05-13-2002 Board of Appeal and Equalization Reconvened Packet

Home Browse Search

HRROR IN SIZE OF DEERING ISLAND ? A phone message to the taxpayer claimecl the assessed value of the Island had heen reduced to $ 637,000.00 hecause the 1985 Survey does in fact disclose an island size 30 % less than the taxpayer has heen assessed for previously. if this did in fact happen, and assuming the assessed value of the cahin value, as previously disclosed, remained the same, the followingf resulted: 1) It eliminated the phantom land, reducing the assessors claim of the Island size from 3.98 acres to 2.65 acres, a reduction of 1.33 acres, or 30%. 2) The ^ross assessment was reduced to $637,000.00. 3) The cahin value presumably hadn't changed, and only the land value was changed hy eliminating the “phantom land ’ of 1.33 acres or 57,935 sq feet. 4) Assuming the cahin retained its $61,000.00 value, the assessor then reduced the assessed value of the Island land hy $183,000.00 to $ 576,000.00 5) The assessor then Increased the land value from $ 4.38 per square foot to $4.99 per foot, an increase of $ .61 per square foot, or $26,571.60 per acre. 6) The corrected land value, hased on the 2002 assessment should have heen 2.65 acres times $4.38 per square foot or $505,600.00. 7) Adding the cahin and correct land area value, and usin^ the assessors original 2002 assessment figures, the reduction caused hy the “phantom land” should restdt in an assessed value of $566,600 in place of the original $820,000.00, and not $637,000.00 Without any property improvements, this figfure still demonstrates an alleged increase in value in three years of $480,000.00, or 306%; an average of 102% per year, and an increase of $512,000.00 over the Tasis^~ffcTSfitn nrriTs u rtla- i ^stiiurrrs irrirt asrritwiarfH 11 rWi ■ nt *nr k WtM bite i i . ^-i 111 <, ^ mm, ——• . -■ 'iriiisanrsawa II ilriifHM I fli ■ 1 II ve.«/A-.rf«wim w teikTJ-ln—-wrte>r ‘