The Antelope County Board of
Supervisor’s convened as a
Notice of the meeting was
given in advance thereof by publication in the four county newspapers, legal
newspapers printed and in general circulation in
Antelope County Assessor
The following are the names
of the persons who filed a property valuation protest, the parcel number and
the action of the
Dana Sheridan Dana
Sheridan was present for protest.
Parcel number 000045200
Protest Reason/Reasons
for protest Neb. Rev. Stat. 77-1502(2) is exorbitant increase which requires
further explanation to answers requested this date. Also proven record of
decrease in home values nationwide.
This is a formal request for freedom of information data concerning all
aspects and itemization of our property.
My request is for a written and mailed answer to the following questions
I have in this matter of my concern: 1. Who is the current Assessor? 2. Who
are members of the (names) Antelope County Board of Supervisors. 3. Who
is responsible for the recommendation to increase valuation on our property.
Specifically who “looked at said property and made the “suggestion” or
order to increase it?” Please note that
a general “the board” is not specific enough.
I need to know the name of the person who did this, as I need to address
that person in this regard. 4. Please itemize all aspects of this
evaluation. 5. May I have a copy of “the minutes” of my 2010
appeal hearing before the Antelope County Board of Supervisors or Board of
Equalization specifically and also a (writing unclear) by board and office
personnel concerning that appeal and recommendations made as a result. Also by whom were recommendations made, by
name (?). 6. If there is a difference
between the Antelope Board of Supervisors and Antelope Board of Equalization
then I also request to know the names of both as my appeal was heard by
“Equalization”. Please mail me answers
to all the above questions within 10 business days. Also note that this serves as my written
protest of your 2011 assessment.
John Fuchtman John
Fuchtman was not present for protest.
Parcel number 000398700
Protest Land
– 30 acres too wet to farm – waste.
Brett M. Morrison Brett Morrison
was not present for protest.
Parcel number 000610101
Protest While
I think it’s important to point out that we don’t necessarily subscribe to the
conspiracy theory that says that the State, dominated by Lincoln and Omaha politicians
and programs, is unfairly trying to suck more money out of the rural areas by
imposing the state wide use of a property valuation computer program issued by
them, what I do want to say about the program is that, while it may be very
accurate for computing valuations in high population areas, or even on farm
ground in rural areas for which there have been several recent sales of similar
farm ground, it doesn’t appear to be at all accurate in adjusting valuations on
buildings in very rural areas. Even
residential buildings appear to be over-valued in our smaller towns and rural
areas, but the commercial buildings look to be the most poorly adjusted for
location. Sales opportunities for our
small town and rural houses and commercial buildings are few and far
between. The growth in our rural areas,
unfortunately, is negative in nearly all respects, with the exception of the
recent upturn in ag returns due to high grain prices, and the rally in
production farm ground prices that resulted but otherwise, our rural
communities have suffered great devaluations for decades now, and that is
reflected in the selling prices of homes and even more greatly in our
commercial buildings. While the State’s
computer program claims to adjust for location, it is obvious that it isn’t
adjusting appropriately. And that’s
exactly why our county needs our local Board of Equalization. While the exact designation used to determine
this new valuation on these specific buildings above may also be brought into
question, the main problem is that the “per square foot value” assigned by the
computer program used is far too high no matter what designation is entered for
our very rural area of Nebraska, and our State’s very rural location compared
to national population centers. Morrison
family members grow popcorn and dry edible beans and bring them to our own
family farmstead base to store these crops.
We also, then, clean this grain and bag it. The vast majority of the beans are simply
bagged into bulk (not retail) bags and then shipped away to other companies
that either (1) package into smaller retail size packages or (2) cook and “can”
the beans for retail distribution. A
very small percentage of what we do entails packaging product for retail, in
either popcorn or dry edible beans. In
the buildings specifically in question here, no small pack for retail
distribution is done at all. I make this
argument in reference to the “use” designation for the purposes of your
computer program, however, again, no matter what designation is used, it
appears as though the resulting valuation will be far higher than is
accurate. If these buildings were sold
today, I believe there could be two potential buyers: (1) Neighboring farmers
that wished to use the buildings for equipment storage, or (2) Another
competing dry edible bean business or similar specialty grain company. The buildings and processing facilities are
far too small and inefficient for being utilized as a commercial corn or
soybean elevator and they aren’t located on rail. A farmer, if buying one or both of these
buildings for farm equipment storage, would have to remove some of the
inconvenient features of these buildings and their contents in order to use
them as equipment storage. That could
cost thousands. I believe that if I were
forced to sell, one of the buildings might bring $100,000 and the other might
never get a bid for use as farm storage because there is too much in the
way. As for a dry bean business
competitor buying us out, I’m well connected nationally, and the few businesses
that have sold, have sold for nearly nothing.
Worse still is that the number of acres of dry beans grown in our
immediate area that deliver to our facilities is very small, and are almost exclusively
represented by those sewn by the Morrison Farms family members, so I can’t even
think of a competitor that would even consider buying our facilities for any
price. While I do bring in beans from
grower’s several states away, we do it mainly to have enough volume to justify
our facilities and payroll and in order to be large enough to play the game on
the marketing end. But, again, we’re not
located on rail, and it’s a very difficult and costly undertaking to say the
least. If a valuation is based on the
amount a property could be expected bring if sold, in all honesty, I think my
requested $450,000 figure is probably even a couple hundred thousand dollars
high. I would love to be surprised, but
I do believe that if I quit tomorrow and threw the keys at my banker, these
buildings would possibly never sell. If
they did, it would be for a very modest amount.
And that is what we need our local Board of Equalization to determine
and set the State straight. Build
ConAgra a headquarters in downtown
Frank C. Morrison Frank C.
Morrison was not present for protest.
Parcel number 000610000
Protest The
most alarming thing about this property valuation, is that without added
improvements, we’re currently looking at a valuation that is not 25% higher,
not 30% higher, not that has “doubled”, but that has more than tripled in one
year. The second most alarming thing is
the actual valuation which we firmly believe far exceeds any reasonable or
logical re-sale for the buildings. These
buildings, while they are relatively large, clear span, steel buildings, are
not insulated, are not located anywhere near any population center. They are not located on or near rail, or even
any paved roads, for that matter. In the
winter time and after a rain, they are nearly inaccessible except by farm
tractor. These buildings were originally
built, and then added onto, mainly for ear corn storage for popcorn, otherwise
known as specialized grain storage. As
the ear corn harvesting became more and more unaffordable and less necessary
due to better hybrids and better combines, etc, the buildings have been
relatively unused except for the storage of tractors, implements, and other
such farm equipment. We have, a few
years ago, used one to pile shelled popcorn on the floor as over-run to our bin
storage, and one stores some wagons and totes of another specialty crop with
which we’re experimenting, so they are still occasionally used for harvested
crops. And we receive totes of treated
edible bean seed into one prior to planting occasionally, but most accurately,
they are “farm storage” buildings mostly for farm equipment. Most importantly, due to the extremely rural
location, without sewer, water, gas, phone, or other such services, and without
anything but dirt trail roads near them, the likelihood that anyone would ever
be interested in these buildings for any commercial purpose is highly
unlikely. The fact that the walls are
not built to withstand the pressures of grain being piled against them, makes them undesirable as shelled grain storage
buildings. These shelters don’t even
seal up since the multiple 30 or 40 foot openings don’t even have doors on
them. We firmly believe that the most
likely use (and probably only realistic use) for these buildings, would be for
non-insulated farm equipment storage by neighboring farmers, which is all we
are really using them for today. These
buildings cost less, even today, than currently valuated under the new,
protested valuation, and it would be hard to imagine anyone offering more than
$100,000 for either of these side by side buildings as a used, though not
terribly old, building in a far less than ideal location. Thank you for considering our request.
Wade Pitzer Wade
Pitzer was present for protest.
Parcel number 000432801
Protest Comparing
the included comps the cost per sq ft ranges from 69.68 to 77.87 ours is
currently 101.33 we are asking for an adjustment to 70.00 per sq ft to be
consistent with others.
Motion by Williby, seconded by Brandt
to adjourn. Those voting aye: Bolling, Brandt, Henery, Kerkman,
Baker, Williby
and Schwager. Nays none. Motion
carried.
Meeting adjourned at
ANTELOPE