HomeMy WebLinkAboutM072288
<.-_c-/ ;c" . '?/ . .
..
JBPFBRSON COUNTY BOARD OF BQUALIZATION
A. C. DALGLBISH
DAVID G. DOUGLAS
ARCHIB BARBBR, JR.
CHAIRMAN
VICE-CHAIRMAN
MEMBBR
ALTBRNATB
M I NUT E S
J U L Y
2 2, 1 9 8 8
The Board of Equalization convened at 9:00 a.m. with A. C, Dalgleish,
Chairman, David G, Douglas, Vice-Chairman and Archie Barber, Jr"
Member, all present, Clerk, Dierdrei Whiteford was present. County
Commissioner, George Brown sat in on the hearings from 9:00 a.m. until
the Board adjourned for lunch.
BOB-88-01lS-R
PBTITIONER: SCOTT KILMER
His petition and attached exhibits
of his presence.
ASSBSSOR: ROBBRT SHOLD
Assessor's Office.
Parcel Number: 996-400-203
did not appear before the Board.
were read into the minutes in lieu
was present, representing the
The assessor's valuation on the property being reviewed:
LAND: $ 8,000.00
IMPROVEMENTS: $ 45,765.00
TOTAL VALUATION: $ 53,765.00
The petitioner's opinion of what True and Fair valuation would be:
LAND: $ 8,000.00
IMPROVEMENTS: $ 41,000.00
TOTAL VALUATION: $ 49,000,00
The property is located in Hadlock at 40 B Street. The lot is 85' by
120', and it is zoned residential, The building is a house of
approximately 1,352 square feet. The property has not been listed for
sale; but it has been appraised by John H. Siebenbaum in order for him
to refinance. The appraisal occurred June 19, 1987, It was appraised
at $49,000,00. Mr. Kilmer bases his reason for challenging the
Assessor's valuation on this recent appraisal by Mr. Siebenbaum. On
the submitted residential Appraisal Report Addendum, the improved
living area is stated as 1,535 square feet, This is a difference of
200 square feet from the figure Mr. Kilmer submitted as footage of his
residence. This report does show Mr. Kilmer's property as having an
estimated value of $49,000.00. Mr. Kilmer also submitted a copy of
the Residential Appraisal Report Ci tyFed Mortgage Co" Bremerton,
washington, received for his property. In this report the land is
valued at $8,000.00, making the improvements $41,000.00.
Mr. Shold stated that this was a standard tract house when built in
1975, at which time it had a little over 1000 square feet and a small,
attached garage, In 1986 Mr. Kilmer built an addition onto the back
of the house behind the garage and converted part of the garage to an
utility room, which provides access to this addition. He incorporated
the garage into the house, but it is not as finished as the house is,
1
M I NUT E S
OF
J U L Y
2 2,
198 8
Part of it is like a shop and part of it is utilities, as far as Mr.
Shold understands it. Previous to the addition, in 1983 the land was
valued at $9,000.00 and the improvements at $35,250.00, In 1986 when
he added on the 320 foot addition, he was assessed another $12,380.00.
The new total was $56,630,00. At the last re-valuation this property
was valued down to $53,765.00. The appraisal he had done shows that
the value of this addition is something less than the cost of
constructing it, Because of the market situation the extra footage
did not add that much to the value of his property, Mr. Shold thinks
that because of the way the addition was put on, such as the partial
conversion of the garage, that there is some functional problem with
the addition of this house. It looked like it was added on later, not
built right with the house. The manner of construction did not add
to the value to the degree that Mr. Shold thought it did. Mr, Shold
would accept this property being re-valued. He doesn't find the
appraised value of $49,000.00 invalid. In fact, he believes that the
market approach of Mr. Siebenbaum may be more accurate than the cost
approach he used. Mr. Siebenbaum did have the same land valuation
that Mr. Shold came up with,
The Board will make an on-site inspection of this property before
making their determination.
BOE-88-016-LO Parcel Nuaber: 901-201-005
PETITIONERS: MR. and MRS. JOHN P. WHARTON were present at the
hearing and sworn in before giving any evidence regarding the property
in question. After introductions, they were given information on how
the Board operates. They were also notified of their option to appeal
to the State Board of Appeals within 30 days of the Board's notifying
them of the decision, if they are dissatisfied with this decision.
ASSESSOR: ROBERT KINGSLEY was present, representing the
Assessor's Office.
LAND:
IMPROVEMENTS:
TOTAL:
is currently
$ 36,000,00
$ NONE
$ 36,000,00
The amount
$ 20,000.00
$ NONE
$ 20,000,00
The property is 3,78 acres, located at Eaglemount,
assessed at:
LAND:
IMPROVEMENTS:
TOTAL:
Their previous valuation was $25,000,00 for land only.
they believe to be True and Fair valuation is:
Mr. Wharton stated that they came up several months ago with the idea
of "getting it lowered" further than "it was"(the taxes), but they
discovered that the taxes were raised on the property instead. They
raised their children on this property and put in a road themselves.
They also put up a cabin, a treehouse and docks. When the kids grew
up, they moved on and left the property, Since then, vandals have
destroyed the structures, The vandals burned the cabin, tore down the
tree house and destroyed the docks. When they went up to take
photographs yesterday(July 17, 1988) they discovered seven people using
their property without permission, The whartons presented the Board
with some photographs and Mrs. Wharton explained them, They showed
what was left of the docks and treehouse, where the burn spot from the
destruction of their cabin was and a "chuck hole" in the road. They
stated that all that was left of the property was the land. The
property consists of half of Moon Lake. Moon Lake is 30 feet deep at
the maximum. The only fish that will reproduce in this fresh water
lake are bass, any other fish must be stocked. It is three miles to
power, which makes it cost prohibitive to drill a well and connect a
generator, motor and a pump. The Wharton's have owned this property
for over 30 years. The Sheriff has a report on the damages to the
property, and though they know it is arson that destroyed the
2
M I NUT E S
OF
J U L Y
2 2,
198 8
improvements, there is nothing that can be done, This property has
been up for sale for eight years, There has not been one offer on it
during this time. The wharton's paid $2,500.00 for the property over
30 years ago.
Mr. Kingsley produced photographs of what the
to look like when they existed for valuation.
structures were well made.
cabin and treehouse used
It was noted that these
Mrs, Wharton stated that the south side of the lake was very swampy
and that you could not build on it, this is part of their 3,78 acres.
The east side of this same property has a sharp incline which also
prevents building. If they had electricity and water AND if the
property perked, which it does NOT, the only sui table land for
building would be about 100 feet, It was also noted that due to
restrictions regarding how close you may build to the water, they have
even less sui table land, This is estimated at 75 feet left for
building, which they do not consider enough to warrant building.
There is no chance of development according to Mrs. Wharton. Because
of the lack of utilities the property is merely a good place to
"picnic",
The Board requested that the whartons mail the Board a copy of their
perc denial. The Board then supplied them with appropriate places to
search for this information as it has been many years since the
Whartons had the test. They were also suppl ied wi th the Board's
mailing address.
Mr, Kingsley compared their property with Sun Lake, which is
approximately 1/2 mile away, This lake is surrounded by recreational
cabins, Water is not available at Sun Lake either, as nothing perks
there, Mr. Kingsley stated that this Sun Lake property was assessed
at $90.00 a front foot. In the name of equality, he used Sun Lake as
a comparable when valuating Moon Lake. Thus, Moon Lake was put on at
$90.00 a front foot, minus 60 percent for excess footage. This is
1000 front feet multiplied by 90, equaling $90,000.00. Multiply this
by 40 percent and the valuation is $36,000.00. The entire lake is for
sale, divided into the north half and the south half. The north half
is listed for $45,000.00, it is 1000 front feet. The south half being
the Wharton's property is 1000 front feet and it is listed for
$40,000.00. The whole lake is only six acres, the land side of the
Whartons' property being only 3.78 acres.
Mrs, Wharton did not think Sun Lake was a fair comparison because it
was developed with lots of money and Moon Lake was not, She also felt
that Sun Lake had much better, less swampy land, than Moon Lake. She
felt that Moon Lake was not "comfortable"(for building).
Mr. Kingsley stated that he felt Moon Lake was "comfortable" and that
what intrigued him was that she could ask $40,000.00 for swamp land
that is unbuildable. He said he had trouble comprehending that,
Mrs. Wharton reminded him that it was up for sale for eight years with
not one offer on the land. Mr. and Mrs, Wharton do not want to give
the land away, they would rather keep it than do that. She also
stated that they'd paid $2,500,00 for this same land. She felt this
should tell Mr, Shold something about the value of the property.
Mr, Shold stated that he used Sun Lake for a comparable because that
is the only other lake around Moon Lake property to base valuation on.
There being no further questions or information the Board decided to
take this under advisement and make an on-site inspection. The Board
notified the Wharton's that they could not give a specific hour, but
that they would be given notice of the day they would inspect the
3
M I NUT E S
OF
J U L Y
2 2,
198 8
property and an approximation of the time,
BOE-88-017-LO
PETITIONER: 30E V. THOMPSON did
His petition was read at the hearing in
ASSESSOR: ROBERT BARRY was
Assessor's Office.
Parcel Number: 938-400-803
not appear before the Board,
lieu of his presence,
present, representing the
The assessed valuation on this land is currently:
LAND:
IMPROVEMENTS:
TOTAL VALUATION:
The petitioner believes the valuation should be reduced
LAND:
IMPROVEMENTS:
TOTAL VALUATION:
$ 10,000.00
$ 1,000,00
$ 11,000.00
to:
$ 10,000,00
$ 000000000
$ 10,000.00
Lot 3, Block 8, Division 3 of Cape George Colony was purchased by Mr,
Thompson for $10,000,00 in February of 1984, The land size is 70 x
120 x 102 x 30 x 130 as the land is a five-sided pie shape, as seen
on a map supplied by Mr. Barry and a sketch provided by Mr, Thompson.
There is no building on the property, It is located on San Juan
Drive. The improvement assessment is for on-site improvements
including a septic tank and electrical service, which were installed
and hooked up in July of 1984 (according to Health Department
records). The property was for sale approximately four years ago, but
it is currently off the market. Mr, Thompson brought in septic and
electricity for a two bedroom home which he plans to build, It was
approved by the "Heal th Department sewage". Mr. Thompson states that
the lot is small with a very small frontage to the road at San Juan
Drive. This is why he is seeking a lower re-valuation, He lists a
comparable property sale as his Parcel Number: 938-400-803, sold in
February of 1984 to him for $10,000,00
Mr, Barry submitted three comparable property sales that support the
$10,000.00 land valuation on Mr. Thompson's lot:
1) Parcel Number: 938-400-813, sold at $9,000.00 on terms
on January 27, 1988, Mr. Barry considers this lot inferior to Mr.
Thompson's lot, There is no potential for a water view on this lot,
though you can see a tiny slice of water from a back corner of the
lot. This is lot number 13 in the Cape George colony, Division 3,
2) Parcel Number: 938-400-546, sold at $8,500.00 on terms
on April 2, 1985. Mr, Barry also considers this an inferior lot to
Mr. Thompson's lot. It too is in the cape George Colony, lot 47,
3) Parcel Number: 938-400-711, sold at $16,000,00 on
April 12, 1988. This is lot 11, Division 3 in the Cape George Colony.
This is an excellent view lot. It actually sold to the owner of lot
number 10 who appears to be securing his view. Mr. Barry included
this lot because it indicates that the values of the good lots of Cape
George colony are not declining.
Mr. Barry stated that the petitioner's own lot is his best comparable,
selling for $10,000,00 to Mr. Thompson in 1984, He does have
electrical service and sewage, which does add value to the property.
This property does have an excellent water view, with no real chance
of its being blocked in the future,
Mr. Barry believes his valuation is consistent with other lots in the
area. He does not recommend any changes in valuation.
Before making a determination, the Board will make an on-site
inspection with proper notification to the petitioner.
BOE-88-018-LO
PETITIONER:
Parcel Number: 601-334-006
MARY LOU BINGEN was not able to attend this
4
M I NUT E S
OF
J U L Y
2 2,
1 988
hearing date, though she requested a new date be set in a telephone
conversation with the Clerk at 9:20 a.m., July 19, 1988, It was
determined by the Board that they would be unable to re-schedule Ms,
Bingen, therefore the hearing was held without her. Ms, Bingen was
notified by mail, July 22, 1988, of this fact; and it was requested
of her that she be present at the on-site inspection to be carried
out. This is in order for her to clarify specifics on her petition
which remain unclear to the members of the Board.
ASSBSSOR: ROBBRT SHOLD was present, representing the
Assessor's office.
The current assessed value of the subject property is:
LAND: $ 35,720.00
IMPROVEMENTS: $ 27,930.00
TOTAL VALUATION: $ 63,650.00
As it appears on the petition, Mrs, Bingen requested that the Board
make a Total Valuation of $2,000,00 on her property. The Board would
like further clarification of this. They believe she means that she
would like the piece of land she purchased and added to her property
valued at $2,000.00. As per Ms, Bingens' petition:
LAND: $ 2,000,00
IMPROVEMENTS: $ NO BUILDINGS
This is what her opinion is of the true and fair value of the
property.
She notes on her petition that the 1987 tax was $442.53 and that it
went up to $650.37 with "this new piece of land", this being an
addition of $207.84 in taxes. She states that the taxes are too high
on this bare land. They wanted the land that joined their property
and they were willing to pay the price. The land around is going for
a lot less than her land. She and Mr. Bingen cannot afford to pay the
price of how much this land has gone up. Ms. Bingen also states that
this land was logged off at one time, so it does not have many trees.
She claimed that when the tide is out the land is mud flats.
Mr. Shold stated that the parcel has a house and garage on it. The
valuation of these is at $27,930.00. Last year Mr. and Mrs, Bingen
bought a little piece of property that adjoins theirs. It is in the
next section. They bought the piece in the next section south. The
Planning Department allowed this purchase with the condition that the
piece of land become part and parcel of the existing parcel, In other
words, the section was too small for subdivision. They had to attach
this property to their already existing homesite. So now their
homesite consists of their previously owned land and the section they
purchased June 9, 1987 for $10,000.00. This explains the total
valuation of $63,650,00. Mr. Shold believes she is just appealing the
valuation of the newly acquired piece of land. But, this piece of
land no longer exists on its own, This piece of land is 2.61 acres
with 272 feet of frontage on Fisherman's Harbor. There are tidelands
in front of this property. The land is 420 feet deep, and the land
is steep. The mud flats extend all the way up this piece of property,
The Board expressed confusion at what exactly Mr, and Mrs. Bingen
wanted them to adjust, Her petition was not clear.
Mr. Shold stated that the Assessor's Office put this land on at what
the prevailing rate for the homesite was on at. This being the same
rate as everybody else's land. The new re-valuation included the
added parcel and this is why it came to $35,720.00. Mr. Shold
believes that Ms. Bingen is saying that even though they paid
$10,000,00 for the property, it only added a value of $2,000.00. This
would mean that in her mind the land would only be worth $21,000,00,
since the previous valuation without the new piece of land was about
$19,000.00. The assessor's office worked the valuation out at $125.00
5
M I NUT E S
OF
J U L Y
2 2,
198 8
a front foot for the original property, this being the prevailing rate
in the area, The tidelands were added on for $152.00 at $10,00 a
front foot.
The Board decided to make an on-site inspection of the property and
expressed the desire for the Bingen's to be home at that time in order
to clarify the situation. The Board does not wish to guess at her
meaning in this matter. The Board took this petition under
advisement,
BOE-88-019-R Parcel Number: 948-302-802
PETITIONERS: DAVID S. and JOAN ROSS BLOEDEL were not able to
be present at the hearing, Their petition was read into the Minutes
in their absence.
ASSESSOR: ROBERT SHOLD was present, representing the
Assessor's Office.
The assessed valuation on Lots 8 and 9, Block 28, of the Port Townsend
Eisenbeis addition are as follows:
LAND: $ 8,000,00
IMPROVEMENTS: $ 11,740.00
TOTAL VALUATION: $ 19,740,00
The Bloedels would like the valuation changed to the following:
LAND: $ 8,000,00
IMPROVEMENTS: $ 00000000
TOTAL VALUATION: $ 8,000.00
This property is located at 1502 Landes Street, Port Townsend.
The land is 58 feet by 100 feet, It is zoned for single family
residence, The Bloedels purchased this property for $21,500.00 on
September 11, 1986. Currently there is a small cabin on this land.
Immediately after purchasing the property the City put in a sewer on
Landes Street and widened the street, this being October of 1987.
Subsequently the cabin was condemned as not habitable. This due to
there not being a bathroom, The water was shut off on February 27,
1987. The cabin was condemned on April 7, 1988. The cabin in its
present state, according to the petition, has no economic value. The
Bloedels "intend to comply as soon as able," Two letters from Public
Works and one from the Bloedels to Douglas Franz of Public Works were
submitted as exhibits.
1) Dated February 10, 1987, From Public Works to Mr.
Bloedel. It stated that the dwelling unit, the cabin, was using an
outhouse for waste disposal. This not being permi tted wi thin the city
limits, the Bloedels were instructed to obtain a building permit to
add a bathroom and connect it to the sewer, Water from the Bloedel's
kitchen sink was being discharged to the street as well. They were
notified that water service to the building would be discontinued on
February 27, 1987, until adequate facili ties were constructed. signed
by Ted Stricklin, P.E., Public Works Director.
2) Dated April 7, 1988, From Public Works to Mr.
Bloedel. The Bloedels were notified that the Washington State
Building Code Chapter 19,27 Section 19.27.030 requires all cities to
adopt the Uniform Building Code, The Port Townsend Municipal Code
Section 16,04.010 conforms to this ruling, The Uniform Building Code
Section 1205-B states that every dwelling unit shall be provided with
a bathroom consisting of a water closet, lavatory and either a bathtub
or shower, That the dwelling be provided with a kitchen equipped with
a kitchen sink and that each dwelling be equipped with hot and cold
running water, Their building did not comply with this Code and
therefore it could not be occupied until sewer and water were
connected to it and proper permits and inspection were completed.
Part Two of this letter showed penalties for non-compliance with the
Codes of the City, It states that in the interest of public welfare,
health and safety of the city and its inhabitants that the owner of
6
M I NUT E S
OF
J U L Y
2 2,
1 9 8 8
each lot or parcel of real property within the city limits not
connected to the sewer system and within one hundred sixty feet of the
public sewer and which has any structure for human occupation or use,
shall install suitable toilet facilities and connect these facilities
with the city sanitary system at his own expense within ninety days
after the adoption of such resolution. Penalties for violation were
listed as being a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not exceeding five
hundred dollars and/or imprisonment in the city jail for a period not
to exceed ninety days. This was signed by Douglas Franz the Building
Official,
3) This letter from the Bloedels to Mr. Franz dated
April 23, 1988, stated that they intended to comply with the Uniform
Building Code as soon as they were able, They stated that no one
would be living in the cabin until compliance with the Code Section
1205-B had been made, They also mentioned that they had noticed
discarded liquor and beer bottles on their property, and since they
did not have a care-taker, they hoped that Mr. Franz would ask the
local police to watch for any problems of this nature on their
property. They also requested that Public Works remove their
"Condemned" sign from their cabin,
The Chairman of the Board summed up the Bloedels position. He stated
that the Bloedels wished for the complete deletion of the taxes on the
building, the taxes being $11,740.00, because of its being condemned.
The land remaining at the same assessed valuation.
Mr. Shold noted that the Bloedels had paid $21,500,00 in 1986 for this
property and that it is currently assessed at $19,740.00. The city
sewer was put in several months after the Bloedel purchased this
property. Mr. Shold does not think the cabin would have zero value
now, even though it is condemned, The assessors knew there was no
plumbing when they appraised the property, The cost to fix the
property would be the only amount he feels should be removed from the
valuation, Re-valuation was completed in 1985 for the current
assessed valuation, It is a nice cabin as cabins go, but as it has
not been lived in for three years, it I S probably gone down hill. When
the 1985 re-val was done, there had been some improvements to the
property.
The Board fel t they needed to view the property before making a
decision on this petition.
BOE-88-020-LO Parcel Number: 938-100-437
PETITIONER: DONALD SHEARER was not present at the hearing, his
petition was read into the Minutes in his absence.
ASSESSOR: ROBERT BARRY was present, representing the
Assessor's Office,
The current assessed valuation follows:
LAND: $ 9,750.00
IMPROVEMENTS: $ NONE
TOTAL VALUATION: $ 9,750.00
The previous assessed valuation was $7,500,00, The peti tioner desires
the valuation to be dropped back to its previous valuation of
$7,500,00 or lower. He states that this lot in Cape George Colony #2,
lot #37, Block 4, is one of a number at Cape George that will not
pass the perk test, He feels there is no reason for an increase in
the assessed value by $2,250,00 since the lot is still not buildable.
When it becomes buildable, then he feels an increase would be
appropriate. He states on his petition that the property is not for
sale,
Mr, Barry stated that in September of 1976 this lot was denied a
septic disposal system permit, The petitioners main chance of sewage
7
M I NUT E S
OF
J U L Y
2 2,
198 8
disposal would be a mound system. His valuation was based upon this
knowledge. In spite of this denial, the property is worth $9,750.00.
In his valuation he used the method of assigning the lot 50 percent
of the market value it would have had if it percolated. He has some
adjoining lots that perc that are assessed for approximately twice the
valuation of Mr. Shearer's lot:
1} Lot #38 adjoins this lot on the south. It does have
a house on it. But the bare land value is $19,500.00.
2} Lot #34, which is adjacent to Shearer's lot on the
north is a no-perc lot. It is valued at the same valuation as the
petitioner's lot, $9,750.00.
3} A lot on Sunset Blvd" Lot 45, Block 4, Division 2
does perc, It sold in May of 1988 for $32,000.00. This is directly
across from the waterfront lots. It has a slope which allows it to
maintain an excellent view of the water and the Olympics, Adjacent
lots were assessed at around $19,500,00 if they perced, This lot
which sold for $32,000,00 is comparable to Mr. Shearer I s lot in
topography, view and size. The only difference is that this lot does
perc and there is a house being built on it.
One other piece of information which Mr. Barry feels is worth
mentioning is that the petitioner stated that the lot was not for
sale. When he viewed the property there was a sign on the lot for ERA
realty. Mr, Barry called ERA and they confirmed that this lot was
for sale for $12,900.00.
Vice-Chairman, Dave Douglas made a motion to sustain the assessor's
valuation, Member, Archie Barber, Jr. seconded the motion, The
motion was carried, An Order of the County Board of Equalization was
filled out and sent as notification to the petitioner, Donald F.
Shearer.
BOE-88-021-R Parcel Number: 712-064-023
PETITIONERS: EVELYN and WILLIAM AJlDERSOIf (her son) are
partners on this property. BILL ANDERSON appeared before the Board
to represent both his mother and himself, He was sworn in before
giving testimony on the property in question and given information
regarding the Boards procedures.
ASSESSOR: ROBERT BARRY was present, representing the
Assessor's Office,
The current assessed valuation of this five acre parcel wi th cabin is:
LAND: $ 8,500.00
IMPROVEMENTS: $ 4,000.00
TOTAL VALUATION: $ 12,500,00
Mr. Anderson feels that the assessed valuation should be as follows:
LAND: $ 4,000,00
IMPROVEMENTS: $ 1,500.00
TOTAL VALUATION: $ 6,500.00
Mr. Anderson purchased the property in 1984 for $8,500,00. At that
time there was about 2 1/2 acres of useable land out of five acres,
He states that now he has use of under 1,5 acres due to erosion caused
by the Bogachial River which runs by his property. He believes he is
losing about 10 to 15 feet a year of land to the river at the present
rate of erosion, This land is zoned as recreational and has a 20' x
24' pier and post "shack" on it, used two weeks a year for elk
hunting. There is no power, no water, no sewage and it is unfinished
both inside and out. The petitioner feels it should be assessed as
"salvage" since it was built with reject lumber and other inferior
materials. He claims that the total cost of this structure was
$800.00 and that it us unsuitable for living in. The property is not
offered for sale. He believes that the property is now about 250 feet
from Bogachial River when it used to be about 1,320 feet. About 1 to
8
M I NUT E S
OF
J U L Y
2 2,
198 8
1/2 acres of land left, the other 4 acres are the river, they are not
on the other side. The land is going for about $4,000.00 an acre in
the area. He had suggested the assessor view his shack and even spend
the night there to make a correct assessment of valuation, At the
hearing he claimed that a fair price on the dwelling structure would
be $2,500.00. He figured that between his brother and himself
spending two days constructing this cabin and the materials it took,
they spent somewhere in the neighborhood of $1,480.00. The assessor
is valuing the land at $4,000.00 an acre which is a very generous
amount to ask for in the area. He feels the Board should view the
property to make an assessment themselves. He further states that it
is economically depressed in the area, making it difficult to sell
property. This is why he does not believe it to be a fair valuation,
if he had power and water he would feel the valuation was fairer.
The petitioner has an easement across tax lot 41 to reach his
property,
Mr. Barry, having been sworn in and having his State Certificate
Numbers recorded in the beginning of the hearings of the Board for
1988 did not need to be sworn in again. This was pointed out to the
petitioner when he questioned why Mr. Barry was not sworn in at the
same time he was. The petitioner seemed to be satisfied with this
response.
Mr. Barry requested of Mr. Anderson the whereabouts of the corner
markers to help establish the exact amount of property remaining above
the rivers' erosion.
The petitioner stated that there were steel stakes marking the
property and he could explain how to find them,
Four years ago there were 1,8 acres of land when it was assessed.
Mr. Barry questioned how much of the land was left now. The cabin was
not open to inspection at the time of assessment, It was rustic in
appearance with no power, sewage or water, The construction was of
poor quality and unfinished, It was 612 square feet of area. The
$4,000.00 valuation on the cabin works out to $6.54 a square foot,
Mr. Barry believes the Board should determine the appropriateness of
this valuation. The one comparable property Mr, Barry came up was
presented as a matter of procedure:
1) Parcel numbers 712-064-003 and 712-064-009, two
parcels combined to create a one acre property with a 384 square foot
cabin, This sold at $18,000,00 on September 1, 1985. This property
is not on the river. The cabin is better quality construction than
Mr, Anderson's cabin and is valued at $20.00 a square foot. The land
only is assessed at $6,500.00. The half with the cabin is valued at
$3,500.00 and the other half is at $3,000,00,
The petitioner stated that this is not a fair comparison.
The Board assured him that they take this under consideration,
and that sometimes it is difficult to come up with comparable
properties in the same area, but they attempt to locate properties to
base valuation on that shed light on the subject property valuation.
Mr. Barry stated that the cabin was not on the land when it was
purchased and the data was accumulated in 1984 on its existence, But,
the cabin did not make the tax roles in 1985, and even though Mr,
Anderson feels this is irrelevant in this hearing, he felt this would
explain Mr. Anderson's surprise at being assessed a valuation of
$4,000.00 on the cabin this year.
Mr, Anderson responded that it was not on at $4,000.00, that it was
on at $6,395.00 when he first spoke with him on the phone,
9
.... . I-
M I NUT E S
OF
J U L Y
2 2,
1 988
Mr, Barry stated that
Anderson's information,
recent evaluation.
the assessment was adjusted based
This adjustment was made subject
on
to
Mr,
the
The Board would like to know the exact measurements of the lot in
question before they go out to view the property. Mr, Barry stated
that these may be found in the Assessor's Office. The property
markers were pointed out to the Board and other particulars necessary
to the viewing of the property were discussed.
The Board will look at the site and the other river property in the
area to ascertain the true and fair value of this property before
making their determination.
OTHER BUSINESS OF THE BOARD
The Minutes of July 18, 1988 were presented but not read at this
hearing, They will be reviewed and approved at a later date.
There being no further business before the Board, the board adjourned
until July 25, 1988.
APPROVED BY:
DATE APPROVED:. "";{d~/ ;2 ~ 1 C) Jf
(/ ,/,
O~~
A.C.DALGLEIS . IRMAN
9d~ ..~ ~
DAVID G. ~UGLAS ,~E-CHAIRMAN
~.';;( 6.....~ ~{,
ARCHIE L. BARBER, JR., MEMBER
ATTESTED
10