HomeMy WebLinkAboutM072588
JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF EQUALIZATION
A. C. DALGLEISH
DAVID G. DOUGLAS
ARCHIE BARBER, JR.
CHAIRMAN
VICE-CHAIRMAN
MEMBER
ALTERNATE
M I NUT E S
J U L Y
2 5,
1 988
The Board of Equalization convened at 9:00 a.m. with Chairman A.C.Dalgleish,
Vice-chairman David G. Douglas, Member Archie Barber, Jr. and Clerk Dierdrei
Whiteford present.
BOE-88-031-LO Parcel Number: 940-500-030
PETITIONER: CARL E. ESCENE was not able to be present. He notified
the Clerk of this July 20, 1988, In his absence, the petition was read into
the Minutes.
ASSESSOR: ROBERT BARRY was present on behalf of the Assessor's
office.
The assessor's valuation on the property being reviewed:
Land:
Total Valuation:
The petition did not have the desired valuation listed.
$ 7,000,00
$ 7,000,00
The property is located at: Division 3, Lot 31 on Spruce Drive in Cape George
Village. It is approximately 1/3 of an acre, Mr. Escene stated that the lot
does not perc according to the Health Department. He cannot sell the lot or
build on it. He feels that the possibility of a sewer system in his life is
ridiculous. He has listed this property for sale for eight years at
$3,500.00. He is not with a realty.
Mr. Barry has the property listed and worked as a no-perc lot. This being
the standard no-perc lot in Cape George he referred back to his presentation
on no-percs of July 18, 1988. In 1984 it was valued at $5,000.00 which was
about 34 percent of the market value of a like lot that percolated. The new
valuation for 1988 is consistent with what he did throughout Cape George.
It is 50 percent of the estimated market value it would be if it percolated.
Comparable: Lot 30 with a mobile home has a bare land value
assessed at $14,000.00.
Comparable: Lot 32 is a non-perc valued at $7,000.00,
The assessed valuation being consistent with other like properties in the
area, the motion to sustain valuation was made by Vice-Chairman Douglas. The
motion was seconded by Member Archie Barber, Jr, The motion was carried.
BOE-88-032-R
PETITIONER:
into the Minutes,
Parcel Number: 940-500-032
CARL E. ESCENE was not present. His petition was read
1
M I NUT E S
of
J U L Y
25th,
1 988
ASSESSOR: ROBERT BARRY represented the Assessor's Office.
This property located at 40 Spruce Drive in Cape George village is about 1/3
of an acre. It is Lot 33 and is zoned residential with a 24 x 32 one bedroom
home. There is a 34 x 20 garage. The assessed valuation is:
Land: $
Improvements: $
Total Valuation: $
The petitioner would like the improvements lowered to a valuation
Land: $
IIRprovelRents: $
Total Valuation: $
15,000.00
29,925.00
44,925.00
of:
15,000.00
22,125.00
31,725.00
The petitioner stated that the homes in Jefferson county have dropped in
value and that this is the opinion of Realty people as well, He questions
the value being raised on his home by $6,700.00 when it is 768 square feet,
Mr. Barry stated that the valuation had remained the same since 1980 when he
re-valued in 1988. Apparently improvements were not "picked up" at the 1984
re-val. The land value went down from $15,500.00 in 1984 to $15,000,00 in
1988. His current valuation is an "update" which includes the previously
missed garage, valuation for a completed home, and the current square footage
rate.
$52,000.00
in
comparable: Division 3, Lot 81. Floor area 728.
November 1987.
Comparable: Division 2, Lot 2, Floor area 1,148. Sale Price
July 1986. This location is inferior to the subject property.
comparable: Division 1, Lot 11. Floor area 960. Sale Price
December 1987. This locale is superior to the subject
Sale Price
$49,500.00 in
$60,000.00 in
property,
Mr. Barry found that these comparables had more floor area and are newer than
the subject property, which is a factor that caused them to sell above the
assessed value of Mr, Escene's property,
The Board noted that the lot sizes are very small, especially for
septic systems. The Board took this petition under advisement.
make a determination after an on-site inspection.
putting in
They wi 11
BOE-88-033-LO Parcel Number: 965-000-126
PETITIONER: BERNARD KREMS was unable to attend as per a phone
message. His petition was read into the Minutes in his absence.
ASSESSOR: ROBERT KINGSLEY was present as a representative of the
Assessor's office.
This Kala Point Lot 137, Division 4 on Trafalgar Drive was purchased for
$36,000,00 in 1979. There are no buildings on this lot. The assessed
valuation is currently:
Land: $ 45,000,00
Total Valuation: $ 45,000.00
The petitioner feels it should revert back to the previous valuation of
$36,500.00. Mr. Krems states that the Assessor's comparables are not
bonafide sales, that the appraisal isn't based on facts (such as lack of any
purchasers), that his view is blocked due to failure to enforce covenants,
that there is a lot of property on the market and that buyers do not want to
litigate to enforce the covenants. This property was listed with Forrest
Aldrich for over two years at $49,000.00. He included a letter listing the
Assessor's two comparable sales as not being comparable. Lot 139, Division
#'4 sold for $51,000.00 in 1986 was considered not to be an arm's length
transaction as it was a transaction between a father and his son for tax
reasons. Lot 54, Division #'2 sold for $70,000.00 in 1985 was considered not
comparable because it is a waterfront lot. He included a letter dated June
15, 1988 to the Assessor in which he protests the raising of the valuation
for the above stated reasons. He included his change of value notice from
the Assessor's. Mr. Krems also entered a page from the Real Estate Digest
which showed all sales in Jefferson County in 1986. This was supplied him
2
M I NUT E S
of
J U L Y
25th,
1 9 8 8
by his agent Mabel campbell stating that the Kala Point Village sales were
mostly her re-sales. The last information entered by Mr. Krems was a reply
from Robert Kingsley to his June 15, 1988 letter, The reply states that the
land is valued at 100 percent of the fair market value. He listed the two
comparables contested by Mr, Krems. He stated that Kala Point lots sell
slowly and that many are for sale,
Mr, Kingsley responded that he did look at Mr. Krems' lot and that he does
have trees obstructing his view. He did not contact the committee regarding
covenants for tree trimming. Kala Point was re-valued 1988. Mabel Campbell
who has a lot adjoining Krems' property has had her valuation raised from
$36,000.00 to $45,000,00 and she did not protest the valuation. Three
comparables listed:
1) Kala Point #3, Lot #238 was sold for $50,000.00 in 1987.
This lot is larger than the subject lot.
2) Kala point #9, Lot #205 was sold for $46,800.00 in 1985.
It too is larger than the subject lot.
3) Kala Point #5, Lot #245 was sold for $45,000.00 in 1987.
This is a larger site than the subject property.
The Board did not re-value this area last year. The Board took the petition
under advisement. They will look at the comparables and subject lot before
making a determination,
BOE-88-030-LO Parcel Number: 971-100-335
PETITIONERS: EUNICE AND VEARL DAY were present. They were informed
about the proceedings of the Board and then sworn in.
ASSESSOR: ROBERT SHOLD represented the Assessor's office,
The subject property Lot 34, Block 3 of the Marshall Addition, Marshall Road,
Triton Cove Estates was assessed in 1988 for:
Land:
Total Valuation:
$ 7,250.00
$ 7,250.00
The Days would like this property reduced in valuation to $3,000.00. They
purchased the property in 1969 for $3,500.00 and have had it listed for sale
for 10 years with a total of four Real ties. The initial listing was for
$9,000,00; the last listing was for $4,000,00 though the petitioner would
accept $3,000.00 as he has not had a single offer during this time. The Days
included a copy of the Settler's Real Estate advertisement showing their
property for sale at $4,000.00. They stated that the listing ran out and
that Settlers refused to re-list the property. They did not have a perc test
as they did not know where the house or septic tank would be located if they
built on the property. There is a steep incline. It does have beach rights.
There are homeowner annual dues. You could view the Hood Canal from the top
of a hill if it were not for the trees, The lot is an odd shape being
approximately 100 x 100 x 120 feet.
There is a system in the area because the water went
occurred the community water was turned over to the
District.
There is a water pipe to the property.
contamination was.
Ilbadll.
Public
When this
Utilities
The petitioner is not sure what the
Mr, Shold found one recent sale in the last five or six years:
1) Lot #32 on the cul-de-sac sold for $10,500,00 April 19,
1988. This lot is much larger than the Days' property.lt was noted that the
whole area has "for sale" signs,
The Board will make an on-site inspection before making their determination.
BOE-88-029-R Parcel Number: 001-024-033
PETITIONER: JOHN SCOTT was not able to be present due to working in
California, His petition was read into the Minutes in his absence.
ASSESSOR: ROBERT SHOLD was pres en t , representing the Assessor's
Office.
3
,
M I NUT E S
of
J U L Y
25th,
1 988
This property located at 1040 Blaine Street, Port Townsend is known as Tax
66. The assessor being unsure as to the lot size. There is a residence on
this property consisting of three bedrooms and one bath. The property is
currently assessed at:
Land:
Improvements:
Total Valuation:
$ 5,000.00
$ 30,960.00
$ 35,960.00
Mr. Scott believes the total valuation should be $28,000.00 at the most, He
states that he could not sell the property for $35,960.00. He did have it
assessed by Gordon Papritz, formerly of Western Shores Real Estate, This
inactive broker stated in a submitted letter, dated June 21, 1988, that it
would be difficult to sell this home for over $30,000.00, The cited reasons
for this valuation were that the 40 foot wide lot was small and that the two
story house needed cosmetic and basic work, In the letter Mr. Scott
submitted to the Board with his petition, dated June 27, 1988, he stated that
the property needs new windows, a roof and the floors have to be leveled
downstairs, He also stated that it needs cosmetic work. If all this work
were done, it would then be worth $30,000,00. Mr. Scott paid $15,000.00 in
1979.
Mr, shold stated that the house was built about 1920, The amount of
depreciation of the house is the real question. The Assessor had given it
a 35 percent depreciation at the time of re-valuation in 1985. This is the
value that the property is carrying now. This area will be re-valued again
in September, 1988. He said that it could be that the house is in poorer
shape than he thought, Mr. Shold thinks a re-valuation would need to be
based on inspecting this property again.
The Board took the petition under advisement.
inspection before making their determination.
They will make an on-site
BOE-88-034-R Parcel Number: 965-300-009
PETITIONER: FLORENCE E. DUNN appeared before the Board. She was
informed of the procedures of the Board and then sworn in.
ASSESSOR: ROBERT SHOLD was present, representing the Assessor's
Office.
This Unit #3009, Building #5 of the Bluffs, sold to her in 1987 for
$120,000,00. This residential condominium (duplex) in the Kala Point
Development is Florence Dunn's residence. The current assessed valuation is:
Land: $ 24,000.00
Improvements: $ 109,000.00
Total Valuation: $ 133,000.00
Ms. Dunn believes that the valuation should be reduced to:
Land:
Improvements:
Total Valuation:
$ 24,000.00
$ 96,000.00
$ 120,000.00
The Petitioner states that when she purchased the property she was advised
that the taxes would be approximately One Percent of the selling price. She
states that most of the properties sold in the Bluffs are offered at less
than the original purchase price. She does not feel she should pay for an
over-evaluation by the County. She believes she would be lucky if she were
to get her purcase price out of the property if she listed it at this time.
She believes her purchase price is the true and fair valuation. currently
her taxes are about $1,500,00.
Mr. Shold states that the current valuation consists of the same values
established in 1986. His reason for leaving them there was that they had
four sales since the Boards re-evaluation:
1) Unit #3009, Building #2, sold in June of 1987 for
$120,000.00. This is Florence Dunn's unit. She has a partial view.
4
M I NUT E S
of
J U L Y
25th,
1 988
2) Unit '3023, a duplex, sold in May of 1987 for $142,000.00.
3) Unit '3025, a duplex, sold in September of 1987 for
$139,000.00.
4) Unit '3037, a duplex, sold in April of 1987 for
$129,500.00.
Of these units, two of them were sold for less than the assessed value. Two
were sold for more than the assessed value. The low ones were repossessed
by a lending institution. Looking at the whole situation, he did not feel
like the sales showed a market trend either up or down. This is why they
remained the same. This morning he found another sale:
5) Unit '3003, a duplex, sold in April of 1988 for
$108,000.00. This being less than the Board had established, This was also
a bank reposession. The current assessed valuation is being appealed to the
Board at this time. This was assessed at $118,000,00. The Board es-
tablished their re-evaluation on view, unit type and land value.
The Board will conduct an on-site inspection before making their determina-
tion.
BOE-88-036-R Parcel Number: 939-900-018
PETITIONER: WILLIAM A. TAYLOR was present. He was informed of the
proceedings of the Board and then sworn in.
ASSESSOR: ROBERT BARRY was present, representing the Assessor's
Office.
This property located at 511 Dennis Blvd" Port Townsend, Washington has a
land size of 80 x 158 x 80 x 167. It is zoned as single family, residential,
There is a mobile home, a car port, a storage building and a garage, When
the petitioner listed this for sale last year at $61,000,00 with B.J.Realty,
he found that there is no financing available for an 11 year old mobile home.
The assessor valued the property at:
Land:
Improvements:
Total Valuation:
$ 18,000.00
$ 29,770.00
$ 47,770,00
The Petitioner would like the valuation dropped to:
Land:
Improvements:
Total Valuation:
$ 17,000.00
$ 26,975.00
$ 43,975.00
He stated that there are five neighbors with the same size lots who have the
land valued between $17,000,00 and $17,500.00. He questions why his
valuation is $18,000. He also questions why his buildings went up by
$2,795,00. The assessor had told him that he'd added a deck onto the side
of the mobile home, He feels the assessor is in error as this is a 3 1/2
foot walk way added as a fire escape because the house is 4 feet above the
ground on this side, He claims that what the assessor calls a studio is a
12 x 12 storage building. This building has been complete for 11 years and
only has sealed walls and a vinyl floor over concrete. It is not insulated
and it does not have plumbing or water. The petitioner entered photographs
of the "deck" and home as evidence of the assessor's error,
Mr. Barry described the improvements as a 1976 Mansfield Custom Mobile
Home(44 x 24) which is 1,056 square feet, a garage, a car port and a "shop",
He stated that the asking price of the listed property was $67,000,00 or
$75,000.00 with the adjacent 10t(BOE-88-037-LO), It was listed with
B.J,Realty as a firm price. The assessed value with the land improvements
is $18,000.00 for the lot (This will be responded to in detail in BOE-88-037-
LO). Mr. Taylor took the property off the market around the first of the
year.
Mr. Taylor claimed to have no knowledge of the listing price of his home with
the attached lot as being $75,000.00, He received a copy of this information
from Mr. Barry. Mr. Barry suggested the Board contact B.J.Realty for the
actual listing contract to verify Mr, Taylors asking price. Mr. Taylor
5
M I NUT E S
of
J U L Y
25th,
1 988
stated that the way to establish a price is to sell the property or ask a
buyer what they are willing to pay for it. His property did not sell at the
listed price. The Ilobile home is valued at $21.24 per square foot.
Depreciation 18 percent. Mr. Barry listed four comparables with mobile
homes:
1) Cape George village, Div. 3, Lot 35 has a 1975 Sea Crest
mobile home with 1,152 square feet in good condition. It has a detached
garage and car port, a deck and a porch, with an average view. Land:
$15,000.00. Sale Price $40,000.00. The garage and car port were built after
this sale of June, 1986, Seller held a deed of trust for $25,000.00, Mobile
valued at $21.83 per square foot, Depreciation 21 percent,
2) cape George village, Div. 4, Lot 17 has a 1976 Howard Manor
mobile home with 1,152 square feet in good condition. It has a detached
garage, a porch and a deck. The lot has a good view. Land: $16,400,00,
Sold in July of 1987 for $50,000,00 cash. Mobile valued at $24.07 per square
foot. Depreciation 16 percent.
3) Cape George Village, Div. 4, Lot 33 has a 1975 silvercrest
mobile home with 1,248 square feet in average condition. It has an attached
garage, a storage shed, a porch and a deck, The view is average. Land:
$15,000.00. Sold in september of 1985 for $57,500.00. The seller carried
a deed of trust, Mobile valued at $21.74 per square foot. Depreciation 18
percent.
home wi th
limited,
mobile is
4) Cape George village, Div. 4, Lot 42 has a 1977 Titan mobile
1,152 square feet in good condition. It has a deck. The view is
Land: $12,400.00. Sold in June of 1987 for $36,000,00 cash. The
valued at $20.30 per square foot. Depreciation 23 percent.
The way the assessors determine depreciation is to come up with an estimated
effective age. A poorly maintained unit may have an effective age greater
than its actual age. A well maintained unit may have an effective age less
than its actual age, using computers and basing figures on the anticipated
life of a structure, the depreciation is figured. The above comparables have
not had the depreciation factor deducted from their base rate per square
foot. The estimated replacement cost rates are reduced by depreciation
estimates before they are used in calculating the assessed value.
Mr. Taylor desires the Board to view Lot 53, Div. ~3, on Hemlock Drive as he
states it sold for $15,000.00 with a house and a septic system. Mr. Taylor
believes that Barry's comparables are inequitable. He feels the valuation
should be what it was originally and that comparing it to other properties
is not the way to value his property.
The Board will conduct an on-site inspection of the subject property and
comparables before making their determination.
BOE-88-037-LO
PETITIONER:
gave testimony.
ASSESSOR:
Parcel Number: 939-900-019
WILLIAM A. TAYLOR being present and previously sworn in
ROBERT BARRY was present,
representing the Assessor's
office.
This Cape George village Lot 18, Division #1, is on Dennis Blvd. and is zoned
residential. This is a no-perc lot without improvements. It is currently
assessed at:
Land:
Total valuation:
$ 8,500.00
$ 8,500.00
The petitioner feels this value should be lowered to $5,500,00. He stated
that the reason the assessor gave him for the value rising 55 percent was
because of the anticipation of sewers in Cape George, He stated that since
Cape George is a private development with no hope of a government grant that
the sewers will not go in. He has been trying to get sewers in Cape George
for the past 11 years, They've been anticipating them for 12 years. There
have been many sewer studies in the Village but no sewer. He believes the
re-evaluation should not occur until the sewer is actually installed.
6
,
,
M I NUT E S
of
J U L Y
25th,
1 988
Mr. Barry does not believe Mr, Taylor got the information regarding the sewer
system from him, He was not in the office at the time of Mr. Taylor's visit,
Mr, Barry presented a listing sheet showing the property listed at $8,000.00
and that the terms of the sale were that the lot only be sold with the
adjacent 10t(BOE-88-036-R). He referred the Board back to the Minutes of
July 18, 1988 in which he gave a presentation of non-perc lots in Cape George
Village. This lot was valued in the same manner as the other lots in the
Village, being 50 percent of the valuation it would be if it percolated. In
1984 the valuation of $5,500.00 on this lot only represented 34 percent of
the adjacent perc lots. When he re-evaluated the area this lot was adjusted
accordingly. comparables listed:
1) Lot 19, valued at $17,000.00. It percolates,
2) Lot 11, valued at $17,000.00. This is Mr. Taylor's lot
with his home on it, It has a bare land value of $17,000.00 and an
assessment of $1,000.00 for power, septic and water improvements. This
creates the $18,000,00 total valuation,
3) Lot 12, valued at $8,500.00. A non-perc lot.
4) Lot 16, valued at $8,500.00. A non-perc lot.
5) Lot 53, Division #3, valued at $7,000.00 for a Non-perc.
6) Lot 54, adjacent to lot 53, valued at $14,000.00 as a perc
lot.
Mr. Barry feels that he has been consistent with his valuations of the lots
in this area and Mr, Taylor's lot.
Mr, Taylor responded to the listing of his lot at $8,000.00 to be sold only
with Lot 17, He made the Board aware that he only put a price on the lot at
the urging of the Realty. This lot was only a bargaining tool to sell Lot
17, Since it affects the view of Lot 17, he did not wish to sell it
separately. He claims that the majority of non-perc lots are owned by non-
residents who cannot live here because they cannot build,
The Board took this petition under advisement. They will conduct an on-site
inspection before making their determination.
BOE-88-035-LO Parcel Number: 601-273-012
PETITIONERS: LUCILLE AND WILLIAM E. WHITNEY, JR. were not present.
Their petition was read into the Minutes in their absence,
ASSESSOR: ROBERT SHOLD was present, represent ing the Assessor's
Office.
This property is described as: S 1/2 of E 1/2 of E
SW 1/4 of section 27, T 26N, Range 1 West, W,M. in
five acres less the Whitney county road right
Peninsula. This is assessed at:
1/2 of S 1/2 of S 1/2 of
Jefferson County. It is
of way on the Toandos
Land:
Total Valuation:
$ 17,500.00
$ 17,500.00
The petitioners paid $7,500,00 for this property July 1, 1988. They desire
the valuation dropped to $7,500.00 as a fair market value. They feel
valuation should be lowered based on (1) sale being much lower than assessed
value (2) this property was listed from 1987 to 1988 for $8,500.00 with Hood
Canal Properties (3) there is no water, power or telephone (4) there is no
marketable timber on property (5) the valuation is higher than asking price
for similar sized parcels in the vicinity. The petition included a copy of
their Real Estate Excise Tax and the Buyers Escrow Statement with Jefferson
Title Company, both 1988.
Mr. Shold stated that he is unsure of the terrain. If it is steep, that
could be one reason why it was marketed for less than assessed value. This
piece was re-valued in 1986 at $17,500.00. In 1982 it was valued at
$4,750.00 per acre for a total of $23,750.00, The current re-val of
$17,500.00 reflects a drop in sales on raw acreage in the area. Mr, Shold
has no current comparables in the area on which to base an assessment.
7
~,. '.
M I NUT E S
of
J U L Y
25th,
1 9 8 8
The Board took the petition under advisement. After conducting an on-site
inspection they will make their determination.
OTHER BUSINESS OF THE BOARD
The Minutes of July 18, 1988 were read by all Board members. There being no
additions, corrections, deletions or changes Vice-chairman Douglas motioned
to accept the Minutes as written. Member Archie Barber, Jr, seconded the
motion. The motion carried by unanimous vote,
There being no further business before the Board, the Board adjourned until
July 27, 1988.
DATE APPROVED: ~d :<1f.I4/rzg
APPROVED BY:
m~
A.C.DALGLEI ,CHAIRMAN
Cjjc~ ~.Q~k
DAVID G. D GLAS, VI E-CHAIRMAN
ATTESTED BY~
DI ERDRE I ~TEFORD
~ -i tJ.A.v ~
ARCHIE L. BARBER, JR., MEMBER
8