STATED CASE SUPPORTING EVIDENCE TO QUESTIONS AND LAND ALLOTMENT. 1. Did the Board err in law when refusing to grant in person an oral hearing?

STATED CASE SUPPORTING EVIDENCE TO QUESTIONS AND LAND ALLOTMENT 1. Did the Board err in law when refusing to grant in person an oral hearing? 1.1 From the decision of the Board appeal 2005-19-00032 (from Board decision). From the Introduction: page 2 paragraph 3 (in whole): [3] The Appellant initially requested an oral hearing "as recent rulings and actions of the assessor demonstrate complete lack of understanding of apiculture. Also video presentation and live witnesses will provide the board with first hand knowledge to make an educated decision on the subject. Cross examination of witnesses and documents must be permitted and any hearsay evidence must be dismissed". 1.2 From Analysis: page 12 paragraph 33 (in part): [33] As to the issue of an in-person hearing, I find the relevant facts are not seriously in dispute, and can be determined from the evidence submitted. As credibility is not an issue, nor the expertise of any party, it is not necessary to hear oral evidence and for the witnesses to be cross-examined. I therefore, deny the request for an oral hearing of this appeal. 1.3 From Introduction: page 2 paragraph 4 (in part): [4] The criteria for determining whether to hold an in-person hearing may include more complicated issues, the nature of the evidence that will be produced, and group appeals. Respecting written submissions, the literature states that this may be a practical alternative if there is no disagreement about the facts, no issue of credibility, and the arguments can be made in writing. 1.4 We Claim: That this case is a matter affecting many beekeepers and landowners as future precedent therefore, a group appeal. Many are volunteering to testify before the Court on interpretation of apiculture. : That regardless of the many pages of Explanation of Beekeeping duly filed including; Viability of Land, Where Bees Forage, and Explanation of the Bee Breeding Operation. Neither the Assessor nor the Board has comprehension or an understanding of the issue. 1.5 We Believe: That oral presentation and the video on One Year in the Okanagan Beekeeping can educate the Court, Board, maybe even the Assessor to be able to make an educated decision on the subject. (The video was produced for the assessment personal training in 1996.) Bill Ruzicka\Bill's Honey Farm\Assessment Web\Website Stated Case Explanations - Oral Hearing Section 1.doc February 8, 2006 - C Page 3

1.6 We Dispute: The experience and interpretation of the Assessment Law, Standards and Regulation by the Assessor and acceptance by the Board. 1.7 From the Classification Issue: page 13 paragraph 37 confirms this (in part): [37] I find that the only agricultural purposes listed in Schedule A that the property could come under are "apiculture" and "horse rearing". "Apiculture" is not defined in the Standards and Regulation. 1.8 We Claim: That if the Board conducts the In Person hearing and listens to the expert witnesses in person, it may form it s own interpretations of Act, Standards and Regulation instead of blindly confirming the Assessor opinions. In the section on Classification Board mistake letter of an agricultural expert for applicant s opinion. (See Section 4.3 and attachment 4.3) 1.9 On The Contrary: To the above dispute of the Assessor expertise in beekeeping. In both precedents appeals; Ruzicka 2004-19-00050 and Johnson 2005-19-00032 as well as in the famous letter from the Provincial Apiculturist Paul van Westendorp (604-556-3129). The Board and Assessor s own admission states that: 1.10 From 2005-19-00032 Board Decision: page 8 paragraph 22 (in whole): [22] The Assessor does not dispute the qualifications of Mr. Ruzicka as a bee expert or that he is an active bee operator. Neither do I. He says that these facts are not an issue. I agree. 1.11 From Classification Issue: page 13 paragraph 37 (in part): [37] The Panel gave farm status to the greenhouse operation, the owner s residence and some land area including the bee yard, for a total of 2.0 acres being given farm classification. This classification is not disputed by the Appellant or the Assessor. 1.12 We Claim: The Board must be very confused: if we do not dispute it why do we appeal? The Board obviously did not read our submission or rebuttal as both of the above issues are in the appeal. 1.13 We Respectively Ask The Court: To hold a proper Court Hearing in the jurisdiction of Kelowna as the case property and witnesses are in the Central Okanagan. Bill Ruzicka\Bill's Honey Farm\Assessment Web\Website Stated Case Explanations - Oral Hearing Section 1.doc February 8, 2006 - C Page 4

2. Did the Board err in law accepting hearsay evidence and irrelevant precedence to grant its decisions? 2.1 From Analysis: page 18 paragraph 53 (in whole): [53] As to the Appellant s argument that precedent and decisions of appropriate authorities should not be followed, this is not in accordance with the practice of the Board. Following applicable decisions of the Board provides a high degree of certainty for property owners and the Assessor in dealing with assessment issues. 2.2 We Claim: That all evidence presented by the Assessor is not applicable and inadmissible by law and is either hearsay or irrelevant and has to be examined in a Court of Law. LIST OF SUBMITTED PRECEDENT DECISIONS & THEIR RELEVANCY TO APPEALS 2005-19-00032 AND 2004-19-00050 2.3 Appeal # 2004-19-00050 - Bill Ruzicka vs. Assessor Area 19. This decision was made based on falsified information and confirms the so called panel decision in which the panel never heard the submission on the matter of apiculture and agri-status. Please refer to the complete documentation on Stated Case in our submission, which was denied on a technicality (missing the filing date). The above appeal is virtually a part of the present appeal 2005-19-00032. It involves the same Appellant and the same beekeeping operation. It was used by the Assessor to support her decision in the PARP hearing in February 2005 in the present appeal, while the above was under appeal to the Stated Case. If we understand the law it makes it inadmissible evidence therefore, all of 2005-19- 00032 is invalid. 2.4 Appeal # 2004-01-00137 Marly L Lacks, Brian D Swanson and Assessor Area 01. This case is about a small operation of 20 hives being denied agricultural status because it was denied developing farm status as no honey or agri-product was produced. This is completely irrelevant to a commercial bee breeding operation with excess agri-product as Bill s Honey Farm is. 2.5 Appeal # - 97-12-00040 Iron Mountain Dev. Versus Assessor Area 12. This case happened in the Fraser Valley and involves 300 hives. These hives were placed in a holding yard for wintering. A holding yard is not at all similar to a year round beekeeping operation. Also, this is the first ruling where bees were confined to a bee yard of one acre. The decision made was unfair, wrong and completely discriminatory and used to confine our bees to a ¼ acre. See section 5 of our submission to 2004-19-00050. 2.6 Appeal # 2005-26-00004 - Randall D. Epp. One horse on 5 acres and no bees. Hobby farm. Missed the Oct. 31 st deadline. This is irrelevant to both appeals as all our data supporting the apiculture claim for farm status were delivered on time. Bill Ruzicka\Bill's Honey Farm\Assessment\Submission Feb 08 06\Stated Case - Evidence.doc- February 8, 2006 - C Page 5

2.7 Appeal # 2004-19-00014 Pierre Max. Is about missing the Oct. 31 st deadline. Beef / cattle production no bees involved. This is irrelevant to both appeals as all our data supporting the apiculture claim for farm status were delivered on time. 2.8 Appeal # 2003-15-00011 Linbell Suchan. Development farm. Case of one cow and 50 chickens no bees. Missed the Oct. 31 st deadline. This is irrelevant to both appeals as all our data supporting the apiculture claim for farm status were delivered on time. 2.9 A letter from the provincial apiarist Paul van Westendorp: is hearsay evidence resulting from what the Assessor told him in a phone conversation. 2.91 From Paul van Westendorp Letter: paragraph 1 (in whole): I reviewed the additional information you provided and decided to contact the case officer, Ms. Evelyn Irons for getting the perspective from the Assessment Authority. 2.92 We Claim: That his letter is hearsay evidence because he did not examine the actual location. The fact is that Mr. Paul van Westendorp has never been in our area of operation and has no clue as to how the operation is run. He has never visited us. He confuses the terms of wintering yards to hold bees in the lower mainland with our lower yards, which are used for wintering and bee stock production year round. 2.93 From Paul van Westendorp Letter: Paragraph 4 (in part): Furthermore, it seems that because of the lack of irrigation the site is primarily (or only) used for wintering purposes and that in the summer the bees are placed somewhere else. When we add it all up, I fail to see that these properties where negligible or non-existent agricultural management practices are applied, could receive farm classification. This is not a typical residential property. It is 13 acres of non-accessible thin Okanagan Pine forest with a house and yard occupying accessible lower one acre by the road where the house is. To access the upper plateau and bee yard we must use the road on the neighboring property. The natural sate of the land is what supports the bees and produces honey. Any attempt to cultivate these lands within a semi-arid desert region results without irrigation in wasteland. On contrary to the stated, we actively collect and spread the seeds of natural plants of this area like snow berries and Oregon grape. We plant fireweed in burnt areas and spread wild sweet clover wherever moisture pockets are. 2.10 We Respectfully Ask the Court: To review and dismiss this so-called evidence and we are prepared to bring witnesses to particular cases. Bill Ruzicka\Bill's Honey Farm\Assessment\Submission Feb 08 06\Stated Case - Evidence.doc- - February 8, 2006 - C Page 6

3. Does the Board err in law when accepting Assessor interpretation of pollination being a service therefore, no agricultural product significantly lowering beekeepers agriculture product and in some cases denying farm status to genuine beekeepers at all? 3.1 Following are: examples why pollination is and should be under agri income. 3.1A Robert Rudachyk (Phone: 604-876-4669) is an urban beekeeper in Lower Fraser Valley lives in an apartment and operates hives for pollination out of a friend s country lot (not agricultural). He is in the process of expanding from 150 hives to 200 250 hives and forfeits any possible honey production to increase his hive numbers and draw new comb and equipment. He relies on pollination income from berries to support him and his family. No one disputes that tending 250 hives is true and bonified farming but his income is not considered agricultural product therefore he cannot qualify his leased land as agricultural therefore without lease of agricultural land he is not a farmer. 3.1B Bob Chisholm (Phone: 250-762-2203) is a beekeeper, pollinator, queen and stock producer and a honey producer. His total income from farming 150 200 hives is over $20,000 but he is not a farmer. He operates from an acre lot in Kelowna and cannot classify his land as agricultural because his $15,000 pollination income is not agri-product therefore he does not have $10,000 required for a small farm lot. 3.1C Bill Ruzicka (Phone: 250-762-8156) is a beekeeper/breeder operating 280 500 hives. In his first 6 years of operation of developing farm (1980-1986) did not have any other income as pollination and all honey production was diverted to expansion from 20 500 colonies drawing comb and splitting colonies. In those years and until recently pollination was a primary agriculture product. In 1998 due to low honey prices, warm winter in Alberta and drought in the Okanagan no bees were sold or honey produced. The only income was from pollination. According to the present Assessor interpretation he would not have agriculture product if reviewed he would lose his farm status and be legally not a farmer despite his operation of 500 hives at that time. 3.2 The Assessment Act, Standards and Regulation for the Classification of Land as a Farm lists agricultural productions as: (We reprinted the Act and explanation penetrating to data.) Standards for the Classification of Land as a Farm Lists agricultural productions But does not include: (iv) agricultural services, or Explanation and Comments Income from services such as stud fees and horse training fees does not qualify. Bill Ruzicka\Bill's Honey Farm\Assessment\Submission Feb 08 06\Stated Case - Pollination Section 3.doc February 8, 2006 - C Page 7

3.3 We Claim: Nowhere in the Act or the Standards and Regulation is Pollination specifically named or listed as excluded. It is again only the Assessor s opinion and interpretation. 3.4 We Claim: That pollination is an agricultural product. Standards for the Classification of Land as a Farm Schedule A: Primary Agricultural Production For the purposes of farm classification under the Assessment Act, primary agricultural production is: Apiculture Insects raised for biological pest control Seed production Explanation and Comments This list defines all of the farm activities that are recognized for farm classification purposes. No explanation, comments or exclusion 3.5 We Claim: As above. Insects raised for biological pest control is an agricultural product therefore: POLLINATION, which is raising of insects for purpose of pollination of crops. Must be recognized as an agricultural product. Standards for the Classification of Land as a Farm livestock raising means (a) the rearing of domesticated animals for (i) the production of food for human or animal consumption, (ii) wool, hide, feather or fur production, or (iii) breeding stock for purposes listed in paragraphs (i) or (ii), or Our Interpretation is: (a) We raise the bees to pollinate orchards, berries and other crops for, (i) The production of food for human or animal consumption Bill Ruzicka\Bill's Honey Farm\Assessment\Submission Feb 08 06\Stated Case - Pollination Section 3.doc February 8, 2006 - C Page 8

3.6 We Argue: The act does not stipulate that the animals must be eaten itself. E.I: Cows produce milk and we drink the milk but do not eat the same cow. Bees pollinate orchards and produce apples and we eat the apples. Chickens produce eggs and we eat the eggs but we do not eat the same chicken. Bacteria produce many foods from beer to vinegar, but we do not eat the bacteria we eat its byproduct. Seeds produce oil and bees produce seeds by pollination, there would not be canola without bees. 3.7 POLLINATION FEES are not fees for service but: COMPENSATION FOR LOST LIVESTOCK Due to: Poisonous sprays and mechanical kill by sprayer. Moving grass (mechanical) kill of bees by machines or overhead sprinklers. Transfer of disease from other operations in pollination area a great risk. Movement of bees at each movement we leave behind 15% of field force. We lose queens and bees squashed in transportation. Stolen or vandalized hives due to impact of urbanite populations and subdivision mixed in orchard areas. The hives kept in home yards not going into pollination usually have 30 40% more stores and bees than hives used in pollination. 3.8 Legal Precedent: Without bees many agricultural crops would not exist. Revenue Canada, income tax, both NISA and CISA farm income insurance recognize pollination as a primary agricultural product. 3.9 We Respectfully Ask the Court: to reinstate pollination as a primary agriculture product. Bill Ruzicka\Bill's Honey Farm\Assessment\Submission Feb 08 06\Stated Case - Pollination Section 3.doc February 8, 2006 - C Page 9

4. Did the Board err in law when it denied farm classification based on the Assessor claims of insufficient contribution of bee s use of land for farm certification? 4.1 From the Board Decision Analysis classification issue: page 15 paragraph 44 (in part): [44] The Assessor argues that the remainder of the property is not used for primary agricultural production, as forage for bees is not of sufficient duration during the year or specific to this property as to be necessary to the farm, and that the land is not predominantly used for primary agricultural production. We Dispute: Where and how did the Assessor determine this? Is he an apicultural specialist? No. Therefore, he is not providing any tangible and allowable evidence for his statement. 4.2 From Certification: page 15 paragraph 44 (in part): [44] The Assessor relies on the Property Assessment Appeal Board (the Board) decisions in Ruzicka v Assessor of Area 19 (2004PAABBC 20042019), Laucks et al v. Area 01 (2004 PAABBC 20041643), Iron Mountain Investment v Assessor of Area #12 (Appeal No. 97-12-00040), and Dhont v Assessor of Area #19 Kelowna (Appeal No. 94-19-00028) for the principles therein dealing with bee operations and limiting the area of land for bee operations. We Dispute: These precedences as inadmissible and or irrelevant to the appeal. The PARP was held on February 21 st, 2005. The Ruzicka v Assessor of Area 19 (2004PAABBC 20042019) Evidence was at that time under an appeal to the Stated Case making it inadmissible evidence. Further, the decision made by the Board in that appeal was solely based on a letter from Paul van Westendorp, which is hearsay evidence (see question 2) and on the same argument as in 4.1. The rest of the Board listed decisions are irrelevant to this appeal (see question 2). 4.3 From Certification: page 15 paragraph 44 (in part): This is a continuation of paragraph [44] in 4.1 ( He meaning the Assessor): [44] He points to the submission of the Appellant that "Where bees gather the pollen and nectar is immaterial. The placement [of the hives] is a sacrosanct management decision made by an apiarist based on his or her experience and knowledge", to support this contention. We Dispute: This is not an Appellant submission but properly submitted Letter of Evidence from Senior policy adviser of the Ministry of Agriculture who inspected our operation and viability of land. His statement is completely taken out of context. (See attachment 4.3) The highlights are: Mr. Ruzicka fulfills all the above requirements in all his leases. The segregation or split of classifications of land does not comply with sect. 4 & sect. 7 on leased lands. The parcel is over grazed and covered with Knapweed a perfect forage for bees in non-irrigated land, which has no portable or irrigation water supply and it is 70% in agricultural land reserve. The land has no other present use then apiculture. It is an integrated part of commercial bee breading operations comprising of 10 yards and several leases. If a bee yard is placed on a parcel the entire parcel must be classified as farm. Bill Ruzicka\Bill's Honey Farm\Assessment\Submission Feb 08 06\Stated Case - Certification Section 4.doc - February 12, 2006 - D Page 10

In view of the differences between the assessor and beekeepers on the value of land, allotment of land and easement of use, the oral hearing is required to rule on the matter of law and where the law is vague to refer to the government for clarification and changes required to provide sufficient land for sustainable apiculture in British Columbia. 4.4 From Certification: page 15 paragraph 45 (in part): [45] While the Appellant estimates that 60 to 70% of pollen and nectar for hives originates from this property, and makes a reasonable contribution to the farm operation, there is no cogent evidentiary basis as to how this estimation was arrived at. The other side of the coin is that other properties, not part of the leased land, make a contribution of 30 to 40% to the farm operation. Without a factual basis for the Appellant s estimate, I cannot find on the balance of probabilities, that the balance of the leased property is predominantly used for primary agricultural production and is necessary to the farm. I cannot find, on the evidence, that the bees forage on the leased land more than on adjacent land not under lease. We Claim: That being recognized by both the Assessor and Board as an expert in apiculture appellant representative (Bill Ruzicka s) testimony and the testimony of the Ministry of Agriculture advisor should be taken at their full value. Any experienced beekeeper knows where the forage is and places the bee yard accordingly. Bob s yard additional quality is demonstrated as a mating yard. All this is well documented in both applications. 4.5 We Ask The Court: To recognize both Bill Ruzicka and the Ministry advisor as an expert witness and take their testimonies in full value. (The material supporting the expert status of Bill Ruzicka was submitted in both appeals.) 4.6 We Advise the Court: Being the apicultural experts that land allotments required to sustain the apicultural industry are commonly used rules contained in attachment 4.4. 4.7 From Classification: page 17 paragraph 51 (in whole): [51] I also accept the arguments of the Assessor and the authorities he relies on respecting the meaning of the words "reasonable contribution", "farm operation" and "integrated unit" as used in section 4 of the Standards. I agree that these decisions support his contention that the use of the property for bee foraging and grazing does not make a reasonable contribution to the farm operation. We Dispute: The above statement and acceptance. What authorities? There is no comparable operation in the Central Okanagan. The following is a table from the Agricultural Land Study submitted with the appeals. Without forage lands none of the agricultural product would be produced, demonstrating real farm operation and integrated output of each yard with more than sufficient income to cover required lands. (see attachment 4.7) 4.8 We Respectfully Ask the Court: To recognize Bill s Honey Farm as an integrated commercial agricultural operation and the surrounding lands as necessary for the production of agricultural crops according to the schedule in attachment 4.4. Bill Ruzicka\Bill's Honey Farm\Assessment\Submission Feb 08 06\Stated Case - Certification Section 4.doc - February 12, 2006 - D Page 11

5. Did the Board err in law when it denied agricultural status on the argument of Highest and Best Use? 5.1 From Board Decision: page 18 paragraph 52 (in whole): [52] I also accept the position taken by the Assessor that the accepted definitions of highest and best use" described by him is to be preferred over the one suggested by the Appellant, that agricultural land should super-cede all other land categories in terms of highest and best use. Such a definition is not in accordance with accepted legal precedent and appraisal practice. *Note It is not appellant definition but the Ministry of Agriculture expert opinion. (see 5.3 below) 5.2 Assessor Definition From Assessor Submission: section 2.5 (in part): One accepted definition of Highest and Best Use is taken from The Appraisal of Real Estate (Winnipeg, Manitoba: Appraisal Institute of Canada, 1992) (page 265) is The reasonable probable and legal use of vacant land or improved property, which is physically possible, appropriately supported, and financially feasible, and that results in the highest value. Alternatively, a second definition from Real Estate Appraising in Canada (Third Edition) (Winnipeg, Manitoba: Appraisal Institute of Canada, 1987) (page 67) states Highest and best use is that use which, at the time of the appraisal, is most likely to produce the greatest net return, in money or amenities, over a given period of time. 5.3 From attachment 4.3: Letter from the policy advisor of Ministry of Agriculture. Highest and Best Use: Section 3.1 paragraph (b) states, The land has a highest and best use that is a use not better than a farm The term highest and best use is not defined in the interpretation section. BC Assessment has no specific information on the relative weighting of agriculture land in use or held for future use and other land uses in determining highest and best use. In view of the limited amount of agriculture land in British Columbia, the future need for food, food security and safety, the potential for carbon sequestering, environmental protection, water quality concerns, agriculture land should super cede all other land categories in terms of highest and best use. 5.4 We Dispute: The Assessor s opinion and Boards decision. What relevancy does the Real Estate Board of other provinces or Canada have to do with BC? : The people of BC decided to protect farm land through Agricultural Land Reserve therefore, agriculture is a highest & best use for land in ALR in BC as this land is. : Even if The reasonable probable and legal use of vacant land, which is physically possible, appropriately supported, and financially feasible... is accepted. : Then it would only be legal when the land is released form ALR. : This is physically possible but not appropriately supported or financially feasible. : There is no water supply and regardless, Glenmore Reservoir is next to the property. The Glenmore irrigation district will not supply properties on higher grounds. 5.5 We Ask The Court: To rule that the best use of land is apiculture and in this case it is the most suitable for apiculture. Bill Ruzicka\Bill's Honey Farm\Assessment\Submission Feb 08 06\Stated Case - Oral Hearing - Pollination Section 5.doc February 8, 2006 - C Page 12

6A. Did the Board err in law when they denied agricultural status to the forage land used for bees regardless that they use it and have qualified the land as agricultural for more than 25 years? 6B. Did the Board err in law when they denied farm classification based on late filing of income for the Greenhouse and late filing of the Owner s Certificate? 6.1 From the Board s Decision Analysis and Classification: page 17 paragraph 50 (in part): [50] I also agree with the Assessor that the owner of the land must take responsibility in ensuring that the required information to approve or retain farm classification is provided to the Assessor in a timely manner and in the proper form, 6.2 From the Respondent: page 8 paragraph 23 (in whole). [23] The Assessor says that the requested farm form was received in time, and that the minor errors and omissions were perfectible and most were subsequently corrected. Information for the greenhouse operation was unclear and not current. The 2005 Assessment Notice was based on the information provided in the farm form and information already in the possession of the Assessor. Farm classification was granted for 0.75 acres for the bee yard. The rest of the property was declassified pursuant to section 11(b) of the Standards. 6.3 We Dispute: This is declassification and therefore different rules apply. However, all penetrating information on the lease and bee operation and its income were sent to the Assessor before January 31 st and represented at the PARP again. The Assessor acknowledges that and that the income was sufficient for full classification of farm. In the last review in 1996 (The submission stipulates that there may have been a review around 2000) but neither Assessor has proof of it. Neither the owner nor Bill Ruzicka (the lessee) knew of such review. It may have been internal and our involvement was not required. 6.4 THE LAST ASSESSMENT REVIEW WAS IN 1996 If required this will by my sworn testimony. In 1996, I Bill Ruzicka was involved with Steve Gorcof, Farm Assessor of the day in several apicultural leases and operations. I produced the video for him for future training of Assessment staff named, One Year In Okanagan Beekeeping. In the case of George yard on Flintoff s property, the yard was given one-quarter section of land at McKinley Landing road. In the case of Johnson s property the breeding yard was given the entire Johnson property as an Agricultural Land for Forage of Bees. This was stated in the applicant s submission many times. The Greenhouse at the time was operated under Bob Johnson s brothers landscaping business and was considered minor and irrelevant in view of the bee s $20, 000 agri production. Bill Ruzicka\Bill's Honey Farm\Assessment\Submission Feb 08 06\Stated Case - Oral Hearing - Pollination Section 6.doc February 8, 2006 - C Page 13

6.5 INCOME FROM THE GREENHOUSE after 2003 the Johnson s brothers, on the advice of an accountant, split the operation as it should have been run, with Frank running his landscaping and hotel/office plant and flower recovery business, and Bob running the bedding plants, flowers and poinsettia production. All of this was being done in the same Greenhouse where Frank s involvement was minor with only a few recuperating plants. But Frank is a major customer for bedding plants and Marketer to other nurseries for Bob s bedding plants. Other income for Bob is cash sales from bedding plants and flowers at the farm s Greenhouse. 6.6 FARM CLASSIFICATION REVIEW: In a review, Assessor Evelyn Irons, asked Bob for agri income from 2003 and 2004. Bob provided Frank s income tax and asked if the cash register tape with a total income (and 2 invoices for sales to other nurseries would be acceptable for year 2004 as his income tax hand not yet been completed): $2067.00 Cash $288.63 Invoice $234.00 Invoice $2529.63 Total Greenhouse agri income The Assessor s answer was no. Bob being 78 years old took it in face value and did not bring the receipts to the review PARP. He also did not know that the hay he produced years ago and sold that year to his niece for $920.56 qualify as agri product bringing his total agri product to $3,450.19, which is entirely enough to cover his whole farm without bees. 6.7 We Claim: Despite the Assessor not being responsible for assisting applicants in their application the act of telling the applicant that commonly acceptable invoices and cash register tapes are not acceptable shall void the late filing date. 6.8 We Ask The Court: Because the Assessor purposely gave a wrong and unlawful answer and also ruled unlawfully perfectly good income documentation (as supplied in our submission) in admissible, that the income be ruled supplied on time. All of these documents have been accepted by Chartered Accountants for tax purposes and produced Bob s farm income tax for 2004. 6.9 Despite All of the Above: Property lease and sufficient income from bee operations of $21,341 was filed entirely on time and not being disputed by the Assessor should have been enough to qualify all land. We did not and could not anticipate nor were we told that the Assessor plans to deny agricultural status to the forage of bees. 6.10 From the Boards Decision: page 17 paragraph 49 (in part): Owners certificate of unused land, which is held for future agri production. [49] The owner did not submit this form duly completed for the assessment year 2005, along with the application for farm status, to the Assessor by October 31, 2004, as required by section 3 of the Standards, so this section of the Act is not available to the Appellant for relief. It was submitted July 2005. Bill Ruzicka\Bill's Honey Farm\Assessment\Submission Feb 08 06\Stated Case - Oral Hearing - Pollination Section 6.doc February 8, 2006 - C Page 14

6.11 We Dispute: The Board completely forgets that this is not an application for farm status but declassification made in February 2005 making October 31 st of 2004 the wrong day. Further, we did not know anything like that existed and the Assessor did not tell us. Even if we knew or were told about it, we would not have filed one, as we believe the land is used by bees. The declassification took place in PARP hearing in February 2005 and we found out that bees were denied the land making it unused. We filed the certificate on July 19 th 2005 and that according to the rules should trigger correction of the 2005 assessment. 6.12 Robert A. Johnson s Owner s Certificate letter. Without signature transcript, the original with the signature and received stamp is in our submission to the Board. July 19, 2005 To Whom It May Concern: Please find enclosed an Owner s Certification for Assessment Role number: 19-23-217-03631.002 I would like to have farm property tax status reinstated on the above property immediately. The land described above is in the Agricultural Land Reserve. It is being held for future agricultural use and there is sufficient gross income generated on the farm. This land thus complies with the Standards for the Classification of Land as Farm BC Reg. 411/95 Section 4 Classification of Land as Farm paragraph 3 parts A and B. I hope this matter can be remedied as soon as possible. Yours truly, Robert Johnson 6.12 We Ask The Court: To rule that the certificate was properly submitted and revision of the 2005 assessment notice should have been processed immediately. Bill Ruzicka\Bill's Honey Farm\Assessment\Submission Feb 08 06\Stated Case - Oral Hearing - Pollination Section 6.doc February 8, 2006 - C Page 15

7. Did the Board err in law when it denied farm classification based on land not being unused referring to horse boarding. 7.1 Board Decision: page 17 paragraph 49 (in part): [49] Owner s Certificate was submitted in July 2005. The Assessor argues that the land does not qualify, as only 70% of it is in the ALR, it is not "unused" as there was a horse boarded on part of it in 2004, and that horse boarding, as opposed to "horse rearing", is not listed as a primary agricultural production in Schedule A. He also argues that the horse boarding does not contribute to the farm income through horse sales, as the Standards require. I agree with the Assessor on these issues. 7.2 We Dispute: The area used by two horses is an old corral where cows were held for the winter and it is much smaller than the bee yard. A ½ acre is being generous. The property is over grazed in the past by cows and infested with Knapweed, there is no pasture and horses must be fed year round. Even if the boarding of horses should stand than only the ½ acre is used and the rest of the 70 acres must be considered unused. The certificate should apply, other wise excuse the ridiculous; Assessor and Board can claim that because Bob s dogs are running on the property and mice live there and so it does not qualify as unused. 7.3 We Declare: That the horses belonged to the owner s niece. Which was in detail submitted in rebuttal to the Assessor submission. Keeping family pets on a farm is a tradition in BC and definitely does not constitute boarding, as that requires payments for use of land and attendance of horses. None of that is taking place. The sum of $920.56 is for the hay Bob produced in the past and his niece would otherwise have to buy elsewhere. 7.4 Board Decision: page 10 paragraph 27 (in part): [27] In response to the Appellant s brief, the Assessor points out that the receipt for $920.56 to L. Bennett for 12 month s horse feed was not provided to PARP, and that an attempt by the Assessor to contact Bennett to verify the intent of the payment was unsuccessful. He further points out that the pictures clearly show hay stored on the property. We Declare: That neither the Assessor nor the Board made any reasonable effort to contact Bob s niece L. Bennett. All they had to do was ask Bob for her current phone number as she moved to Saskatchewan and will move her horses as soon as possible. : Further, we in the rebuttal provided pictures of a chicken farm located at 4240 Glenmore Road with 80 acres and several horses. With the property assessment roll showing all 80 acres agricultural as the Assessor deems them farm family owned. We Agree with the further point. Hay is usually stored at farms and very rarely at MacDonalds. It is mostly hay free stacked, which usually points to the production on the same farm. In fact some could be in the hay shed from the early 90 s when ranching on the property was terminated because of overgrazing and continuous drought. That still makes it a hay shed and farm building. 7.5 We Respectfully Ask the Court: To rule on this point of law and restore agricultural land status for the 2005 Assessment year. Bill Ruzicka\Bill's Honey Farm\Assessment\Submission Feb 08 06\Stated Case - Oral Hearing - Pollination Section 7.doc February 8, 2006 - C Page 16

8. Did the Board err in law by not reinstating the agricultural land status for whole property for the year of 2005? 8.1 Argument: If the land is deemed used by bees than the land should be zoned agricultural because bees are apiculture and producing agri products contributing to this farm location by $21,341 (see chart at 4.7) properly submitted with the lease on time. If the land is not used by bees than it is unused and the Owner s Certificate properly filed comes into effect. Because Section 4 Classification of Land as Farm (owner) and Section 7 Classification of Leased Land are virtually the same and requirements of ALR is dropped. Part of the property is classified as farm producing sufficient agri product E.I. Bee Yard and fulfilling all other requirements of the regulation. The land should be zoned agricultural. 8.2 We Can Conclude that there is no reason why the Board should deny farm status to the rest of the property in either case. 8.3 We Respectfully Ask the Court: To rule to restore agricultural property status for Johnson s entire farm for the 2005 tax year. 8.4 Note of Interest: We submitted a new application for farm status for the year 2006, providing the same information as what is in the submission and rebuttal to the Board. The notice of assessment is, Full Farm Classification Status. What is different in 2005? Bill Ruzicka Representative for Robert Arthur Johnson Appellant, Respondent or other party, or Solicitor/Agent for Appellant, Respondent or other party Date: February 08, 2006 SEND TO: Property Assessment Appeal Board 10551 Shellbridge Way, Suite 10 Richmond, BC, V6X 2W9 Fax: 604-775-1742 AND SEND TO: (all other parties to the appeal before the Board - insert the names and addresses) Bill Ruzicka\Bill's Honey Farm\Assessment\Submission Feb 08 06\Stated Case - Oral Hearing - Pollination Section 8.doc February 8, 2006 - C Page 17

STATED CASE APPEAL # 2005-19-00032 ATTACHMENT 4.3 FARM LAND LEGAL ARGUMENT AND APICULTURE LEASES Traditional owner operator apiculture takes place on his own land classified as farm. In modern times many beekeepers live in town and operate leased lands. All commercial apiculture requires land other than the home farm to access pollen and nectar for additional colonies and for breeding flight activity. One location can generally support a maximum of 20-40 hives in summer honey production. Most often the lessee s land is already classified as farm. Apiarists may place their bees on non-farmland harvesting wild pollen and nectar or land that is farm but not actively cultivated, in pasture or rough pasture, again to harvest new sources of pollen and nectar. Apiarists make legal leases with the owners of the land to place bee yards on the leased land. Bee yards typically take from 1/10 th of an acre to ¼ of an acre in size to limit the size of fencing for predator protection. A suitable buffer and pasture and forage zone around the yard would most likely include an area of 1 4 acres per hive, many times the size of the yard, depending on location, available forage and proximity to other farm operations and residential holdings. Mr. Ruzicka maintains that the lease of land for apiary purposes is a legal agriculture lease (excluding owner residential use area). The entire land package where the bees are placed and the access roads should be considered in the lease and assessment as agricultural land. This approach would be supported by the language BC Reg 411/95, Standards for the Classification of Land as Farm Regulation. Under the section Classification of Land as Farm, paragraph 4 states; A farm operation is comprised of all or part of a parcel or group of parcels of land (a) Contiguous or not (adjacent attached / connected) (b) Owned or leased in accordance with section 7 Section 7 states that: 1. There must be a lease document supplied to BC Assessment. 2. The gross income of primary product as listed in schedule A generated by the lessee must comply with section 5. 3. That the land parcel be of a certain size. 4. The land must be used for primary agriculture production and make a reasonable contribution to the farm operation. 5. Or be certified by the owner that the land is being held for the purposes of primary agriculture production. Mr. Ruzicka fulfills all the above requirements in all his leases. The only possible contention is in the area of reasonable contribution and the definition of the farm operation The term farm operation is not listed in the foreword, Interpretation. Bill Ruzicka\Bill's Honey Farm\Assessment\Submission Feb 08 06\Stated Case - Attachment 4.3.doc February 8, 2006 - C

It would be just that the term farm operation would be the farm generating the gross farm product as listed in Schedule A, i.e. the lessee, in this case Mr. Ruzicka. The second area of contention is in the area of reasonable contribution, again not listed in the foreword, Interpretation. This can be simply measured by the volume of primary product attained during the placement of the hives into a yard. Where the bees gather the pollen and nectar is immaterial. The placement is a sacrosanct management decision made by an apiarist based on his or her experience and knowledge. There is no definitive scientific measurement. Agriculture and especially apiculture is as much an art form of experience and knowledge as it is a science. The placement is crucial to good hive management. Picking the spot can make a difference of 40 to 60 per cent of production. Margins in agriculture are slim at best. Every percent of production is crucial. The bee yard, or spot is always integral to the entire parcel of land. Moving a bee yard unnecessarily will reduce production. Thus the bee location must be carefully chosen. The above paragraph outlines the necessity for choosing the proper yard and risk sensitivity that can be experienced by the choice. Price-product sensitivity in agriculture products are to be taken into account in discussing reasonable income. A fluctuation of as little as 5% in a production-price matrix can turn a contribution margin from positive to negative. The segregation or split of classifications of land does not comply with section 4 and section 7 on leased lands. Section 3.1 paragraph A, C and D states: Despite subsections (1), (2) and (3), the assessor must classify land as farm if (a) The land has no present use, (c) The land is part of a parcel, a portion of which is used for primary agricultural production, and the portion used for the primary agricultural production makes a reasonable contribution to the farm operation, and (d) The portion being used for primary agricultural production meets the other requirements of this regulation. Section 3.4 states: A farm operation is comprised of all or part of a parcel or group of parcels of land (a) Contiguous or not, (b) Owned, or leased in accordance with section 7, and (c) Operated as an integrated unit. The parcel is over grazed and covered with Knap weed, a perfect forage for bees in non-irrigated land, which has no portable or irrigation water supply and it is 70% in agricultural land reserve. The land has no other present use then apiculture. It is an integrated part of commercial bee breading operations comprising of 10 yards and several leases. If a bee yard is placed on a parcel the entire parcel must be classified as farm. Bill Ruzicka\Bill's Honey Farm\Assessment\Submission Feb 08 06\Stated Case - Attachment 4.3.doc February 8, 2006 - C

Because regulation number 2004SRM0043-001050.htm paragraph 1 states: 1. Ensure that farmers who lease land in the agricultural land reserve will be treated the same as farmers who operate on their own land. Highest and Best Use: Section 3.1 paragraph (b) states, The land has a highest and best use that is a use not better than a farm The term highest and best use is not defined in the interpretation section. BC Assessment has no specific information on the relative weighting of agriculture land in use or held for future use and other land uses in determining highest and best use. In view of the limited amount of agriculture land in British Columbia, the future need for food, food security and safety, the potential for carbon sequestering, environmental protection, water quality concerns, agriculture land should super cede all other land categories in terms of highest and best use. In view of the differences between the assessor and beekeepers on the value of land, allotment of land and easement of use, the oral hearing is required to rule on the matter of law and where the law is vague to refer to the government for clarification and changes required to provide sufficient land for sustainable apiculture in British Columbia. Bill Ruzicka\Bill's Honey Farm\Assessment\Submission Feb 08 06\Stated Case - Attachment 4.3.doc February 8, 2006 - C

STATED CASE APPEAL # 2005-19-00032 ATTACHMENT 4.4 SCHEDULE OF ARICULTURAL LAND ALLOTMENTS TO BEEKEEPING OPERATIONS IN BC LAND FOR FORAGE AND PASTURE Allotment of the required agri lands per hive for forage up to the size of the property on which hives are located. Lands used for acres and adjacent parcels belonging to the same owner or not. YEAR ROUND Stock and honey producing yards including bee breeding. SUMMER HONEY AND STOCK PRODUCING YARDS 1-20 hives one acre 20-30 hives two acres 30-40 hives three acres 40 or more hives four acres If the bee yard is located on land classified under Land Values For Farm Land Regulation as: Class 6 Soils capable only of producing perennial forage crops, and improvement practices are not feasible; The allotment of land should be increased by 25%. Class 7 Soils with no capability for arable culture or permanent pasture; The allotment of land should be increased by 50% LAND FOR BUFFER ZONE Separating bees from urban human population. HOLDING YARDS for the purpose of short wintering or for the purpose of holding bees close to fruit trees and berries for distribution in pollination and all bee yards in general. One acre of land per hive up to the size of the property on which the hives are located including land providing access and adjacent parcels belonging to the same owner or not. With the intent to provide sufficient 1000 Ft distance from urban developments such as subdivisions or industrial or commercial developments such as shipping or transport centers. Therefore, this land has no better use than apiculture and should be classified as agriculture. Bill Ruzicka\Bill's Honey Farm\Assessment\Submission Feb 08 06\Classification - Attachment 4.4.doc February 7, 2006 C

STATED CASE APPEAL # 2005-19-00032 ATTACHMENT 4.7 Bill s Honey Farm Integrated Operation Income Per Contributing Yards Lands classification is known and the value of the yard to the operation can be determined by its use. Yard Description & percentage of income contribution Income including pollination Without pollination Land to cover or existing Total Income (average 3 years) Main yard all year use Pollination - marshalling Breeder circle & test circle Q cell production assembly of pollination units Accessible by truck used for wintering Bob all year use nuking yard all bee stock is produced here. All queens are mated here. Nuks developed here over the summer. Accessible by truck - wintering Archie all year use colony development honey production, summer pollination units. Wintering Dave all year use same purpose Wintering George all year use same purpose To be moved and reconstructed Wintering Alfred summer development Honey production Capacity hives 20-100 40 600 40-80 40 80 40 80 40 % $86 000 $60 000 15% 25% $12 900 $9000 4 acre has farm status home of farmer cannot classify additional land $21 500 $15 000 Was farm classification, presently in dispute 74 acres $12 900 $9000 Has farm 15% classification 80 acres no additional land. 15% $12 900 $9000 Was agricultural New owner in dispute 82 acres 15% $12 900 $9000 Was agricultural New owner New application 80-100 acres. 40 40 5% $4300 $3000 Agricultural out of zone over 2,500 ft elevation Beaver Gate same 40 5% $4300 $3000 Agricultural out of zone over 2,500 ft elevation Beaver Creek - same 40 5% $4300 $3000 Agricultural out of zone over 2,500 ft elevation COMMERCIAL OPERATION EFFECT ON LAND CLASSIFICATION This is not theory or assumption; this commercial operation is not and does not claim any new agricultural land. It is trying to retain agricultural status on the existing yards and land. If it will not qualify by bees the cows will be put on. If all is allowed the operation of 5 yards in Glenmore Highlands will cover approximately a total of 240 450 acres. Bill Ruzicka\Bill's Honey Farm\Assessment\Submission Feb 08 06\Stated Case - Attachment 4.7.doc - February 8, 2006 - c