04/02/2007 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Appraiser Vance Olvey explained that he did not have new evidence since the previous hearing. He stated that he did have trouble finding property similar to the Zarzycki's style of home, and he reviewed for the Board the acreage per each comparable used. Robbie Fox added that they reviewed the letter that the petitioner supplied, dated November 16, 2006 in their analysis. He pointed out they tried to summarize the letter and answer their questions, and he proceeded to do the same for the Board explaining why the property was assessed higher than the comparables. He advised that: 1. All comparables are on 5-acre tracks, and the Zarzyckis' property is 20 acres. 2. Only one comparable is a two story, as the Zarzycki home. 3. They do not classify homes differently based on location. 4. The cost to build does not equal value, as a rule. Referring to the November 16, 2006 letter, the petitioner stated $580,000 to build, and insured double what it cost to build. He also addressed the room counts that were taken off the blueprints, explaining that only bathrooms make a difference in value, and it is an informational item. The Board reached a CONSENSUS to look at the land value first, then the value of the building. Mrs. Zarzycki explained how she analyzed the land value by using the land value of the closest house directly across the street from her. Appraiser Sharon Hammond said there was a mistake in the appraisal of that house (across the street), and a correction had been made. She pointed out the land values on the Zarzycki's street were $42,000 per acre. Discussion continued regarding the appraisal process and value per acre. In regards to the process of appraising land and buildings from a sale, Property Appraiser David Nolte said he did not believe it was legal for the Board to change values based on assessments, and Attorney Collins agreed that the Board should be looking at sales prior Value Adjustment Board 04-02-2007 - 3 -