HomeMy WebLinkAboutM072788
,y"
/".~,
JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF EQUALIZATION
A. C. DALGIoEISH
DAVID G. DOUGLAS
ARCHIE BARBER, JR.
CHAIRMAN
VICE-CHAIRMAN
MEMBER
ALTERNATE
M I NUT E S
J U L Y
2 7,
198 8
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 L. whi teford present. The Board dispensed wi th the
reading of the Minutes at this time,
BOE-88-039-LO Parcel Number: 902-264-003
PETITIONER: ELSIE E. ANDREW was not present, Her petition,
a letter to the Board from Mrs. Andrew, and a letter from Randy Durant
when he was with the Health Department were read into the Minutes in
her absence,
ASSESSOR:
Assessor's office,
ROBERT KINGSLEY was present, representing
Deputy Assessor Robert shold attended,
the
This property is in the Discovery Bay area on West Uncas Road and is
about 26 acres, The legal description is: S26, T29, R2W, 25,75A, SE,
SE (SW of W. Uncas Road).
The current assessed valuation is:
Land:
Improvements:
Total Valuation:
$ 35,405.00
$ NONE
$ 35,405.00
Elsie Andrews would like the valuation dropped back to the previous
land valuation of $27,190.00, Reasons for desired re-valuation:
1) Eva Taylor of Settler's Real Estate had a prospective buyer for
this piece on the condition that it percolated, The perc test done
by Frank Hyde was not approved by the Health Department when it was
submi tted, Eva was denied on-si te sewage disposal due to (A)
unacceptable soils (B) seasonal and actual high water table (C)
variable contours. According to the submitted letter from Randy
Durant of the Health Department to the Realty, dated December 2, 1986,
Eva could attempt to locate another site for a perc test since her
property was 26 acres. The letter also directed her to the Assessor's
since the denial could affect her taxation.
2) the terrain is steep with nothing but scrub brush,
3) there is no buildable site,
4) there has been no sale of any property on West Uncas.
5) her land was not saleable when she was taking offers. The
petition stated that the price on the land was $8,215.00,
6) her putting the property to other uses is out of the question
at this time, due to a limited income.
1
M I NUT E S
of
J U L Y
27th,
198 8
Robert Kingsley did take into consideration the perc denial, but he
did not consider the steep terrain or the wetness of the property.
The Board took this petition under advisement. After an on-site
inspection is conducted they will make their determination,
BOE-88-040-R Parcel Number: 821-334-044
APPELLANT: GODI!'REY H. STOCKER was not filing a for_l
petition to the Board of Equalization. He did not file a petition,
He sent several letters which were included in this COURTESY HEARING
conducted by the Board to attempt to answer Mr. Stocker's questions.
Mr. Stocker appeared before the Board to air his complaints and
receive justification for his taxation. He was not appealing the
VALUATION placed on the Parcel Number: 821-334-044 under question.
ASSESSOR: ROBERT KINGSLEY appeared to represent the
Assessor's office. Deputy Assessor, Robert shold attended.
Mr. Stocker was sworn in by the Board, He stated he did not file a
formal appeal. The Board informed him that they did not handle
taxation, only valuation of the property on which taxation is then
based. Mr. Stocker gave his views on the law, taxation, valuation and
expressed concern at the rate of increase. He considers the rate
curve very steep, He gave a history of his property and the
improvements, stating he increased square footage of his mobile home
by 45 percent. He feels he was pushed regarding taxation and he feels
he has been discriminated against for improving his property. Vice-
Chairman Douglas attempted to explain to him about Levies and Bonds
from Fire and School Districts. The Board explained to him that
property is re-valued every four years, taxation may increase every
year. They stated that the Board and the Assessors feel that the
current valuation is based on a true and fair market value. Vice-
Chairman Douglas referred back to Stocker's letter of April 28, 1988
addressed to the Commissioners. In this letter he cited figures and
percentages, Vice-Chairman Douglas pointed out that the only change
in VALUATION on the land was from $11,500,00 to $12,000.00 in the past
four years. He then showed that the only other change was from
$8,390,00 in 1980 on the improvements to $16,795.00 in 1987. This
increase due to substantial improvements and increase in floor space.
Mr. Stocker stated that he is not complaining about his taxes rising.
The letter to Mr, Stocker from the Jefferson County Board of County
Commissioners, ( which originally responded to the April 1988 letter),
is dated June 22, 1988. In this letter they informed him that the 106
percent lid on taxes is a county-wide lid, NOT an individual cap on
taxes. The letter clarified this by stating that a persons single
assessment can go much higher than 106 percent over the previous
valuation due to comparable sales of like property.
The Board closed the Courtesy Hearing by re-stating that when they re-
valued his land and improvements they sustained the Assessor Valuation
as true and fair. They offered Mr. Stocker what advice they could on
his options for correcting what he sees as a wrong in the system of
taxation, levies and bonds,
This not being a formal petition and Mr. Stocker not questioning the
valuation, only the rate of taxation, and the Board having reviewed
its action of 1987 (which increased the land value by $500.00 and the
improvements by $8,405,00 due to over 400 square feet of added floor
space), the Board decided that no action, determination or Order of
the Board are necessary.
BOE-88-038-LO Parcel Number: 002-122-006
PETITIONER: THOMAS STACK was not present. He is currently
2
M I NUT E S
of
J U L Y
27th,
1 988
living in St. Paul, Minnesota, In his absence, the petition and
accompanying letters were read into the Minutes.
ASSESSOR: ROBERT BARRY was present, representing the
Assessor's Office.
This property described as being near Cape George, 0161 TX, S12, T30,
R2W, Government LOT 2, (W 330' with ease) and being approximately 6.7
acres is currently assessed at:
Land:
Improvements:
Total Valuation:
$ 69,105.00
$ 1,430.00
$ 70,535.00
Mr, Stack states that there is only a small cabin without water,
insulation, partitions, kitchen, bathroom or closets. It is a one
room shack, He would like his valuation reduced to:
Land:
Improvements:
Total Valuation:
$
$
$
50,000.00
500.00
50,500.00
He lists a comparable sale: (1) Alain DeChantal, Arbutus tract,
selling one year ago, many parcels of waterfront with excellant views
and CITY WATER, none of which sold for over $50,000,00. He feels that
this property has a higher value than his own, yet the sales price or
market value was at or below $50,000.00.
He referred the Board to two attached letters, (1) From Thomas and
Eileen Stack to the County Treasurer. The Treasurer submitted this
letter to the Assessor's Office. Dated February 20, 1988. Mr. Stack
protested the taxation based on his purchase price of $50,000.00 and
the taxation being based on $71,085,00. He cited the cabin as being
over-assessed and a platform with a tin roof as having negative value,
He also asked to know if there was any relief for him since he is over
65 years old, (2) From The Assessor, Robert Barry, dated March 18,
1988, This replied to his questions, Mr. Barry informed the Stacks
of the four year cycle of revaluing, the process to appeal valuation,
the method used for valuation and of senior citizen exemption
qualifications.
Mr. Barry stated that the amount of $71,085.00 listed in the letter
from Mr. Stack was the correct valuation for 1984. The valuation was
reduced to $70,535,00 in the last re-valuation. He shows this as
residential acreage with a rustic cabin of 280 square feet. He lists
the structure as being unfinished post and beam construction. There
is electric service hook-up. Mr. Stack purchased the property in
March of 1987 for $50,000.00. The property has 330 feet of frontage
and one good building site on a bluff. Mr, Barry feels his appraisal
of $69,105.00 is fair, though well above the purchase price. Mr.
Stack got a very good price, He stated that there were nine
comparable sales of waterfront properties in the past two years. To
be consistent in acreage he used Public Utility Maps, He used $270,00
a front foot for an average depth lot, if it was more or less than
average depth he used $4,500.00 an acre (this figure coming from non-
waterfront properties in the area). In illustrating his appraisal
as being just he gave a list of property sales to the Board and cited
three comparables:
1) This property immediately adjacent to subject
property, sold August 1986 for $36,000,00 at 72 % of subjects. Seller
took a Deed of Trust for $21,000,00, This has 166' of frontage which
is 50 % of subjects. Acreage is 2,46 which is 37 % of subjects, No
improvements.
2) This sold for $51,000.00 in January 1986. There is
an old military bunker that appears to be modified for storage.
Frontage 180' which is 55 % of subjects. Acreage is 3.88 acres which
is 58 % of subjects. This property sold for $1,000.00 more than
subjects property, Deed of Trust for $36,500.00, Power available at
3
M I NUT E S
of
J U L Y
27th,
1 988
boundary of site.
3) This is a long, narrow parcel with superior access to
subjects property, No improvements at time of sale. Electrical power
was available. No well at time of sale, and no structures. Sold in
July 1987 for $55,000.00. Deed of Trust of $47,500.00, Acreage is
5,82 which is 87 % of subjects. Frontage is 160' which is 48 % of
subjects.
In response to the DeChantal property cited by Mr. Stack, Mr. Barry
believes it to be near Adelma Beach area, As he understands it, these
lots do have water, but they are from 100 to 140 front feet and are
considered steep and somewhat smaller than the subject property,
The Board took petition under consideration. They will make an on-
site inspection before making a determination,
BOE-88-041-LO Parcel Number: 001-181-002
PETITIONERS: MARK AND STEPHANIE CARPENTER were unable to be
present. In their absence their petition and attached information
were read into the Minutes.
ASSESSOR: ROBERT BARRY was present, representing the
Assessor's office,
This property located on Loftus
1/4 of Section 18, T 30 N, R
buildings and an undeveloped,
assessed valuation is:
Road, S 1/2 of NW 1/4 of SE 1/4 of NE
1 W, Tax 9, is five acres with no
overgrown 330 foot easement. The
Land:
Improvements:
Total Valuation:
$ 22,500.00
NONE
$ 22,500,00
The Carpenters would like this land assessed at $15,000.00. On the
petition they state it is listed at $20,000.00 with H.J.Carroll. The
attached letter dated July 5, 1988 states (1) they have been trying
to sell the property for the past three years for $15,000.00 and have
been unable to do so (2) Realtors gave comparables and said they feel
the property is worth $15,000.00, In the letter dated July 15, 1988
they state that (1) they split a 10 acre parcel into two 5 acre
parcels and sold one right away with a driveway, electricity and
cleared building site (2) the remaining parcel with an undeveloped
easement has been on the market for eight years and has not sold (3)
a lumber company has placed land in five acre parcels for sale causing
the real estate agents to not even attempt to sell their property
(Linda Larson with H.J.Carroll no longer responds to their letters),
(4) they feel they need to lower the price to $15,000.00 to sell the
property, They included comparables supplied them by a Realty: (A)
6 acres selling for $3,666.00 an acre. (S) 8 acres selling for
$3,750.00 an acre, (C) 5 acres selling for $4,800.00 an acre. (D) 6.67
acres selling for $2,900.00 an acre, (E) 32 acres selling for
$80,000,00. (F) 15 acres selling for $37,500.00. (G) 20 acres selling
for $55,500,00. (H) 5 acres selling for $10,000,00 (poor). (I) 23
acres selling for $75,000.00.
Mr. Barry included a listing of this property with H.J.Carroll Real
Estate. It was supplied to Mr. Barry on July 26, 1988 and at that
time, the Broker, Bill White stated that the information on this
listing is current and that it reflects the correct price. The
property is listed at $24,500.00. The listing also states that there
is a well on neighboring property, about 190 feet and that there is
a 30 foot easement for ingress and egress. Mr. Barry states that from
the northeast corner of their road to Loftus Road, it is 330 feet,
An easement goes to the Northwest corner, also 330 feet from Loftus
Road. This property being adjacent to Stanislaw Lorecki's Petition
Number: BOE-88-009-LO, Mr. Barry supplied the same comparables:
4
M I NUT E S
of
J U L Y
27th,
1 988
( 1 ) Sold for $3,800.00 per acre in October of 1985.
Resold in March of 1987 for $5,090.00 per acre. Nelsons Landing Road
splits this 5.7 acre property into two separate pieces,
(2) Sold for $3,760.00 per acre in June of 1987. This
3.54 acre piece is inferior to subject property for residential use
due to topography, high traffic, irregular shape and dense immature
timber which has been cleared since the time of sale.
(3) Sold for $3,780.00 per acre in september 1987. This
4.96 acre property is considered inferior to the subject property for
the same reasons as comparable (2) above,
(4) Deduct $6,500.00 replacement cost from purchase price
of $32,500.00 for 155 foot well, pump house and electrical service
and you get $5,700.00 per acre bare land price, This 4.56 acre
property sold in August 1986. Mr. Barry considers it a better piece
than subject property.
Mr. Barry states that the subject property is brushy and has immature
timber but that if it were cleared, which would not be a major
project, this property would be more comparable to (4) listed above.
He feels it is currently assessed correctly. It is within 200 feet
of an excellent well which is currently serving two homes, septic is
not a problem in the area,
The Board took the petition under advisement. They will make an on-
site inspection before making a determination.
BOE-88-042-LO Parcel Number: 965-000-121
PETITIONERS: WID J. AND BERNICE J, PRATER were both present.
After the proceedings of the Board were explained they were sworn in.
ASSESSOR: ROBERT KINGSLEY was present as a representative of
the Assessor's Office.
The subject property Lot #24, Kala Point Division #4, which is
approximately 1/3 an acre at the corner of Buckhorn, Foxfield and Kala
Point Drive is currently listed for:
Land:
Improvements:
Total Valuation:
$ 18,375,00
NONE
$ 18,375.00
The lot is zoned for residential use. Mr. and Mrs. Prater feel that
the current assessment is excessive. They paid $13,500.00 in 1978,
They were informed by realtors in the area that similar lots are on
the market for $10,000.00 to $12,000.00, and still they are not
selling, Their lot is assessed well above this amount, It has been
five years since property in the area where their lot is located has
brought a price anywhere near appraised valuation They feel their
lot should be valued at $11,000.00. They submitted letters from
Renate Wheeler of Kala Square Realty and Mabel campbell of coldwell
Banker/Forrest Aldrich, Inc" a map and a list of comparables most
of which Renate Wheeler supplied to them:
(1) Lot 84, Division 2, sold for $5,000.00 on December
5, 1987. This property is nearer the water than theirs with the
possibility of a view.
(2) Lot 153, Division 3, sold for $12,000.00 on September
6, 1987. This is a view lot.
(3) Lot 106, Division 4, sold for $10,500.00 on July 5,
1987. This lot was valued the same as theirs the year they purchased
it, 1978.
(4) Lot 116A, Division 4, sold recently for $14,500.00.
It is a larger lot than theirs and the original selling price was
$2,500.00 higher than theirs,
(5) Lot 453 sold for $10,000.00. This lot is like theirs
and it also needs some fill.
(6) Lot 118 has been listed at $15,900.00. It has not
5
M I NUT E S
of
J U L Y
27th,
1 9 8 8
sold, It will probably sell for less.
(7) Lot 119 has been listed at $15,500.00.
sold. It will probably sell for less,
It has not
Mr. and Mrs, Prater stated that Mr, Kingsley admitted to them that he
was using outdated sales prices instead of recent sales which would
indicate a current market price for this property. The sales of lots
similar to theirs in no way reflect a valuation over $12,000,00.
They stated that Mr. Kingsley remarked that if more people objected
besides them he would re-assess the cul-de-sac. Mr, Kingsley said
that if he re-appraised their lot then he would have to re-value all
the lots in the area. The Praters are only requesting that their lot
be re-valued. Mr, Kingsley informed them that the action of re-
valuing the whole area would be required by law. The Praters then
said that's what needs to be done. Their lot is a nice lot but it has
a slope. At the bottom of the slope they will need to add fill.
Mr. Kingsley basically agreed with what the Praters stated though he
feels some of the sales the Praters listed were not arms length
transactions. He does have comparables which indicated a higher
value. The problem lies in the fact that some people sold their lots
for good prices and some have listed them for lower prices than
assessed. There are no sewers at Kala Point, everything is on septic.
His comparables follow:
(1) Lot 464, Division 8, sold for $18,500.00 in 1987.
Corner of Shorecrest and Kala Point Drive.
(2) Lot 396, Division 7, sold for $20,000.00 in 1987,
Corner of Pinecrest and oakshore,
(3) Lot 416, Division 7, sold for $18,900,00 in 1985.
(4) Lot 401, Division 8, sold for $18,000.00 in 1986.
The Praters stated that these lots are not in their area and that
these lots which have some new homes have always sold for a higher
value. Mr. Kingsley stated that he does not believe the Prater's
listed lot sales are true comparables either. He has not seen any
similar lot sales in the area that would indicate lowering or raising
their valuation,
Vice-Chairman Douglas brought to the attention of the Board the fact
that a large portion of lots in Kala Point were re-valued October 14,
1987 because of the recent sales history. The agreement between the
Assessors and the Board was that the current valuations of Divisions
1 4 should be sustained at their current level until 1988' s
scheduled re-valuation, Kingsley stated that the area was re-valued
this 1988 and that the current valuation was for 1988 on the Prater's
property,
The Board took this petition under advisement. They will conduct an
on-site inspection before making a determination.
BOE-88-043-LO Parcel Number: 801-201-001
BOE-88-044-LO Parcel Number: 801-201-006
BOE-88-045-LO Parcel Number: 801-201-007
PETITIONER: SCOTT O'HARA was not able to be present. His
petition was read into the Minutes in his absence,
ASSESSOR: ROBERT SHOLD was present as a representative for
the Assessor's Office,
These three parcels have a total valuation of $46,195.00. The
peti tioner purchased them all at one time, The breakdown is as
follows:
BOE-88-043-LO/Parcel Number: 801-201-001 is $25,145,00 Land only.
Acreage: 14.9 Valued: 7.5 acres at $2,250.00 and 7.45 acres at
$1,125,00 an acre.
6
M I NUT E S
of
J U L Y
27th,
1 988
BOE-88-044-LO!Parcel Number: 801-201-006 is $ 1,190.00 Land only.
Acreage: .68 Valued: $3,500.00 deducting 50 percent for usability
(wet) which equals $1,150.00 an acre,
BOE-88-045-LO!parcel Number: 801-201-007 is $19,860.00 Land only.
Acreage: 6.62 Valued: $3,000.00 an acre with no deductions.
Mr. O'Hara purchased these properties on December 11, 1987. He paid
$35,000.00 cash for these 22 acres near 8075 Center Road, Section 20,
Township 28, Range 1 W, Tax Lots 1. 6, and 7. He included a copy of
his purchase and sales agreement, He states that his purchase price
is significantly lower than assessed valuation. He believes the true
and fair valuation should be:
Total Valuation: $ 35,000.00
Mr. Shold states that we will find that the property is wet. The base
rates are right in line with other properties in the area, The
question that he has is how much adjustment should be made for the
usability of the property. Fifty percent was deducted on BOE-044-LO
for this reason,
The Board took this petition under advisement, They will conduct an
on-site inspection before making a determination,
OTHER BUSINESS OF THE BOARD
There being no further business before the Board, the board adjourned
until July 29th, 1988.
DATE
a ' ,/J " 1c!.:)Jj
APPROVED wft'L.!::r~ /L7ft 1- /()O
APPROVED BY:
AqtG7JJ!~RMAN
ATTESTED
YJa~,Y
.4
~ ~ (5..!..- t-o'
ARCHIE L. BARBER, JR., MEMBER
7