Okeechobee Value Adjustment Board denies three ag-exemption petitions, denies Walmart hearing for no-show

The Okeechobee County Value Adjustment Board on Nov. 10, 2025, voted unanimously to deny three property tax agricultural-exemption petitions, concluding the parcels did not meet Florida's definitions of bona fide agricultural use as of Jan. 1, 2025. The board also denied a separate petition from Walmart Inc. after the company failed to appear for its scheduled hearing.

Staff member Kayla Smith presented inspection findings for three petitions: Jamila Ranch LLC (VAB-003), Zurich/Zareff/Zara Ranch LLC (VAB-004 and VAB-005). In each case, Smith told the board that aerial imagery and on-site inspections showed long periods without cultivation, fertilization receipts, leases, or widespread livestock use before the statutory cutoff date of Jan. 1, 2025. Purchases of the properties occurred in mid-2024: Jamila Ranch on April 22, 2024 (purchase price $2,675,000); the Zurich/West parcel on Aug. 1, 2024 ($625,000); and the adjacent east parcel on June 28, 2024 ($775,000). Smith said some fencing and limited livestock appeared later in 2025 but that most of each parcel remained unused as of the inspection series.

Jamila Ranch staff reported a 266.12-acre parcel that formerly contained an orange grove. Inspection notes showed no regular grove maintenance, no fertilizer or liming receipts, and no lease documents. Staff observed a newly fenced 9.11-acre enclosure where about 25–35 cattle were present on a June 16, 2025 visit, but said the remainder of the 266.12 acres showed no signs of agricultural activity. Smith said the new fence area could qualify for 2026 if ag use continues, but not for 2025 assessment.

Applicant Naveel Keshe (recorded as the property owner/applicant) told the board he had later brought livestock and fencing to portions of the property and planned to expand. Keshe said he had been advised informally that larger livestock counts (he referenced being told 50 cows would be needed for one parcel and that 80 sheep would be sufficient for another) would be required to qualify. Keshe also acknowledged that on Jan. 1, 2025, “nothing” was present on at least one parcel—an admission staff cited when recommending denial. Keshe said, “I went immediately, and they got 30, they were 33 at the time… I did fence in the area and joined the ranch, and I my plan is to expansion to get the whole ranch.”

Two adjoining parcels in the Old Rooks Dairy area (the Zurich/Zareff/Zara parcels) were presented together. Staff said the parcels (about 48.75 acres and 47.532 acres) previously supported dairy and hay operations but showed no signs of regular maintenance or livestock on Jan. 1, 2025. Receipts for fencing, a tractor (May 2025), and agreements for sheep delivery appeared in staff records in May 2025; site visits in June and July 2025 found small, newly fenced areas with limited sheep or donkeys (around 30–40 head in one fenced area) but not widespread livestock use across the parcels. Staff again advised these limited, later activities would not support ag classification for 2025.

Board members pressed staff and the applicant on timing. One member noted the Jan. 1 cutoff and that animals did not appear until June; another flagged that some preparatory work such as disking or mowing done before Jan. 1 could be relevant to establishing bona fide use if evidenced. Staff and board members also discussed how residential curtilage and remodeled houses on parcels could affect the acreage eligible for an exemption; staff said those dwelling areas would not be part of the ag acreage under the statute’s curtilage rules and that building permits could prompt reassessment for 2026.

After discussion, a motion to deny Jamila Ranch’s petition was made by board member Anita and seconded; the motion carried unanimously. The board then heard the Zurich/Zareff/Zara petitions, took testimony from the applicant, and after motions by Anita (seconded by other members) denied those petitions unanimously as well. For each of the three petitions staff recommended reapplication for 2026 if agricultural activity continued and expanded.

Separately, Walmart Inc. had a time-specific hearing set for 10 a.m. but did not appear. County staff said they received no submissions from Walmart and no responses to email. The board’s counsel advised that a failure to appear permits denial without evidence; the board moved to deny Walmart’s petition for failure to appear and voted unanimously to deny it.

Votes at a glance - Jamila Ranch LLC (VAB-003): Motion to deny the agricultural-exemption petition carried unanimously (motion by Anita). Staff cited lack of bona fide agricultural use as of Jan. 1, 2025; limited livestock observed only after June 2025. - Zurich/Zareff/Zara parcels (VAB-004 and VAB-005): Motions to deny carried unanimously (motions by Anita). Staff cited lack of cultivation, receipts, leases, and that livestock/repairs appeared after the statutory cutoff. - Walmart Inc. (time-specific hearing): Motion to deny for failure to appear carried unanimously.

The board recessed the hearing and set the next session for Dec. 8 at 8:00 a.m. Staff advised applicants that fencing or livestock expansions documented before Jan. 1 of the assessment year are the relevant evidence for that year’s eligibility; applicants may reapply for future assessment years if agricultural use continues or expands.

Ending: The board emphasized that later improvements (fencing, livestock introductions) can support a future year’s application but cannot retroactively establish bona fide agricultural use for Jan. 1, 2025. Applicants were advised to reapply for 2026 and to document activities (receipts, leases, consistent use) before the statutory cutoff date.