HomeMy WebLinkAboutM071888
JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF EQUALIZATION
A. C. DALGLEISH
DAVID G. DOUGLAS
ARCHIE BARBER, JR.
CHAIRMAN
VICE-CHAIRMAN
MEMBER
ALTERNATE
M I NUT E S
J U L Y
1 8,
1 9 8 8
MEETING CALLED TO ORDER by CHAIRMAN A.C.DALGLEISH at 9:00 a.m.
Vice~chairman-David G. Douglas, Member-Archie Barber, Jr., and Clerk-
Dierdrei Whiteford were present.
BOE-88-009-LO
PETITIONER:
ASSESSOR:
Office, was present.
Parcel number: 001--181-022
MR. STANISLAW LORECKI was present.
MR. ROBERT BARRY representing the Assessor's
Mr. Lorecki was sworn in before giving his reasons for desiring a
lower valuation. He stated that this land on Crutcher Road -L~
undeveloped and is used only for reforestation. The real estate agent
told him there was too much land around for him to expect the assessed
valuation of $21,825.00 for this 4.85 acre piece. This is $4,500.00
an acre. It is at present not listed with ERA Realty or any realty
as his ex-wi fe It\li thdre'i-.ol it t-lhen the property did not sell. Mr.
Lorecki received the property in lieu of a cash divorce settlement.
He claims that there is swampy due to lots of standing water in the
winter time. The best offer his ex-wife had was for $15,000.00
through ERA, which she declined in 1987. The petitioner would like
to see the land re-valued at $3,600.00 an acre for a total of
$17,500.00. He stated that he knew of no comparable property sales
in the area. He sees no future for building on this land after ten
years of ownership. He questions why the increase in valuation when
nothing has changed and there are no improvements.
Mr. Barry gave a history of how he arrived at the valuation:
1) The area was re-valued in 1984, most of the five
acre parcels valued at about $5,500.00 per acre based on sales in the
area through 1984.
2) The ten acre parcels were valued at $4,000.00 per
acre. At this time the 4.85 acres of Mr. Loreckils were part of a ten
acre piece with a house on it.
3) This acreage being segregated from the ten acre
piece in 1987, there were no previous land sales to base valuation on.
4} As a result of this, the land was valued on the
ten acre valuation rate of $4,000.00 an acre, the rate it was valued
at before, creating a total valuation for the parcel of $19,400.00.
5) January 1, 1988 a re-valuation was completed and
the property was re-valued for $21,825.00, the present valuation.
This is an adjustment, the increase based on his size parcel, not the
ten acre rate.
1
M I NUT E S
for
J U L Y
18th,
1 988
Mr. Barry gave a list of four properties which were Jlmore or less11
comparables, they being located on a paved road with power available:
1) A property on Nelson Landing Road sold for
$5,090.00 per acre. The parcel has the road running through it, when
the right of way is subtracted the acreage is 5.7. This sold in March
of 1987. The seller held a contract on that. This same parcel sold
in October of 1985 for $3,800.00 an acre, cash.
2) At the intersection of Cape George Road and
Crutcher Road. Acreage of 3.54 sold in June of 1987 for $3,760.00 an
acre. The seller took a contract. Inferior to Lorecki1s property for
residential purposes being irregular shaped parcels on the road.
3) At Crutcher and Cape George Road again. Acreage
was 4.96 which sold in September of 1987 for $3,780.00 an acre.
Inferior to Loreckils property due to irregular shaped parcels and
high traffic on the road.
4) Acreage 4.56 located on Loftus Road, north of
Loreckils property with one property in between. It sold in August
of 1986 for $5,700.00 per acre. It had a good well, a pump house,
electrical service. It is superior to Mr. Loreckits property as it
has nice trees, a good clear area and it is better drained.
The Board determined to look at the comparable properties and Mr.
Lorecki's property before making their decision.
BOE-88-010-R
Parcel Number: 001-171--014
s~'lorn in,
PETITIONER: STANISLAW LORECKI was present
this property being heard right after his
ASSESSOR: ROBERT BARRY was present for
and previously
last petition.
the Assessor' s
Office.
This five acre parcel at the end of Jolie Way t,..;as valued by the
Assessor for: Land $15,000.00
Improvements $ 2,950.00
Total $17,950.00
The petitioner desires a lower valuation of:
Land $10,000.00
Improvements $ 600.00
Total $10,600.00
The petitioner bases this on the parcel being located 1 1/2 miles off
the county road with the only access being a private, unimproved, not
maintained, dirt road. The access is really difficult. There are no
water, phone or electrical lines and no septic tank. The building
itself is only for storage, no furniture and partially finished. No
insulation. The building was built from scraps and is only 121 by
20'. He set it on concrete blocks for ventilation. The power ~~
around 1000 feet away. He cannot bring the power to his property by
himself and his neighbors will not cooperate in bringing in the power
to make it less expensive. He plans on putting a 19 foot trailer on
the property to live at a later date.
~.1r. Barry last appraised the property in February of 1985, the
previous value being locked in at $1,750.00 an acre based on a 40 acre
parcel from which Mr. Lorecki1s parcel was segregated from. Jolie
road has been upgraded, but the road does not extend to Mr. Lorecki's
property. The access to the property is a privately maintained road,
not a county road. Primary power service goes to the end of Jolie Way
which is 980 feet from Mr. Lorecki1s land. Comparables presented:
1) $2,400.00 an acre at end of Jolie Way, was the
lowest priced acreage, sold in 1987. This was a five acre parcel.
2) The highest price was $3,700.00 an acre on a five
acre parcel, sold in 1985. This land in 3011e Way area.
3) This property is a five acre parcel which sold
in February of 1985 for $10,000.00. This is $2,000.00 per acre. This
is the same price Mr. Lorecki had purchased his property for a few
"
,
M I NUT E S
for
J U L Y
18th,
1 9 8 8
months earlier. This same property sold in September of 1987 for
$18,250.00 which is $3,650.00 per acre. This is right next to power
and the main road. This property loses roughly two-thirds of an acre
to easements.
4) This is a ten acre parcel, sold in July of 1986
for $3,200.00 an acre. This property is right on power and access to
the main road but does have some easements. The terrain is similar
to Mr. Lorecki's.
Mr. Barry states that the big question is whether or not he allowed
enough differential for the fact that Mr. Loreckils parcel is a fair
distance from power and access. With respect to the storage structure
his impression when he was there was that there was insulation and
wall board inside, so he worked it as a partially completed cabin
without plumbing or power.
The Board will view this property, notifying Mr. Lorecki of the date
and approximate time of day, before making their decision regarding
re-valuation.
i
j
BOE-88-014-R Parcel Number: 921-094-002
PETITIONER: NANCY TURNER BUTTS did not appear before the board.
ASSESSOR: MR. ROBERT SHOLD \V'as present representing the Assessors
office.
This property is located at 131 Lip Lip Lane, Nordlandr Washington and
it consists of an one acre homesite with a five room house, a metal
building, a garage and a shop. Currently this property is appraised
at: Land $42,850.00
Improvements $37,585.00
Total $80,435.00
In her opinion the true and fair value should be:
Land $35,000.00
Improvements $37,585.00
Total $72,585.00
She has not had this appraised and she does not give comparable
properties or when she purchased this property and for how much. She
does not appeal the valuation of the improvements, only the land. She
states on her petition that she feels that the raised assessed
valuation of $12,000.00 is too much, in as much as there have been no
changes or improvements.
Mr. Shold states that the parcel in question is on a Senior Citizen
one acre homesite exemption. Her parcel is 1.72 acres so the
valuation is split. She only gets the exemption on the one acre. The
procedure is to create another, separate parcel to assess valuation
on, over and above the one acre exemption. The assessor included the
135 feet of high bank waterfront (on a bluff) in the Senior Citizen
exemption. This one acre piece only exists for exemption purposes.
It may not be sold as a separate piece ~f property. This footage is
normally assessed at $350.00 a foot, being $47,250.00 for the water
frontage. The amount of taxes she pays after her exemption on the
assessed valuation is considered confidential information. The
determined adjustment is not in the Board of Equalization files. The
Board only equalizes the True and Fair land value, not taking into
consideration the Senior Citizen exemption. The Assessor's Office
has its own personnel apply the authorized exemption. Mr, Shold
states that this is a beautiful view property. Because of the
configuration of the parcel and its being an homesite, they take the
whole front footage including the .72 acres not allowed on the Senior
Citizen exemption and assess the valuation based on the $350.00 a foot
waterfront, then they take the .72 acres at $7,500.00 an acre, which
gives us the $5,400.00 valuation and they deduct this from the total
valuation of $48,250.00 with the improvements on it, giving us the
$42,850.00 land valuation figure. The valuation of the improvements
3
M I NUT E S
for
J U L Y
1 8
...
....n,
1 9 8 8
are not considered in this petition since they are not being
questioned.
Mrs. Butt's last evaluation was in 1985. It was $35,435.00 for the
whole parcel. The land only, escalated from $35,435.00 to $48,250.00.
Just the one acre portion was calculated at $30,000.00. This is the
portion she is contesting, it went from $30,000.00 to $42,000.00.
This $12,000.00 jump in value is justified by the land being valued
too low in the previous valuations. This is a 40 percent increase due
to an equalization of the parcels based on sales of adjacent
properties. Comparable Properties:
1} The parcel north of hers was 110 feet.
it was assessed at $350.00 a front foot for $39,500.00 for
acres. This property has a 1 i ttle less frontage and is
smaller.
In 1983
the 1.45
a little
2) One just south of hers has 135 front feet. 1983
it was assessed at $47,250.00 at $350.00 per front foot. This is
approximately the same size parcel.
Mrs. Buttrs parcel was not equal to any other parcel when he went to
make his assessments.
The Board having no
advisement. They will
regarding the property
further questions.
notify the appellant
in question.
they took this under
and review the situation
BOE-88-011-R Parcel Number: 990-660-350
PETITIONER: DIMITRI H. KYRIAKOS was not able to appear before the
board.
ASSESSOR: MR. SHOLD ......tas present on behal f of the Assessor I 5
Office.
r.1r. Kyr iakos bought the property June 14, 1971 for $3,950.00 cash.
The assessed valuation of the property, lot 50, is:
Land $ 36,000.00
Improvements $ 69,760.00
Total $ 105,760.00
The new construction valuation of $30,640.00 raised it from the
previously assessed valuation of:
Land $ 36,000.00
Improvements $ 36,720.00
~otal $ 72,720.00
As stated in a letter submitted with other exhibits regarding his
petition, Mr. Kyriakos states that he will not dispute the improvement
taxes, though they increased dramatically, for he made a number of
improvements. However, he does dispute the land valuation based on
his original purchase price of $3,950.00. The taxes for this same
property have been increased to $36,000.00 even though the property
remains the same as when it was purchased in 1971, with only a very
small portion of it suitable for building purposes. He states that
the property east of his, lot 49, was valued at $18,000.00 when he
purchased his property. The lot west of his, lot 51, was valued at
$16,000.00 in 1971. Both of these lots increased to the value of
$36,000.00 at present. His lot, inferior for building purposes, was
also assessed at $36,000.00. He states that the property has not
increased one iota in value and that it would still be considered
unsui table for building purposes. Mr. Kyriakos mentions that the
property was divided into three separate lots by the developers so
that they could obtain their "yearly dues" and that these developers
were certain that lot # 51 would eventually buy lot #50 to secure the
green belt. He included receipts of his purchase and proof of the
land valuations of lots #49 and #51. He believes that a physical
inspection of his property would clarify his position as to the value
of lot #50. He respectfully requests a sizeable reduction in the
taxes charged to the land:
4
M I NUT E S
for
J U L Y
18th,
1 9 8 8
Land $ 8,000.00
Improvements $ 69,760.00
Total $ 77,760.00
Bob Shold was asked ho~'.[ Mr. Kyriakos could build on this "unsui tabler:
land. David Douglas answered when Mr. Shald stated that he had the
same question. It was stated that it was a precipitous terrain with
a severe ravine. Mr. Kyriakos built what started out to be a weekend
cabin. Hers built in front of the ravine. He does not have full use
of the lot, The point is, according to Mr. Barber, does the ravine
detract from the value of the lot? Mr. Douglas states that he only
has full use of a very limited portion of the lot. On the basis of
this petition, Mr. Douglas suggests the Board look at it. Mr. Douglas
also points out that what Mr. Kyriakos stated regarding the developers
breaking up the lots is correct in that any developer tries to break
up the land into as many buildable lots as possible in order to
profit.
There being nothing further, the Board determined to conduct an on-
site inspection of the lot before making any determination.
BOE-88-008-LO Parcel Number: 940-800-069
PETITIONER: J. ALDEN ATWOOD was not present at the hearing.
ASSESSOR: ROBERT BARRY representing the Assessor's Office
was present.
According to Mr. Atwoodfs petition the current valuation on this Cape
George Village, Division 4, Lot 73 is:
Land $6,000.00
Total $6,000.00
He purchased this lot for $3,950.00, cash, in May of 1978. He
currently has it listed for sale at $2,000.00. It has been listed
since 1986. No comparable properties listed. She states that the
property does not pere, so it cannot be built on, so it is worthless.
The Atwood's had an opportunity to sell the property in 1986, but the
I'Boardl'(assumed to be a Board of Architects or an Health Board), not
the Board of Equalization, refused to allow a large camper to be
placed on the property. As a result of this, the sale fell through.
It was listed at that time for $3,500.00. On the basis of these
facts, the peti tioner requests that the property valuation be adjusted
to:
Land $4,000.00
Total $4,000.00
Mrs. Atwood submitted three letters to the Board of Equalization:
1} Addressed to the County Commissioners, June 16, 1988,
stated that since the lot did not perc and that it cannot be built on,
that it was worthless and a IIwhi te elephant II on their hands. She also
stated that her husband who broke his back falling from their roof
onto cement is paralyzed and unable to attend a hearing.
2) Addressed to the Board of Equalization, July 8, 1988,
stated that she would notify her husband of the specified hearing
date, (sent to her in order to follow appropriate procedures) t but
that he was definitely paralyzed from the chest down and would never
be able to walk again. Her husband ~'.;ill be in the hospital for
another three to four months and when he gets out he will require full
time care. She stated that she would be unable to attend the hearing.
She said the property was listed with ERA realty in Port Townsend for
less than the purchase price, and that they1ve been paying taxes on
it for the past ten years.
3} Addressed to the Board of Equalization, July 12, 1988,
stated that the enclosed contract from when they purchased lot 73 in
the Village showed on it that the property did not perc. As a result
of this I there was no reason to believe it would perc or to incur
expenses to test it for the ability to perc. (Please note, this letter
was not read during the hearing as it was not received prior to her
hearing. It is entered in these minutes to show she has sent as much
5
M I NUT E S
..~-
.v.
J U L Y
18th,
1 9 8 8
information as she had available on the pere denial request}. The
specific dimensions of this lot were unavailable.
The clerk requested the pere denial information on July 11, 1988.
Mrs. Atwood was unable to provide anymore than the contract on which
she purchased the property in question.
The assessor, Mr. Barry, suggested they be made aware of Senior
Citizen exemptions. Due to their not living on the property or in
this county, they would be unable to quality for such an exemption.
He mentioned that this property was consistent with other lots in
dimensions, though specifics were not available. He went on to state
later that the $6,000.00 evaluation was arrived at by it being 50
percent of the perc property market valuation of $12,000.00. He says
that he goofed and that the valuation should have been 50 percent of
$11,400.00 after adjustments. It should have wound up at $5,700.00
instead of $6,000.00. He had intended on correcting this error
Friday, but did not at that time. This corrected valuation would make
it consistent with the other non~perc lots in the area.
Mr. Barry1s recommendation would be that it be at most, $5,700.00.
He did suggest that in order to secure the perc denial, we could call
the Health Department, but the Board deemed that unnecessary. Mr.
Barry stated that there t-'Jas a notation that the property had not
passed its perc test.
Mr. Bar~y suggested we listen to a short presentation on non~perc lots
which would help clarify this situation as well as several other non-
perc petitions we have received this year. This presentation follows:
On the larger issue of perc denied lots, which we have
been provided documentation of, there are a total of 73 such lots in
the two divisions of the Colony. Thirty-six in Cape George Colony,
thirty-seven in the Village. There are more than 300 lots with houses
on them. Cape George is contemplating a sewer system at this time.
More will be said on that later on in this presentation. In 1984,
when the re-valuation was done, most of the no-perc lots in this area
were left at the previous, 1980 valuation, in spite of the faet that
there were some changes in the market value of lots that do perc,
around them. As a result, Mr. Barry found that the assessments the
assessors have had since 1984 varied anywhere from 25 percent of the
value of comparable lots that would perc to 52 percent. There didn't
seem to be much variability 01:' equity there. One particularly
startling situation was between two lots side by side on the
waterfront in the Village. Both were no-pere lots, one valued at
about $8,000.00 and the other at almost $16,000.00. So it was obvious
that there 'Y'lere some problems on which Mr. Barry needed to move
towards some equity. He did some research on sales of no-pere lots
in the last three or four years. He came up with three sales at that
time and he heard about a fourth one:
1) The first sale, Colony, Division 2, Block 3,
Lot 22. This sold in April of 1987 for $22,500.00. This waterfront
lot sold to an owner of an adjacent non-pere lot. With the combined
lots he was able to build a mound system. The sale price was exactly
double what it 'V'-las assessed at. It is now assessed at $22,500.00.
The price of $22,500.00 would have been roughly 70 percent of the
market value it would have been assessed at had it been a pere lot.
2} The second sale, Colony, Division 3, Lot 75 sold
for $3,000.00 in December of 1986. This is a very steep lot at the
back end of the Colony wi th no view. In 1984 it was valued at
$5,000.00. This last valuation was $3,750.00, it was done before he
even knew it had sold for $3,000.00. That valuation is roughly 35
percent of what a good no-view lot would be and 50 percent of what
this lot would sell for with its steep topography, if it perked.
3) The third sale was in the Village, Division 3,
Lot 75. It sold for $3,000.00 in March of 1987. This was an Estate
that was selling it. It was assessed in 1984 at $6,250.00, he now has
it assessed at $8,500.00. The owner of this lot contacted Mr. Barry
6
M I NUT E S
for
J U
r v
~ .
18th,
1 9 8 8
for appeal forms, which he sent out. So far he has not petitioned the
Board.
4} The fourth lot, just heard about from a reliable
source, a Colony lot, Division 3, Block 5, Lot 38. An elderly lady
who does not live in the area, had no further use for this lot. She
sold it to her Real Estate agent for $2,000.00.
Right now, if someone is in the position that they must sell, they are
in tough shape. Short term, it is hard to sell these lots even at
their assessed valuation. If you are not in any hurry to sell, your
position is better. The owners of any of these lots would all have
to pay the same amount for the sewer system if it goes in.
A brief explanation of what Mr. Barry did then. He chose to value all
the non-pere lots at 50 percent of their value IF they did perc.
Other lots in the area that are non~perc lots have been valued at 50
percent ~ Someday there should be a sewer system going in. The
philosophy is, if you make a mistake, make a correctable mistake. If
50 percent is too high, he'll hear about it. He doesn't feel that he
has heard that loudly from the owners, only 11 of the 73 lot owners
have complained. As of this date, only five appeals have come
through. At least three of these are from people who were previously
valued in the low 30 percent range. He has no really strong feelings
about the sacredness of 50 percent. If the Board wanted to come up
with a figure to apply to all no-pere lots he would be glad to apply
it. If they just want to deal with these five, that is alright too.
This should be good for most no-pere lots we come across.
There are lot sales ranging from $2,000.00 a lot up to $22,500.00 a
lot for non-perc lots.
The Board determined to take this above presentation under advisement
as well as the Atwood's petition.
BOE-88-012-LO
PETITIONER: REBECCA M.
Petition Number: 995-600-012
LUNDY was not able to be present
as she lives in Michigan.
ASSESSOR: ROBERT SHOLD represented the Assessor's Office~
This Port Ludlow property is assessed at:
Land $22,950.00
Total $22,950.00
Ms. Lundy has attempted to sell this property every year for the past
five years for a period of six months each year {April through
October}. She has asked anyv.;here from $19,500.00 to $27 r 500.00 dur ing
these years. She attached a Real Estate Listing sheet noting that the
view was of the prestigious, Port Ludlow golf course. It overlooks
the seventh fairway. The property has not been appraised by any
assessor besides the county assessor. She does not list her purchase
price or any comparable sales. In 1987 the lot was offered for sale
for $22,800.00 and there wasn't even an offer. The adjacent lots are
also offered for sale below the assessed valuation. Her lot is
presently offered for sale for $19,500.00 with ERA Olympic Real
Estate. She would like the assessed valuation dropped to:
Land $19,000.00
Total $19,000.00
Petitioner is unable to sell the property at the present valuation.
Mr. Shold stated that there were not a lot of sales in the area. In
1983 it was assessed at $27,500.00. This time since there weren't
many sales, only one of a bare lot r he adjusted many lots down,
including hers, down to $22,950.00 as of January 1, 1988. He does not
believe there are any sales there this year either. She purchased the
property for $19,000.00 in 1978. There QJ..C; very fet.'l sales to
substantiate an assessment on.
7
M I NUT E S
for
J U L Y
18th,
1 9 8 8
The Board decided to take it under advisement and make an on-site
inspection before making its decision on this petition.
BCE 88 013-R Petition Number: 990-300-104
PETITIONER: FRANK A. DVORAK was unable to be present for
the hearing.
ASSESSOR: ROBERT SHOLD represented the Assessor1s Office.
This is a Port Ludlow, Admiralty # 1, condominium 1 Unit 4. The
petitioner owns this condominium and he receives a portion of the
income generated by its being rented. It was assessed at:
Land $ 9,355.00
Improvements $ 74,195.00
Total $ 83,550.00
Mr. Dvorak purchased the property in December of 1987 for $59,500.00
cash. He has not offered the property for sale. He states that the
property was recently purchased for less than the assessorls valuation
and on that he wishes a reduction of valuation to:
Land $ 8,000.00
Improvements $ 61,500.00
Total $ 69,500.00
Mr. Dvorak enclosed a copy of his Real Estate Excise Tax Form, which
is not dated, and a letter from the Association of Co-Owners regarding
his purchase of this unit.
Mr. Shold stated that this was a sale. It sold in 1977 for $63,000.00
and in 1982 for $89,000.00. This unit went up in value and now it
apparently dropped in value. The December, 1987 purchase price being
$69,500.00. The assessors have noticed that they lowered this and
most of the units at the Admiralty by $10,000.00 at the last
evaluation in 1987. There were few sales at that time. Four sales
in Admiralty #1 and a number of listings. This one was listed at
$90,000.00 at the time of the re-valuation, so they thought this one
should be reduced in valuation to $83,550.00. The land remained the
same and the building was reduced. Comparables have a different
number of bedrooms which make them not really comparable so they are
recommending that they reduce all the units at the Admiralty by Ten
Percent. The assessors recommend that the Board go ahead and do this
based on the ne~'l sales. These units V-lere previously a tax shelter
deal, but do to the Tax Reform Act, these units are now declining in
value. All of these are rental properties, both Admiralty #1 and
Admiralty #2.
Dave Douglas felt that the Board should be aware of two factors
influencing the valuation of these properties:
1} The interests of the investors in these
properties have dwindled since much of the value has been extracted
in regard to depreciation value.
2) A period in 1986 a resort owner shut down
the resort for six months in the winter time while the owners still
had to carryall the upkeep costs. The facili ties were no longer
available to them, there was no operation at all of any amenities and
no attempt to rent the units during this time. The owners lost a
great deal because they had no revenue at all and there were no units
rented. The word has gotten out among the investors that the owners
shut it down at their own discretion with no potential revenue. The
investors feel they have no protection from it happening again.
Chairman Dalgleish suggested that Mr. Shold go about reducing these
units ten percent, based upon all the information received.
Vice-Chairman Douglas stated that he had some reservations about this
precipitous action due to other factors in the community. They are
e
;
.
M I NUT E S
,,~-
.v.
J U L Y
18th,
198 8
putting in the first secondary treatment plant at the expense of
several million dollars. There is a lawsuit going on now about the
utilities companies charging for sewer and water. In the next month
or so with the law suit as it is, the results of this may change
valuations in Jefferson County.
Chairman Dalgleish stated that we can only deal with the facts we have
at this time. He asked if Mr. Douglas felt we had all the factors at
this time.
Mr. Douglas stated he was not sure. He feels we should consider doing
this, but we should not take any action until we have had a chance to
really look at the situation.
The Board agreed to review the recommended reductions ~u a short
period of time. Mr. Dvorak r s re~~valuation request will be considered
at the same time. They plan to do this evaluation within two to three
lro-1eeks time.
OTHER BUSINESS OF THE BOARD
The Minutes of July 15, 1988 were approved with the correction
word on the second page I from ltpropertyll to II improvements II .
being no other corrections, addi tions or subtract ions, the
motioned to accept the Minutes.
of one
There
Board
There being no further business before the Board, the board adjourned
until July 22, 1988.
APPROVED BY:
f1 (1
DATE APPROVE~xLdf:Jd5;fli?g4k/
t./-- v
~
~~{f:?_____, , __._
A.C.DALGLEIc , CHAIRMAN
fij ..
OAVm o. -iiOiiOLA'~iiiiAn"",'
~
ATTESTED
(\ L i 6~ t'
-,.,<~-,_.._-"-"''''_..,''---"'<..,--''''---'''''----,,----,,.,--""
ARCHIE L. BARBER, JR., ,EMBER
9