HomeMy WebLinkAbout10 October 15
JEFFERSON cOUlm BOARD OF EQU',LIZATlON
A.C. Dalgleish
David G. Douglas
Archie Barber. Jr.t.'}.'
James A; DeLeo
Chairman
Vice-Chairman
Member
Alternate
MINUTES
15 October 1985
The Board met at 9:00 A.M., all members were present.
inspection of the following petitions: BE-89,90,91.
following conclusions and decisions on appeals.
Board set out for a field
Meeting resumed for the
/
BE-85-89 (Parcel 965-702-708) The Board inspected this property on 10-15-85 in
the company of the owner. An investigation of land assessments in this block
found a lot to be valued at $8,500 per lot and this lot is equivilant to 61%
of a full lot. The building proved to be deteriorated due to lack of maintenance;
however, the parcel is producing rental income. The Board moved to SUSTAIN the
1 and value at $5,250 and to reduce the improvements val uati on to $24,,000 for a
total valuation of $29,250.
BE-85-90 (Parcel 989-706-407) The Board inspected this property on 10-15-85.
The Board moved to SUSTAIN the land valuation at $11,170 and reduce the improvements
~ (garage) to $300 for a total valuation of $11,470.
BE-85-91 (Parcel 995-200-104) The Board inspected this property with the owner'
on 10-15-85. Assessor's records confirm that the land valuation is consitent
with other parcels in the area. The structural and finish work in this building is
average and, as a result, there are maintenance problems to be resolved. The
Board'moved to SUSTAIN the land valuation at $20,000 and to reduce the improvement
valuat,ion from $62,100 to $53,500 for a total valuation of $73,300. -
BE~85~66-C (Parcel 957-607-001) The hearing op this petition. which was post
poned from August 15, 1985 at the request of Mr. Ernest J. Callahan, was convened
at 1:00 P.M.. Mr. Richard P. Moyer of the State Revenue Department was present
and the Assesser's office was represented by Jack Westerman,III and Mark Mc Cready.
Mr. Callahan introduced his testimony by submitting a fourteen page dOClllment to
the Chairman of the Board. He then reviewed this document and forty-eight page
. document which had been presented to each member of the Board on the 15th of August
orally. The main thrust of the appeal was the use and validity of the valuation
of the 'property with either the in~ome or market approach. The testimony
'presented did not present substantive additional imformation to make either
the income or market data complete. The appellant futher proposed that the land
valuation might better be determined from the square foot rather than the
front footage- basis.
Having no further business, meeting was adjourned until October 21, 1985 at
9:00 A.M.
DATE APPROVED: flJd ~5j9&-S
.
Prepared By:
caro~:1' ~