07-15-47 JULY 15TH, 19~7.
The City Council of the City of Delray Beach sat as a Board of Equalization
at 10:00 A. M. in the City Manager's Office to hear complain~ts of property owners
as to 19~7 assessments placed on the 19~7 Tax Roll by the Tax Assessor, wit~ Mayor
M. M. DeWitt in the Chair, and City ~nager H. P. Edm~d, City Attorney J. W.
Nowlin, and the following Councilmen present: B. C. Butler and J. B. Smith, a
quorum being present.
The Clerk read proof of the publication of a notice to property owners,
advising of the meeting of the Equalization Board, as follows:
NOTICE TO PROPERTY OWNERS
City of De]may Beach
Notice is hereby given to property owners in the City of Delray Beach that
assessments are now completed for the year 19~7. Owners may learn the amount
of their assessments by writio~ to, or call~ug at, the office of the Tax Assessor,
in the City Hall~ The Board of Equalization will meet on the Tuesday after the
second Monday, July 15, 19~7.
This notice is given in compliance with Section 76 of the City Charter, which
reads as follows:
"SECTION 76: The City Council shall upon the Tuesday after the second Monday
in July, in each year, sit as a Board of Equalization of Taxes; and due notice
of said meeting sha/1 be given by publication for not less than two weekly issues
in a newspaper, published within the said municipality. At such meetings the Council,
sitting as a Board of Equalization, as aforesaid, shall have before it the assessment
rolls to be returned by the Assessor of Ta~es and so proceed to equalize and revise
the said assessments. The Council, at such time, shall have the right to make all
inquiries necessary and if advisacle, to take testimony for the purpose of deter-
mining the valuation of any property so assessed. Ail persons owning property,
real or personal, in the City of De]may Beach, shall have the right to file a
complaint, in writing, under oath, as to the assessment of their property, which
written complaint must be filed with the City Clerk of the City cf Delray Beach on
or before the second Monday in July of each year. The Board of Eq,,,l~ zation shall
remain in session from day to day for as long as may be necessary to pass on such
written compla/nts and to equalize and revise such assessments, provided, however,
that said Board sha~.l not be required to remain in session for longer than three
successive days. The meetings of the Board of EquaLization of Taxes, shall not be
public, but representatibes of the press shall not be excluded and any taxpayer who
has filed a written comp]~!nt as above set forth shall~ upon his request be invited to
appear before the Board of Equalization in person.
A. ~.. ~EENWO0~
City Tax Assessor.
_JULY 15TH, 1%7.
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
De/ray Beach News
Published Weekly
Delray Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF PALM BEACH
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared E. F. Peterman, who
on oath says that he is the publisher of the Delray Beach News, a weekly news-
paper published at Delray Beach in Palm Beach County, Florida; that the attached
copy of advertisement, being a legal notice, was published in said newspaper in
t~ issues of June 27, July ~, and LI, 19~7.
Affiant further says that ~he Delray Beach News is a newspaper published
at Delray Beach, in said Palm Beach County, Florida, and that the said newspaper
has heretofore been continuously published in said Palm Beach County, Florida,
each Friday and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office
in Delray Beach, in said Palm Beach County, Florida, for a period of one year next
preceding the first publication of the at%ached copy of adve~isement; and affiant
further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or corporation
any discount, rebate, commission ~r refund fc~ the purpose of securing this adver-
tisement f~r publication in the said newspaper.
(Si~ned) ~.. F. P.e.~rma, n
Swo~n %0 and subscribed before ms this /lth day of July, A. D., 19~7.
(si~ned)' Helen L. DeMaris
Notary Publix, State of Florida
at Large. Mu Commission expires
(SEAL) Jan. 10, 1951.
A letter from Mr. Fred B. Scott, requesting an appointment with the Equaliza-
tion Board, was read as follows:
"June 5, 19&7.
City Clerk,
Delray Beach, Florida.
Dear Madam:
I would like an appoint~nent with the Equalization Board in Peference to Beach
Lots 16 and a par% of 15, ~o see if we can arrive at a more equable assessed
valuation.
Thanking you for your consideration in the above matter, I remain,
Very truly yours,
(Signe~) ,, Fred B. S, cott.
Seacrest Hotel
JULY 15TH, 19~7.
Mayor DeWitt then explained to Mr. Scott that a Tax Adjustment Board had
spent practically five months in g~ing over the complete Tax Roll in order to
equalize values assessed against each property, using a front foot valuation
in every case, and using actual sale prices in all locations, and reducing same
by 50%. This they believed would be considered a fair market value. The Board
had equalized only land values, ar~ next year would make a thorough study of
building values in order to bring assessments placed on buildings in line. By
doing this the Board had arrived at a value cf $ 150.00 a foot front on Atlantic
Avenue from Ocean Boulevard to Andrews Avenue, and $ 172. OO a foot front on
Ocean Boulevard.
After considering the abow explanation Mr. Scott withdrew his complaint.
A letter from Mr. E. C. Hall, protesting against the 1947 assessed valuations
placed on his property in Block 139, and requesting a hearing before the Board
of Equalization, was read as follows:
"Jul~ 5, 1947.
The Honorable City Council
Delray Beach, Florida.
Gentlemen:
I hereby formally protest against, and request a revision of the 1947 Tax
Roll assessment upon my homestead property described as "S. ½ of N. ½ of Block 139,
West of Canal", and consisting of a lot ~fronting 26.9 feet on N. E. First Court,
having a depth of 138.7 feet, and a rea~ width of ~9 feet, a total area of 5282
sq. ft.
(1) The amount of the 19~7 valuation on this lot (only) is $ 5,600.00,
which vastly exceeds the actual, true or sales value, and is ex-
cessive and unreasonable.
(2)~ The 1947 valuation is inequitable, .amounting~to $ 1.05 per square
foot, as compared to an area v~luatmon of ~5~ cents per square foot
on the lot on N. E. First Court immediately South, which has the same
characteristic as my lot in that it is contiguous to the right-of-way
of the Intracoastal Canal. The same ratio, approximately, applies to
my lot and others in the neighborhood, on both sides cf the canal.
(3) The 19~7 valuation ~s inequitable, being vastly higher in relation to
tm_,e value, than residential lots in other sections cf the City, partic-
ularly North Swinton Avenue, where some desirable East frontages are
given a valuation of approximately ~ cents per s~vare foot, or 1/26 the
foot valuation placed on my lot.
(~) The 19~7 valuation is 'inequitable in cemparision with values placed upon
Atlantic Avenu~ commercial lots, the $ 5,600.00 valuation on my lot
~ the valuation upon the Red Cross Drug Building corner lot which
on today's market would sell for probably ..s_ixty times as much as my lot.
JULY 15TH, 19~7.
Inasmuch as I am assured by the Tax Assessor that no error of computation
has been made, the figures of the 19A7 valuations seem to prove simply gross
incompetence or prejudice on the part of the assessing agency, sinc· the
valuations are patently highly discriminatory and therefore illegal.
Re spectf,,1
(Signed) E. C. Hall"
The recommendation of the Tax Assessnent Advisory Board, made after having
studied the complaint of Mr. Hall, was then read as follows:
'~e have checked Mr. Hall's letter and find that he ~o,~is the South 1/2 of
North 1/2 of Block 139, West of Canal, being approximately 140.7 feet on canal,
26.9 feet on First Court, 138.71 on west l~ue and &9 feet on north line; and
we also find that he owns 32 feet, less the north 2.5 feet of Lot 10 in the
Seestedt Subdivision. These two lots adjoin each other and are homesteaded as
being one piece cg property.
The Board has changed this valuation from $ 5,600.00 to $ 5,000.00 in
accordance with the schedule of the Depth Percentage Table, Cleveland Standard
Table, based on 100 foot depth lots."
Mr. Hall addressed the Board, stating that he had been heavily overassessed
since 19~1, that his property fronted on N. E. 1st Court with a front width of
26.9', and it should be assessed as fronting on the Street it abutts, which could
only be this. Street.
City Attorney Nowlin explained that properties were assessed according to '
their value, not necessarily on their frontage.
Mr. Hall stated that he understood that the 19&? asses _~e_~nt was predicated
on a location on the canal, that the canal was merely coincidental and it was
questionable whether it added to the value of the property, as there was a heavy
expense involved in maintaining the seawall and the park area along the canal,
which is virtually public property. Mr. Hall insisted that the property must
take its valua.tion from its frontage on N. E. 1st Court, its general location,
and its area, further stating that he only asked to be assessed on a fair basis,
comparable with other like properties in the City. He also asked that the lot
owned by him, adjoining his property on the west, knom~ as the East 32' of Lot 10
less the N. 2.5' of Seestedt-Stevens Subdivision, be assessed separately, as it
was not in the same Block or Subdivision as his home, and had no connection with it.
The value placed on his property of $ 12,700.00, Mr. Hall further expalined,
would mean an estimated value of $ 25,000.00, which is more than twice the actual
cost of the house and land six years ago, also contending that he ~s entitled to a 3%
depreciation per annum. He felt that the true value of a property should be ascertained,'
ar~ then equalized with other equivalent properties in the town, stating that he was
being discriminated against, that the Seestedt property directly south of his
property, which definitely fronts on the canal, was only assessed f~ $ 6,800.00
and was twice the size c~ his property assessed at $ ~, 550.00.
It was explained to Mr. Hall that the Seestedt property had been assessed on
exactly the same basis as his property, that the width and depth had been taken
into consideration, and a proportionate figure had been arrived at.
?
JULY 15TH, 19~7.
It was fina~l~ agreed by the Boax'd that the lot owned by Mr. Hall,
adjoining his property on the west, should be assessed separately, on a
basis of $ 20.00 per front foot, the same as all other lots on this Street,
which was agreeable to Mr. Hall, but no other concession could be mede with-
out disturbing the equalization of the entire Tax Roll.
A letter from Mr. S. E. O'Neal, requesting a hearing before the Equaliza-
tion Board, was read as follows:
"July 12th, 19&7.
City Clerk of Delray Beach
P. O. Box 1178
Delray Beach, Florida
Dear Madam:
I wish to file this letter, as a protest on the assessnent for 19&7
against Block 148. I am co-owner with H. M. O'Neal of this block. The City
has assessed this block at $ 55,000.00, which I believe, is out of reason for
tax valuation.
It was my understanding that the assessnent or valuations were to be
equalized, through out Delray Beach. I have never complained about my taxes,
but I believe all property owners should pay taxes to maintain the City in
accordance with what benefits are received by the property 'from the City.
Now if the City can show where this property is not valued more in pro-
portion for what it receives from the- City than other property in the City,
then I will withdraw my protest.
Yours very truly,
(Signed) S. E. O'Neal
P. O. Box 38
Delray Beach, Florida"
Mr. O'Neal was advised that the valuation cf his property i~ Block 148 on
East Atlantic Avenue, had been reduced from $ 55,000.00, the figure given him,
to $ ~6,8~O.O0 upon recommendation cf the Tax Advisory Board. Mr. O'Neal thought
the property was still over-assessed, but it was explained to him that a valuation
of $ 100.00 per front foot had been used on both sides of Atlantic Avenee, from
Andrews Avenue to the Canal, for a depth of 200', which is considerabl~ lower than
50% of actual sale prices in this section.
City Attorney Nowlin advised Mr. O'Neal that he would check agreements with
the U. S. Government covering Blocks 130 and 138 being used as a Spoil Area, and
t~ t he believed this property should be e~empted from taxation during the period
of time it is in the hands of the Government.
No adjustment was made on acreage owned by Mr. O'Neal in Section 17, as the
Board felt a fair value had been placed on this property. -
The Board of Equalization then adjourned until 2:00 P. M.
' ' -C~ty Clerk
JULY 15TH, 19~7.
(2:00 p. m.)
Recess session cf the City Council, sitting as a Board of Equalization,
was held in the City Manager's Office at 2:00 P. M.
A letter from Mrs. Grace S. Weir and R. Stuart Weeks, as owners of the
South 1/2 of Block 16~, less the W. 150', was read as follows:
"July 12, 19~?
Equalization Board
Delray Beach, Florida
Dear Sirs:
Please give us a hearing for our protest on new assess~nt value on
S. 1/2 of Block 16~, less W. 150', Tract known as Mucklands, corner of Andrews
ard Atlantic Avenues.
The Atlantic frontage must be graded and some ffll. The section facing
~drews must~all be filled. We have not had an engineer' s price on the Andrews
section, but to cut back the rock formatio~ on the front corner I understar~ a
price was given a broker of $ 2,000.00 without fill.
This property was bought one year ago at the peak cf the current real estate
ma~rke.t.for $ 35,000.00 for investment, was not a speculative purchase. The new
v~,uatzon which you say represents 50% of present values is very very close to
our purchase price on the inflated market.
The surrounding lots on all sides can be built upon immediately. This
can not, but is assessed so much front footage on Atlantic of onlF a depth of
135', plus 10% for the corner section, plus Andrews, plus a muck strip of t~e
N. W. corner which in all, if put on the market, any part makes a silly lot of
talk when shown to a prospective purchaser. We had intended to develop as soon
as possible, and slowly, this strip, but to hold it with excess valuation and
thus higher taxes it is indeed discouraging.
I know it is crnl~ fair to spread the valuations to relieve us from' the
burden of homestead exemption, as I have been one of the business persons and
investors who have come under this unfair condition, partic-l~rly during the war
years when homesteaded property was used for income without sharing the City
services costs.
My second protest deals with the tract of property or lots 50-55 less S. 65',
Palm Square, or land on which the Boyd Building occupies. This land definitely
does not have the value when used for shops as has the concentrated business
blocks west cf the Federal. It is pretty well cared for, but up to now a definite
seasonal section, with the exception of "Sabaths" or the sundry shop west of us
which I doubt is considered more than temporary by it' s present c~ners, who no
doubt use what rent to carry the place until it is sold. Until there is more
development of shops in this couple of blocks we can not compete with the volumn
business blocks in rentals. We try to _m~.ke up in services and care of our properties
to make it attractive to tenants. Most of the tenants are familY people who must
JULY 15TH, 19~7.
(2:00 p. m.)
make their living during the season and heve found it better to close during
the summer and try elsewhere f= additional income. This not only applies to
me but the properties in this vicinity. However, mine is the only professional
office building and occupied by local men in this section. You may not have
had other protests in this section, but the above I ahve found true, and as a
matter of necessity for sale, the values when presented to a possible purchaser
as the City's idea of a 50% value by comparision with the down town section, it
doesn't add up.
This had all been a bit "wordy" and I would rather have stated it is person
and which given an appointment to state my case it will really be reptition, so
if you gentlemen can consider these facts before I appear it will save the time
of t he Board and me.
Very trul~ yours,
(Signed) Grace Si Weir
The Muckland tract protest by:
(Si~ne.d) Grace S. Weir (Owner)
CSi~ned) R, Stuart Weeks (Own~er)
Boyd Bu/lding:
(Signed) Grace S. Weir (O~ner)"
The recommendation of the Tax Assess,ent Advisory Board regarding this
property, was read as follows:
"Regarding the S. ~ of Block 164, less W. 150', being tract known as
Muckla~ds at the corner of Andrews and Atlantic Avenues, it was decided that
this property is in line with all other valuations in the neighborhood and
there is no complaint coming on this assessment.
However, after discussion, it was decided to make a new assessment of
$ 100.00 a foot, starting from Andrews Avenue to the Canal.
Regarding Lots 51 to 55, less S. 65', Palm Square, or the present side
of the Boyd Building, it was decided that no change in assessment be made at
this time."
It was explained to Mrs. Weir and Mr. Weeks that the assessed value ~
this property had been reduced from $ 28,600.00 to $ 23,680.00, by reducing
the front footage assessment on Atlantic Avenue from Adnrews Avenue to the
Canal from $ 125.00 to $ lO0.O0 per front foot. The Board felt that the valua-
tion was fair, and as it was assessed on exactly the sams basis as all other
like property in this location, no adjustment should be made.
JULY 15TH, 1%7.
Mrs. Weir contended that as they had purchased the property for $ 35,000.00
a year ago, the assessmer~ should be based on 50% of this price, or $ 17,~00.00.
She also stated that there would 'be considerable expense involved in cutting
hack the rock formation on the Atlantic Avenue corner of the property and filling
in the iow part on the Andrews Avenue side, in order to bring it in a comparable
condition with surrounding properties.
It was pointed out that recent sale prices in this Block had been used as
a basis for assessments, and no exception could be made on one particular ~ property
without upsetting the equalization of the Tax Roll. No action was taken on t~his
complaint.
Mrs. Weir withdrew her c~mplaint regarding the assessed valuation placed
on the Boyd Building on East Atlantic Avenue when advised that a value of $ 125. O0
a front foot had been used compared with $ 150.00 a front foot west of the Federal
Highway.
A letter from Mr. Edward B. Scherer, complaining of the 19~7 valuation
placed on his property on South Ocean Boulevard, and asking fc~ a hearing before
t~ Board of Equalization, was read as follows:
"July 14, 1%7.
Office cf City Clerk
Delray Beach
Dear Sirs:
Thank you for your assistance in acquainting me with the proposed 19~7
assessment for Lot #20, Ocean Park Subdivision.
I note that land value for 19~7 has tentatively been established at
$ 8300.00, an increase of 360% over the 19~6 valuation. I do not believe
such an amazing increase is Justifiable. This property is located in a local
business section where real estate values for business purposes are not favorably
comparable to the values in the principle business section. This is apparent
from noting the few business es established in the local business section.
I should like to ~present personally before the Equalization Board figures
which I believe will help to establish a fairer land value for this property.
Respectf,,1 ly yours,
(Sigmed) Edw. P. Scherer"
Mr. Scherer stated that he ~as interested in seeing valuations equalized
all over town, and when shown that the Tax Assessment Advisory Board had spent
several months bringing all comparable properties in line, Mr. Scherer withdrew
his complaint.
The Equa]_ization Board then adjourned until i0:00 A. M.,~Thursday, July
City Clerk
~ayor