07-17-47AdjMtg 207
JULY 17TH, 1917.
An adjourned seSsion c~ the City Council sitting as a Bcerd of Equalization
was held in the City Yanager' s Office at 10:00 A. M. with Yayor M. N. DeWitt in
the Chair, and City Nanager H. P. Edmond, City Attorney J. W. No-lin, and the
following Councilmen present: B. C. Butler, J. B. Smith and C. J. White, a quorum
being present.
A letter from Yr. James J. Rittenbusch, representing Yr. A. G. Pruyser, asking
for a hearing before the Equalization Board, was read as follows:
"July 14, 19~7.
City Clerk
City of ~elray Beach
Delray B~ach, Florida
Dear Sir:
I wish to register a protest on the assessment on my property of 62 acres laying
North of 13th Street, between North Swinton Avenue and the F. E. C. R. R. tracks.
This property has been assessed at $ 25,000.00 and it is my opinion that the
maximum assessment, based on present day values, should not be more than $ 15,000.00.
I would like to take my case before the Tax Equalization Board for a hearing. How-
ever, I am not in town at the present time and could not appear before this Board
before July 25th, 19~7. I would like to appear before the Board as soon after that
date as possible.
Very truly yours,
(Signed) A. G. Pruyser
per JJR
(Signed) James J. Rittenbusch"
Mr. Rittenbusch stated that the assessed value of this property had been tripled,
and he considered it now assessed above the preaent market value.
It was explained to Yr. Rittenhusch that this property had been under-assessed
last year, and in bringing it in line with surrounding properties cf like nature, the
assessed waluation had been increased greatly, but that a graduated scale had been
used, and all property fronting on Swinton Avenue Jad been assessed on exactly the
same basis, according to the distance from the center of the town.
No adjustment was granted on this property by the Equaliza~tion Board.
An affidavit filed by Miss Annie Hofman, complaining of valuations placed on
property owned by her, and by her Father, Adolf Hofman, together with recommendations
of the Tax Assessment Advisory Board, were read as follows:
"STATE OF FLORIDA )
COUNTY OF PALM BEACH )
Annie Hofman of Delray Beach, Florida, being first duly sworn, upon oath de-
poses and says:
JULY 17TH, 1947.
1. That she is a property owner and tax payer in the City of Delray Beach,
Florida.
2. That she is filing this complaint pursuant~to'Section 76, Chapter 18494,
Acts of 1937, Laws of Florida, relating to the creation of the City of
Delray Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida, as amended by House Bill No. 772, passed
by the 1947 Session cf the Legislature of Florida.
3. That affiant and Adolf Hofman, her father, are the owners cf the. following
described land in the City of Delray Beach, Florida:
(a) Lots 32 to 67 inclusive, Hcfman Addition.
(b) Lots 3 to 7, Block 2, Hofman Village.
(c) LOt 1, Water Way Lane.
(d) LOt 2, Water Way Lane.
(e) Lot 3, Water Way Lane.
(f) LOt 7, Water Way Lane.
(g) Lot 10, Water Way Lane.
(h) A strip of land between Hofman Addition and Hofman Village.
4. That the valuations on said property as determined by the City Tax Assessor
for 1947 City tax assessment purposes, are as follows:
(a) 1946, land $ 5,O70.00; 1947 land, $ 21,860.O0
(b) 1946, land $ 1, B00.O0; 1947 land, $ 3,000.00
(c) 19~6, land $ 400.00; 1947 land, $ 2,475.00
(d) 1946, land $ 390.00; 19&7 land, $ 2,250.00
(e) 19~6, land $ 390.00; 1947 land, $ 2,250.00
(f) 1946, land $ 760.00; 1947 land, $ 7,850.00
(g) 1946, land $ 390.00; 1947 land, $ 2,250.00
(h) 19~6, land $ (not 19~7 land, $ 3,OOO.O0
5. That affiant for and on behalf of herself and her father, Adolf Hofman,
hereby complains of and protests the aforesaid 1947 land valuations for
the fo]lowing reasons:
(a) That the tax officials intentionally made unjust valuations for
taxation with an unlawful purpose in view.
(b) That there is intentional and substantial inequality in valuation in
various kinds of taxable property.
(c) That the valuations for taxation are grossly excessive and unreasonable
and do not have a just relation to the real and known value of the
property. (According to the Tax Assessor, the bases for assess~n~s
is 50% of the true cash or market value.)
(d) That, compared to other valuations as determined by said Assessor, on
both commercial and residential property within the City of Delray Beach,
said valuations violate the Constitutional Provision for "a Just
valuation of all property, both re~al and personal".
209
(e) That said valuations are discriminatory.
(f) That the entire tax roll is illegal and void.
6. Affiant respectf~,lly requests that she ar~ her father, Adolf Hofman,
be invited to appear before the City Council of the City of Delray Beach,
Florida, sitting as a Board of Equalization, in order that they might further
complain of and protest the said 19&7 valuations.
Subscribed and sworn to
before me this llth day of
July, A. D., 19&7.
(Si~ned)
Notary Public, State of
Florida at LarEe.
Commission expires July 1~, 1950. (SEAL)
The following recommendations of the Tax Assessment Advisory Board were read:
"Lots 32 to 67, inclusive, Hofman Addition -
It was decided that since this property has been subdivided it cannot be
considered as acreage. Streets have been dedicated and a plat is on file
showing the subdivision.
It was further decided that Lots &4 to 50, inclusive, and Lots 61 to 67,
inclusive, be reduced in waluation by $ 100.00 each, since they are not on
any paved street, and all other properties in the subdivision are to remain
at the present assessed valuation.
Lots '1, 2, 3, 7 and 10, Waterway Lane -
As all property is based on the same valuation cg $ &5. O0 a foot, no
change has been recommended.
It was also brought to the attention of the Board that a strip of land
between the Hofman Addition and Hofman Vtllage, hms not been assessed for
the past three years, as it did not appear on the assessment roll. It was
suggested that these taxes be paid for the past three years."
Miss Hofman was advised that the Equalization Board had approved the recommenda-
tion cf the Tax Assesamen~ Advisory Board, and the assessed value of Lots &~ to 50,
and 61 to 67, inclusive, had been reduced by $ !00.00 each.
It was also explained that a graduated scale had been used for all property
fronting on North Federal High~y, based on actual sales recorded recent ly, ar~ then
reduced by 50% to arrive at a fair market value. The Board could see no reason for
reducing the value of corner lots if the side Streets were not paved, pointing out
that when the Streets are paved the value of the lots will be increased addordtngly.
JULY 17TH, 19&7
The value of the land in Hofman Addition had been increased because of the
fact that it had been subdivided and was now assessed as lots and not as acreage.
Miss Hofman and her father were assured that actual sales in this section showed
sale prices of much more than twice the assessed value of their property.
Mr. Hofman complained of the high valuation placed on Lot 7, Waterway Lane,
cla~mteg that he wouldn't be able to sell this lot for the amount of the assessed
valuation, but he was informed that property fronting on the canal with private
dockage space was zelling for $ 100.O0 a front foot, which is more than twice the
assessment placed on the lot. No adjustment was made on this property.
The meeting then recessed until 2:00 P. M.
City Clerk
JULY 17TH, 19~7
(2:00
A recessed session of the Board of Equalization was held in the City Manager's
Office at 2:00 P. M.
A complaint filed by Mr. John N. Kabler, together w~th the recommendation of
the Tax Assessmenb Advisory Board, were read as follows:
"July 14th, 1967
City Clerk of Delray
Delray Beach, Fla.
Dear Sir:
I wish to -file my written complaint against the 19~7 tax assessments of the
following property as being unequal.
The building on Lot 11, Block 101 of 6~0 sq. ft. is assessed at $ 2,000.00
while the building on Lot 13, Block 101' has area of 3600 sq. ft. and is assessed
at only $ 3,760.00. The cubic footage of these two buildings is at ratio of 1 to 6.
Buildings on Lot 3, Block 2, Ocean Park, 1235 sq. ft., 2~,000 Cu. ft. is
assessed at $ 8,300.00, while the building on Lots 1 and 2, Block 2, Ocean Park,
3300 Sq. ft., 85,000 Cu. ft. is assessed at only $ 16,~70.00.
The N. 1/2 of Block 155 is assessed at $ $,880.00, while the N~ 1/2 of Block 158
which is closer to Atlantic Avenue is assessed at only $ 2,~50.00.
Also the assessuents on the following property if they should prove to be un-
equal as I was unable to obtain the amounts of assessnents from the Tax Assessor as
late as Saturday, July 11, 19~7. Lots 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, Block 1, Ocean Park, Trac~
JULY 17TH, 19~7
(2:00 P.
16~ x 90, East of Bronson, part of Beach Lots 19 and 3), Lot 3, Block 2, Ocean
Park.
Yours very tru3.v,
(Signed) John Nelson Kabler, Jr."
The following recommendations to the Council by the Tax Assess,ent Advisory Beard
wer read:
"Mr. Greenwood to check into the building aSsessments, but the property assess-
merit is to remain at the present valuation, on Lot 11, Block 101.
Upon preliminary examination cg the b,,~ldtng valuation, it was found tb~t the
,per-foot" assessment was only $ 3.50 a cubic foot for the Colony Cleaner's building,
while the Lacy Love b,,~lding, which he used as a comparison, was assessed at $
a cubic foot. A further assessment into the budlding valuation is to be m~de by
Mr. Greenwood, although the Board, at this time is not making any change in valua-
tions on houses until the coming year.
Regarding the buildings on Lot 3, Block 2, it was decided that no action is
- be taken on house valuations at this time.
The north 1/2 of Block 159 comes in the same category as all other lots in that
neighborhood, and an over-all adjustment has already been made.
The same adjustment as above applies to Lots 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10, Block 1, Ocean
Park."
After checking values of comparable properties on Bronson Street and Ocean
Boulevard, Mr. Kabler withdrew his complaint with regard to his properties in
Blocks i and 2, Ocean Park Subdivision, and part of Beach Lots 19 and 20, as he
was shown that all properties in this vicinity had been equalized.
The Board agreed to reduce the building assessms~ on Lot 11, Block 101, from
$ 2000.00 to $ 1750.00 after a comparision with assessments placed c~ other budldings
of like construction which were being assessed f~ the first time this year. Assess-
ments on all other buildings will be equalized durlng the coming year.
As there were no other ccmplaints to be heard, the Board of Equalization
adjourned.
City Clerk