Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutE&R 1995-05-15 118 MINUTES OF BOARD OF EQUALIZATION AND REVIEW, MAY 15, 1995 ASSEMBLY The 1995 Board of Equalization and Review met on Monday, May 15, 1995, at 2:00 p.m. in the Assembly Room of the New Hanover county Administration Building, 320 Chestnut street, Wilmington, North Carolina. The purpose of the meeting was to hear appeals filed by property owners regarding their tax value assessments. Appellants were informed the Board would make decisions following the hearings and notification of each decision would be mailed within a week. Members present were: Commissioners Sandra Barone; William A. Caster; William E. Sisson, Jr.; Vice-Chairman E. L. Mathews, Jr.; Chairman Robert G. Greer; Tax Administrator Roland Register; Tax Appraisal Supervisor Jim Bethune; Assistant County Attorney Kemp Burpeau; and Deputy Clerk Teresa P. Elmore. Chairman Greer called the meeting to order and welcomed everyone present. TAX APPEAL - ASSOCIATED INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY, PARCEL R04805-039-005- 000, SMITH STREET Mr. Register reported the appeal was withdrawn. TAX APPEAL - WILMINGTON WAREHOUSE, L.L.C., PARCEL R06500-002-002- 004, LANDMARK INDUSTRIAL PARK, WILMINGTON, NC Mr. Bethune reported the warehouse property, represented by Maus, Warwick, Matthews & Company, is currently under contract for sale at $2,775,000. After corrections made to the 1991 appraisal and the assignment of additional depreciation supported by the income approach and market activity, staff recommended reducing the assessed value from $3,287,480 to $2,996,430. In an earlier conversation, Mr. William C. Maus agreed to the recommended adjustment. Motion: At the conclusion of the hearings on this date, Commissioner Barone MOVED, SECONDED by commissioner Sisson, to reduce the assessed value to $2,996,430, as recommended by the Tax Appraisal Supervisor. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. TAX APPEAL HEATCRAFT, INC., PARCEL R06500-007-010-000, 602 SUNNYVALE DRIVE, WILMINGTON, NC Mr. Noel Crume, representing Heatcraft, Inc., stated the building was purchased from Snyder General in 1988. Because of production problems, Heatcraft closed the plant in August 1990. The State performed an environmental closure on the site, in March 1991, because of 1, 1, 1-trichloroethane contamination. Although Snyder General is responsible for the cleanup of the property, Heatcraft is a party to all the action because of being the owner --, of the property. To date, the environmental cleanup cost is $2,000,000, with an estimated cost of $5,400,000 for the next ten years. Contaminated dirt has been removed from the site and the I I I 119 ~ MINUTES OF BOARD OF EQUALIZATION AND REVIEW, MAY 15, 1995 groundwater will be monitored for 25 years. When Heatcraft appealed the assessed value in 1992, the total cost of the environmental cleanup was unknown. The assessed value was reduced to $3,644,835. Mr. Crume reported a market analysis from Hart Corporation appraised the property at $1.7 million; but he felt it would be very difficult to sell the property due to newspaper reports on the environmental concerns of the property. The Goelst Company had planned to purchase the property at $2 million; however, the lawyers were unable to agree on the liability of the environmental cleanup. There is a pending ten-year lease agreement with Federal Paper Company leasing the building as a storage facility at $1 per square foot. Mr. Crume stated it is difficult to determine an accurate reflection of value due to the magnitude of obsolescence in the equipment of the plant. The County's assessed value would be correct if the plant was a newer and better maintained facility. commissioner Sisson stated Heatcraft probably will not be able to sell the property for at least ten years and asked how much of the contamination is an issue for leasing the property. Mr. Crume responded the lease agreement restricts the responsibility of liability to the owner of the property. No manufacturing is allowed on the property; however, the facility can be used as warehouse storage. Mr. Crume requested the Board to reduce the value to $2 million based on the appraised value of $1,995,000, the withdrawn purchase agreement of $1,900,000, and the cost of the environmental cleanup. Chairman Greer asked staff about the normal consideration for contamination on property when appraising property. Mr. Bethune stated the contamination will greatly affect the value of the property; however, the County addressed Heatcraft's concern when the property was appealed in 1992. The value was set and upheld by the Board of Equalization and Review; and Heatcraft did not appeal the value at the State level. At the conclusion of the hearings on this date, discussion was held regarding the environmental problems of the plant site. Chairman Greer felt the value of the property is very much affected by the environmental problems on the site and suggested the value be based on the $1.00 per square foot leasing agreement. Mr. Bethune estimated the gross income on the 235,000 square foot warehouse, capitalized at 10%, would be $2,350,000. He did j 12(] MINUTES OF BOARD OF EQUALIZATION AND REVIEW, MAY 15, 1995 not feel the $1.00 per square foot as the market value for storage rental on this size building. Motion: Commissioner Barone MOVED to reduce the value to $2,350,000, based on the lease agreement of $1.00 per square foot, capitalized for ten years. Commissioner Barone expressed concern that the company may file bankruptcy and the County will not be able to collect any tax revenues from the company. Chairman Greer recommended splitting the difference between the current assessed value of $3.6 million and the capitalized lease value of $2,230,000. Amended Motion: Commissioner Barone MOVED TO AMEND HER MOTION, SECONDED by Commissioner Caster, to reduce the value to $3,000,000. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. TAX APPEAL - BB&T, PARCEL R04817-015-003-000, 202 NORTH THIRD STREET, WILMINGTON, NC Chairman Greer stated he is a member of the local BB&T Advisory Board and excused himself from deliberations on the next two appeals. Mr. G. A. LaMontagne, PVG America, representing the owners of BB&T, requested the Board to change the percentage of bank floor space to 10% of the five-story office building and to make the correction for the current and previous five years as provided by law. Corrections were made to errors found in establishing the value of the main office, except for the interpretation of the percent of bank floor space. He stated the first floor, which contains the lobby for the total building and the banking area, comprised of 8% bank instead of the assessed 20%. Bank space is more expensive and would result in a $34,000 reduction in the assessment. Mr. Bethune stated the 20% assessment as a bank building was based upon the first floor banking area and the executive offices behind the glass windows. Corrections were made to the evaluation because of a double charge on the sprinkler system. He noted a newspaper article reported the value of the five-story Carolina savings building at $3.6 million, which is supported by building permits and the evaluation of the building. In reviewing the appraisal and making the noted corrections, he recommended the assessed value be reduced to $4,424,763, and to deny the refund for the five prior years. Commissioner Caster questioned the use of newspaper articles in supporting the value of a building saying that the source could be unreliable. ~. Mr. Bethune stated the value was established by the previous I I I 121 ~ MINUTES OF BOARD OF EQUALIZATION AND REVIEW, MAY 15, 1995 schedule of values, which is the cost approach to value. commissioner Barone asked Mr. LaMontagne to explain the 12% discrepancy on the percentage of bank floor space. She stated that since it is five-story building, 20% would constitute one floor. Mr. LaMontagne explained he was unsure exactly where the Tax Department assumed the bank space. In any mixed-use building, an accurate appraisal is derived from the portion of the building applied to each use. For instance, if storage space is used in an office building, it should not be appraised as office space. Because it is a bank and has a sign outside that says it is a bank, it is frequently treated as 100% bank. In this case, it is obvious that the building is an office building and the County has applied the guidelines to the building and set the percentage as 20%. The first floor, which has less heated area, does not cover the whole footprint of the building because of the drive-through area. Mr. Bethune responded on the original assessment of the building, the appraiser made the assumption that 20% of the building is for bank purposes, which is part of the valuation scheme. The bank uses the executive style offices on the second and fifth floors for their office. commissioner Barone asked if the bank uses the other floors for customer services, such as for mortgage loans and executives' offices. Mr. LaMontagne answered that all of the building except one floor is currently used by the bank. The banking area on the first floor is basically like any branch bank, it just happens to be situated under an office building that happens to have bank personnel occupying some of the offices. The offices downstairs are involved with the day-to-day operations of the bank and the offices on other floors could be located at any other office space. Mr. LaMontagne stated the other part of the appeal is based on the current value for 1995. He stated the most clear indication of the value should be based on the income approach. He stated the four adjoining parcels used for parking support the office building with an additional income of $74,000. Any value derived from the income is allocated to the land first, which reduces the value of the improvements by $74,000. One of the finest office buildings in the area, the Atrium on Eastwood Road, is valued at $85.00 per foot, compared to $99.00 per foot for the BB&T bank building, which he felt indicated an incorrect assessment. commissioner sisson felt that location determines some of the value placed on property. If an office building is in a mixed-use, residential neighborhood with a fast-food restaurant in front, the building will not have the same appeal as an office building in the ~ 1 ") r j J_ I" { MINUTES OF BOARD OF EQUALIZATION AND REVIEW, MAY 15, 1995 center of the central business district. If a site-specific need is not important, then the location of the office will not matter. Mr. LaMontagne agreed and stated the downtown location is inferior to other office locations in the county. The Atrium is in a better location and draws higher rents. The downtown area is the least desirable area for office space as shown by vacancy rates. The vacancy rate in most areas of the county is 3% or less, while the downtown area is 15%. Tenants in the downtown area pay less rent and have problems with parking availability. Commissioner sisson asked if the BB&T building compares in value to other office buildings in the downtown area. Mr. Bethune replied the building carries basically the same value as other "Class A" buildings in the downtown area. Commissioner Barone asked for the valuations of other bank buildings on North Third street. Mr. Bethune responded staff will send for the assessments of the bank buildings; however, the value is better arrived from a reasonable cost approach based on the schedule of values. He reported the banks will be comparable in value. More money will be spent in developing the image of a bank building than when an investor is building an office building based on the amount of rental income. For tax purposes, the cost approach method would be the proper approach to value. Commissioner sisson stated the bank could maximize the income of the property by placing the bank employees at another site. Mr. LaMontagne explained the bank personnel was temporarily using the office space to handle a merger with another bank. The acquired accounts, not the real estate, are the main components of a bank merger. BB&T has received a lot of real estate from recent bank mergers and will be selling the excess property. He felt the rental income should provide a basis of value for the property because the bank personnel will move out of the office building soon. At the conclusion of the hearings on this date, discussion was held on the uses of the facility and the statute's reference to the change of ownership between a willing and financially able buyer and a willing seller, neither being under any compulsion to buy or sell and both having reasonable knowledge of all uses to which the property is adapted and to which it is capable of being used as the basis for the value. The statute does say that the use of a building has influence on the value of the property. Mr. Bethune reminded the Board that Mr. LaMontagne did point out that BB&T has excess property and may be willing to sell at lower than market I I I 123 ~ MINUTES OF BOARD OF EQUALIZATION AND REVIEW, MAY 15, 1995 value and having some compulsion to sell. Mr. Bethune reported, at Commissioner Barone's earlier request, the value of the UCB building is $4,342,759. The building has 46,860 square feet of space. Motion: Commissioner sisson MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Caster, to deny the request for a refund for the five prior years. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED AS FOLLOWS: Voting Aye: Commissioner Barone Commissioner Caster Commissioner sisson Vice-Chairman Mathews Excused: Chairman Greer MOTION: Commissioner Sisson MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Caster, to reduce the value by $6,337 for the percentage of office rental to $4,424,763, as recommended by staff. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED AS FOLLOWS: Voting Aye: Commissioner Caster Commissioner Sisson Vice-Chairman Mathews Voting Nay: Commissioner Barone Excused: Chairman Greer Commissioner Barone reported she voted no because she felt a reduction in banking space was justified. TAX APPEAL - BB&T, PARCEL R055l5-002-003-010, 803 SOUTH COLLEGE ROAD, WILMINGTON, NC Mr. G. A. LaMontagne, representing PVG America, reported BB&T leases the top floor of the two-story bank building on S. College Road to Century 21 Realtors and the bank operates on the first floor of the building. Based on the General Statutes, the value should be fee simple and not based on use value. The value should be based on a free and open exchange in a marketplace and use value is not relevant in mass appraisals. He compared the property to the Atrium property, assessed at $85 per foot, compared to $167 per foot. Over half of the building is used for banking; however, the building is for sale. Mr. LaMontagne stated it was difficult to determine the market value of a bank because usually a bank sale includes the sale of accounts. Mr. Bethune explained the law does not say the assessed value has to be fee simple; however, the assessed value must consider the income, cost, and market value, as well as other factors to ~ 1 r-) 4 J /" MINUTES OF BOARD OF EQUALIZATION AND REVIEW, MAY 15, 1995 determine a reasonable value. The County mostly uses the cost approach because it gives more equity in the mass appraisal process. When appropriate or needed, the income and market approaches are used to support the cost approach to value. In his opinion, the value of a bank building should not be based on the market rent of a building when the building is for a use and not for an investment purpose. An investor will not build a bank to lease out as office space because he will have more of a return from his investment if the building is built more economically. The tax exhibits show the cost of the building at $700,000. At the conclusion of the hearings on this date, Commissioner Barone asked if the 50% bank space is correct. Mr. Bethune responded the appraisal is established by the square footage of the exterior walls and the use of the property using the cost of vaults and drive-through windows including office space. Mr. LaMontagne reported the bank space as 50%; however, the upstairs rented office space is a smaller area than the downstairs area. MOTION: commissioner Sisson MOVED, SECONDED by Vice-Chairman Mathews, to uphold the assessed value of $1,466,956, as recommended by the Tax Appraisal Supervisor. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED AS FOLLOWS: Voting Aye: commissioner Barone Commissioner Caster Commissioner Sisson Vice-Chairman Mathews Excused: Chairman Greer TAX APPEAL - DEVELOPERS DIVERSIFIED REALTY, PARCEL R04919-004-026- 000, SOUTH COLLEGE ROAD, WILMINGTON, NC Mr. Bethune reported the property under appeal is the new Lowe's store and adjacent property, which is under development. The building was coded as a metal building instead of a block building. with the correction of the classification, staff recommended reducing the value to $5,231,295. Mr. Mike Boykin, representing the owner, Developers Diversified Realty, stated the property was under construction on the assessment date of January 1, 1995. Based on AlA documents, the land value and the partial construction of the building should be valued at $5,200,000. He reported the owner would accept the recommended adjustment. MOTION: At the conclusion of the hearings on this date, Commissioner Barone MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Sisson, to reduce the assessed value to $5,231,295, as recommended by the Tax I I I ~'25 ~ MINUTES OF BOARD OF EQUALIZATION AND REVIEW, MAY 15, 1995 Appraisal Supervisor. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. TAX APPEAL - ROBERT M. AND MARTHA M. CHURCH/LEE J. HOLTZCLAW, JR. 1996 OWNER, PARCEL R0881S-007-014-000, 710 N. LAKE PARK BOULEVARD, CAROLINA BEACH, NC Mr. Lee Holtzclaw stated he purchased the property from Robert M. and Martha M. Church. In comparing his property to property of similar size and use, he felt the value should be $43,705 and the cost basis should be $50,000. Mr. Bethune stated the County assessed the property at a cost approach to value. The County did not consider Mr. Holtzclaw's purchase to be an arm's length transaction because the property was not listed on the open market. The sales in 1990 and 1991 indicate the value of the property should be between $60,000 and $70,000. The property has minor traffic problems due to the size and location of the building on the small lot; and, there may be a misuse of the property as a bar and grill. Staff recommended reducing the assessed value to $60,786; however, Mr. Holtzclaw did not accept the value. commissioner Barone asked Mr. Holtzclaw if he thought the $60,786 assessment was a reasonable value for his property. Mr. Holtzclaw felt the previous owner was not under duress to sell the business and he considered the assessed value too high because he did not pay that amount for the property. In comparing to similar property nearby, he estimated the value of the property at $43,705. MOTION: At the conclusion of the hearings on this date, Commissioner Barone MOVED, SECONDED by Vice-Chairman Mathews, to reduce the assessed value to $60,786, as recommended by the Tax Appraisal Supervisor. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. TAX APPEAL - MAQ/PINES ASSOCIATES LTD., PARCEL R06019-006-009-000, 1272 SHIPYARD BOULEVARD, WILMINGTON, NC Mr. Bethune reminded the Board that the appeal on the pines Apartments was heard by the Board of Equalization and Review in 1992 and 1993. It was further appealed to the Property Tax Commission and to the Court of Appeals, which both affirmed the assessed value. Mr. Bethune explained nothing has changed to require another appeal. On the original appeal, asbestos was not reported to be located on the property; therefore, the asbestos was not considered by the Court of Appeals or the Property Tax Commission. In 1993, the appeal was based on the presence of asbestos and an agreement was made to adjust the value at the Property Tax Commission level to the current value of $4,067,424. Mr. Tom Mullikin of Real Estate Tax services, representing MAQ/Pines Associates, requested the board to consider additional ~ 1~6 MINUTES OF BOARD OF EQUALIZATION AND REVIEW, MAY 15, 1995 deferred maintenance of about $734,000. When the appeal was filed two months ago, the assessed value was $4,900,000. Since then, the owner has accepted the determination by the Property Tax Commission; however, he still wants to proceed with another appeal. The same evidence is being resubmitted along with the list of items of deferred maintenance resulting from a rotting roof and the problems with removing the asbestos. commissioner Barone stated the Board had previously heard of the asbestos problems in the roof, and asked how much of the deferred maintenance is for the removal of asbestos. Mr. Mullikin stated the cost to remove the asbestos will be $1.5 million, with the total roof replacement cost at $2.7 million. commissioner Barone asked if the roof had to be replaced. Mr. Register responded that the asbestos has to be covered and sealed. Mr. Mullikin replied that the owners are required to replace the roof or to monitor the asbestos; and they have decided to monitor the asbestos. Mr. Mullikin stated the owner is a very aggressive individual, who owns over 200 rental properties across the nation, and views property tax as a major expense. Based on the income approach, he requested the value to be reduced to $3.2 million. MOTION: At the conclusion of the hearings on this date, Vice- Chairman Mathews MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Sisson, to uphold the assessed value of $4,067,424, as recommended by the Tax Appraisal Supervisor. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. TAX APPEAL - GRAMERCY PROPERTIES, PARCEL R05409-029-006-000, 819 SOUTH THIRD STREET, WILMINGTON, NC Mr. Register reported the appeal was withdrawn. TAX APPEAL - ROBERT BRODIE III, PARCEL R05710-006-007-000, 1705 POPE COURT, WILMINGTON, NC Mr. Register explained Mr. Brodie did not allow the County to conduct an on-site review of the property and he has not filed an actual appeal on the assessed value. The appraisal performed is in compliance with the Property Tax commission: when there is a lack of cooperation by a taxpayer, the assessor makes an appraisal on the best information available. Mr. Robert BrOdie, owner of 1705 Pope Court, stated he did not question the appraisal; however, he desired more information to understand how the value was established. He requested the Board to have his tax file brought to the meeting for his review and to I I I r~ 12-7 MINUTES OF BOARD OF EQUALIZATION AND REVIEW, MAY 15, 1995 allow him to make copies of the file. Chairman Greer stated the County wanted to work with Mr. Brodie and asked exactly what information did he need. Mr. Brodie responded he wanted an explanation of the two multipliers on the printout regarding the quality grade adjustment of 2.40 and the special architecture adjustment of 1.07. Mr. Bethune answered the 2.40 represents the quality adjustment that differentiates a house in Landfall from a house in King'S Grant. The adjustment is an appraiser's opinion and could have been a little high; however, Mr. Brodie did not allow the appraisal staff to survey the house to make that determination. Mr. Brodie asked why his appraisal was higher than two similar houses, which were constructed by the same builder, located on the same street. After he was asked the addresses of the houses, Mr. Brodie replied the Tax Department should know which houses he was talking about. Chairman Greer reiterated that the Board wanted to help Mr. Brodie; however, the purpose of the meeting was to discuss property tax value. If Mr. Brodie felt he had been treated unjustly, the Board would want to justify the appraisal. He explained the Board was unable to examine the tax records because of other pending cases; however, the Board would address any specific concern. Mr. Brodie replied if the Board was unwilling to have his file brought to the hearing, then he did not have anything more to say. At the conclusion of the hearings on this date, no action was taken by the Board because the value of the property was not appealed. In further discussion, Mr. Bethune reported Ms. Roberts, the appraiser, had properly identified herself to Mrs. Brodie prior to performing the evaluation on the property. Later Mr. BrOdie, using foul language, ordered Ms. Roberts off the property and had her escorted out of Landfall by the security people. Mr. Bethune explained the appraisers investigate approximately 300-400 building permit sites a month. An appraiser works an area at a time instead of traveling allover the County. The property is reviewed and the data in the computer system is updated and assigned a value based on the approved schedule of values. The appraisers are instructed to identify themselves with their name tags to any person at home; and, if no one is at home and the appraiser can access the property, they proceed with the appraisal. In most cases, such as new construction, the appraiser is there during the construction process and can obtain access without any ~ 1 r) ,-, J_r C MINUTES OF BOARD OF EQUALIZATION AND REVIEW, MAY 15, 1995 problem. However, the appraiser has many ways to obtain the size of a structure. Mr. Register stated the building permit from the Inspections Department is a reliable source of information in determining the value. Mr. Brodie had asked many technical questions and was offered the use of the appraisal manuals. Commissioner Barone stated staff should have answered Mr. Brodie's questions to the point of his understanding the meaning of the 2.40 and 1.07 adjustments. Chairman Greer defined the quality adjustments as an indication of the high-quality neighborhood of Landfall. Mr. Bethune stated an architectural adjustment is for the architectural treatment which is usually charged at a certain percentage on the value of the construction. Mr. Brodie's intent was to send faxed messages instead of discussing his concerns with staff. TAX APPEAL - WHITTLER DOWNS MANAGEMENT, BEST PRODUCTS INC., PARCEL R055l5-002-002-001, 818 SOUTH COLLEGE ROAD, WILMINGTON, NC Mr. Bethune reported the Tax Office received a complaint form from Mr. Edward Clingman, Vice President-General Counsel and Secretary of Best Products, indicating that KPMG Peat Marwick would represent the company. However, no further information or contact had been received. Since no one was present to give an appeal, he recommended the assessed value of $2,300,786 be affirmed. Motion: At the conclusion of the hearings on this date, Commissioner Sisson MOVED, SECONDED by Vice-Chairman Mathews, to affirm the assessed value of $2,300,786. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. TAX APPEAL - TRUST BUILDING JOINT VENTURE, PARCEL R04720-009-009- 001, 2 A NORTH FRONT STREET, WILMINGTON, NC Mr. Bethune reported the property consists of an office condominium with ten units. The basement unit was recorded as a finished office and appraised at $52,477. It is basically smaller than the upper nine floors of individual units. Mr. Henry Sender, the owner, reported to the Tax Department that the basement was an unfinished office area used for storing some mechanical equipment. Upon inspection, it was determined the dark basement was assessed in error as office space and the value of the unit should be reduced to $35,087. MOTION: At the conclusion of the hearings on Commissioner Barone MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner reduce the value to $35,087, as recommended by staff. the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. this date, Sisson, to Upon vote, I I I 1?9 ~ MINUTES OF BOARD OF EQUALIZATION AND REVIEW, MAY 15, 1995 TAX APPEAL - FAST FAIR, INC., PARCELS R03315-002-003-000, 3540 CASTLE HAYNE ROAD; R04200-005-002-000, 820 NORTH COLLEGE ROAD; R04900-001-013-001, 425 NORTH COLLEGE ROAD; AND R06013-005-010-000, 2158 CAROLINA BEACH ROAD, WILMINGTON, NC Mr. Bethune reported the appeal was on four separate parcels owned by Fast Fare, Inc. Mr. Tim Jaeckle of Compton and Associates filed the appeals, but was unable to attend the hearing. His argument was based on the amount of depreciation assigned to each building. In reviewing all of the properties, the building located at 820 North College Road was erroneously assigned the value of a structural steel building instead of a brick veneer building. The value should be corrected and reduced to $229,263 from $259,502. The other properties were appraised according to schedule of values. The effective age and condition of a property, not the actual age, are the basis for assigning depreciation. MOTION: At the conclusion of the hearings on this date, Commissioner Barone MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Sisson, to uphold the values on all of the properties, except for the property located at 820 North College Road. The assessed value of 820 North College Road was reduced to $229,263, as recommended by the Tax Appraisal Supervisor. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Greer complimented the Tax Department for their fair and thorough presentations of the appeals. Mr. Bethune stated although the appraisal system is not perfect, it is a good system that works well. The taxpayer is a part of the process in pointing out errors in assessments. The Tax Department works with individuals during the year to provide equitable and justifiable values of assessments. There being no additional appeals, Chairman Greer adjourned the Board of Equalization and Review meeting at 4:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, J~ y:J~ Teresa P. Elmore Deputy Clerk of the Board ~