Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Board of Equalization Meeting: Minutes of October 8, 1991 <br /> <br />Page: 2 <br /> <br />Mabel Campbell asked why she doesn't see an adjustment for the half bathroom? <br /> <br />Robert Kingsley clarified that a minus $2,565 is the total value of the plumbing. There are <br />eight verified plumbing fixtures which is below the base rate number of plumbing fixtures. <br />There is a value assigned to each plumbing fixture under the base rate. In this case when you <br />add up the number of fixtures compared to the standard number it means a reduction of <br />$2,565 in the value. <br /> <br />Mabel Campbell asked if this means she could add another bathroom and not have to pay <br />any more taxes? Robert Kingsley responded that if another bath was added the reduction in <br />value ($2,565) would drop to possibly a reduction in value of $500. Chairman Dalgleish <br />asked Robert Kingsley to explain this further. Robert Kingsley added that for a good quality <br />house, such as the subject house, the base number of plumbing fixtures would be 12. When <br />the Assessor's Office verified the number of plumbing fixtures at the subject dwelling they <br />found a total of eight. This is four less than the standard rate. If the house had 12 fixtures, <br />there would be zero in the plumbing field. Mrs. Campbell asked how the plumbing fixtures <br />are counted? Robert Kingsley reported that plumbing fixtures include sinks, hot water <br />heaters, toilets, bathroom sinks, laundry tray (under the "other" field), showers, tubs, tub/stalls, <br />outside showers. <br /> <br />The discussion turned to the various types of bathroom configurations, the number of fixtures <br />in them and how the Assessor's Office counts plumbing fixtures. <br /> <br />Mrs. Campbell confirmed that she didn't put a value on her appeal. All she wants is to have <br />the information corrected and it looks like that is what is being done. She added that she <br />wants to be certain that 1988 values are being used. She wants the figure that is finally <br />established to be consistent with other 1988 re-valuations. <br /> <br />Robert Kingsley added that he is not recommending that the value be changed, just because <br />he came up with a new value. The change, he feels is not significant enough to recommend <br />an actual value change on her tax statement. <br /> <br />Chairman Dalgleish reported that the on-site inspection of this property is scheduled for <br />October 28, 1991 in the morning. <br /> <br />Mrs. Campbell said that she does not mind if Robert Kingsley accompanies the Board on <br />their on-site inspection of her property. <br /> <br />Assessor's Exhibits: <br />#A-l: Letter dated May 15, 1991 to Mabel Campbell from Jeff Chapman regarding <br />valuation of subject property. <br />#A-2: Letter dated June 5, 1991 to Mabel Campbell from Jeff Chapman regarding fair <br />market value approach to valuation and response to her letter of June 1, 1991. <br />#A-3-6: Appraiser's original 1988 valuation and the corrected valuation based on <br />the 1988 fair market value, with the data changes. <br />