Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM092401 1820 Jefferson Street P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 James A. DeLeo William S. Marlow Richard A. Broders MINUTES SEPTEMBER 24, 2001 Richard A. Broders William S. Marlow James A. DeLeo Chairman Vice-Chairman Member Chairman Richard A. Broders called the meeting to order at 9:30 a.m. in the presence of Vice-Chairman William S. Marlow and Member James A. DeLeo. HEARINGS Owen C. Sawyer 1307 Moore Street, #704 Brookings, OR 97415 BOE: 01-02-R PN: 931900040 Mr. Sawyer was not present. Assessor Jack Westerman represented his office and was sworn in by Chairman Broders. The property under appeal consists of a residence located at 251 Windrose Drive, Port Ludlow. The appellant stated on his petition that "This house has been on the market for more than a year with very little activity due to: A large inventory of unsold homes; price competition; and no view (very important). The Assessor's fair value is not consistent with current values." He listed on his petition four sales of comparable property that reflect his valuation estimate of $166,000 ($33,200 for the land and $132,800 for the improvements). The property is currently assessed at $195,600 ($38,500 for the land and $157,100 for the improvements). Mr. Westerman stated that this property was revalued in 1999. He explained that there are three basic types of houses in Bayview Village where this property is located: The "Wellsboro" which is a 1,716 square foot, one- story house; the "Haddington" which is a 1,876 square foot, one-story house; and the "Shelbourne" which is a two-story house with 2,269 square feet of living space. The appellant's house is a "Wellsboro" and is located at the very end of Windrose Drive. He noted that there are varying degrees of water views. The appellant's view is blocked by an adjacent parcel, so the land value is by far the lowest in Bayview Village Division I. Mr, Westerman presented three sales of comparable property. All were "Wellsboro" houses within Bayview Village Division I. He noted that the actual current assessed value of this parcel is $203,600 rather than $195,600. He explained that the house was originally built with the problematic Louisiana Pacific (L.P.) siding. Since, the L.P. siding was failing on several houses in the Port Ludlow area, the Assessor's office had given an $8,000 adjustment for the negative impact it has on the market value. The appellant has since replaced the L.P. siding, Phone (3601385-9100 I 1-800-831.2678 Fax (360)385-9382 jeflbocC@co,jefferson.wa,us Board of Equalization - September 24, 2001 Page 2 so the $8,000 adjustment was removed this year during new construction valuation. The appellant had filed his petition form prior to receiving the change of value notice for new construction, which is why it lists the current assessment as $195,600. He discussed all three comparable property sales and emphasized that these are the only three sales of "Wellsboro" houses which have sold in Division I since the 1999 revaluation. Chairman Broders asked Mr. Westerman if he reviewed the comparable sales submitted by the appellant on his petition? Mr. Westerman stated that the properties presented as comparable by the appellant are located in an entirely different area. It doesn't make sense to look at a different neighborhood for comparable property sales when there are three sales of the same exact type of house located on the same road as the appellant's property. After reviewing all the information submitted and hearing the testimony of the Assessor, Chairman Broders closed the hearing. The Board will conduct a physical inspection of the property and make a determination at a later date. Ross C. Budden 1218 W. Dravus Seattle, VVAl 98119 BOE: 01.41-R PN: 976 500 007 Ross C. Budden submitted a "Request for Reconvening" based on the condition being met pursuant to WAC 458-14-127 RECONVENED BOARDS-AUTHORITY (1)(c) which states that Boards of Equalization may reconvene on their own authority to hear requests or appeals concerning the current assessment year when the request or appeal is filed with the Board by April 30 of the tax year immediately following the Board's regularly convened session and when a bona fide purchaser or contract buyer of record has acquired an interest in real property subsequent to the first day of July and on or before December 31 of the assessment year and the sale price was less than ninety percent of the assessed value. The Board concurred to accept the reconvening request and hold the following hearing. Mr. Budden was not present. Appraiser Robert Kingsley represented the Assessor's office and was sworn in by Chairman Broders. The property under appeal consists of a residence located at 60 Maple Lane, Port Ludlow. The appellant stated in a letter attached to his petition that "On July 12'" 2001, I purchased the above property for $180,000.00. The only other offer that was made on the property was $160,000.00 that was tendered by Mike Larkin whose name you may recognize because of his extensive involvement in local Real Estate. His offer was certainly much closer to the true market value of the house and property. I own the house at 94 Maple Lane that has been in our family for more than fifty years and is just a hundred feet away from this property. I know what this house and property was and can become again. I spend about half of my time in Port Ludlow and the close proximity is the only way that I can take on a project of this scale. At this point the house is uninhabitable and I do not mean just unpleasant! It has not been occupied for almost three years. None of the appliances work, the hot water heater leaks, and I have no idea if the heat pump works or not. The roof leaks around the chimney and the rest of it is questionable. All of the carpet, pad, and possibly even some of the sub- floor has to be removed because of the extensive and pervasive urine that was left throughout the house by an incontinent lady. The vinyl flooring will have to be removed and replaced. Both bathrooms will have to be completely rebuilt. The plywood flooring in the garage will have to be replaced or at the very least over-laid. One half of the lower level is unfinished, The decks and railings are unsafe to walk on. The foundation under the deck on the lower level is completely rotted out. The entire deck will have to be taken off and rebuilt. The deck on the upper level is in need of extensive repairs to the surface and the railings, There are five double Board of Equalization Meeting - September 24, 2001 Page 3 glazed windows and one sliding door unit that have leaked and fogged and must be replaced. The exterior of the house is in rough shape. The roof is covered with moss, the gutters and downspouts are packed full (with grass growing out of them). The house has not been repainted since it was new 21 years ago. Blackberries and Alder trees have taken over what used to be landscaped areas. You can not even see the well pump house or the heat pump because of the overgrowth. As I am writing this I am suddenly asking myself "what have I done?" But I am resolute in my plan. I have the personal expertise and motivation to do all of the work myself, which is the only way that the project is fiscally possible. Over the next two years I will work to put this property back into first class condition. When I have completed this project the property will again be worth what the assessed value was in 1999 and I am sure much more. I only ask that the tax value be adjusted to reflect the true value of the property as it is today. The accompanying photographs will graphically depict the condition. Each has a brief description of what's shown written on the back. Thank you for looking at my appeal and it is my intention to have it back at full value within two years." The property is currently assessed at $265,960 ($109,460 for the land and $156,500 for the improvements). The appellant estimates the value to be $150,000 ($85,000 for the land and $65,000 for the improvements). Mr. Kingsley stated that he revalued this property in 1999 and at that time the condition of the property was declining. If the Board determines that a reduction in valuation is necessary, he suggests that the improvement value be adjusted so as not to create an inequity among land values in the area. The appellant is asking for a reduced valuation of $150,000, yet he paid $180,000. It is also uncertain whether this was an "armslength transaction" being that it was an estate sale, and the estate sold another piece of property below the assessed value. After reviewing all the information submitted and hearing the testimony of the Assessor's representative, Chairman Broders closed the hearing. The Board will conduct a physical inspection of the property and make a determination at a later date. BMW Inv., LLC 4065 E. University #50 Mesa, W A 85205 BOE: 01-14-LO PN: 901 084 005 Robert and Judy Morefield represented BMW, Inv., LLC. Appraiser Peter Schuck represented the Assessor's office. After explaining the hearing process Chairman Broders swore them in. The parcel under appeal consists of high bank waterfront property located on Discovery Bay adjacent to Highway 20. Mr. Morefield asked if the Assessor's office considered the property buildable at the time of the assessment? Mr. Schuck replied that the Assessor's staff does not have the authority to determine whether or not property is buildable. That determination is made by the Department of Community Development. If there was documentation from the Department of Community Development indicating that the property could not be developed, then the assessment of the property would be reduced. Mr. Morefield stated that at this time there is no access to their property except by water. The property is adjacent to Highway 20 and cement barriers have been placed along the side of the highway blocking access. In order to build on the property there must be access. The appellants believe that these two factors should have been taken into consideration when the property was assessed. The property is currently assessed at $90,370. No estimate of value was provided by the appellants. Board of Equalization Meeting - September 24, 2001 Page 4 Mr. Schuck reviewed one sale and stated that there have not been many sales in the area. The excess front footage was reduced by 52%, and an additional reduction of 75% was given to reflect the property's topography and accessibility. He noted that at the time of the assessment there was a similar parcel listed for sale with John L. Scott for $150,000. He does not know if that parcel has access. Chairman Broders asked about obtaining legal access across other parcels? Mr. Morefield answered that if a road was built across another parcel, it would reduce the buildable area by 35%. It is already questionable whether the property is buildable. Vice-Chairman Marlow asked if they have contacted the State about obtaining access off of Highway 20? Mr. Morefield answered that they applied for a permit approximately seven years ago and it was pulled by County officials contending that the permit should not have been issued. Vice-Chairman Marlow asked if the Morefields received written documentation regarding the permit denial? Mr. Morefield answered yes. They did not bring it with them, but, they will send a copy to the Board for review. Chairman Broders asked the Morefields how much they estimate the property to be worth? Mrs. Morefield replied that it depends on whether or not the property is buildable. Mr. Morefield stated that without any type of access the property only has a token value of probably $5,000- $10,000. After reviewing all the information submitted and hearing the testimony of both parties, Chairman Broders closed the hearing. The Board will conduct a physical inspection of the property and make a determination at a later date. Eric Julson Wade Johnston, Agent P.O, Box 397 Brinnon, W A 98320 BOE: Ol-OI-LO PN: 502213024 Mr. Julson was present. Appraiser Robert Kingsley represented the Assessor's office. After explaining the hearing process Chairman Broders swore them in. The property under appeal consists of 5.6 acres located off of Highway 101 in Brinnon. Mr. Julson explained that he is on total disability and receives $500 per month, He purchased this property in 1998 for $33,500 from Stan and Candy Johnston who helped him out because he did not have any money for a down payment, or any money to pay for utilities or bulldozing to prepare the lot for a trailer. At that time the property was actually worth $18,000 - $20,000, but, he agreed to pay more to get utilities. Therefore, the purchase price does not reflect market value of the property because it included other costs. He stated that the only improvements made to the property is the installation of power. There is no well or septic system. He cannot afford to make any improvements on his income. In addition, his property is 95% wetlands. Currently the property is assessed at $32,800. Mr. Julson's estimate of value is $25,000. Board of Equalization Meeting - September 24, 2001 Page 5 Mr. Kingsley stated that the valuation was based on the purchase price. He also spoke on the telephone with Mr. Johnston who told him exactly what the appellant just stated in his testimony. Chairman Broders asked Mr. Julson why he feels his purchase price does not represent market value? Mr. Julson replied that five acres in that area which are not buildable and are considered wetlands would not sell for even half of his purchase price. The five acre parcel that he wants to buy, which is adjacent to his property and is buildable, has been on the market and hasn't sold for six years. It is currently listed for $40,000. He added that he had to pay that amount in order to get a place of his own. The Johnston's helped him by carrying the contract, since he most likely would not have qualified for a loan with a bank. He did not think that the taxes would increase because the property is a wetland and he is on total disability. The taxes are 1/15 of his annual income which puts a serious hardship on him. He can't afford his bills. He lives in an area where every place he calls is long distance and the phone bill is never below $50. With energy prices increasing it will be expensive to heat his travel trailer in the winter. Then there's auto insurance to pay for. It just seems that everything comes due at once putting an incredible hardship on him. After reviewing all the information submitted and hearing the testimony of both parties, Chairman Broders closed the hearing. The Board will conduct a physical inspection of the property and make a determination at a later date. David Johnson Henry & Joan Opel Trust 314 Prospect Avenue Port Townsend, W A 98368 BOE: 01.35.LO 01-36-LO 01.37-LO PN: 954000101 954 000 201 954 000 301 Mr. Johnson was present. Appraiser Dennis Pownall represented the Assessor's office. After explaining the hearing process Chairman Broders swore them in. The property under appeal consists of three blocks made up of 12 lots each, located at 13th & Rainier, Port Townsend. Mr. Johnson stated that the valuation of each parcel increased from $18,000 to $35,000. Almost double the previous value. In proximity to utilities block 1 is the closest, block 2 is further away and block 3 is further yet. To assess all the blocks as having equal value is not sensible. Blocks 1 and 2 are zoned R-4 while block three is zoned R-3. The City of Port Townsend conducted a technical report on what would be required to improve and develop the property. According to that report, it will cost approximately $350,000 just to make the following improvements: connect the property to water, sewer and power; and put in streets, curbs, gutters, and drainage. All that is required before building can even begin. A potential buyer was interested in the property until he learned what was required in developing the property and how much it would cost. Mr. Johnson agrees that the property has increased in value, but not doubled in value. The appraiser did not take into consideration the proximity of the utilities in the assessment. Mr. Johnson said he called the Assessor's office to ask what was used to value his property and he was told that listings of comparable properties were used rather than actual sales of comparable properties. Mr. Johnson stated that he has been in the construction business for over 33 years and has taken the appraisal courses as prescribed by the State of Washington. He has a good sense of the value of property when it comes to general contracting and feasibility to build. All three parcels are currently assessed $35,000 each. Mr. Johnson's estimate of value is as follows: $30,000 for parcel number 954 000 101; $24,000 for parcel number 954 000 201; and $18,000 for parcel number 954 000 301. Board of Equalization Meeting - September 24, 2001 Page 6 Mr. Pownall stated that Mr. Johnson is right. There have been no sales of comparable property in that area on which to base the valuation. He used whatever he could find to value the property, including the listing of the adjacent parcels. The value of these parcels have been at $18,000 for at least 8 years without change. Just because there have been no sales, does not mean that these parcels have not increased in value. Mr. Pownall stated that he believes the assessment is so far below their true market value that he did not think it was necessary to address the distance from utilities, or identify the individual parameters of each block, especially in view of the eight blocks (blocks 5-12) adjacent to Mr. Johnson's property which are listed for sale for $594,000. Each block is two acres in size. Mr. Johnson's property is zoned the same and valued the same as the listed property. Therefore, if the Board determines that a valuation adjustment is necessary, the members should also consider an adjustment for the other property in the area to insure equity. While there is no hard evidence as to whether or not the property value is correct, the value does seem reasonable and consistent. Mr. Johnson noted that his block #3 is zoned different and has different density requirements than his other two blocks. The property listed for sale is closer than his property to Discovery Road. If the property was to be improved, Rainier Street would have to be paved to meet the City's requirements. There is 560' difference in proximity to the sewer line between the property listed for sale and his property which is located behind the listed property. Installing an additional 560' of sewer line, water line, etc. can add up to a lot of money. Any value can be placed on a piece of property, but, it's only worth the amount someone is willing to pay for it. After reviewing all the information submitted and hearing the testimony of both parties, Chairman Broders closed the hearing. The Board will conduct a physical inspection of the property and make a determination at a later date. Rose Wind, Inc./Leonard Zweig 3290 Kuhn Stret Port Townsend, W A 98368 BOE: 01-15.R 01.24.LO PN: 991100 005 991100 027 Representing Rose Wind, Inc. was Leonard Zweig, Lynn Nadeau, and Howard Pack. Appraiser Peter Schuck represented the Assessor's office. After explaining the hearing process Chairman Broders swore them in. The property under appeal consists of a bare land parcel located off of Umatilla and Haines Streets in Port Townsend. Mr. Zweig explained that parcel number 991100 005 is his personal property and parcel number 991100 027 is owned by Rose Wind, Inc. He requested that the appeal of Rose Wind, Inc. be heard first. The Board agreed. Mr. Zweig stated that this parcel is zoned commercial and is owned by the members of Rose Wind, Inc. which is a co-housing community. He presented a copy of section 5 of their "Property Use and Development Agreement" (PUDA) with the City of Port Townsend which outlines very specifically how the commercial lot can be used. The term "commercial lot" is really a misnomer. It was a term used for convenience, but, based on the PUDA no commercial use is permitted. The lot can only be used for home occupations by members of the Rose Wind, Inc. community. At this point there is no structure on this property and no business being conducted. Furthermore, as outlined in the PUDA the lot cannot be sold. Based on the restrictions of the PUDA, the lot is not income producing or marketable and therefore, should not be valued as a typical commercial lot. If a structure was ever built on the property for a permitted use, it would be more appropriate to call it an extension of home activities rather than commercial. Ms. Nadeau explained that Rose Wind, Inc. is a non-profit, self-developed, self-managed, intentional neighborhood for 24 families. The idea originated with a small group of individuals who purchased the land and divided it into homesites and common fields for a community hall and vegetable garden, etc. When they Board of Equalization Meeting. September 24, 2001 Page 7 were going through the planned unit development process with the City, they decided to include a common area for conducting very specific home occupations to enhance their sense of community. However, no money was ever budgeted and nothing has ever developed. When permission was received from the City to designate the property as commercial it was determined that because of the nature of their community experiment, their home not only includes their house, but, jointly the whole nine acres. This way they could detach any home occupation from the individuals house and locate it on the common land. The common lands in general are not taxed separately, but, are included in the amenity value of their individual homes. This lot has functioned as just another piece of their common field. Even if it was developed, it would only generate income for individuals as home occupations and would be considered another amenity which members of Rose Wind, Inc. have with their property. Mr. Pack summarized by stating that the commercialization of the property is not for the public, but only for the 24 memberslfamilies of Rose Wind, Inc.. It does not have any commercial value. It has restricted businesses and business hours. Ms. Nadeau stated that Rose Wind, Inc. would not operate a business on the property, it is for home businesses of individual members. Use of the property for home occupations might never happen, so it may just end up being used for a garden. Member DeLeo asked if this is the place that has a community kitchen and where everybody lives together? Ms. Nadeau stated that they do not live together. They all have private single family homes quite indistinguishable from other homes in Port Townsend. There is a community hall on an adjacent lot where the families have business meetings, potlucks, and other gatherings. She stated that they are pretty normal people in terms of their lifestyle. The bare land parcel is currently assessed at $47,500. The appellants did not provide an estimate of value. Mr. Schuck stated that there are no comparable property sales that meet this criteria. The current use of the property does not warrant a reduction in value, since the property could be developed at some point in the future. He stated that the value was based on typical commercial property sales. He added that there is a parcel of land located at North Beach which is used as a garden and is assessed at $100,000 because it is waterfront property, The fact that it is used as a garden does not preclude it from being sold andlor developed at some point in the future. Regardless of the restrictions of the PUDA, the property is zoned commercial and must be valued as such. Ms. Nadeau asked if there were a wider range of uses for this property since it is taxed as commercial? Mr. Schuck replied that he has no part of the PUDA that was agreed to between Rose Wind, Inc. and the City of Port Townsend. Mr. Zweig stated that it is the PUDA that controls the use of the property. The use is so restricted that it is not commercial. It is not currently used as commercial property, there is no intention to use it as commercial property, and there is no building on the property. Mr. Schuck suggested amending the PUDA to change the parcel to "common ground" with a restriction that no building can be constructed in the future. Board of Equalization Meeting. September 24, 2001 Page 8 Ms. Nadeau stated that they could do that if they wanted to abandon their initial intent which was to allow members to conduct home occupations on this lot which is just a larger definition of their home. Mr. Pack stated that the issue is the economic value of the lot which is determined by the market place. The market for this lot is restricted to 24 families. It cannot be listed for sale and sold on the open market to the general public. The market competition factor is completely removed which reduces the market value. Mr. Schuck added that single lot sites that are not within the community of Rose Wind are selling for $10,000 per site, while Rose Wind, Inc. lots are selling for $39,000-$40,000. Based on the market place, it appears as though individuals will pay more for the amenity of having the common ground and common areas of Rose Wind, Inc, Mr. Zweig stated that the value of the amenities is already reflected in the individual home assessments. Having a separate tax on this lot that Rose Wind, Inc. must pay seems redundant. The members are already paying an individual tax for the amenities. It was a mistake to desiguate this property as commercial. He asked the Board to set aside the title "commercial" and consider the restricted uses, restricted business hours, restricted ownership, and restricted market. After reviewing all the information submitted and hearing the testimony of all parties, Chairman Broders closed the hearing. The Board will conduct a physical inspection of the property and make a determination at a later date. Mr. Zweig continued with his personal property appeal for parcel number 991100 005. He stated that due to the nature of the Rose Wind community, it has a comparatively restricted market for the resale of property. As Mr. Schuck testified previously the lots in Rose Wind sell for more than the lots around it because of all the built in amenities. However, his house is a geodesic dome, It is the only house of its kind in Port Townsend and there are only a couple elsewhere in Jefferson County. He believes the resale potential for a geodesic dome is much less than it would be for a traditionally constructed house. Otherwise, there would be more houses of this type. He asked the Board to consider the nature of the structure in making their determination. The current assessment ofthe property is $246,400 ($47,900 for the land and $198,500 for the improvements). Mr. Zweig estimates the value to be $209,440 ($40,715 for the land and $168,725 for the improvements). Mr. Schuck stated that there have been no sales of geodesic dome houses on which to base the value of the appellant's property. He asked Mr. Zweig if the value of the improvements is close to the cost of the construction? Mr. Zweig replied yes, it is close to the amount he has put into the house, With regard to the land value, Mr. Schuck stated that he used the limited sales that occurred within the Rose Wind community and he also used sales of other types of property. He is confident that the land value reflects market value. Mr. Zweig added that he and his wife built the house knowing that if they ever decided to sell, they might have to accept less money than they paid to have it built because of its unusual design. He believes the fact that the house is a geodesic dome, combined with its location in a co-housing community, limits the market value. Board of Equalization Meeting - September 24, 2001 Page 9 Mr. Schuck stated that in the distant past there have been sales of geodesic dome houses. There is one in Port Hadlock and one off of Oak Bay Road. These houses are nowhere close to the quality of Mr. Zweig's house. Mr. Schuck only mentioned the old sales to show that there have been sales of these types of houses. After reviewing all the information submitted and hearing the testimony of both parties, Chairman Broders closed the hearing. The Board will conduct a physical inspection of the property and make a determination at a later date. Herbert & Jean Herrington 905 Franklin Street Port Townsend, W A 98368 BOE: 01.19.R PN: 989708802 Mr. Herrington was present. Appraiser Peter Schuck represented the Assessor's office. After explaining the hearing process Chairman Broders swore them in. The property under appeal consists of a residence located at 905 Franklin Street, Port Townsend. Mr. Herrington stated that the property was purchased in 1979. He presented a graph he composed of the property tax history from the date of purchase to the present time which shows the property value in 1979 at $25,000 and the taxes at $220.00 and the value in 2001 at $336,660 and the taxes at $3,400.00. In 1985 he and his wife began to remodel the house to be used as a bed and breakfast home business. Photographs were presented showing the different stages of the remodeling. As the house was built in 1898, the foundation was in great need of repair. He noted that they paid for all of the improvements to the house without any funding assistance or grants. In talking with Mr. Schuck about his property assessment he was told that the assessment was based on comparable bed and breakfast properties which had sold recently. Mr. Herrington stated that this method which was used to determine value, concerns him. Their house is not only a bed and breakfast, it is also their home. They do not want to be taxed out of their home. Most of the time they do not have any guests, yet the property is being compared to bed and breakfasts which operate year round. This is unfair. The Herrington's do not operate a continuous business and should not be taxed as such. His retirement does not increase, so if the taxes continue to increase they will not be able to afford their house. The method of valuing property based on the amount property could potentially sell for as reflected by sales of other bed and breakfasts is unfair and unrealistic. This house is primarily their home. The graph of the property tax history shows the large increase over time. God only knows where it will go from this point. There is no control over it. The current assessment is $336,600 ($104,160 for the land and $232,440 for the improvements). The Herrington's did not provide an estimate of value. Mr. Schuck stated that the value was based on sales of other bed and breakfasts as well as other single family residences. He discussed the sales, two of which occurred in the same block where the appellant's property is located. Chairman Broders explained that the Board members understand the appellant's concerns, however, the Board's function is to ensure that property values are fair and equitable. Mr. Herrington asked if consideration is given to part time operation of the business versus full time operation? It is not fair to label their home as a business and use that as a lever for increasing the property taxes. Member DeLeo stated that it was Mr. Herrington's choice to operate a bed and breakfast out of his home. Board of Equalization Meeting. September 24, 2001 Page 10 Mr. Herrington agreed. They remodeled the house so they would have the option to operate a business out of it depending on their retirement needs. They wanted that option, but, they didn't want to get strangled by it. Mr. Schuck stated that a comparable parcel recently sold for $512,000. It is hard for him to rationalize that the appellant's property is overvalued. Mr. Herrington stated that he is not selling the house. Mr. Schuck stated that he must estimate the value to be the amount the property could possibly sell for. He believes the current assessment reflects market value whether it is a bed and breakfast or a single family residence. After reviewing all the information submitted and hearing the testimony of both parties, Chairman Broders closed the hearing. The Board will conduct a physical inspection of the property and make a determination at a later date. Meeting adjourned. Attest: / t t~~L ~ t!julhli fAIL Erin K. Lundgren, Clerk 0; ;~{B~:d JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF EQUALIZATION Richard A. Broders, Chairman , /-.- , William S. Marlow, Vice-Chairman ~c~ -