Laserfiche WebLink
' SUN 15 '94 [6:39 PARKER POE ADAMS 919 8~8 0564 P. 13 <br /> <br />The County Board was in¢onsis~ent in ~s ~re=~r~n= oE <br />construction period interest costs. L Such interest.may be <br />properly included in a cost approach analysi Neither party <br />effectively addressed this issue, and neither party ca~ied its <br /> <br />burden of proof. <br /> <br />The decisions of the County Boar~, except, as noted above, <br /> <br />properly reflected the true values in money of 'the personal <br /> <br />~roper~y. As to the value of the Taxpayer's real p=o~er=y, the <br /> <br />values assigned by the County ~oard to the Taxpayer's real <br /> <br />property (construction in progress) properly reflecte4 the true <br /> <br />values in money. The Taxpayer's evidence as to its 'real <br /> <br />value on 1 January 1991 met I:he ~ test. The.true <br /> <br />value of the Tax[~ayer's real property as of 1 January 199! was <br /> <br />$188,041,000. <br /> <br />-12- <br /> <br /> <br />