Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM032309• ok William S. Marlow Richard A. Broders Dave Garing William S. Marlow MINUTES March 23, 2009 1820 Jefferson Street P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 Richard A. Broders Dave Garing Chairman Vice - Chairman Member Chairman William S. Marlow called the meeting to order at 9:30 a.m. in the presence of Vice - Chairman Richard A. Broders and Member Dave Garing. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Vice - Chairman Broders moved to approve the minutes of December 1, 2, 3, 8, 9, and 10, 2008 as presented. Member Garing seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. HEARINGS Thomas A. Stammer BOE: 08 -87 -R PN: 001 074 025 942 Jolie Way 08 -88 -R 001074 037 Port Townsend, WA 98368 Thomas A. Stammer was present. Appraiser Dennis Pownall represented the Assessor's office. Chairman Marlow explained the hearing process and swore in both parties. Under appeal is the land value only of improved property located at 942 Johe Way, Port Townsend. Following is the current assessment and the appellant's estimate of value for the parcels under appeal: Parcel No. Current Assessed Value Appellant's Estimate of Value 001 074 025 $346,030 (land $195,450 /imps. $150,580) $222,760 (land $72,180 /imps. $150,580) 001 074 037 $315,485 (land $183,360 /imps. $132,125) $225,125 (land $93,000 /imps. $132,125) Mr. Stammer stated the purpose of the Board of Equalization is to insure that citizens are taxed equally. He will prove that the Assessor's office is not taxing him equally with his neighbors. He attended the Board of Equalization hearing for one of his neighbors and later found out that they did not receive a Phone (360)385 -9100 Fax (360)385 -9382 jeftboccCa co.jefferson.wa.us Board of Equalization Minutes - March 23, 2009 Page: 2 ruling in their favor and so they are appealing to the State Board of Tax Appeals. Mr. Pownall stated himself that the property values for this neighborhood are based on sales that occurred at the peak of the Real Estate market. Now that the housing market has crashed, the property owners are being punished by having to pay taxes on values that are no longer realistic. That is not equal when there are taxpayers out there that will be paying less because their taxes will be based on the declining values. Mr. Stammer asked the following questions: Why is my property (parcel #001 074 025) assessed at $195,450, when my adjoining property (parcel #001074 037) is assessed at $183,360. And all my neighbors and the three comps that the Assessor's office sent to him are all lower in value? 2. Is there something that you know about my property that I don't? Have you found gold on it that I don't know about? Or is it because it is the closest property on Jolie Way to the old permitted land fill? 3. Would you buy a 5 acre parcel for $195,000 if you know that it is illegal to dig a well? 4. Do you guys at the Assessor's office drive around the County assessing properties without knowing whether or not a property owner can dig a well? With no objection from the Assessor's representative, Mr. Stammer presented a copy of WAC 173 -160- 171 from the State Department of Ecology regarding requirements for the location of a well site and access to a well. He sited section (3)(b)(vi) which states "All wells shall not be located within certain minimum distances of known or potential sources of contamination. Minimum set -back distances for water wells other than for public water supply are one thousand feet from the boundary of a permitted or previously permitted (under chapter 173 -304, 173 -306, 173 -351, or 173 -350 WAC) solid waste landfill as defined by the permit; or one thousand feet from the property boundary of other solid waste landfills." He added that he asked the State Department of Ecology if he could build a well on his property and they told him, No, absolutely not. Without a well, his property has no value. He is also unable to build an ADU (Accessory Dwelling Unit) as other properties can. The well on the property was dug in 1987 and serves the residences built on both parcels. He was permitted by the County to dig the well even though it is in close proximity to the old land fill which contains contamination test wells. What happens if his well should ever fail? Both his parcels are located within the DOE's required 1,000 foot setback. Mr. Stammer only learned of this well issue after a neighbor had drilled a well within the 1,000 foot setback distance and were forced to fill it with cement and redrill a new well beyond the 1,000 foot setback distance. Fortunately, they had enough property to do that. Mr. Stammer does not have enough property to redrill a well, should his fail. He doesn't even know if his well is contaminated. Board of Equalization Minutes - March 23, 2009 Page: 3 Mr. Pownall stated that the following comparable property sales are included in the packet of information presented to the Board and the appellant: Parcel No.: 001 071 006 (improved land) Location: 4037 Hasting Avenue W. Sale Date: July 2007 Sale Price: $430,000 Assessment: $393,510 ($201,440 land/$192,070 improvements) Parcel No.: 001 074 029 (improved land) Location: 155 Lindsey Lane Sale Date: September 2007 Sale Price: $299,000 Assessment: $289,910 ($183,3601and/$106,550 improvements) Parcel No.: 001 074 024 (improved land) Location: 190 Lindsey Lane Sale Date: July 2007 Sale Price: $329,000 Assessment: $320,595 ($183,240land/$137,355 improvements) Parcel No.: 001 074 003 (improved land) Location: 143 Lindsey Lane Sale Date: June 2004 Sale Price: $170,000 Assessment: $283,175 ($177,7201and/$105,455 improvements) He proceeded to answer the appellant's concerns as they pertain to valuation. He noted that parcel #001 074 025 is valued $3,000 per acre more than parcel #001074 037. It is valued at $15,000 per acre while parcel #001074 037 is valued at $12,000 per acre. This was a subjective decision on his part and was based on the view from the house built on parcel #001074 025. The house is newer than the house on the other parcel and it sits on a knoll overlooking everything else on the property. He felt it was a higher quality site. He is not certain that the "well drilling" aspect affects the value because it currently has water from a shared well located on the other parcel. He does not know if there is an impact on the value for a shared well versus a personal private well. He is unable to delineate a separate market value for that aspect. All the properties along Jolie Way were valued from the same base, except for Mr. Stammer's parcel 4001074 025 which could be reduced to the lower rate of $12,000 per acre. Mr. Pownall explained that the assessment date is January 1, 2008. He is responsible for establishing the market value as of that date. The fact that the market has dropped over the last 15 months does not affect what the value was at that time. The appellant did not provide any comparable property sales. Mr. Pownall presented three comparable property sales and stated there are others in the area. Board of Equalization Minutes - March 23, 2009 Page: 4 Mr. Stammer stated that all the comparable properties presented by the Assessor have wells and can support the drilling of new wells if their's fail. That is not an option for his property. He wants to see sales of properties that have well restrictions and are truly comparable to his property. Member Garing asked Mr. Stammer if he has had his well water tested for contamination? Mr. Stammer answered that the well water has not been tested since it was first drilled in 1987. He added that he does filter the water. Member Garing asked Mr. Stammer how he arrived at his estimate of value for the property? Mr. Stammer replied that his estimate of value is the amount of his previous assessment from four years ago. Mr. Stammer stated that the proximity of the adjacent landfill to his property makes his property less marketable than properties which are not next to the landfill. If you truly think about it you will see that it negatively impacts the value of his property. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Marlow closed the hearing. The Board will make a determination at a later date. George Mifsud & Marsha Goldman BOE: 08 -125 -R PN: 001074 034 841 JoHe Way Port Townsend, WA 98368 Marsha Goldman was present. Appraiser Dennis Pownall represented the Assessor's office. After explaining the hearing process Chairman Marlow swore in both parties. Under appeal is the land value only of improved property located at 841 Jolie Way, Port Townsend. Currently, the property is assessed at $418,970 ($187,360 for the land and $231,610 for the improvements). The appellant estimates the value is $326,610 ($95,000 for the land and $231,610 for the improvements). Ms. Goldman read the following letter: "Hopefully this letter will serve as a clear explanation of why I think my recent property tax assessment is unfair. The sharp increase in taxes for our property from $2,347 in 2008 to $3,336 in 2009 represents a 70% increase, while the entire value of our house and property has dropped at least 10 %. In 2008 our land was assessed at $73,165 and in 2009 at $187,360. This represents a 156% increase! There are 5 main points: The Whole System is Flawed: a. Our Assessor, Dennis Pownall, admitted that the whole system is flawed. Ideally, an adjustment should be made every year to keep in step with current market trends. Currently, a revaluation is done every 4 years, and when the market tanks as it's done, people begin paying too much. Board of Equalization Minutes - March 23, 2009 Page: 5 b. Land values are based on pure land sales and do not consider land as a part of an entire property, including a house, outbuildings, etc. Since pure land sales exhibit a different sales pattern, this is an inaccurate practice. For instance, pure land sales in our area have remained fairly strong while the housing market has dropped considerably. C. Land value judgments are somewhat guesswork, with the Assessor making evaluations based on a non -rigid set of rules. d. The formula for generating property taxes works from the top down, which seems unfair. The County comes up with an amount it must raise and then works backwards to determine how much it needs to gather in taxes. 2. The Comparison Properties Don't Support the Current Assessment: a. Parcel #001 071 015 (505 Jolie Way) 5 acres sold for $58,000 ($11,700 /acre) in 2005 b. Parcel #001 071 019 (503 Jolie Way) 5 acres sold for $81,000 ($16,200 /acre) in 2004 C. Parcel 4001071 Oil (147 Jolie Way) 5 acres sold for $78,000 ($15,600 /acre) in 2003 3. Jolie Way is Not Supported by the County: a. It is a private, gravel road, maintained by residents at a cost of $3,000 per year. My husband and I have organized the maintenance for our road: we set up a separate bank account, send out annual letters, collect monies, schedule road grading and gravel delivery and pay the contractor - all on our own time. b. It does not have city water, septic, mail delivery or garbage pickup. She added that they share a well with a neighboring property which is an issue in terms of resale value. 4. 841 Jolie Way has External Obsolescence: a. The foul mill smell often passes over. b. Gunshots from the nearby Gun Club are often heard. C. The nearby landfill is a source of concern for residents living at the end of the road. 5. Our Property has Limited Access: a. 841 Jolie Way is nearly at the end of the road at .841 miles in. b. We haven't had to use the Fire Department, but we question the ability of the fire truck to turn into our driveway or turn around on our road. C. Our guests often turn around before reaching our house as the road is long and windy and they feel they are lost. Board of Equalization Minutes - March 23, 2009 Page: 6 d. Our children do not have access to the school bus from our house; they must walk almost a mile to Hastings to get it. We ask then, and believe fairly so, for a reduction in the property value for which we've been assessed, to something more correctly reflecting land or our situation and in the current economic climate." She understands the date of the assessment is January 1, 2008, but, at that time there was a bubble in the Real Estate market that is unprecedented and will probably never happen again. She feels they are being penalized with this huge overvaluation of property that has taken place. She read an article in the newspaper that said the Port Townsend properties to be included in the next revaluation cycle will increase by 20 %. She is just asking for parity. Mr. Pownall presented and discussed the following comparable property sales. Parcel No.: 001 071 006 (improved land) Location: 4037 Hastings Avenue W. Sale Date: July 2007 Sale Price: $430,000 Assessment: $393,510 Parcel No.: 001 074 003 (improved land) Location: 143 Lindsey Lane Sale Date: June 2004 Sale Price: $170,000 Assessment: $283,175 Parcel No.: 001 074 029 (improved land) Location: 155 Lindsey Lane Sale Date: September 2007 Sale Price: $299,000 Assessment: $289,910 Parcel No.: 001 074 024 (improved land) Location: 190 Lindsey Lane Sale Date: July 2007 Sale Price: $329,000 Assessment: $320,595 Parcel No.: 001 074 015 (improved land) Location: 71 Lindsey Lane Sale Date: August 2006 Sale Price: $235,000 Assessment: $229,265 Board of Equalization Minutes - March 23, 2009 Page: 7 Parcel No.: 992 000 002 (improved land) Location: 292 J. Popper Way Sale Date: December 2006 Sale Price: $220,000 Assessment: $207,535 Mr. Pownall also presented information on a fee appraisal that was done for parcel #001 071 019 located adjacent to the appellants' property off of Jolie Way. The fee appraisal for this parcel indicates a value of $379,500 in August 2008. It is currently assessed at $365,000. This verifies that the assessment is fairly accurate. He noted that none of the comparable property sales presented by the appellants are more recent than 2005. The property which sold for $58,500 in 2005 was a transaction between family members. Ms. Goldman added that she feels her comparable property sales are just as important to look at as the Assessor's comparable property sales. She noted that the Assessor's comparable properties have more County services than their property has, plus, those sales occurred when the market was inflated. She would be glad to sell her property for the amount at which it is currently valued, but, she is unable to in today's market. She noted another sale of property along Jolie Way that recently took place for $250,000. Mr. Pownall explained that the recent property sale along Jolie Way sold at auction for $250,000. It had a house that had been destroyed by vandals and needed repair due to its very poor condition. Member Garing asked Ms. Goldman how she arrived at her estimate of value for the property. She stated that she researched what the Real Estate market and increased the previous value by 30 %. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Marlow closed the hearing. The Board will make a determination at a later date. Larry See BOE: 08 -138 -R PN: 001 071 008 9510 Taylor Street E. Puyallup, WA 98371 Larry See was present. Appraiser Dennis Pownall represented the Assessor's office. After explaining the hearing process Chairman Marlow swore in both parties. Under appeal is the land value only of property located at 3835 Hastings Avenue W., Port Townsend. Currently, the property is assessed at $196,400 ($173,720 for the land and $22,680 for the improvements). The appellant estimates the value is $87,680 ($65,000 for the land and $22,680 for the improvements). Mr. See stated that his acreage property was assigned land code #1373 which is used to value view property. However, similar acreage properties in the area were assigned land code 41375 which is used to value acreage property. His land is not view property and should not be valued as such. It is not improved property and has no water or septic system. Board of Equalization Minutes - March 23, 2009 Page: 8 Mr. Pownall explained that the property is being valued as having a territorial view which is common throughout properties in that area. He is confused by the appellant's comment on the petition which states: "Utility value is too low because it does not account for cost to install ", because the property is not being assessed as having utilities. The only building on the property is a large garage which is valued very conservatively at $22,680. The land value is based on sales in the area. Following are some comparable property sales that were used to value the appellant's property: Parcel No.: 001 072 006 (improved land) Location: 3820 Hastings Avenue W. Sale Date: September 2006 Sale Price: $260,000 Assessment: $187,080 ($174,9601and/$12,120 improvements) Parcel No.: 001 071 021 (improved land) Location: 140 Jolie Way Sale Date: July 2007 Sale Price: $189,000 Assessment: $183,505 Parcel No.: 001 071 006 (improved land) - Double Sale (Sold twice within four -year revaluation period) Location: 4037 Hastings Avenue W. Sale Date: October 2006 Sale Price: $400,000 2' Sale Date: July 2007 2' Sale Price: $430,000 Assessment: $393,510 Mr. See stated that all of the Assessor's comparable properties are developed, while his is not. He doesn't believe that developed property has the same value as undeveloped property. He doesn't understand how the Assessor's representative can consider his land "view property" when the only view is of woods and an old barn. Beside the barn are little piles of horse dung. He doesn't think that is a valuable view. Mr. See presented a comparable property that has a garage and no view, yet is valued at $93,360. He feels his property should be valued the same. Mr. Pownall stated that the parcel valued at $93,360 mentioned by the appellant is being given a 50% reduction in value because it was previously used to store animal hides. While he doesn't know the market value of that parcel or if it can be developed, he does suspect that the property was negatively impacted by the storage of animal parts which in turn affects the value. Discussion ensued regarding the view from the property. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Marlow closed the hearing. The Board will make a determination at a later date. Board of Equalization Minutes - March 23, 2009 Page: 9 Madeleine Houston P.O. Box 751 Port Townsend, WA 98368 BOE: 08 -52 -LO 08 -53 -LO 08 -54 -LO 08 -55 -LO 08 -56 -R 08 -57 -R PN: 963 300101 963 300 201 963 300 301 963 301201 963 301 301 963 301 401 08 -58 -LO 963 301 501 08 -59 -LO 963 301 601 08 -60 -LO 963 301 701 08 -61 -LO 001 162 014 Madeleine Houston, Arcadia Reach, LLC was present. Appraiser Dennis Pownall represented the Assessor's office. After explaining the hearing process Chairman Marlow swore in both parties. Under appeal are ten parcels, two of which have improvements. This property is known as "Arcadia" and is located off of Jacob Miller Road, Port Townsend. Following is the current assessment for the parcels under appeal totaling $1,375,685. The appellant did not submit individual valuation estimates for each parcel, but, estimates the total value is $967,685. Parcel No. Current Assessed Value 963 300101 $67,500 (land only) 963 300 201 $77,500 (land only) 963 300 301 $70,000 (land only) 963 301 201 $100,000 (land only) 963 301 301 $498,205 (land $188,700 /imps. $309,505) 963 301 401 $191,880 (land $133,700 /imps. $58,180) 963 301 501 $123,700 (land only) 963 301 601 $123,700 (land only) 963 301 701 $90,000 (land only) 001 162 014 $33,200 (land only) Ms. Houston explained that her property is a collection of parcels and her approach is to address the issue of whether or not the assessment represents the fair market value of her parcels as a whole. All but four of the parcels (001 162 014; 963 300 101; 963 300 201; and 963 300 301) were on the market for 18 months between May 2006 and November 2007. The remaining parcels made up approximately 14 acres and included the house and the Palindrome building. She understands that the assessment of her property is based on the sale of 10 acres of property located across Jacob Miller Road which sold for $950,000 in April 2007, as well as the sale of a block of property, also located across Jacob Miller Road, which was subdivided and sold with houses built on them. The property which sold for $950,000 is used for equestrian purposes and includes barns, fencing, a couple of outbuildings and a small cottage. The "Arcadia" house on her property is 100 years old and the "Palindrome" is a large refurbished barn that has been used as a rental. Board of Equalization Minutes - March 23, 2009 Page: 10 When her property was on the market she did not get a single bonaliide offer. She received one offer from Unity Church that included a $400,000 donation to the church. There was one man who almost bought it, but, his wife said she would not move into a 100 year old house. Another man offered to buy the property for $50,000 down, move into the house as caretaker and open up the "Palindrome" business for himself and close the deal in one year. At that point, the Real Estate market was declining so she decided that she would be better off keeping the property. Some of her parcels have been assessed approximately 450% higher than their previous assessment. She is willing to admit that land values have gone up, but, this is too much. The property will not sell for the amount of the current assessment, unless, she subdivides the property, builds houses on the parcels and sells the parcels individually. She was hoping to develop the property more commercially with the "Palindrome" by making it a high -end wedding destination, however, the noise from the gun club and the odor from the paper mill prevent that from happening. She is unable to charge a premium price because of those factors. She was not successful in finding a buyer. No one was willing to pay for the house in order to develop the property, and anyone wanting the house was not willing to pay that much just because it can be divided. The current assessment is not reflective of the market value as there is no willing buyer. She realizes the assessment is established as of a certain date, but, the property cannot be sold in the way it is being assessed. Mr. Pownall asked Ms. Houston at what price she listed the property for sale? Ms. Houston replied $1,400,000. Mr. Pownall stated that he assigned a value to this property that would represent a fair market value for its potential highest and best use. He did this using valuation methodologies that are already established based on sales of property in the area. Some of the bare land parcels are receiving a 50% reduction in value for development costs. The 10 acre parcel located across Jacob Miller Road from the appellant's property is the only parcel in the area which is most similar in size to the appellant's property. It is all cleared and fenced for equestrian purposes and sold in April 2007 for $950,000. It is currently assessed at $887,740. The appellant's property is not used for equestrian purposes, but, is more like an estate with a beautiful house and a dance hall. The problem with valuing this property is that it is further complicated by the fact that it is made up of multiple parcels that vary in size. This property can be subdivided and the individual parcels can be sold separately. If the property was one parcel it could be valued as agricultural land and the value would be very low. But, because it has the potential of being subdivided into separate parcels, it has a higher value. Property must be valued at its highest and best use. He explained how he valued the lots within each block that makes up a parcel. Some of the blocks include the vacated streets and alleys. Ms. Houston understands how and why Mr. Pownall assessed the property the way he did, but, she doesn't believe that the methodology used for other properties in the area can be fairly applied to her property due to its uniqueness. Mr. Pownall presented the sales of three smaller parcels with homes adjacent to Gun Club Road which are located in the same plat as the 10 acre parcel which sold for $950,000. Board of Equalization Minutes - March 23, 2009 Page: 11 Ms. Houston explained that the "Arcadia" property is really more of an estate, even though the property can be subdivided into separate lots. Anyone who is going to buy the property with the intent on subdividing it, is not going to want to pay a premium price for the 100 year old "Arcadia" house. At the time she listed it for sale she thought the fact that the property could be subdivided was an attractive aspect. Discussion ensued regarding the methodology used to assess the property and its marketability. Member Garing asked Mr. Pownall if he made any adjustments to the value due to noise from the Gun Club or odor from the Mill? Mr. Pownall replied no. Those issues come and go with the wind and are already taken into account in the sale amounts. The sale prices of the properties which sold along Gun Club Road are evidence of the fact that the shooting noise from the gun club does not seem to affect the value. Mr. Pownall stated that Ms. Houston's taxes could be greatly reduced if she consolidated the property. In its current state there is the potential for a lot of development. Ms. Houston knows it could be done, but, she is unable to see how that would work with the big old house in the middle of it all. She doesn't want to be forced to consolidate the property which would prevent them from being able to sell individual parcels if necessary in the future. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Marlow closed the hearing. The Board will make a determination at a later date. John Dwyer BOE: 08 -132 -R PN: 963 302 002 P.O. Box 2045 Port Townsend, WA 98368 John Devin Dwyer and his father John O. Dwyer were present. Appraiser Dennis Pownall represented the Assessors office. After explaining the hearing process Chairman Marlow swore in both parties. Under appeal is the land and improvement value of property located at 507 Discovery Road, Port Townsend. Currently, the property is assessed at $351,085 ($130,000 for the land and $221,085 for the improvements). The appellant estimates the value is $291,240 ($110,000 for the land and $181,240 for the improvements). John Devin Dwyer stated that his father is a Realtor in the area and knows property values. Based on the downturn in the economy and in the Real Estate market they believe the property, which they own together, is over valued. After receiving the valuation notice from the Assessor's office they decided to have their property appraised by a professional appraiser specifically for this appeal. A copy was sent to the Board and the Assessor's office as additional evidence. They feel the value of their property should be closer to the value stated in the fee appraisal of $315,000. Board of Equalization Minutes - March 23, 2009 Page: 12 With no objection from the appellant, Mr. Pownall presented additional information which consisted of a Deed of Trust for the appellant's property and a graph charting the percent of difference between the purchase price of the property, the current assessed value and the fee appraisal value. The appellant purchased the property in April 2005 for $325,000. He added that typically, financial institutions will lend up to 80% of the property value. When he looked up the deed of trust for this parcel he found that the appellants received a loan for this property in the amount of $260,000 which is exactly 80% of the purchase price. Mr. Pownall noted that the Assessor's valuation of $351,085 was established as of January 1, 2008. The fee appraisal value of $315,000 submitted by the appellant is dated March 6, 2009. He does not dispute the difference in values, because the fee appraisal was done 15 months after the assessment date in a declining market. He questioned a statement made in the appraisal: "...Value appears to be level to maybe less than a 3% rise per year." If that were an accurate statement, the value would be increasing rather than decreasing. Following are some comparable property sales used as basis for the assessment of the appellant's property. Parcel No.: 001 174 024 (improved land) Location: 4037 Hastings Avenue W. Sale Date: October 2007 Sale Price: $220,000 Assessment: $215,370 ($156,600 land/$58,770 improvements) Parcel No.: 001 162 021 (improved land) Location: Off of Arcadia Terrace Sale Date: April 2008 Sale Price: $375,000 Assessment: $368,000 (detail not provided) Parcel No.: 001 171 027 (improved land) Location: 390 Arcadia West Sale Date: June 2008 Sale Price: $172,500 Assessment: $171,830 ($154,680land/$17,150 improvements) Mr. Dwyer believes the property values were over - inflated. His property is worth even less than his purchase price of $325,000. The appraisal he submitted includes 5 comparable residential properties. The Assessor's comparable properties are larger in size are not similar to his property. Mr. Pownall noted that the comparable properties used in the fee appraisal presented by the appellant all sold for more than their current assessed values. He agrees that the fee appraisal represents the value of the property today, however, he believes the value was considerably higher as of the assessment date of January 1, 2008. Board of Equalization Minutes - March 23, 2009 Page: 13 Mr. Dwyer stated that he asked his professional appraiser to find sales as close as possible to the assessment date for use in the fee appraisal. He added that his initial estimate of value in the amount of $291,240 was submitted prior to his obtaining the fee appraisal. He now agrees with the estimate of value established by his appraiser in the amount of $315,000. Mr. Pownall noted that the appraisal establishes the value as of March 6, 2009, so it is not a retroactive value. Mr. Dwyer stated that he understands that fact. He was just making the point that he asked his fee appraiser to use sales that were closest to the assessment date. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Marlow closed the hearing. The Board will make a determination at a later date. Vice - Chairman Broders moved to adjourn the meeting at 2:45 p.m. Member Garing seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. JEFFERSON COUNTY ATTEST: BOARD OF EQUALIZATION Erin Lundgren, Clerk of the B and William S. Marlow, Chair an Richard A. Broders - Chairman W 4 Dave Garing, *Mr