,000. He reviewed the actual income analysis and stated that, based on the actual income, and the projected revenues, he feels that the amount of $700,000 is more appropriate for the property.

Mr. Royce explained that the complex is in an area of growth, and the land value increased almost $83,000 alone, which is significant on 3 ½ acres. They did a reappraisal on the building, and it went from $554,000 to $695,000. He is more comfortable with the $2,500 based on the average of $2,000 to $2,750. If the Board wishes to reduce the assessment to $855,000 he would make that recommendation without a problem.

Mr. Mann stated that he would accept the change being recommended.

On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Mr. Conner and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the VAB upheld the recommendation of the property appraiser and approved the adjusted assessment in the amount of $855,000 for Petition 2002-143, Lakebreeze Tavares, LTD, based on the taxpayer furnishing evidence required to derive at a reduction in just value, and the property appraiser recommending an adjustment in value.

PETITION 2002-108 - EQUITY ONE INC. - EUSTIS SQUARE

PETITION 2002-109 - EQUITY ONE INC. - EUSTIS SQUARE

PETITION 2002-110 - EQUITY ONE INC. - EUSTIS SQUARE

c/o DELOITTE & TOUCHE - PROPERTY TAX SERVICES

Mr. Frank Royce, Chief Deputy, Property Appraiser’s Office, noted that information had been presented to the property appraiser from Deloitte & Touche. Mr. Royce explained that this is the Eustis Square Shopping Center, and the current assessment on the property is $4,989,269. Mr. Royce stated that there are three parcels, and the VAB should consider all three petitions together. Mr. Royce stated that they feel the assessment is justified and, after reviewing their information, the property appraiser determined a value of $5,591,000.

Mr. Bill Pugh, Deloitte & Touche, addressed the Board and referred to Page 2, a letter summarizing their case. They supplied the actual income and pro forma market analysis, as well as a letter dated November 11, 2001 stating that Publix Grocery, which makes up approximately 30.4% of the Eustis Square, was vacating the site before their lease expired. They were told that Beall’s, which makes up about 24% of the shopping center, has decided to follow Publix, however, they did not have a letter from them.

Mr. Royce stated that they talked to the General Manager of Beall’s, and they were told that they are keeping the outlet store at the current location, the Beall’s store will become a discount store, and they still has two years left on the lease.

Mr. Pugh explained that it is their contention that even the mere announcement to the in lying tenants that their anchor is leaving the site has a negative impact on a facility. He referred to Page 9 and stated that they are concerned about the market pro forma showing the vacancies that will be allowed once Publix has left the site. In regards to Page 10, their pro forma analysis indicates anchor space, the gross income of the anchor tenant, as well as the gross income of the out parcels, and the in lying space. Based on the facts and the tenant indicating that they are leaving, they feel that the property value should be more in line with about $4,000,000.

Mr. Strong clarified that the tenant has not left the site yet, and Mr. Pugh may have a case next year, but he was not sure there was a case today.

based on the petitioner failing to furnish evidence required to derive at a reduction in just value.

PETITION 2002-161 - BLUEBERRY HILL APARTMENTS

C/O STALLINGS-RIBAR GROUP

Mr. Frank Royce, Chief Deputy, Property Appraiser’s Office, stated that the Blueberry Hill Apartments are located past the Lake Square Mall, and it is a 68 unit complex. Mr. Royce noted that they were Cardinal units and were pre-fab built. The current assessment is $1,185,661 and there was a sale on this property in July, 2001, for $1,407,000. If looking at the market alone, the assessment is correct; if you look at the information he presented, it shows that they are assessing the units at $17,436 or an overall square footage of $29.37. The petitioner is asking for a value of $800,000 which represents $8,194 a unit or $13.80 per square foot, when subtracting the land and miscellaneous.

Mr. Robert Ribar presented information to the VAB for review and clarified that the sale in 2001 was not an arms length transaction, but an internal sale, so that sale should not be a qualified sale. Mr. Ribar further explained that the same partnership transferred ownership over to the same entity, which has a different name, and they moved the mortgage over, and it was never on the market. He stated that they are asking for an $800,000 value on the property. At this time, Mr. Ribar reviewed the income information with the VAB. He explained Cardinal pre-fab buildings and noted the condition of the complex, as shown in the pictures attached to the income information, and noted that the revenue stream is not supporting the $1.1 million value.

Mr. Royce reviewed the letter that was sent to the apartment complexes requesting information and stated that they needed to receive the information by April 15, 2002 for their office to use the income and expense data in-house, or before the VAB, and the letter went to the complex on January 30, 2002.

Mr. Strong stated that the petitioner did a good job with the cost analysis, and it would have been helpful for the property appraiser to have this ahead of time. He did have a question about the use of 12% cap rate.

Mr. Ribar explained that they are not taking the real estate taxes in the expenses, so it is a loaded cap rate. He stated that the cap rate is about 10%, and they load it with the millage rate, which is about a 12% cap rate for the income analysis.

Mr. Royce stated that they agree that 12.5% is high, but they considered 10'% in the tax rate, and it is workable in this case, but the problem he has with this case is that they are reporting 35% vacancy, which is extremely bad and is usually related to poor management.

Mr. Ribar stated that he did not have the exact numbers on the mortgage.

Mr. Royce stated that they feel that the vacancy is extremely high compared to other units in the County and, therefore, the income information that was presented is not useful. The units were built in Sanford and not built out of state and, as far as the upkeep, those problems are usually handled in reserves. The property appraiser feels that the assessment of $1,185,661 is fair, based on the market in Lake County.

Mr. Ribar explained that, if the VAB considers the pictures at the end of the packet of information, the property is pre-fab, and it is not a pretty apartment complex, and that is the reason for the vacancy on the property.

On a motion by Mr. Strong, seconded by Mr. Conner and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the VAB upheld the recommendation of the property appraiser and approved the assessment in the amount of $1,185,661 for Petition 2002-161, Blueberry Hill Apartments, c/o Stallings-Ribar Group, based on the taxpayer failing to furnish evidence required to derive at a reduction in just value, and based on the market in the county.

PETITION 2002-162 - BAILES SELF STORAGE

C/O STALLINGS-RIBAR GROUP

Mr. Frank Royce, Chief Deputy, Property Appraiser’s Office, stated that the Bailes Self Storage consists of four mini-warehouses, and an office building, where were built in 2000. There was a sale in 1999 of $384,000 on the land. The current assessment on the land is $344,000. The square footage of the building is 58,215. The assessment is $685,137 or $18 a square foot for the building. There are miscellaneous items being assessed on the property; there is 210,400 square feet of paving; there is over 20,000 square feet of fencing; which adds $362,000 to the assessment, for a total assessment of $1,391,266. Mr. Royce reviewed three comparable properties.

Mr. Robert Ribar noted that he had no further information for the VAB.

On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the VAB upheld the recommendation of the property appraiser and approved the assessment in the amount of $1,391,266 for Petition 2002-162, Bailes Self Storage, c/o Stallings-Ribar Group, based on the taxpayer failing to furnish evidence required to derive at a reduction in just value, and based on the market in the county.

PETITION 2002-163 - VILLAGE AT EAST LAKE APARTMENTS

C/O STALLINGS-RIBAR GROUP

Mr. Frank Royce, Chief Deputy, Property Appraiser’s Office, explained that Village at East Lake Apartments are located in Clermont, and it is a 14 building apartment complex built in 2000-2001 in two phases, with a total of 250 units, on 28.32 acres. The total assessment is $9,572,589. As shown in his handout material, the average per unit is $38,290 and the average per square foot is $35.51. The building alone has a value of $28.90 per square foot.

Mr. Robert Ribar stated that information was submitted to the property appraiser in regard to the actual operating statement on the property for 2001. They also supplied them with a chart that shows the occupancy level from January to September 11, 2001, and a decline in occupancy after September 11th. They are asking for an $8,000,000 value on the property. Last year the value was $5,833,426. The actual income shows $6.5 million on the property, and they are not asking for that amount, because they know it is worth more than that but they are asking that the County recognize that the vacancy on the property has not gotten any better because of the economy, and because of September 11th. He feels the property appraiser is using a 10% vacancy factor, and right now it is at 25%, and it was 21% at the first of the year.

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, explained that, under Florida law, the property appraiser is required to look at the income costs, and the market approach to value, but they do not have to take the income approach. He stated that part of the increase in the assessment this year was because the second phase of the apartments were added last year, and they were put on the tax roll for the first time. He noted that they did consider the income, market, and cost approach and leaned strongly towards the cost approach because of the new building.

On a motion by Mr. Conner, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the VAB upheld the recommendation of the property appraiser and approved the assessment in the amount of $9,572,589, based on the taxpayer failing to furnish evidence required to derive at a reduction in just value, and based on the market in the county.

PETITION 2002-154 - SHERRY RATSMA

Mr. Frank Royce, Chief Deputy, Property Appraiser’s Office, stated that the property is located on Lakeview Court in Eustis. The house is located on a lake, and it is only 945 square feet, and it was sold in 1993 for $52,000. The land is currently assessed at $41,979, for a total assessment of $65,706. Mr. Royce noted that the petitioner states on her petition that the house is insured for $65,000 and she can sell it for $70,000.

Ms. Sherry Ratsma addressed the VAB and stated that she really does not have any comparables other than her mother’s property. She stated that it was assessed last year for $35,500 and this is the first time she is able to get $650 a month rent because, up until that time, she rented it for $450 to $550, because the house is very small. She explained that the people down the street could not sell their house for the longest time, but it just sold for $75,000. Ms. Ratsma described the condition of the lake and the road and noted that the expenses are high for a rental.

Mr. Royce explained that most of the value is in the land, which is now assessed at $41,979 and the house is assessed at $22,496, and there is a small dock and a small carport, which makes up the $1,231 in value.

Ms. Ratsma stated that her neighbor’s valuation is $81,000 and it is a duplex. It also has another house on the property and two sheds, but she could not produce the documentation today to justify the comparable properties in the area.

Mr. Royce reiterated that the petitioner is stating that the property is worth $70,000 as shown on her petition. He stated that right next door to the property, on a smaller lot, a house of 900 square feet sold for $62,500 in 1994.

On a motion by Mr. Conner, seconded by Mr. Scott and carried by a 4-0 vote, the VAB upheld the recommendation of the property appraiser and approved the assessment of $65,706 for Petition 2002-154, Sherry Ratsma, based on the taxpayer failing to furnish evidence required to derive at a reduction in just value.

Commr. Stivender was not present to vote on the motion.

PETITION 2002-206 - HORTENSE P. BALDWIN

Ms. Sherry Ratsma stated that Ms. Hortense P. Baldwin is her mother, and she owns the house next door to her house. Ms. Ratsma explained that her mother owns a 45 foot lot, and she has a garage. She stated that the increase in valuation is too high particularly for a retired woman. Ms. Ratsma stated that her mother has this house as income, and she asked the VAB to help her mother at this time in her life.

Mr. Frank Royce, Chief Deputy, Property Appraiser’s Office, stated that the property is assessed at $62,083, and Ms. Baldwin purchased it in 1997 for $60,000. Mr. Royce stated that the increase is due to the land value.

On a motion by Mr. Conner, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the VAB upheld the recommendation of the property appraiser and approved the assessment in the amount of $62,083 for Petition 2002-206, Hortense P. Baldwin, based on the taxpayer failing to furnish evidence required to derive at a reduction in just value.

RECESS & REASSEMBLY

At 2:15 p.m., Commr. Cadwell announced that the VAB would take a 30 minutes recess, until 2:45 p.m.

PETITION 2002-218 - VKM VENTURES, INC. - LARRY PIERCE, VICE PRES.

Mr. Robbie Ross, Tangible Personal Property and Agricultural Operations Director, stated that the assessment date is January 1st of each year. The property in question was purchased in June, 2002, for $850,000. There were three bids on the property, $550,000, $650,000 and $850,000 and Mr. Ross stated that it sounds like it was a distressed type sale. Mr. Ross stated that United Southern Bank did an appraisal on the property, which showed an amount of $1.2 million, and they requested a copy of the appraisal but have not yet received it. The current assessment for the land is $384,227; improvements of $989,368; miscellaneous improvements of $32,840; for a total assessment of $1,406,435. As he stated earlier, they are looking at a January 1st appraisal date and, with this sale coming through in June, 2002, it will automatically make them look at that sale in 2003 and make any necessary adjustments for the 2003 tax roll.

Mr. Blain Vermuellen addressed the Board and stated that VKM feels the property is worth what they paid for it, which is $850,000. Mr. Vermuellen explained that the use of the building has basically changed, and it needs a lot of renovation and attention to get it where they can find someone to lease it. They have been trying to lease it since they purchased it. He explained that Colonial Bank is only leasing back from them about 25% of the space, until they get their new building built. He stated that everything across the street is vacant. Mr. Vermuellen stated that they did get an appraisal, which Mr. Larry Pierce is supposed to bring with him today, but he is not here at this time, however, he does not really agree with the appraisal. He further stated that there are no buildings in that area that are really comparable to that building, and he feels it should be assessed accordingly. He noted that Mr. Pierce has the appraisal, but Mr. Pierce indicated that the buildings they used were not comparable to theirs. It was also on the market for about a year and a half, at $1.2 million, and they kept lowering the price.

Mr. Royce explained that they also have to assess the use, and it is a bank building, and there is value in the use and, as of January 1st, the use was a bank. As Mr. Ross stated, a mid-year sale will certainly make them go back and look at it next year. He stated that they would still like to have a copy of the appraisal to see the comparables they used and they will definitely look at the property in 2003, because the sale took place in 2002.

Mr. Ross stated that, if they had received the appraisal, there may have been room to make some adjustments.

Commr. Stivender questioned whether the appraisal could be reviewed overnight and the case continued until tomorrow.

Mr. Vermuellen explained that, even though the property appraiser asked for the appraisal, he does not feel it helps his case to have it.

Mr. Larry Pierce addressed the Board and stated that the fact that the property was listed by the seller at $1.25 million over a year ago, the tax appraisal is now higher than the listing price, and usually the property appraisal is not your asking price. Mr. Pierce stated that it is usually 80% of the real market value, and they feel the real market value is $850,000.

Mr. Strong explained that the sale was in June, 2002, and the previous owner is going to pay six months of the taxes, and the petitioner is going to pay six months of the taxes, and he was given credit on the closing statement, based on the current valuation of $1.2 million.

Mr. Pierce explained that they get two different tax bills that amount to $1.35 million, but there are actually two different parcels, one parcel is a drive up building that is separate from the main building, and they pay 100% of those taxes, because they are leasing back part of the property. They are getting about 25% credit on the main building.

On a motion by Mr. Strong, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried by a 3-2 vote, the VAB upheld the recommendation of the property appraiser and approved the assessment of $1,406,435 for Petition 2002-218 and Petition 2002-219, VKM Ventures, Inc., Larry Pierce, Vice President, based the petitioner failing to furnish evidence required to derive at a reduction in just value.

Commr. Stivender and Mr. Conner voted “no”.

PETITIONS - NO ONE PRESENT

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, suggested that the Board not take action on the petitions where no one was present and wait until tomorrow and take those as the last item on the agenda.

PETITION 2002-194 - RAFIAH R. KASHMIRI - GARDEN CITY RESORT HOA

PETITION 2002-195 - RAFIAH R. KASHMIRI

PETITION 2002-196 - RAFIAH R. KASHMIRI - GARDEN CITY RESORT HOA

PETITION 2002-197 - RAFIAH R. KASHMIRI

Mr. Frank Royce, Chief Deputy, Property Appraiser’s Office, stated that the Clerk received a fax on September 16, 2002 from the petitioner requeseting an alternate date to be set for the hearings, because they would be overseas on October 1 - 9, 2002. Mr. Royce stated that it would be up to the VAB to decide whether or not to approve the request. He noted that the appeals were made to the valuation on four lots.

On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board denied the request for an extension of time for Petitions 2002-194 through 2002-197, Rafiah R. Kashmiri.

It was noted that Ms. Kyleen Fischer would be in attendance in the place of Mr. Conner, tomorrow, and Commr. Cadwell would not be present.

There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the VAB, the meeting recessed at 3:10 p.m., with it being noted that the VAB would reconvene at 9 a.m., October 3, 2002.

WELTON G. CADWELL, CHAIRMAN

ATTEST:

JAMES C. WATKINS, CLERK

TMR/BOARDMIN/10-2-02/10-29-02