2024-09-11 BOER Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Docusign Envelope ID:0776C7AB-OEE6-4D95-94E7-C84FDD4E6E17 Current Assessed Value $437,900 County Opinion $394,600 Time of Hearin 3:02 PM Appellant Opinion $327,855 County Representative Chad Phillips on Board Decision $339,500 behalf of Bill Hiltbold Evidence submitted by the appellant: • The condition of the home remains in the same condition as to before the 136 square foot addition. This additional space was added to a bedroom and two additional closets were made. The home's interior mostly remains in the same 1950's state with the original kitchen, bathroom, living room, dining room and two bedrooms. The three most recent sales prior to the January 2021 revaluation on my street were 40 Oakwood Dr. sale price, $305,000, 1980 sq. ft., 31 Oakwood Dr. sale price$350,000, 1383 sq. ft., and 2 Oakwood Dr., sale price$319,000, 1486 sq. ft.A broker's appraisal supports an appraised value of$327,855. • The appellant received a notice dated April 19,2024,that there was a change to the valuation of the home for 2024. This is the second Notice of Value Change that the appellant received this year because of an addition that was added 2023-2024. There have been no changes/alterations/remodeling to the home since the prior January 2024 Notice of Value change, so it is unclear why the tremendous increase in property appraised value. The increase raises the cost per square foot to substantially more than the neighboring homes on the same street. • The home only has two full bathrooms,while it is listed as having 3 full baths. This change has been noted directly on the Spatialest website to update this mistake. Effective year built is listed as 2020. The property was in its original build state when purchased in 2019. • At the hearing,the appellant stated to the Board: 1. That she received more than one value notice and is still unaware of her value. 2. That she emailed the appraiser,and received no response. 3. That she requested the value that was to be presented to the board and it was not provided to her. 4. That she was told that she would not be permitted to speak to the board at the hearing. The appraiser was not in attendance to address these statements made by the appellant. Evidence submitted by the county representative: • It is proposed to change the grade from B+05 to B-05,the effective year built from 2020 to 2010,the full bath count from 3 to 2 and open porch to screen porch. Total property value would change from$437,900 to $394,600 for tax year 2024. • Photos • Current property record card • Proposed property record card • An additional spreadsheet, for informational purposes,was provided to the Board at the time of the hearing. The spreadsheet included all the qualified sales that occurred during the time period reviewed for the 2021 revaluation values. Since the county's proposed changes were centered around grade and EYB,this information was provided for each of the sales. The subject property and two of the comparables were highlighted in the spreadsheet. Also included were a few values that would be arrived at if the Board decided to make further changes to the building grade and effective year built. o Grade B-10 and Effective Year Built 2000=Value$370,000 o Grade B-15 and Effective Year Built 1990=Value$346,700