BOA minutes 030810 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

APPROVED 5/10/2010 OC Board of Adjustment – 3/8/2010 Page 50 of 86 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 Vic Knight: That is correct. Nick Herman: We don’t have that. Jeffrey Schmitt: Questions by the board. Dawn Brezina: Mr. Knight, the methodology you used to evaluate the sales prices, is that published methodology or did you just look at it a figure out a way to look at it. Vic Knight: There are certainly all kinds of mathematical theories about liner aggression but you could write books and people have written books about it but essentially you have to look at an entire body of information as opposed to any, you and I could make an argument. Dawn Brezina: I am just asking is the methodology you used a standard or a published way of making this type of analysis. Vic Knight: There is a model is a more accurate way. Dawn Brezina: Sometimes there is a name, like the Smith Model. Vic Knight: No. Dawn Brezina: This would be how anyone would look at that kind of data? This would be the type of presentation? Vic Knight: In terms of trying to discover what an appreciation level would be in a defined area, whoever defines that, you would want to look at the sales and resales of properties, residential/non-residential pieces, over some period of time to discover what an appreciation level would be and that is essentially what you are doing. Dawn Brezina: Was it looked at or considered what the value of the property, just looking at his property, would be with the older building that exists there versus the newer building? Vic Knight: No ma’am. The only thing I looked at was making the assumption, which is defined in the report that the proposed facility is there. You have to make the assumption it is there even though it is not and what impact that might have as if it were there. Dawn Brezina: Mr. Maitland, just doing some quick calculations, as you were talking and trying to evaluate the data on the way you were looking at it in terms of before and after, I think you said 2004-2005 was when changes occurred? Rob Maitland: I tried to get certified… Michael Harvey: Mr. Maitland, could I ask you to step up to the mic. Dawn Brezina: Kind of looking at the data at the new rate, the way you were suggesting, I think you need to look at the calculations not the appreciations before 2003 or 2004 were much greater than all the appreciations after that. I only found, I think three, the house that sold in 2002, 2002 and 2004 which I think was predating the construction were in the appreciation ranges per year for those sales. Between 2.0, 2.8 and 3.0% appreciation per year and the ones that sold after 2005 scattered between the .9 and 5.2 averaging about the same and I think they look similar to me. You were comparing them to appreciations every time, you were saying the last sale had an appreciation of 3% but before that it was appreciating at 5 or 6%. I think that may have been the timing as you had previously said taking into account years that had better appreciation than others. Rob Maitland: To answer your first question, I’ll tender this as Defendant’s Exhibit #5 is a Board of County Commissioners Action Item Abstract dated May 1, 2005 that references here that Wal-Mart had recently opened in 2004 and that Home Depot is unknown at this time but could perhaps take place by late 2005. That was about as close as I could do.