Laserfiche WebLink
Zarzycki had to say and also what Mr. Nolte had to say, and they have the right to make a <br /> decision, one way or the other. He advised Mr. Nolte that he could make the same request as <br /> Mrs. Zarzycki, or appeal in circuit court. He also explained the rules of evidence under the VAB <br /> process. <br /> Chairman Wheeler asked Mrs Zarzycki to continue. <br /> Mrs. Zarzycki argued that her property was erroneously assessed. She gave her analysis <br /> of the four properties presented in the Property Appraiser's evidence at her hearing, and after <br /> breaking it down to what the County charges per house and per acre, she said that she was being <br /> unjustly charged. <br /> Discussion ensued and the Board asked questions of the Property Appraiser to obtain a <br /> better understanding of the appraisal process. <br /> Chairman Wheeler wanted to make certain that the evidence they were looking at had <br /> been presented to the Special Magistrate. Mrs. Zryzycki responded that it was presented at the <br /> hearing,but it was the first time that she saw it, and she explained that she did not have enough <br /> time to absorb it in its entirety during the hearing. She continued her argument that she could not <br /> understand how the values are inconsistent. <br /> Mr. Nolte wanted it noted for the record that when he asked Mrs. Zarzycki what she <br /> estimated the value of her property to be, she said she did not know. <br /> Discussion ensued among the Commissioners regarding this situation. <br /> Chairman Wheeler felt he did not have enough information to make a decision and he <br /> gave the Board two choices: they could uphold this recommendation and Mrs. Zarzycki could <br /> take it to Circuit Court, or they could call another meeting on another day. <br /> ON MOTION by Board Member O'Bryan, <br /> SECONDED by Board Member Davis, by a 4-0 vote <br /> (Board Member Karen Disney-Brombach absent), the <br /> Board accepted the recommendations of the Special <br /> Magistrate for the 2006 Value Adjustment Board <br /> hearings, with the exception of the Zarzycki parcel <br /> which would come back to the Board for further <br /> review. <br /> 5. Public Input <br /> None. <br /> L <br /> 2006 Continuation of Final VAB Meeting <br /> March 6, 2007 - 2 - <br />