from POI Hank. Perhaps you can ask
him and report his answer to me.
Also, ask him why he "reluctantly" voted
yes to reimburse Mr. La Cour
for buying the property at what he and
others believe is a highly inflated price.
=========================================
October 13, 2009
Property values fall
Commercial real-estate appraisals show declining trend
By DEREK CATRON Staff
Writer, Daytona Beach News-Journal
....A review of property records over the last two years divided by
classification -- how the land is used -- provides insight into the
business community in the Volusia-Flagler area. Needless to say, the news
is nothing to cheer.
Property appraisers track values by class each year. But by comparing
reports from different years, broader trends are revealed.
For example, while the number of hotels in Volusia County stayed
roughly the same from last year, their combined market value is down by
one-fourth. The county's 47 golf courses, on the other hand, were down
less than 7 percent, while its 98 bars, lounges and nightclubs were down
about 12 percent.
"It's an interesting (way) to look at the value change," Volusia
County Property Appraiser Morgan Gilreath said after seeing a copy of the
chart put together by The News-Journal. "It's like our once-a-year
snapshot of the economies of our different business classes."
It's important to keep in mind that the values represent assessments
for Jan. 1, and the values have been changing over the last nine months,
Gilreath said.
"It would be a misrepresentation to say that's where we are
currently," said Gilreath, who predicts this year will produce an even
bigger downturn for commercial properties.
Another caveat: Changes in how properties are classified from year to
year can create false spikes or dips.
But the assessments reflect economic conditions in part because how
...
From: Parker, Ken Sent: Monday, October 12, 2009 11:46 AM To: poimages@cfl.rr.com Cc: City Council; Parker, Ken Subject: FW: Fw: Ridgewood Funeral Properties LLC to POTC CRA
Hank:
Attached
are documents that the City has received related to the Funeral Home
Property. These were the closing documents showing what McGurn and
LaCour paid for the Funeral Home property. Further, the CRA is
required to have a certified MAI appraisal before we can acquire
property. The appraisal supports the amount the CRA paid for the
property. The CRA did not just come up with a price and then pay it.
It is supported by legally supportable materials. It is my
understanding that Lohman’s had the opportunity to allocate cost for
tax purposes differently because of the way they were acquiring several
parcels of land and businesses. Nevertheless, the documents that have
been provided to the City clearly show how much was paid for the
property. I will have Becky provide you with a copy of the appraisal
as well. If you have questions, please feel free to contact me.
Ken
Becky:
would you provide Hank with a copy of the MAI appraisal for the Lohman
property that was acquired last week by the CRA.
Ken
---- POI Hank replies to Mr. Parker
Oct. 14, 2009 at 1253 am
Mr. Parker, thank you for the
information you and Becky have sent me.
I cannot post a PDF form on my web site,
but I have invited POI readers who might
be interested, to request POI to forward
the e mail attachments to them,
or to make the same request to Becky
Groom at the City of Port Orange.
--- hank
======================================
Received Oct. 13, 2009
Mr. Ken Parker, city manager of Port
Orange has provided POI
with a copy of the appraisal for
the Lohman property. It is in e mail PDF form
but I cannot get it onto this web site. If you want an e
mail copy of the appraisal
you can contact me (poi hank) at
poimages@cfl.rr.com, and I will e mail it to you.
Or you can request a copy of the appraisal from the City of Port
Orange
Received from Craig E. Young, Oct. 13, 2009 at 10 PM
HERE'S THE ORIGINAL STORY; For those of you who didn't see it......
Bottom line: We just spent $812,000 for a property that sold for
$575,000 just 10 months ago, at a time when all of OUR property
values are DROPPING LIKE A ROCK.
Riverwalk goal shrinks by .68
acres
By KELLY CUCULIANSKY
Staff Writer
PORT
ORANGE -- It wasn't easy convincing redevelopment leaders to buy a
small parcel at what seemed to be too steep a price to fulfill a
piece of the city's Riverwalk dream.
Faced with an $812,000 price tag for .68 acres, board members
begrudgingly approved the purchase by a 5-2 vote during Tuesday
night's meeting of the Town Center Community Redevelopment Agency.
The property makes up one piece of the puzzle in the city's Riverwalk,
a future village center that would be built in phases extending north
from Dunlawton Avenue on the east side of the Halifax River.
The parcel, at 3571 Ridgewood Ave., is slated for public use --
possibly for parking, utilities or public streets -- in the 35-acre
Riverwalk project. While most agency officials said it seemed too
expensive for about 100 feet of U.S. 1 frontage, the city's partners,
who bought the land late last year from a mortuary business, urged
them to consider what would have happened if someone else had bought
it.
So far, the city has acquired about 16 acres in the area. Buddy
LaCour, a Riverwalk partner and developer, said the land, currently
leased by Lohman Funeral Homes, is a "critical piece" for the project
that abuts other Riverwalk sites.
"As your master developer, we came to the city and reported that
this was not only an opportunity, but an obstacle should the funeral
home get in there and operate that facility long term," LaCour said.
"I don't think anyone ever envisioned a funeral home at the front
door of Riverwalk. That's why we did what we did expeditiously."
Kenneth McGurn, another private partner involved in Riverwalk,
said he spent about $805,000 in a real estate deal last December when
the land came up for sale because it was too risky to wait for the
city to research and execute the purchase. If another business had
set up shop at the site, it could have cost the city an unknown
amount of money to buy it out.
"The city could not react as quickly as we could," said McGurn,
who bought the land as a managing member of Ridgewood Funeral
Properties LLC. "Did we want to do that? We did not. But we held it
for the city so the city did not have to use condemnation to acquire
the business."
McGurn said he was asking for about $812,000 to recoup the doc
stamps and title insurance costs and called it a "break even" deal.
An appraisal report also supported the price.
While nearly every redevelopment board member questioned the
expense, Ben Talluto balked at the asking price, but eventually
conceded to support the purchase. It didn't seem worth it, he said,
especially since there was no telling which phase or exactly when it
would be developed.
"This group is in a box. The city pretty much has the commitment,"
he said. "We've got an $800,000 commitment that we're choking on, to
be blunt."
Board member Bob Pohlman, who voted it down alongside Thomas
Jordan, said he couldn't support it in these economic times. "I'm not
a real estate expert, but I'm thinking to myself I just cannot
believe this is worth $812,000."
Meanwhile, board member Allen Green asked his colleagues to
consider the fact that a funeral home was considering building a
managing facility at that location, "which would never get them out
of there."
"You have to look at the total project and the total cost of the
project," Green said. "If you look at incremental parts, you're going
to have ups and downs."
The private partners had been in discussion with the city about
the land prior to buying the land and City Manager Ken Parker said
was a much quicker option for the private sector to acquire it. At
some point in the future, parts of it may be sold back to the private
sector if needed.
To pay for it, the Community Redevelopment Agency is using money
from its reserve. The City Council also approved $410,000 from the
city loan pool.
Lohman Funeral Homes has a roughly four-year lease agreement for
the property and will pay the redevelopment agency $2,000 a month.
The money will go toward repaying the city loan, staff said.
Subject: Re: Ridgewood Funeral Properties LLC to POTC CRA
Ken,
Three
parts..........the last one is a suggestion that I hope the Council
considers.....
And no, I don't want the Appraisal,
its probably just like the Pension Plan Acturarial Report; based on
fairy tales, and not worth the paper its written on....
PART ONE;
As I understand
it, Cardwell's Funeral Home on Ridgewood Ave. was sold in December of
2008 for $575,000.
The Volusia County
Property Tax Appraisers website notes the following concerning this
particular property;
In
2007, the value of the land was $290,000 and the value of the
building was noted as being $280,475
In
2008, the value of the land was $275,500 and the value of the
building was noted as being $116,178.
But if you look
deeper, you notice in "Additional History", the Value the Land here
was stuck @ $87,000 between the years, 1985-2003, ( THAT'S 19 YEARS)
and after that, it jumped to $130K in 2004, to $278K in 2006, and
finally peaked @ $290,000 in 2007.
A somewhat
similar pattern appears with the Building's Value with one unusual
exception; rising from $107,000 in 1985, to a peak of $280,000 in
2007, and then dropping 58 PERCENT between the years 2007 and
2008.
Now, we all should
know by now that the Volusia County Property Tax Appraiser's numbers
DON'T REFLECT the actual sales price of what any particular property
would sell for in the market.....but I believe his numbers DO show us
TRENDS.
And the trend
in property values here in Volusia County is clearly DOWNWARD.
So I have join
Councilmen Kennedy, Councilman Polhman, and the others on the City
Council who questioned HOW the Council could justify spending over
$800,000 for this same property, NOT TEN MONTHS after it was
purchased for $575.000.....
PART TWO;
A.) I
watched this discussion on POGTV; and noted that several times, Mr.
LaCour and his partner stressed that they had Not Only "BOUGHT THE
PROPERTY" for $800,000.....they also "BOUGHT THE BUSINESS". And Mr.
LaCour bought-up the issue of the business's "Good Will", which he
purchased along with the property.
But didn't the current owners
of this property, buy the PROPERTY, and the BUSINESS, and its GOOD
WILL.....10 months ago, for $575,000?
B.) Mr. LaCour,
while trying to justify this purchase, noted that the current owners
had "plans" to expand the business, and therefore, it was worth more
than what they paid for just 10 months prior!
I liken this to
homeowner, who has every intention of replacing a bathroom or a
kitchen, but "hasn't gotten around to it".....and then tries to tell
a prospective buyer that his house is worth more, since he has
"PLANS"..... TO DO SO!
(That's a neat
trick, but I don't think it would work)
And in this case,
there were no additions to the property, and no additional income
being derived from the property, (that weren't there, 10 months ago)
to account for a sales price that represented a 40 percent increase
in 10 MONTHS.
PART THREE;
This is all water
under the bridge now.....
But I belive the
Council needs to RETHNK how they go about purchasing the remaining
properties in Riverwalk.
Its simply a Bad
Public Policy to have a Private Entity, purchase property in the name
of the City. ( And you can call it what you want...but in the end,
that's what this was)
Unless, of course,
you, or the Mayor, or other members of the City Council would like me
to purchase your next home, with the caveat being, YOU HAVE TO PAY
ME, WHATEVER I PAID FOR IT.
(ps....I have
expensive tastes)
Bottom
Line:.......People are upset about this; It appears to them,
like they had somebody running around with OUR CITY'S CHECKBOOK!
AND THEY DIDN'T VOTE FOR HIM!
Here's some
additional reading; and some quotes...
Property values
fall
Commercial
real-estate appraisals show declining trend
"Many more factors have to be taken into
account for appraising commercial properties, including vacancy
rates, lease agreements and income from the property -- which could
include the rent an office building generates; the price per square
foot for retail space in a shopping center; the occupancy and room
rates at a hotel. "It's not the income from the business," Gilreath
noted. "It's the income from the property."
Changes between selected 2008 and 2009
Volusia County Property Tax Listings
From:
Parker, Ken Sent: Monday,
October 12, 2009 1:14 PM To:
'cey@bellsouth.net' Cc:
Parker, Ken; City Council Subject: FW:
Ridgewood Funeral Properties LLC to POTC CRA (forgot attachements)
Craig:
I
have attached the following documents for your review related to
the acquisition of the Lohman property. The documents show exactly
what McGurn and LaCour paid for the Lohman property. Normally, we
would not be privileged to examine the details of a private sector
acquisition. The CRA has a MAI appraisal on the Lohman property.
Before the City can acquire any property, we have to have an
appraisal. The appraisal must support the acquisition price. If
you would like to review the appraisal, please let me know. I will
be most happy to provide it to you.
Ken
PORT ORANGE
TOWN CENTER COMMUNITY
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
MEETING OF OCT. 6, 2009
==========================================
"River
walk" is.....ITS AN ILLUSION
Tricky Dickel replies to Craig E.
Young
Oct. 12, 2009
Craig, Ya think maybe Mr. McGurn got "cold feet" and decided that he
better get his money out of his investment before Riverwalk becomes a
fantasy? He probably asked Mr. Lacour to help him out, and get his money
back.
------------ AND POI HANK
RESPONDS, OCT. 12, 2009
I myself, in my usual skeptical manner, wonder why
Lohman's would buy a piece of property that is publicly known to
eventually be
taken over by the city in its RCA plans, in phase 2
or 3? But the buying of Cardwell's at $500,000 makes sense, if it
is schemed to be bought by La Cour for $800,000,
under the guise that Lohman's plans to expand and build a cemetery,
on land scheduled to be taken over by the River Walk
Project. But Lohman's would have to suspect that the city would not
buy the land from Lohman for $800,000. And thus
steps in La Cour and his partner, agreeing to buy the land, at the
inflated
price, knowing that the city would be afraid to piss
off its partner by not buying the land from La Cour. Perhaps La Cour
can
be the developer for Lohman to find another place
other than the CRA area and La Cour can be hired to develop a new
Lohman
project for expansion and a cemetery. What do you
think? Not possible?
After all these years of Mr. Parker being in the
business of control operations and communicating with those on the
council board
and the CRA board, it does not strike me plausible,
that Mr. Parker just realized that a more up to date mode of
communication
is needed, so that someone like Ben is not left out
of the loop before he is called upon to vote on an $800,000 project. I
question Mr. Parker's position, implying that keeping CRA members
advised of what is going on behind the scenes on land acquisition, is
somewhat new to
him, and he takes Ben's argument, as "a good point
he brings up.".
Is there a deliberate communication problem in City
Hall, with the public, and with some who need information to vote on
expensive projects? At the risk of sounding
repetitive, and perhaps hearing from Mayor Green, "That's enough,
Hank!" let me
state again that some years ago the planning commission in a memo
wanted to ask the city council to declare a moratorium
on future development in Port Orange, because of
Concurrency and expense requirements. The city manager refused to
send that memo to the city council. Was that a wise communication
move?
And you probably know already, that I have great
concerns about the flow of information to the public
on the reasoning behind some of the votes the city
council renders on issues. We from time to time hear
about their visions for Port Oranges, but very
little as to why they are voting on issues as they do.
Jordan opposed the $800,000 figure and voted no.
Pohlmann opposed the $800,00 figure and voted no.
Kennedy opposed the $800,00 figure but voted yes.
He needs to explain to the public why he did so.
The Mayor did not oppose the $800,000 figure and
voted yes. I need no explanation from him. I know where he stands
on construction, building and developers' projects.
Mary Martin questioned the $800,000 figure but voted
yes, because she remembered some previous conversation about the
project, but did not explain to us what that
conversation was .
George Steindoerfer, reluctantly voted yes, and I
know that at least in the case of Port Orange Images, he
does not intend to answer any questions about his
voting decisions. Is this a communication problem?
Ben was opposed to the price of the land
acquisition, and was told in effect by the Mayor to shut up. Ben then
voted
yes and choked on his vote to pay the price of $800,000. Did he cower
before the Mayor? Ben complained
that he was not informed about this issue, before hand. A good point
indeed, but why did Ben vote yes?
The proposition to pay La Cour $800,000 could have
and should have been defeated.
Jordan a no.
Pohlmann a no.
Kennedy should have been a no if he thought the price was too high.
Ben should have been a no, after all of his
protesting.
The vote could have been and should have been, 4 to
3, to not give La Cour $800,000.,
But should they care? The investors (choke on that
you tax payers) will pay the inflated price, for a deal made with
faulty
if not secret communication.
It is time to make our city council members
accountable, by asking them to explain their votes and decisions.
I ask the city council members to answer this e
mail, so that I can publish their answers on the POI web site,
PORT ORANGE
-- It wasn't easy convincing redevelopment leaders to buy a small parcel
at what seemed to be too steep a price to fulfill a piece of the city's
Riverwalk dream.
Faced with an $812,000 price tag for .68 acres, board members
begrudgingly approved the purchase by a 5-2 vote during Tuesday night's
meeting of the Town Center Community Redevelopment Agency.
MY COMMEnTS...ON THIS SUBJECT(so far)...... were put
to music; many, many years ago..........SEE!
CLICK ON THIS LINK BELOW..................AND TURN ON YOUR
SPEAKERS.....
There will be a show tonight on trampoline
The Hendersons will all be there
Late of Pablo-Fanques is there, what a scene
Over men and horses hoops and garters
Lastly through a hogshead of real fire!
In this way Mr. K. will challenge the world!
(Circus organ music)
The celebrated Mr. K.
Performs his feat on Saturday at Bishopsgate
The Hendersons will dance and sing
As Mr. Kite flies through the ring don't be late
Mrs. K and H. assure the public
Their production will be second to none
And of course Henry The Horse dances the waltz-!
(Circus organ music)
The band begins at ten to six
When Mr. K. performs his tricks without a sound
And Mr. H. will demonstrate
Ten somersets he'll undertake on solid ground
Having been some days in preparation
A splendid time is guaranteed for all
And tonight Mr. Kite is topping the bill-.
(Circus organ music.)
MY QUESTIONS ( so far)
#1. Why are the Taxpayers doing business
WITH CIRCUS PEOPLE?
Because that's exactly what "River
walk" is.....ITS AN ILLUSION..............
#2. Do you ever wonder HOW MUCH THE CITY
COUNCIL WILL BE WILLING TO PAY YOU! ......FOR
YOUR HOUSE?
ps
WHEN IS COMING UP ON THE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA?
REMEMBER: WHEN IT DOES, THE PUBLIC HAS THE
RIGHT TO SPEAK TO IT.
& & & & & & & & & & & & &
POI hank suggests:
The public can go to a city
council and speak up about this issue.
And, it can also send an e mail question
about this issue to each council member.
I suggest the public ask each council
member, when he/she first heard about this issue
of buying 2/3 of an acre of land for
$800,000. Also, how many e mails, telephone calls
and face to face discussions took place
about this issue, before it came up in the CRA
meeting of Oct. 6, 2009?
When and if you receive a reply from a city council member,
send me your original questions and the
reply from the council member,
and I will publish that interesting
information on the POI web site.
By KELLY CUCULIANSKY Staff
Writer, Daytona Beach News-Journal
....While nearly
every redevelopment board member questioned the expense, Ben Talluto
balked at the asking price, but eventually conceded to support the
purchase. It didn't seem worth it, he said, especially since there was no
telling which phase or exactly when it would be developed.
"This group is in a box. The city pretty much has the commitment," he
said. "We've got an $800,000 commitment that we're choking on, to be
blunt."
Board member Bob Pohlman, who voted it down alongside Thomas Jordan,
said he couldn't support it in these economic times. "I'm not a real
estate expert, but I'm thinking to myself I just cannot believe this is
worth $812,000."
Meanwhile, board member Allen Green asked his colleagues to consider
the fact that a funeral home was considering building a managing facility
at that location, "which would never get them out of there."
"You have to look at the total project and the total cost of the
project," Green said. "If you look at incremental parts, you're going to
have ups and downs."
The private partners had been in discussion with the city about the
land prior to buying the land and City Manager Ken Parker said was a much
quicker option for the private sector to acquire it. At some point in the
future, parts of it may be sold back to the private sector if needed.
To pay for it, the Community Redevelopment Agency is using money from
its reserve. The City Council also approved $410,000 from the city loan
pool.
Lohman Funeral Homes has a roughly four-year lease agreement for the
property and will pay the redevelopment agency $2,000 a month. The money
will go toward repaying the city loan, staff said.