05-13-1991 Council Minutes Reconvened Board of Review

Home Browse Search

1991 RECONVENED BOARD OF REVIEW - MAY 13, 1991 20. Jim Rivers of Windward Marine, 1444 Shoreline Drive - 11- 117-23 22 0004, 0005,0006, 0007 and 0010. The valuation for 1991 is $620,000. Mr. Erickson explained he recommends the commercial parcel be lowered $35,000 to $590,000, but maintain the residential at the same value, and this is based on the County appraisal and the fact that the market is down. Mr. Rivers noted that a few years ago all the properties were lumped together, now it is to their advantage to split between commercial and residential. He also noted that there hasn't been a true sale of a marina of late and so it should be based on income. He feels the property valuation should be reduced substantially to reflect the current down market. Councilmember Callahan has compared the figures of Mr. Rivers and that of the County appraisal. He noted that the dif f erence f rom what Mr. Rivers provided and f rom that the County is using in its appraisal as income from the property is $22,000. In reaching the lower figure, Mr. Rivers has included real estate taxes which include $20,000 whereas the appraiser took a flat amount for expenses, but when he figured capitalization rate,. "he, included a'5% capitalization rate to recover the* taxes.' Therefore, even though they went at it differently, it shows Mr. Rivers is missing the capitalization rate in his figures. There is little difference when this is figured in -to both figures. •The value by the appraiser might well be reduced by $50,000 -r. 60,000 from the $626,000 and that actually is close to Mr. River's figure at $580,000. He felt that it is-on the low, end of the scale. Councilmember Jabbour concurred with Mr. River's theory that income producing property should be assessed and valued upon the income, except there is a difference with seasonal income producing property. When the ratio of property taxes was insignificant to.the- income being produced, the valuation wasn't raised to match the income. The valuation cannot keep going down to ref lect the lack of income being produced. It was moved by Councilmember Jabbour, seconded by Councilmember Goetten, to change the valuation to $550,000 from $620,000 and this difference should come off the commercial parcel valuation, not the residential parcels. Ayes 5, nays 0. It was moved by Councilmember Callahan, seconded by Councilmember Butler, to adopt the Assessors' recommendations for the 1991 valuations of properties presented to the Board at the reconvened 1991 Board of Review. Ayes 5, nays 0. k