LAKE COUNTY VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD

FEBRUARY 20, 2007

The Lake County Value Adjustment Board (VAB) met on Tuesday, February 20, 2007, at 8:30 a.m., in the Board of County Commissioners’ Meeting Room, Lake County Administration Building, Tavares, Florida. The following members were present:  Commissioners Welton G. Cadwell, Chairman; Debbie Stivender; and Elaine Renick; and School Board Member Scott Strong. Others present were: Sanford A. “Sandy” Minkoff, County Attorney; Kimberly Williams, Assistant County Attorney; Toni M. Riggs, Deputy Clerk; Ed Havill, Lake County Property Appraiser; Frank Royce, Chief Deputy, Lake County Property Appraiser’s Office;  Robbie Ross, Director, Tangible Personal Property and Agriculture Operations, Lake County Property Appraiser’s Office; and Gaylord A. Wood, Jr., Attorney representing the Lake County Property Appraiser.

Commr. Cadwell called the meeting to order, and it was noted that a quorum was present. He asked Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, to explain the rules for today’s meeting.

Mr. Minkoff, County Attorney, explained that all recommendations from the special masters have been provided to the VAB members; the agriculture and homestead exemption cases from Mort Aulls; and the valuation cases from David Taylor.  On the valuation cases with Mr. Taylor, there was only one case, 2006-302L – James L. and Joan K. Langford, that he was recommending that the value determined by the Property Appraiser be changed and the Property Appraiser did not submit anything in opposition to that change.  In that case, the VAB has the special master’s recommendation un-rebutted.  On the homestead cases and the agricultural classification cases, they have received responses back from both the property owners who disagree with the special master where the special master denied granting them the relief, and they also have information from the Property Appraiser objecting when the special master granted the relief.  Kimberly Williams, Assistant County Attorney, has prepared a memorandum that has been provided to the VAB members, which characterizes those cases, and it provides the opinion of the County Attorney’s Office.  Mr. Minkoff felt that the memorandum would be a good framework to follow because it characterizes the cases by types, and the VAB can discuss them.  As adopted by the VAB at their first meeting, they will not be hearing oral argument or any factual issues from any of the Property Appraiser’s staff, or property owners; it is strictly for VAB discussion and decision.

Petitioners Contesting Special Master’s Application of Law

Commr. Cadwell explained that the Memorandum from the County Attorney’s Office stated that the special master heard 60 cases in which property owners objected to the Property Appraiser’s denial of an agricultural or homestead exemption.  The special master recommended upholding the Property Appraiser’s denial in 41 cases.  Out of those 41 cases, 15 property owners filed objections.  Out of the 15 property owners’ objections, 13 allege the special master made incorrect factual findings, and those cases are as follows:

            2006-7                         Brian & Alane Shank, Trustees

            2006-9                         David M. Hill

            2006-40                       John & Jennifer Bennett

            2006-43                       W. Richard Bennett

            2006-68                       Jeanne Sutton

            2006-107L                  Cheryl & James Hime

            2006-110L                  Veronica G. Wrinkle

            2006-122L                  Carroll Fulmer

            2006-132L/133L         William D. Seidle & Betty Seidle et al

            2006-288L                  Darren Scott Cerier

            2006-292                     William Vivian

            2006-300L                  John R. Beatty

            2006-308L                  Kathryn P. Reinhardt

Commr. Cadwell noted that, in the memorandum, it states that the VAB may not dispute the special master’s findings of fact or consider any evidence not submitted during the petitioner’s hearing.  The VAB’s role is to consider the accuracy of the special master’s application of law.

Commr. Renick stated that, out of the 13 cases, she did want to discuss three of them, even though she understands the memorandum presented by the County Attorney’s Office.  She did have a discussion with Mr. Minkoff and understands the VAB not being able to dispute the special master’s findings of facts, and they are not to look at new evidence but, because new evidence has been included in her packet of information, and she sees something that the special master did not see at the hearing, she feels that she should be able to consider it.  She stated that, in Petition 2006-40 – John and Jennifer Bennett, there was proof that there was indeed cattle on that property; in Petition 2006-7 – Brian and Alane Shank, Trustees, there is the watermelon issue; and in Petition 2006-107L – Cheryl and James Hime, there is proof of residency.  She did feel that the VAB should discuss the cases, as noted.

On a motion by Commr. Renick, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously by a 4-0 vote, the VAB approved to uphold the recommendations of the special master and rule in favor of the Property Appraiser to deny the following cases, as read into the record by Commr. Cadwell; and to pull Petition 2006-40 – John and Jennifer Bennett, Petition 2006-7 – Brian and Alane Shank, Trustees, and Petition 2006-107L – Cheryl and James Hime for discussion and separate votes:

            2006-9                         David M. Hill

            2006-43                       W. Richard Bennett

            2006-68                       Jeanne Sutton

            2006-110L                  Veronica G. Wrinkle

            2006-122L                  Carroll Fulmer

            2006-132L                  William D. Seidle & Betty Seidle et al

            2006-288L                  Darren Scott Cerier

            2006-292                     William Vivian

            2006-300L                  John R. Beatty

            2006-308L                  Kathryn P. Reinhardt

The Board addressed Petition 2006-40 – John and Jennifer Bennett, and Commr. Renick explained that it was one thing if they are supposed to be making a decision based on what the special master had before him, but she had information in her packet that the special master did not have that shows that there was a cattle operation.

Mr. Minkoff explained that, in this process, and with specific timelines, when a petition is filed, the clerk schedules a hearing before the special master; the property owners are advised that they are required to submit any information they would like to present to the special master in advance of the hearing, so that the Property Appraiser has the information.  There is a hearing before the special master, where the special master makes the findings of fact and gives the VAB recommendations of law.  If a property owner fails to present the evidence at that hearing, then it is improper for the VAB to consider it at this meeting, because that was the time, before the special master, when that evidence was supposed to be given.

Commr. Renick stated that she and Mr. Minkoff have talked and he knows the problem that she has with this because it says that they can question the issues of the special master in terms of applying the law, but she does not think that she is qualified to do that, yet they are not supposed to question evidence, and she was given evidence that the special master did not have before him.

Mr. Minkoff explained that they afforded everyone an opportunity to respond to the special master’s recommendations, and the Property Appraiser, as well as many of the property owners, submitted information; they did not attempt to edit that information to take out factual re-arguments; so the VAB got everything that everybody filed.  He also noted that the VAB is never the last chance for someone to object to the decision of the Property Appraiser, because both the Property Appraiser, and the property owner, is afforded the opportunity to contest, whether there be an exemption case or a valuation case, in court where there is a change in the burden of proof.  The court re-hears the entire case and all of the facts, if it gets to the court.

Petition 2006-40 – John and Jennifer Bennett

On a motion by Mr. Strong, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried by a 3-1 vote, the VAB approved to uphold the recommendation of the special master to rule in favor of the Property Appraiser and deny Petition 2006-40 – John and Jennifer Bennett.

Commr. Renick voted “no”.

Petition 2006-7 – Brian and Alane Shank

On a motion by Mr. Strong, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried by a 3-1 vote, the VAB approved the uphold the recommendation of the special master to rule in favor of the Property Appraiser and deny Petition 2006-7 - Brian and Alane Shank.

Commr. Renick vote “no”.

Petition 2006-107L – Cheryl and James Hime

On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Mr. Strong and carried by a 3-1 vote, the VAB approved to uphold the recommendation of the special master to rule in favor of the Property Appraiser and deny Petition 2006-107L - Cheryl and James Hime.

Commr. Renick voted “no”.

Mr. Minkoff explained that there were two other cases where the property owners contested the special master’s recommendations; Petition 2006-86 - Howey in the Hills, LTD where the special master found that there was no agricultural use on the property; and Petition 2006-211 – Andrew Colby that involved the application of a statute involving hurricane damage to the property.

Commr. Renick stated that she would recuse from voting on Petition 2006-211 – Andrew Colby, which involves the hurricane damage because, before she knew she was going to serve on the VAB, the petitioner called her soon after she was elected to discuss this issue, and she did talk to him.

Petition 2006-86 – Howey in the Hills, LTD

Mr. Strong made a motion to uphold the recommendation of the special master and rule in favor of the Property Appraiser to deny the agricultural exemption on that portion of the property not being used for timber operations, in Petition 2006-86 – Howey in the Hills, LTD.

Commr. Cadwell seconded the motion for discussion.

Mr. Minkoff explained that this case was not included in the three times presumption rule.  In this particular case, the special master determined that there was no agricultural use on the property as of January 1.

It was clarified that this case involves two parts; the special master recommended that the agricultural classification be denied on that portion of the property not being used for timber operations; and that the agricultural classification for that portion of the property being used for timber operations be granted.  At this time, the VAB is addressing that portion of property, the citrus grove, which is not being used for timber operations, and a recommendation of denial.

Chairman Cadwell called for a vote on the motion, which was carried unanimously by a 4-0 vote, to deny the agricultural exemption on that portion of the property not being used for timber operations, in Petition 2006-86 – Howey in the Hills, LTD.

Petition 2006-211 – Andrew Colby

On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded Mr. Strong and carried by a 3-0 vote, the VAB approved to uphold the recommendation of the special master and rule in favor of the Property Appraiser to deny Petition 2006-211 – Andrew Colby.

Commr. Renick abstained from voting, as noted in her comments above.

Three Times Presumption

Mr. Minkoff stated that there were 19 cases where the Property Appraiser objected to the recommendation of the special master; 15 of those cases involve one issue and that is someone purchasing agricultural lands for more than three times the agricultural valuation.  Those cases on Page 2 of the Memorandum are as follows:

            Grant                2006-62                                    Lori Ann Herrman & Jean-Mark P. Stark

            Grant                2006-64                                    Good Earth, LLC (Champion)

            Grant                2006-46/47/48/49                       Benderson Randall Trustee et al

            Grant                2006-30/31/32/33/34/35/36         Drew Pastures

            Grant                2006-94/95/96/231L                   Montverde Investments, LLC

            Grant                2006-60                                    John M. Nabers

            Grant                2006-89                                    Mayro, LLC

            Grant                2006-23/24/25/26                       Amanda Eshbaugh

            Grant                2006-69/70                                Howey Groves, LLC

            Grant                2006-71/72/73                           Joshua High & Julia L. Johnson

            Grant                2006-74/75/76/77/78/79              Gordon Tender, LLC/Baker Heritage, LLC/et al

            Grant                2006-59                                    John & Judy Page

            Grant                2006-57                                    Ronald Ingles

            Grant                2006-90/91/92/93                       BL Land Investments, LLC

            Grant                2006-86                                    Howey in the Hills LTD

Mr. Minkoff explained that there is the Florida Administrative Code section, which has been presented to the VAB this morning in its entirety, which says that, if someone pays more than three times the assessed agricultural value of the property, there has to be special circumstances in order to keep the agricultural exemption.  This same issue was before the VAB last year, and the VAB asked his office to look at it, and they made a recommendation that the special master decision overturning the Property Appraiser be denied, and that the agricultural exemptions be denied at that time.  Their recommendation this year is different mainly based upon a court case that was decided in their circuit by Judge G. Richard Singeltary in November where he ruled, based upon a line of cases that do not only have to do with special circumstances that, if you are continuing agricultural use on the property, you can still get the agricultural classification.  In these 15 cases, the special master found that agricultural use was on the property, but this issue is that the people paid three times more and, in most cases, way more than three times the value of the property.  The issue before them is whether or not special circumstances need to be shown in order to keep the agricultural classification when you pay in excess of three times the value, or whether or not just continued agricultural use, even if you paid more than three times the value, qualifies you for the classification.  Mr. Minkoff noted that the case that was decided by Judge Singeltary, as noted, is being appealed by the Property Appraiser to the District Court of Appeal.

Commr. Cadwell stated that there is a case now that says what the law is in Lake County and he is inclined to agree with the special master clearly because of the law that has been determined in circuit court.

Commr. Renick pointed out that the case is under appeal and last year the County Attorney recommended that the VAB deny these types of cases, and now the recommendation is to grant these agricultural cases based on the one case, and they hardly have a definitive answer when the case is under appeal.  She would be more comfortable overturning the special master and denying these three times cases.

Commr. Cadwell felt that, since there was a case that had been decided in court that overturned the decision of the special master, he really did not want to see them having to spend money again, but he felt that they were going to end up in court no matter what decision they made today, so he did not really feel they were going to save any money by using that argument.  He stated that this was one of his arguments that there is a case that has been tried; the judge ruled; and if that is what the law is in Lake County, then they need to abide by it.

Commr. Renick made a motion to deny all of those cases that the special master wanted to grant that fall under the three times rule.

Commr. Cadwell wanted to clarify the motion, that the VAB would overturn the recommendations of the special master and uphold the ruling by the Property Appraiser and deny the cases.

Commr. Cadwell called for a second to the motion.

Under discussion, Commr. Stivender stated that this motion would be going against what the Lake County judge had ruled.

Commr. Renick clarified that the motion was to uphold the Property Appraiser’s opinion and not the special master’s recommendation to grant these cases.

Mr. Minkoff explained that a 2-2 vote would mean that the motion failed and they would have to adjourn and come back when they have a full board, because these are cases where they actually need decisions by the VAB.

Commr. Cadwell seconded the motion for discussion.

Commr. Stivender stated that, if Judge Singeltary has already made a statement and is their local judge, they have to follow that rule, even if it is an appeal.

Mr. Strong explained that he has served on the VAB for many years, and they have been provided with a great deal of information, and he believes it supports upholding the special master’s recommendation.  The local judge’s opinion has gotten to the appellate level, and he is not sure that it would carry any more weight, and he has taken that into consideration as well.

Commr. Cadwell asked the County Attorney, if the VAB makes a ruling today, and this case that they are basing their decision on is overturned in the appellate court, how it would affect these cases if they end up in the court.

Mr. Minkoff explained that, unless these cases were challenged, they would stand; so unless litigation began, what happens with that other case would not affect these cases.  If  the VAB makes a ruling today to uphold the recommendation of the special master and, if the Property Appraiser did challenge them, and then the appellate court did rule in the Property Appraiser’s favor, then the trial court would agree with the Property Appraiser in these cases when they came to trial.

Discussion occurred regarding the timing with it being noted that an extension of the tax role has been done, so a week or two would not have a negative impact on this process.

Commr. Renick stated that the issue comes down to whether or not land that is being purchased for future development should be allowed to maintain the tax break in the mean time.  She stated that the question is not answered to her satisfaction as long as the case is still in appeal.  She does not think they have a definitive answer.  After reading all of the information, she is not judging it based on any legal opinion, and she feels that the question will be answered in appeal.

Commr. Cadwell explained that the spirit of the law was created to help folks stay in the agriculture business.

Recess & Reassembly

At 9:02 a.m., Mr. Strong requested a five minute recess, in order to try and reach another School Board member.

Recess & Reassembly

At 9:10 a.m., Commr. Cadwell reconvened the meeting and announced that they were unable to reach the fifth member of the VAB.

Commr. Cadwell called for a vote on the motion that was on the floor, to overturn the special master’s recommendation and uphold the Property Appraiser’s denial in the 15 cases, as noted.

Commr. Cadwell and Commr. Renick voted in favor of the motion

Commr. Stivender and Mr. Strong voted against the motion.

The vote was 2-2 with it being noted that the motion failed, and the issue would be rescheduled before a full board.

Late Filing

Mr. Minkoff explained that, as noted in the Memorandum, the special master recommended overturning the Property Appraiser’s denial of an exemption based on late filing in four cases.

Three out of the four cases involved agricultural exemptions, Petition 2006-217L – Carl Rudnick, Agent, Spencer Estates of Florida, LLC; Petitions 2006-167L and 2006-168L – Akron Meadows, LLC; and Petition 2006-231L – Montverde Investments, LLC; one case, Petition 2006-147L - Gregory F. & Lorraine A. Tighe, involved a homestead exemption.

Mr. Minkoff explained that, in the three agricultural exemption cases, as noted, the special master did not make any specific factual findings to show that there were any extenuating circumstances for late filing.  Their opinion is that, in order to justify late filing, you have to have extenuating circumstances.  There should be factual findings made by the special master.  The recommendation was that the special master should be overturned and the denials upheld in the following cases:

2006-217L – Carl Rudnick, Agent, Spencer Estates of Florida, LLC

2006-167L and 2006-168L – Akron Meadows, LLC

2006-231L – Montverde Investments, LLC

Mr. Frank Royce, Chief Deputy, Property Appraiser’s Office, clarified that, even though Montverde Investments had more than one case, the only one the VAB is addressing right now is Petition 2006-231L, which is parcel number 01-22-26-15000000C00.

On a motion by Mr. Strong, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously by a 4-0 vote, the VAB approved to overturn the recommendations of the special master and rule in favor of the Property Appraiser’s recommendation of denial, in the following cases:

2006-217L – Carl Rudnick, Agent, Spencer Estates of Florida, LLC

2006-167L and 2006-168L – Akron Meadows, LLC

2006-231L – Montverde Investments, LLC (parcel number 01-22-26-15000000C00)

Mr. Minkoff explained that, in Petition 2006-147L - Gregory F. & Lorraine A. Tighe, which was a homestead case, the extenuating circumstances rule is not involved because the agricultural statute does not apply to this case, and the recommendation is that this homestead be granted and that the special master be upheld; and the Property Appraiser does not object to that recommendation.

On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Mr. Strong and carried unanimously by a 4-0 vote, the VAB approved to uphold the recommendation of the special master and grant the homestead in Petition 2006-147L – Gregory F. & Lorraine A. Tighe.

Valuation Hearings

Mr. Minkoff pointed out that the special master was recommending that the VAB grant only one valuation case, Petition 2006-302L – James L. and Joan K. Langford, where he lowered the valuation, and they have not received anything from the Property Appraiser objecting to his recommendation.  The VAB would be approving all of the special master’s recommendations on the valuation cases.

Commr. Renick had a question regarding Petition 2006-289 – William Martin Gurley.  She stated that she was given information, and that originally the Property Appraiser had recommended $117,000; when it came back, it was $118,818.  She asked for clarification of the discrepancy.

Mr. Royce explained that whatever was on the trim notice would be the actual amount, the total assessment, which was confirmed.

On a motion by Mr. Strong, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously by a 4-0 vote, the VAB approved to uphold the recommendation of the special master on all valuation cases, as noted on the agenda, and as follows:

            Deny                2006-121                                   Ljubica & Slavoljub Stefanovic

            Deny                2006-126                                   Leonard B. Johnson

            Deny                2006-214                                   Veranda Mt. Dora, LLC/Hines Property Tax Con.

            Deny                2006-275                                   Rosemont Manor LTD

            Deny                2006-276                                   Rosemont Manor II LTD

            Deny                2006-277                                   Clermont RRH, LTD

            Deny                2006-134                                   Patricia M. & Orville Mann, III

            Deny                2006-170                                   Kohl’s Dept. Stores, Inc. #799

            Deny                2006-144                                   David & Mary Maeder

            Deny                2006-156                                   George A. Bonifacino

            Deny                2006-157                                   George A. Bonifacino

            Deny                2006-160-A                               Kenneth M. Roach

            Deny                2006-160-B                               Kenneth M. Roach

            Deny                2006-160-C                               Kenneth M. Roach

            Deny                2006-294L                                Martin M. & Carole L. Slavin

            Deny                2006-301L                                John W. & Laurie Pierce

            Deny                2006-207                                   Florida Cable, Inc.

            Deny                2006-208                                   Florida Cable, Inc,

            Deny                2006-209                                   Florida Cable, Inc.

            Deny                2006-224                                   Bradford Davis

            Deny                2006-163                                   Nelle Rose Rasmus, Life Estate

            Deny                2006-164                                   Mark E. & Gay B. Meinke

            Deny                2006-165                                   Richard A. & M. Jean Ekstrand

            Deny                2006-169                                   David L. & Teresa A. Brown

            Deny                2006-171                                   Nancy Edenfield for Eric Edenfield

            Deny                2006-192                                   Eric K. & Helen C. Cadwell

            Deny                2006-194                                   Sidney N. & Marie L. Stribling

            Deny                2006-195                                   Rocco J. & Judith A. Colella

            Deny                2006-196                                   Morris Investment Group, LLC

            Deny                2006-199                                   Florida Twin Markets, Inc.

            Deny                2006-200                                   Florida Twin Markets, Inc.

            Deny                2006-201                                   Florida Twin Markets, Inc.

            Deny                2006-202                                   Florida Twin Markets, Inc.

            Deny                2006-203                                   Florida Twin Markets, Inc.

            Deny                2006-210                                   Donald C. & Lucy E. Oblazney

            Deny                2006-216                                   Bjarne & Frances M. Guttormsen

            Deny                2006-204                                   Dan R. & Stasia Warren

            Deny                2006-221                                   John & Janice Daly

            Deny                2006-222                                   John & Janice Daly

            Deny                2006-228                                   John A. & Teresa L. Gaither

            Deny                2006-237                                   South Toler Inc./First American Tax Valuation

            Deny                2006-248                                   BP America, Inc.

            Deny                2006-254                                   Hertz Equipment Rental

            Deny                2006-255                                   Hertz Equipment Rental

            Deny                2006-256                                   Hertz Equipment Rental

            Deny                2006-257                                   Hertz Equipment Rental

            Deny                2006-258                                   Hertz Equipment Rental

            Deny                2006-262                                   I Star Bowling Centers

            Deny                2006-278                                   Peter J. & Marjorie L. Lucarelli

            Deny                2006-136                                   Arnold & Sharon Wofse

            Deny                2006-158L                                Donald Stephens

            Deny                2006-177                                   Kmart #4870/Clermont Center, LTD

            Deny                2006-289                                   William Martin Gurley

            Deny                2006-295L                                Veronica V. Brooks, Trustee

            Grant                2006-302L                                James L. & Joan K. Langford

            Deny                2006-303L                                Judith Mascia & Kenneth Alberici

            Deny                2006-183                                   Lake Utility Services Inc.

            Deny                2006-205                                   A. C. Keller

            Deny                2006-218                                   Billy & Ruby Brewer

            Deny                2006-219                                   Billy & Ruby Brewer

            Deny                2006-225                                   Gwen Seckinger-Brown

            Deny                2006-305L                                Wayne & Jane Frank

            Deny                2006-309L                                John K. Freeman

            Deny                2006-313L                                Sajjad Haider

            Deny                2006-198                                   Battaglia Properties LTD

Value Adjustment Board Meeting

Mr. Minkoff recommended that the VAB meet next Tuesday, February 27, 2007, at 8:30 a.m.  The VAB will also have to adopt the final tax impact to be placed in the newspaper.

Exemption Hearings

On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Renick and carried unanimously by a 4-0 vote, the VAB approved to uphold the recommendation of the special master on all cases where they did not receive information either from the property owner or the Property Appraiser, as follows:

                        Petition No.                        Petitioner(s)

            Deny                2006-4                                      CWC Investments, LTD

            Deny                2006-5                                      Cole W. Clayton

            Deny                2006-54                                    Marly M. Vollger

            Deny                2006-55                                    Carl & Liza Vollger

            Deny                2006-99                                    Eagles Landing at Ocoee, Inc.

            Deny                2006-158L                                Donald E. Stephens, et al

            Deny                2006-15/16                                Knights Lake LLC

            Deny                2006-44                                    Ronald & Debra Chapman

            Deny                2006-2                                      Geraldine W. Hylander

            Deny                2006-41                                    Claude D. Ferguson

            Deny                2006-56                                    Dwayne Negron

            Deny                2006-104L                                Michael R. & Rosemarie T. Steve

            Deny                2006-117L                                Dennis & Lisa Pranouskes

            Deny                2006-166L                                Carl E. Dandy & Angel M. Volturno

            Deny                2006-97                                    Patti Lehman

            Deny                2006-105L                                John & Laurel Connell

            Deny                2006-116L                                Norman L. Evans

            Deny                2006-213L                                Fred S. Thomas

            Deny                2006-299L                                Oscar Jamerson

            Deny                2006-51/52                                Prem D. Eumnath

            Deny                2006-296L                                Jorge Martinez

            Deny                2006-297L                                Andrew Vassos

            Deny                2006-306L                                Cynthia Wilcox-Diaz

            Deny                2006-310L                                Lynnea Hebner et al

            Deny                2006-311L                                Beatrice C. Boyce

            Deny                2006-312L                                Marlene Saxarra

The meeting was adjourned at 9:23 a.m.  The Chairman announced that the VAB will reconvene on February 27, 2007 at 8:30 a.m.

 

 

 

 

 

__________________________________

WELTON G. CADWELL, CHIARMAN

 

ATTEST:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

__________________________

JAMES C. WATKINS, CLERK