HomeMy WebLinkAboutM080388
~~a~<'4d /o-7~gi$
JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF EQUALIZATION
A. C. DALGLEISH
DAVID G. DOUGLAS
ARCHIE BARBER, JR.
CHAIRMAN
VICE-CHAIRMAN
MEMBER
ALTERNATE
MINUTES
AUGUST
3rd,
1 9 8 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. Whiteford present. The Board dispensed with the
reading of the Minutes of previous meetings at this time.
BOE-88-056-P Parcel Number: 002-284-036
PETITIONER: MRS. ROBERT O'DELL was not present, Because she
could not be present she informed the Clerk that the hearing could be
held in her absence. Mrs. 0' Dell's petition was read into the Minutes.
ASSESSOR: ROBERT KINGSLEY was present as a representative of
the Assessor's Office.
Mr. and Mrs. 0' De11 are only contesting the improvements on this
personal property petition. The improvements consist of a 1978 mobile
home with the dimensions of 14 x 70 feet. There his an attached
addition to this mobile home which is 12 x 50 square feet. The property
has not been listed for sale or been appraised by anyone other than the
County Assessor. Mrs. O'Dell listed the current valuation on the
improvements as: $ 27,005.00, The O'Dells state that this property at
351 Daisy King Road is assessed too high. They state that the addition
is an enclosed deck with a woodstove added, They state that the mobile
is worth approximately $5,000.00. They claim that the addition consists
of used materials of a value not exceeding $2,000.00. They believe the
true and fair value of the improvements is $7,500.00.
Robert Kingsley stated that this assessment cycle was the first time
the 12 x 50 foot addition was inspected. He could not look at the
addition or measure it. He could only inspect the mobile home from his
automobile because of large dogs which were not under control.
He had guessed that the addition was 14 x 56 which was a little high as
the O'Dells stated that it was 12 x 50, The mobile home was previously
appraised at $9,715.00. Mr. Kingsley was unsure as to the exact date
of this previous appraisal.
The Board decided to take this petition under advisement. They will
conduct an on-site inspection before making their determination. There
beinq one condition: The day the Board appears the O'08lls must have
their doqs under control. The Clerk was advised to send an inspection
notice with this reauirement listed as well as the anticipated date of
inspection. The Clerk dispatched the letter immediately.
BOE-88-054-C [Marina II] Parce1 Number: 502-152-001
BOE-88-055-C [Marina III] Parcel Number: 502-152-010
PETITIONER: WAYNE HARRIS was present. His fiance Jaime Hammon
1
MINUTES
o F
AUGUST
THIRD
was also present. After being informed of the procedures of the Board
Mr. Harris was sworn in.
ASSESSOR: ROBERT SHOLD was present as a representative of the
Assessor's Office.
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE: MR. ROBERT BARNES was present for these
proceedings.
The current valuation on these two parcels is:
Land:
Improvements:
Total Valuation:
$ 800,000.00
$ 444,000.00
$ 1,244,000.00
The property known as the Pleasant Harbor Marina II and III. It is
desc::ibed as being 19.5 acres located at 34751 Hwy. 101, Brinnon,
Wash~ngton 98320. There are two units per acre with community water,
these are zoned residential. There are three buildings consisting of
two restroom and shower buildings and one storage and shop building.
The,property includes what are known as Marina II [$128,000.00] and
Mar~na III [$316,000.00]. Mr. Harris listed the purchase price of his
property as ~700,0~0.~0 cash. He purchased this property June 7, 1988.
He has not l~sted ~t w~th a broker, The property was appraised by Larry
Shorett [(206) 682-0630)] in 1979-1980 for securing a Small Business
Administration (SBA) loan, Mr. Harris included Real Estate Listings,
Purchase Agreements and other "supporting documents" with his petition
as Exhibit ilL
Mr. Harris believes the subject properties should be assessed at:
Land: $ 455,000.00
Improvements (buildings: $ 70,000.00
Improvements(docks): $ 175,000.00
Total Valuation: $ 700,000.00
Mr. Shold felt that the propertv should be considered all toqether as
they were separated out for purposes of sellinq one marina
separatelY from the others.
The Board, Mr. Harris and Mr. Barnes aqreed with Mr. Shold.
Mr. Harris:"As I indicated in my petition, your probably aware that I
just recently purchased the Marina and ah..."
Interruption from person in hallway.
Mr. Harris:"Uh, and we just took over on the loth of June of this year.
I have been endeavoring to purchase the property however, since October
of 1986 when I first visited the property and began making offers to the
former owners prior to the SBA foreclosure. I guess I've never done
this before so I'm not sure how I should proceed other than to tell you
in terms of what I paid for it being a fair market value, ah because it
was on the market for seyeral years, advertised extensively both in
local publications or real estate brokers, even the wall street journal
at one time. So I feel that I purchased it at the fair market value
even though it was in a foreclosure operation as far as the SBA is
concerned. And I felt that with the history of the Marina and the fact
that it has not, ah, well it's been in default
on its taxes, as you know, on its DNR Lease, on its bank payments for
the last five or six years that I'm aware of. I'm trying to pull this
out and make it a viable business. I feel that I paid the fair market
value for it and that the taxes should be levied accordingly. I don't
mind paying the taxes and I would feel that probably in the future they
would increase because I anticipate the property would increase in value
because I would be making improvements on it. But at this point in
time, with the back taxes I owe, and the fact that the Marina is in, ah,
position of a lot of deferred maintenance, has gone downhill over the
last five years. Nothing's been done to it. Ah, there's going to be
a lot of outlay before we really start to see some income coming in.
And that's really the basis of my argument at this point in time."
Mr. Harris went on to state that there have been previous appraisals
2
MINUTES
o F
AUGUST
THIRD
made. He referred the Board to the exhibits submitted with his
petition. The appraisal was made in 1979-1980 by a Larry Shorett. Mr,
Harris believes this is what the purchase price was set by, though he
has not seen the figures of Mr. Shorett's appraisal, He surmised that
the current appraisal is probably based on the same appraisal.
Mr. Shold:"As the Board's aware this property was re-valued in 1986.
At that time we had asked for the assistance of the Department of
Revenue which is why Bob's here [Robert Barnes] and he's the person who
actually did the appraisal on the Marina. We didn't feel like, at the
time, that our expertise was up to being able to do a property of this
type. So, we called the Department of Revenue. So Bob's probably a
little more familiar with where the figures came from that are currently
on the rolls, ah, than I am. Just from the basis that he actually was
the person working on it, so, I would turn it over to Bob to explain,
you know maybe, what we were doing at the time. And maybe some
recommendations based on information that hasn't been supplied at the
present."
Vice-Chairman Douqlas: "Mr. Chairman, I think that, that it would be
appropriate for the record to indicate to Mr. Harris that some of the
documents before you, on the table here, go back to 1986 when the Board
of Equalization participated with the State in trying to find this
matter out and to separate out the various pieces of property so that
there would be a clearer understanding of what was in the assessment.
So, some of the figures that we will be referring to may be dating back
to the 1986 as a reference from our records."
Chairman Dalqleish:"Harris, I mean Barnes."
Robert Barnes:"Okay, thank you. The value on the property was, the land
value was established from sales ranging from 1984 to 1985 in the
vicinity of the Pleasant Harbor area. The, umm, because of the size of
this particular parcel, uh, being approximately 200, or 2.000 front feet
of waterfront and uh, 18 or 19 or 20, approximately 20 acres of land,
upland. There weren't any truly comparable sales, but I was able to
locate three approximate, three waterfront sales that approximated the
same bank height as the subject property. And, those indicated
evaluations of between 530 to 556 dollars per front foot for the
waterfront sales."
Chairman Dalqleish:"How much please."
Robert Barnes:"530 to 556 dollars. And those sales range from 90 feet
to 185 front feet of waterfront. And looking at those sales and
comparing notes to the subject property and taking into consideration
the size of the subject, the bank heighth, the back land, and ah, the
topography I determined that the subject would fall somewhat below that
indicated price range at approximately 400 dollars per front foot. And
at 2000 front feet that would indicate a value of 800 thousand dollars
for the land, and that would include the water frontage and the back
land, I believe there's about 11 acres on the ah, opposite side of the
road from the water. The value for the improvements, for the ah, Marina
itself, which is ah, when I did the appraisal there was some confusion
as to exactly who owned what parcel. As I understand it, at that time
the owners were in litigation as to divide up the property. And there
was a parcel that was in improvements only. And that consisted of the
marina Slips that were in Pleasant Harbor. And I appraised those using
the income method, and I had an income statement from the operators of
the Pleasant Harbor Marina from 1985. And I took their actual income,
deducted their actual expenses, and capitalized that value into a
indicated value for the improvements of 316 thousand dollars."
Mr. Harris:"May I inter...ah, Mr. Chairman, may I interrupt at a point
and ask a question or?"
Chairman Dalqleish:"You may."
Mr. Harris: "Okay, thank you. Did that consider just Marina II and III
3
MINUTES
o F
AUGUST
THIRD
for these quotes in terms of II and III?"
Mr. Barnes:"Ah, that in..., the income information that I had, the
income statement I had was formed, uh, the statement on the information
I have down here statement for 1 and 2 which, uh, at that time were the,
the two marinas that were abutting a real property parcel 502-152-001.
The improvements only."
Mr. Harris: "The reason I ask that is because in reviewing the income
statements that I received from the prior owners for the years 85, 86,
and I also have 87. Uh, 85, 86, and prior that, there was a mixture
because the owners at the time had both Marina I, which is the older
section now, and Marina II. The income statements were totally meshed.
In addition, the income in Marina I is based more on a year round
occupancy because they're mostly local boaters. So that per slip
occupancy rate and the associated income is gonna be a lot higher when
that's thrown in with Marina II and III. Therefore, I think that parts
of that evaluation is quite high because of that, when in reality the
Puget Sound National Bank had a value of 60 thousand dollars on one
portion of, what they call Marina III. And that's what the SEA paid for
it to Puget Sound National Bank because they held a, a, ah equity
portion of that for their loan. So that is what we call Marina III was,
is, about a 60 thousand dollar value as far as the bank is concerned
when they sold it to the SEA. So your income figures in relationship
to what the actual value there on the water is, is, I think there is a
big disparity. And I'm not sure how to resolve that, because those, and
I, and I, believe me I've gone through those income statements and
there's nothing in there that really fits together, it's apples and
oranges unfortunately."
Vice-Chairman Douqlas:"Right. And that's uh, sour grapes."
Mr. Shold:nI think that the best way to deal with that would be to work
with Mr. Harris to get the figures that are correct now. Since we are
able to uh, you know, the date of this assessment, uh appraisal was 1-
1-86, and as I understand it at the function of the Board he is
appealing the 1-1-88 value. So, ah, you know, I think that to resolve
THAT we could, you know it would be beneficial to work with figures that
would be known to be accurate for Marinas II and III."
Mr. Harris: "Originally, ah let me go back and make another comment if
I may. Originally in October 1986 I was making offers on the whole
marina. Not all the parcels, but basically Marina I and its associated
uplands and Marina II and III. Ah, less that three acres on the, the
end there, that was already sold off. But the owners would not sell
Marina I for whatever reason. It's still on the market, and has been
ever since. But they wouldn't put it together as a package. And that's
where we finally ended up when they came with the SEA was gonna
foreclose and I just backed off and waited until the SEA finished with
their process. Ah, because there had been other offers, a couple which
fell through, uhm for reasons I don't know because I was not involved
in them, obviously. When I came back into the picture in MarCh/April
of '87, and made another offer, this time I made it directly to the SEA
and we've been working with them ever since trying to put it all
together. So, anyway, I guess, such is a common, by way of history of
what I have gone through and where I see the numbers coming from."
Vice-Chairman Douqlas:"Is this purchase that you're working on now a
exclusive from the WIN Group?"
Harris:"Oh, yes."
Vice-Chairman Douqlas: "The WIN Group was involved in this originally
but they're not in it anymore."
Harris:"The SEA foreclosed on them. That's right. The SEA the last
year they foreclosed in June of '87 and I had one year to wait for
redemption. The WIN Group still owns part of Marina I and I have no idea
4
MINUTES
o F
AUGUST
THIRD
the total ownership of Marina I at this point in time. It's I guess
kinda up in the air. But as far as I know he's still involved there."
Chairman Dalqleish:"Mr. Barnes."
Member Archie Barber:"316 thousand for improvements. I heard you say
slips. Does that also include the land, ah, the buildings on the land?"
Mr. Barnes: "Well, I was just going through my appraisal and I noticed
something about that, that I hadn't caught before. And that is that
the income statement that I used to generate the income for the
improvements only, did include some income from the marine sales and
supplies and also fuel sales. Which in my opinion would indicate that
that 316 thousand would include the buildings on the upland."
Member Archie Barber:"The support buildings?"
Mr. Barnes: "The support buildings, the restroom, the swimming pool, the
store and, then I.. .when I noticed that, I also noticed at the same time
that I had a value of 128 thousand on parcel 502, an improvement value
on parcel 502-152-001, that I arrived at by using the cost approach to
value for the office and store, the restroom, the bathhouse, the
laundry, the restroom and also the swimming pool. And in light of the
income statement, I think I have included 128,200.00 dollars in value,
in the assessment, that is doublY assessed. Give or take a guess."
Vice-Chairman Douqlas: "We I ve been working this thing for two years,
three years too."
Harris:"I know. Right. You're more familiar with it than I am. But,
anyway, I hope we can put it all together."
Vice-Chairman Douqlas:"Then, then what you're saying is that, ah, if I
understand you, there may be some merit for the parties involved, you
and them, to sit down and try to segregate these things out. And then
come in with a re-statement of appraisal."
Barnes: "Yeah, I received a copy of an income statement that was dated
1987. And I went back and re-worked some of the information that I got
on that, and arrived at...and used that information since, since that
statement included the marina information, the some rental sales and the
store sales."
Shold: "The one that was provided in the petition.
operations."
The summary of
Harris: "Right, that's the one I generated from the income statements
like that as best I could but then after discussion even with the prior
manager and owner, Kate Reilly, some difficulty in there in terms of
certain things included that shouldn't be and so I just allow 'em."
Vice-Chairman Douqlas:" Is this, does this statement co-mingle the income
from the upland buildings as well as the marina also?
Harris:"It shows a breakdown of the Slip rental income and the grocery
and the fuel sales and so forth."
Vice-Chairman Douqlas:"Okay, so this could be segregated out by a re-
assessment of this report?"
Harris: "Right. Definitely."
Barnes:"I keep wondering as I'm going through this 1987 statement, and
uh, analyzing the income and capitalizing that, using the actual income
and expenses stated on this statement, and arrived at a capitalized
value of the improvements. I had a little bit of a problem with this
because there was one item that I wasn't really clear about whether it
was included in the expenses or not. And that's the real estate taxes.
5
MINUTES
o F
AUGUST
THIRD
If I estimated that the taxes were included in the expenses, the value,
the total capitalized value for the buildings came out at 106,297.00
dollars."
Vice-Chairman Douqlas:"The buildings were what?"
Barnes: "The buildings, the marina, the store, and the supporting
facilities, the value capitalized out to 106,297, which I rounded to
106,000 dollars. And then, added to that the 800,000 dollar indicated
land value would be a total value of 906 thousand dollars. And with
real estate taxes, estimating them, not included in the expense
statement, the value capitalized out to 67,000 dollars rounded off, for
the improvements. And add to that the land value of 800,000, comes out
to 867,000 dollars. And just looking at the 1985 statement, there's an
item that indicated 'P/R taxes', which I would estimate to be personal
and real taxes. I don't know. I mean, it's sort of, yeah, I really
have no idea, that's just a guess. So mv qat feelinq riqht now would
be that the expenses did include real estate taxes and the 906 thousand
dollars more than likelv would reflect an accurate 1/1/88 value from the
1987 income statement that I received."
Harris:"If I may, another comment regarding that particular statement.
I have the detail that I carry, or use to generate that. Basicallv it
does not include paYment of the real estate taxes. nor the Department
of Natural Resources Tidelands Lease, nor anv debt service. So that
those expenses are only. shall we say. the operatinq expenses of the
marina, the nuts and bolts. fuel. and whatever, paint occasionallY, but
less those maior items of real estate tax. debt service. and Tidelands
Lease. As we know, because there's been a default the last five years
on all taxes. None have been paid. And that's, you know, $8,000.00,
our, well that's with interest and everything else, but somewhere around
$7,000.00 anyway. Just on the tidelands, if they were to payoff the
bank note of $60,000.00, that's not including those expenses. So that's
a complete disparity here on those income statements. unfortunatelY.
I've done another projection in 1988 based on what I think I might do
and based on what I know has been done in the past, which unfortunately
is not accurate, so I'm really guessing as what kind of business I'm
going to be generating over here. And Jamie can attest(Jamie Hammon his
fiance was present but did not enter testimony)the fact we've been kind
of working night and day and early morning, late at night to get the,
keep this thing going. But there's some numbers there that I'm not sure
of, and I know that there are some that are missing."
Chairman Dalqleish ascertained that Harris is living in the apartment
above the Marina. Mr. Barnes made one further point:
Barnes: "Under Washington State Law mortgage retirement is not considered
to be part of operating expenses as far as determining net income to
capitalizing into value. That's considered to be management, property
assessed at, and it's fee simple for free title, and that would be
without any encumbrances..."
Harris responded: "You do have to consider if you're looking at an income
statement to see what income is coming in and what your expenses are
going out and what your net..."
Barnes:"As far as operating, yes you would, but as far as capitalizing
that income stream into a value for tax purposes, it's not considered
because that is, that's a management decision."
Harris:"But you're not then using the expenses, your just using the
income from that statement then. You couldn't use net unless you do
include, YOU'd have to just use only income, the expense, you know..."
Barnes:"That is one of the things I didn't know if this expense
statement included..." the previous list did not. So he did not know
if this list did. Barnes went on to discuss other methods of indicating
values on marinas and expense ratios. He was unsure of the expenses on
6
MINUTES
o F
AUGUST
THIRD
Harris's income.
Vice-Chairman Douqlas requested a clear breakdown of improvements in
1986 which Barnes supplied: (Marina I) Land-800 thousand/Improvements-
128 thousand/currently assessed at 928,000. (Marina II and III) assessed
valuation is 316 thousand. In using income from the statement he
arrived at the $316,000.00 figure. At the time he felt that the income
was the best indicator of value for that. He noticed that the income
screen did include income from upland buildings, pool, restrooms, etc.
which was 128,000.00 value.
After fair market value was discussed Mr. Harris stated that part of
his argument was that his property was unique in a way, but that it
shouldn't be an exception. He stated that what he paid for the property
is a fair market value given the fact that it's been on the market at
a value that nobody paid. He made many offers through 1986. He found
that after getting the income statements that the property was not worth
his offer, so he backed off. It remained on the market for four years
during which time no one was purchasing this property at any price. He
made offers beginning at $500,000.00 up to $850,000.00, but backed down
after reading the income statements. He is willing to consider the
property worth $750,000.00 at the most. There are no figures in the
income statement to indicate expense of maintenance which you have to
consider in this case. Up keep, rebuilding due to dry rot and other
repairs must be done in order for the marina to survive.
Mr. Barnes does not consider the transaction "arms length" because the
quitclaim deed clouds the sale.
Mr. Harris said that the quit claim was irrelevant because the other
party cashed out. He originally offered with terms. He offered a new
offer each month for six months. Finally in 1987 the SBA put a value
on the property and they stated they would accept terms offers of
$700,000.00 or above but later they were advised to cash out by their
attorney. So they no longer accepted terms offers. Thus the quit
claim. Harris stated that these transactions are documented. He was
able to deliver cash by selling other properties. He also stated that
banks in the area will not loan money on this property.
Mr. Barnes and the Board decided that they would await further
information before meeting with Mr. Harris to come to an agreement
regarding the valuation of the property.
The Board took the petitions under advisement. Determinations will be
made after a final review of the propertv and information.
BOE-88-057-R
PETITIONER: MARTHA ALMADEN was
hospital as a result of an heart attack.
Minutes in her absence.
ASSESSOR: ROBERT KINGSLEY was present as a representative of
the Assessor's Office.
Parcel Number: 002-341-010
not present due to being in the
Her petition was read into the
The property is currently assessed at:
Land:
Improvements:
Total Valuation:
$ 26,000.00
$ 5,000.00
$ 31,000.00
The property is located at 381 Daisy King Road in Sequim. Mrs. Almaden
stated on her petition that the house is "abandoned, falling down, no
water, no power, not lived in for years, or even used for storage!".
She states that she believes the true and fair value to be Land Only at
$26,000.00. No valuation on improvements.
Robert Kingsley did not enter the home.
He did have a photograph from 1971.
He was unable to inspect it,
The structure was valued at
7
MINUTES
o F
AUGUST
THIRD
$7,500.00 in January of 1984. In his opinion at the time he was out
there he estimated the value to be $5,000.00. It is a very old house
with vegetation grown up around it, It appeared that it hadn't been
lived in for quite a while. still, he believes there is some value in
the 600 square foot house, His field sheet showed that there was no
power. The power lines used to run into the house, but they have been
cut. Power is available to the property, though there isn't any water.
The Board took this petition under advisement. They will conduct and
on-site inspection before making a determination,
BOE-88-062-LO Parcel Number: 001-173-002
PETITIONER: DALE E. LEAVITT was present. After being informed
of the proceedings of the Board she was sworn in to give her testimony.
ASSESSOR: ROBERT BARRY was present as a representative of the
Assessor's Office.
The current assessed valuation on the property is:
Land:
Improvements:
Total Valuation:
$ 39,125.00
NONE
$ 39,125.00
This property is described as being TAX 0101 Portion of SW 1/4 SEC. 17,
T30N, RIW, This 32,27 acre property is located off of Nelson's Landing
Road. It is zoned as Resource Production and Rural Residential. There
are no buildings on this property, She states on Exhibit "A" that the
physical condition of this parcel is as follows: "The North 2/3 of parcel
was logged in 1982, the South 1/3 was logged in 1966 and has 20 year old
trees not of merchantable size. According to Jeff. Co. land use
regulations the land can only be used for Resource Production (growing
trees) or Rural Residential. The parcel is accessed off of a narrow
county road, Nelson's Landing Rd. No city water or sanitary sewer
available."
Dale Leavitt purchased the property for $33,000.00 November 17, 1987,
The terms were $28,000.00 down, $5,000.00 on a note. She has not offered
the property for sale and it has not been assessed by any assessor other
than the County Assessor. Ms. Leavi tt attached descriptions of
comparables to her petition. She listed Exhibit "A" as "Request for Re-
evaluation - list and descriptions of adjacent sales requested to be
used as "comparable sales" and Exhibit "B" as "List & map of "comparable
sales" used by Assessor's office which are not really 'comparable'''.
She listed $33.000.00 total valuation as the true and fair valuation.
In her testimony Dale Leavitt stated that when she purchased her
property in November of 1987 it was listed at the current valuation of
$1,250.00 an acre. It was on books for the same amount from prior
transfer. This piece was one that Crown Zellerbach Corporation had
owned and then transferred into a wholly owned subsidiary designed to
sell off property considered higher and better use parcels not suitable
for timberland production. Her parcel was a piece of a 200 acre parcel,
When marketed for several years at various prices it did not sell. When
she contacted the sales company in November they were willing to break
the large parcel into smaller parcels in order to sell it. She
negotiated with them and purchased a 32 acre piece for $1,031.00 per
acre. The property was assessed at $1,250.00 an acre using sales which
she doesn't consider comparable. Four adjacent parcels recently sold
for less than $1,100.00 an acre but they were not used as comparables.
She had a conversation with the personnel of the Assessor's Office to
find out how they reached their assessed valuation since it was higher
than her purchase price. She questioned the assessed valuation since
her purchase price was lower and since the parcels around her sold for
even less per acre, When she reviewed the location of the comparables
supplied by the Assessor, she did not feel they were comparable.
COMPARABLE SALES USED BY JEFF. CO. ASSESSOR TO JUSTIFY
$1,250.00 PER ACRE ASSESSMENT:
#1) Tax Parcel Number: 001-212-002, purchased by Dale and
8
,
MINUTES
o F
AUGUST
THIRD
Leona Brady 4/13/85 for $44,000.00, This is 20,50 acres at $2,146,00
an acre. This acreage fronts on state Hwy. 20 with approximately 1000
feet of highway frontage. The property was purchased with the intent
to develop it commercially, and since the purchase has been subdivided
approved for commercial purposes by the County, and has now bee~
incorporated into the Hwy. 20 Industrial zone. As a result of
commercial/industrial development potential, Dale Leavitt does not
consider this a comparable sale, The Leavitt Trucking parcel is
designated only as resource production/rural residential, without
highway frontage.
#2) Tax Parcel Number: 001-204-002, purchased by James
Worthington 10/20/86 for $60,000.00. This 40 acres is priced at
$1,500.00 an acre. The parcel was sold with some merchantable timber
on it, the purchase price included that timber. The parcel is adjacent
to commercial/industrial operations of Fred Hill Materials, Inc. The
parcel would be allowed to have commercial operations on it because it
is adjacent to an existing commercial operation. As this parcel can be
developed commercially and has merchantable timber, Dale Leavitt does
not consider it a comparable with the subject property.
#3) Eighty acres on a hillside above the Gardiner store
sold recently. It has a beautiful view of the strait of Juan de Fuca
and it has access to water as it currently has water storage tanks on
it. These tanks are for the Gardiner area P,U.D. Because this property
has access to water and a view she does not consider it comparable to
her property. This property was recently sold by puget Southern
Properties.
COMPARABLE SALES AS SUBMITTED BY DALE LEAVITT AS HAVING THE
SAME PHYSICAL CONDITIONS AS HER PROPERTY FOLLOW:
#1 A-Blue Color on the map she submitted) Tax Parcel Number:
001-202-001, purchased by Patricia Willestoff 2/15/88 for $77,500.00,
This acreage listed by the Assessor's Office as being 62.96 acres and
by the survey plat at approximately 71 acres was taken out of forest
land designation and taxed as residential. It sold for $1,092.00 per
acre and was assessed at $1,250.00 per acre.
#2 B-Liqht Pink Color on the map she submitted) Tax Parcel
Number: 001-173-003, purchased by Charles and Tanya Lewis 3/5/88 for
444,000.00. This acreage listed by the Assessor's Office as being 32.80
and by the seller and survey plat as 41 acres was also taken out of
forest land designation and taxed as residential. It sold for $1,073,00
per acre though its assessed valuation is $1,250,00.
#3 C-Green Color on the map she submitted)
Number: 001-273-006, purchased by Richard and Dolly Stahl
$18,000,00. This 17 acre piece sold for $1,058.00 an acre
assessed at $1,250.00 an acre. It too was taken out of
designation and taxed as residential,
#4-Brown Cross-hatch on the map she submitted) This was a
recent forfeiture to James River Corporation in February 1988. Two
offers were made to James River Corp. to purchase the parcel for
$1,100.00 per acre but the offers were refused and countered by James
River. The counter price was $1,300.00 per acre. The potential buyers
both refused the counter offer and withdrew their earnest money and
offers. The parcel has remained on the market for $1,300,00 per acre
with no other offers.
#5-Dark Pink
Number: 001-191-001 was
$44,000,00. The 40 acres
Tax Parcel
5/20/88 for
though it's
forest land
Color on the map she submitted) Tax Parcel
purchased by Discovery Timber 6/10/88 for
were $1,100.00 each.
Mr. Barry's figures concurred with Ms. Leavitt's figures in terms of
the subject property. He submitted a map to the Board showing the
SUbject property and the original Puget Southern Parcel being discussed.
He listed one comparable:
#1) This Parcel Number: 001-292-004, selling on a Deed of
Trust for $150,000.00 on 7/1/88 is 97 acres. The sale price was 25
percent down, remainder at 10 percent interest with the balance being
due in five years. The purchase price worked out to $1,546.00 per acre.
He considered this property to have better "territorial views" than the
subject property and the Puget Southern property. He noted that parts
9
MINUTES
OF
AUGUST
THIRD
of this comparable have "peek-a-boo" water views. Access is similar to
the kind of access available on the subject property. One factor he
observed is that there is currently usable gravel material on the
Leavitt property. Mr. Barry does not have information on how the
gravel-material site on the Leavitt's property affects the relative
value.
Mr. Barry supplied the Board with a brief history of the puget Southern
property, Most of the sales had not occurred at re-valuation time.
Only Parcel # 3 had sold in February 1985 for $128,000.00. Later on he
found the acreage figure of 64, to be in error. The acreage is slightly
more than 50. The price worked out to $2,000.00 an acre. Since then
the parcel was repossessed or forfeited back. The relationship between
James Rivers Corp. and puget Southern Property (a subsidiary of Crown
Zellerbach) were not clear to him.
Ms, Leavitt tried to clarify the relationship as follows:"... Puget
Southern Properties now is part of Cavanham Forest Industries which is
not associated with Crown Zellerbach anymore. Crown Zellerbach
purchased by James Rivers, James Rivers Corporation bought all of the
paper and pulp end of the business. So James Goldsmith who had
purchased 49 percent of Crown Zellerbach Corporation made a deal where
he took all of the timber lands and lands and sawmills. So as they
split, the lands went with Cavanham, Puget Southern Properties, but in
part of the negotiations with James River Corporation they threw in a
promissory note as part of the assets in an asset exchange with Crown
Zellerbach and James River so the promissory note ended up in James
River's hands at some assessed value. I guess it is the face value of
what the note was. Puget Southern Properties, which now's a separate
Corporation of Cavanham, feels that they hold title but James Rivers
holds the promissory note, so somehow they have to legally work out an
exchange, a transfer of title or whatever..."
Mr, Barry went on with the history, He stated that he was aware that
the Leavitts had purchased property, though at the time he did not have
good acreage on the property. The Assessors had it on at 31 acres for
$33,000.00. Barry knew Robert Shold had assessed similar acreage in
Sections 19 and 20 to the south at $1,250,00 to $1,500.00 an acre.
Based on this information he went with the figure of $1,250.00 per acre
as a rate for the Leavitt property. When Ms. Leavi tt came to the
Assessor's Office he discovered the forfeiture on property previously
listed as a comparable. It was then that he discovered that he could
not use this property as a similar property. Mr. Barry came to the same
conclusions as Ms. Leavitt did regarding the supposed comparables, He
no longer considers his comps listed in her evaluation valid as the best
comparables since they represent substantially different situations.
In regard to her comparables, he does not consider these sales as comps
because the comparables should be fully independent sales from the
subject property. Her comps are not. They all stem from one seller,
puget Southern Property. The seller basically viewed the whole acreage
as one parcel, initially. In researching the case Barry called puget
Southern to ascertain who the best person to speak to about this
property would be. He was referred to Margene Hammon. Margene Hammon
indicated three points which indicated that they were unsuitable as full
market value sales:
1) The property was being sold for cash only. Ms. Leavitt
was the one exception for this with a note for $5,000.00. The rest were
all cash sales.
2) When they decided to split the property up they had a
deadline to sell it within a year or so. The pricing was such that
between November 1987 and May 1988 they sold all that they had on the
market at the time. One exception here was Parcel #4 which was traded,
No cash transaction took place. Puget Southern traded 40 acres for 40
acres.
3) Puget Southern is a land disposal organization. The
sort of real estate sales generated from this kind of organization does
NOT influence the normal owner of one or two properties in regard to
10
MINUTES
o F
AUGUST
THIRD
pricing.
Given all the above information Mr. Barry believes that (A) $1,250.00
an acre is within reason and that (B) the other Puget Southern parcels
were sold below normal market value. The only good comparable Mr. Barry
had was the Parcel Number: 001-292-004 listed above.
Dale Leavitt commented on the one comparable Mr. Barry submitted as she
was familiar with it when she worked for Puget Southern and Crown
Zellerbach. This was also a Crown Zellerbach/Puget Southern Parcel.
The property was fully timbered when Puget Southern had it. It was on
the market for a long time primarily because the parcel also had a
railroad right-of-way going through it, complete with rails. The
vibrations and other conditions caused by a railroad would de-value the
property as a development piece. The rails came up last fall at which
time the property went back on the market. This is also the time that
timber markets went sky high. Pope and Talbot was making deals on
property like this, harvesting the timber and then disposing of the bare
land when the timber value was extracted. Pope and Talbot owned this
parcel, which caused her to believe that it too is a disposal property,
In conversations with foresters and the Vice-President of Marketing for
Pope Resources she attempted to find out if the logged-off parcels would
be transferred to Pope Resources for sale. There was also the question
of whether or not Pope Resources would be left to market their own land.
The comparable parcel in question was sold to Alain DeChantel who is in
the development business. As this property has views of the bay and is
in close proximity to the Golf Coarse it lends itself to residential
development of a higher value. This property also is within a mile of
P.U.D. water. Alain had viewed her property but did not purchase it as
he prefers to buy the better properties. This was an indication to Ms.
Leavitt of her property's value in terms of residential development.
There is no easy access to water on her property. As the timber
companies have been showing a trend for disposing of logged off
properties are the sale prices indicative of the fair market value or
would the value be higher?
In response to the gravel on her particular piece as to g1v1ng it a
higher value, she stated that they are limited as to the amount of
gravel they can remove. They would have to make a full application to
the Department of Natural Resources to obtain a surface mining permit.
The permit process involves application with reclamation plans,
topographical maps, complete documentation that is submitted to DNR for
their review and also to the County level for their review. It requires
bonding and limitations on environmental activity and impact. It is an
involved process. Ms. Leavitt stated that it is not as if the gravel
were readily available for extraction. At the present she can remove
some of the gravel with what she believes is a maximum of three acres
that she can disturb. She cannot mine below the surface level. Her
current use of the property is to take some gravel off the property.
She is considering growing Christmas trees. Parcels in the immediate
vicinity are being considered by their owners for running horses. This
land is no longer under timber classification.
The Board took this petition under advisement. After conducting an on-
site inspection they will make their determination.
DISCUSSION BETWEEN BOARD MEMBERS CONCERNING MR. JOHN WIKE AND HIS
LETTERS TO THE ASSESSOR MR. JACK WESTERMAN. In his letters John Wike
was contestinq the valuation of the improvements on his land. Mr. Wike
was advised bY the Assessor to fill out the petition forms mailed to
him, He failed to fill out and file the appropriate forms. Therefore.
under the circumstances. the Board determined that they were not
obliqated to hear the appeal. The parcel numbers of the Wike property
are: 712-331-003 and 712-331-005. The properties are located in the
vicinity of Forks near the Hoh River.
THOSE PRESENT FOR THIS DISCUSSION:
ALL BOARD MEMBERS, CLERK OF THE
11
MINUTES
o F
AUGUST
THIRD
BOARD-D. L. WHITEFORD, ASSESSOR ROBERT SHOLD AND ASSESSMENT OPERATIONS
MANAGER-JEFF CHAPMAN.
BOE-88-063-LO Parcel Number: 987-001-601
BOE-88-064-LO Parcel Number: 987-001-501
BOE-88-065-LO Parcel Number: 954-000-101
BOE-88-066-LO Parcel Number: 954-000-201
BOE-88-067-LO Parcel Number: 954-000-301
PETITIONERS: WAYNE ROBERTS WITH ANTHONY STROEDER as agent did
not appear before the Board. Their petition encompassing the above
parcel numbers was read into the Minutes in their absence,
ASSESSOR: ROBERT SHOLD was present as a representative of the
Assessor's Office.
The Chair being advised that these properties are adjacent to each other
agreed to consider them in one group.
BOE-88-063-LO consists of 10 lots in Block 16 of the Phillips Addition.
Two of the 12 lots (1 - 12) were lost due to Discovery Bay Road and an
alley. This Block has access to the road. These lots are 50' x 100'
and are valued at $1,800.00 per lot or $18,000.00 total. The petitioner
requests that each lot be reduced to $1,000.00 each for a total
valuation of $10,000.00.
BOE-88-064-LO consists of Block 15, lots 1 through 10, Phillips
Addition. 50'x 100' lots valued at $1,050.00 per lot for a total of
$10,500.00. The petitioner requests that each lot be reduced to
$1,000.00 each for a total of $10,000.00. Undeveloped platted roads.
BOE-88-065-LO consists of Block 1, Lots 1 through 12, Glenwood Addition.
Currently valued at $21,600.00 or $1,800.00 per lot. The lot size is
50' x 100' . The petitioner requests $1,000.00 per lot reduced
valuation for a total of $12,000.00. Undeveloped platted roads.
BOE-88-066-LO consists of Block 2, lots 1 through 12, Glenwood Addition.
CUrrently valued at $1,800.00 a lot for a total of $21,600.00. Lot size
is 50'x 100'. The petitioner requests a drop in valuation to $1,000.00
a lot for a total valuation of $12,000.00.
Undeveloped platted roads.
BOE-88-067-LO consists of Block 3, lots 1 through 12, Glenwood Addition.
CUrrently valued at $1,800.00 a lot for a total of $21,600.00. Lot size
is 50'x 100'. The petitioner requests a drop in valuation to $1,000.00
a lot for a total valuation of $12,000.00.
The above properties were purchased over five years ago. They were
listed with a broker for 1 1/2 years. They were asking the assessed
valuation of $1,800,00 a lot. All the lots were zoned R-l. The
petition signed by Anthony Stroeder as Mr. and Mrs. Wayne Robert's agent
(along with a computer generated letter giving Stroeder permission to
act in their behalf) stated that since Block 15 of Phillips Addition had
its valuation lowered the other Blocks adjoining Block 15 should have
their valuations reduced. The petition also stated that there has not
been a "purchaser in over a year."
Mr. Shold stated that the parcel which was reduced in valuation to
$1,050.00 a lot was reduced from $2,100.00 a lot because it had a septic
denial October 24, 1978. This is why the discrepancy between these lots
and the others, Now, given enough space and a mound system, no area is
considered unbuildable. What is prohibitive is the cost of various
systems to make a potential building site buildable.
Mr. Shold does concur with the petitioner that there has been no sales
activity for quite a while.
He makes the recommendation that the one property with access to
Discovery Road not have any valuation changes. He has no indication
that BOE-88-063-LO has been de-valued. He would like it to remain at
12
MINUTES
o F
AUGUST
THIRD
$1,800.00 a lot.
BOE-88-064-LO, BOE-88-065-LO, BOE-88-066-LO, BOE-88-067-LO lots were
all recommended for a reduction to $1,000.00 a lot by Robert Shold.
The Board took this petition under advisement. After conducting an on-
site inspection they will make their determinations.
BOE-88-068-R Parcel Number: 965-300-003
PETITIONERS: ARNELL AND KENNETH STEELE were not present. Their
petition was read into the Minutes in their absence.
ASSESSOR: ROBERT SHOLD was present as a representative of the
Assessor's Office.
This property described as The Bluffs, Building 2, unit 3003 is a single
family Town House. It is constructed of wood, is a two story structure
of 1,653 square feet with a 327 square foot garage. The current
assessed valuation is:
Land:
Improvements:
Total Valuation:
$ 14,000.00
$ 104,000.00
$ 118,000.00
The Steeles purchased this property April 29, 1988 on terms of
$65,000.00 down and a $43,000.00 mortgage. The property has not been
offered for sale by the Steeles. The petitioners were not aware of any
comparable sales. They desire reduction because the property "was on
the market for sale for at least two (2) years without a buyer. We
therefore feel we paid the true and fair value (market value). They
believe the true and fair valuation should be:
Land:
Improvements:
Total Valuation:
$ 10,000.00
$ 98,000.00
$ 108,000.00
Mr. Shold listed BOE-88-034-R The Dunn's property as a reference for
comparable sales as the same comps apply in the Steele petition.
Comparables were:
1) Unit #3009, Sold in 1987 for $120,000.00.
2) Unit #3023, Sold May 1987 for $142,500.00.
3) unit #3025, Sold September 1987 for $139,000.00.
4) Unit #3037, Sold April 1987 for $129,500.00.
5) Unit #3003, Sold April 1987 for $108,000.00. This is
the petitioner'S unit which is now being considered.
A current comparable which came to Mr. Shold's attention follows:
6) Unit #3024, Sold February 1988, no amount given as the
sale has not been totally processed through the Assessor's Office.
Mr. Steele's unit sold previous to his purchase for $135,000.00 in 1981.
There is a decrease in value shown by current resales, though most of
the properties that sold for less than the Board's re-valuations were
properties which had been through foreclosure.
Mr. Shold does not dispute The Dunn's property petition or the Steele's
petition, There not being a sale for two years may indicate that the
sales may actually be the market value even though these properties had
been through foreclosure. Mr. Shold stated that he had no problem with
the Board's adjusting the valuation on like units if they determined
that the re-sales were legitimate indicators of value.
The Board took this petition under advisement. After conducting an on-
site inspection the Board will make their determination.
BOE-88-005-A-LO
BOE-88-005-B-LO
BOE-88-005-C-LO
BOE-88-005-D-LO
BOE-88-005-E-LO
Parcel Number: 954-000-501
Parcel Number: 954-000-601
Parcel Number: 954-000-701
Parcel Number: 954-000-801
Parcel Number: 954-000-901
13
MINUTES
o F
AUGUST
THIRD
BOE-88-005-F-LO Parcel Number: 954-001-001
BOE-88-005-G-LO Parcel Number: 954-001-101
BOE-88-005-H-LO Parcel Number: 954-001-201
PETITIONER: DORIS H. SINCLAIR was not able to be present as
per her letters stating that her husband had an heart attack. In her
absence her petition was read into the Minutes.
ASSESSOR: ROBERT SHOLD was present as a representative of the
Assessor's Office.
The Board had requested that Mrs. Sinclair supply them with evidence
that she could represent all owners of the properties, which were on
record as being vested among eight part interests. In a letter to the
Board, received July 16, 1988, Mrs. Sinclair assured the Board of her
actively representing all the other investors as she is the majority
owner. She gave details as to her activities in the interest of the
properties and stated that "... we are a group of investors that were
(we believe) pretty well victimized by John W. Pickett and the Peninsula
West Builders Corporation. I assure you that all of the investors wish
a reduction in taxes on property that will never be of sufficient value
to repay the principal, interest and expenses that we have so far
incurred. Therefore I respectfully request that the board consider our
petition at this time." The Board deemed this letter sufficient notice
of Mrs. Sinclair's riqht to petition for equalization on the part of all
the investors.
BOE-88-005-A-LO is of Glenwood Addition and consists of 12 Lots
approximately 50 x 100 feet. These lots are zoned residential. The
property was listed for sale and the asking price is $1,000.00 per lot.
Mrs. Sinclair stated that this land had been assessed at a rate based
on land values of several years ago. She considers these values no
longer since when offered for $1,000,00 a lot at foreclosure, there was
not one bid. The realtor, Anthony E. Stroeder of Port Townsend Realty
has had these same lots listed with not one sale in over a year, There
are no sewer lines in the area. The lots cannot be developed singly,
There is no market demand for this property. She believes a fair
reduction in value would be for $800.00 a lot for a total valuation on
Block 5 of $9,600.00.
Mr. Shold recommended that the valuation be reduced to $1,000.00 a lot
from the current assessed valuation of $1,800.00 a lot. The total
valuation was $21,600.00.
BOE-88-005-B-LO is of Glenwood Addition and consists of 12 Lots
approximately 50 x 100 feet. Zoned residential and listed for sale by
Anthony Stroeder of Port Townsend Realty at $1,000.00 a lot, No sales
have occurred. No sewer lines, no development potential singly and no
market demand for the property are the reasons Mrs. Sinclair stated for
the reduction of this Block 6. She requested it be reduced to $800.00
a lot for a total valuation of $9,600.00.
Mr. Shold recommended that the valuation be reduced to $1,000.00 a lot
from the current assessed valuation of $21,600.00 at $1,800.00 a lot.
BOE-88-005-C-LO is of Glenwood Addition and consists of 12 Lots
approximately 50 x 100 feet. Zoned residential and listed for sale by
Anthony Stroeder of Port Townsend Realty at $1,000.00 a lot. No sales
have occurred. No sewer lines, no development potential singly and no
market demand for the property are the reasons Mrs. Sinclair stated for
the reduction of this Block 7. She requested it be reduced to $800.00
a lot for a total valuation of $9,600.00.
Mr. Shold recommended that the valuation be reduced to $1,000.00 a lot
from the current assessed valuation of $21,600.00 at $1,800.00 a lot.
BOE-88-005-D-LO is of Glenwood Addition and consists of 12 Lots
14
MINUTES
o F
AUGUST
THIRD
approximately 50 x 100 feet. Zoned residential and listed for sale by
Mr. Stroeder of Port Townsend Realty at $1,000.00 a lot. No sales have
occurred. No sewer lines, no development potential singly and no market
demand for the property are the reasons Mrs. Sinclair stated for the
reduction of this Block 8. She requested it be reduced to $800.00 a lot
for a total valuation of $9,600.00.
Mr. Shold recommended that the valuation be reduced to $1,000.00 a lot
from the current assessed valuation of $21,600.00 at $1,800.00 a lot.
BOE-88-005-E-LO is of Glenwood Addition and consists of 10 Lots
approximately 50 x 100 feet. Zoned residential and listed for sale by
Mr. Stroeder of Port Townsend Realty at $1,000.00 a lot, No sales have
occurred. No sewer lines, no development potential singly and no market
demand for the property are the reasons Mrs. Sinclair stated for the
reduction of this Block 9. She requested it be reduced to $800.00 a lot
for a total valuation of $8,000.00. This block was assessed at
$2,000.00 a lot for a total valuation of $20,000.00.
Mr. Shold recommended that this block not be reduced to $1,000.00 per
lot as it is impacted by the highway. Though the situation is similar
to the other blocks, the value is higher because the block is situated
on Discovery Road with both road and water access. Discovery road does
impact this block as a minimum of one lot is covered by the road. He
suggested the valuation be lowered to a figure higher than the other
blocks in these Glenwood addition petitions.
BOE-88-005-F-LO is of Glenwood Addition and consists of 10 Lots
approximately 50 x 100 feet. Zoned residential and listed for sale by
Mr. Stroeder of Port Townsend Realty at $1,000,00 a lot. No sales have
occurred. No sewer lines, no development potential singly and no market
demand for the property are the reasons Mrs. Sinclair stated for the
reduction of this Block 10. She requested it be reduced to $800.00 a
lot for a total valuation of $8,000.00. This block was assessed at
$2,000.00 a lot for a total valuation of $20,000.00.
Mr. Shold recommended that this block be reduced to $1,000.00 a lot for
a total valuation of $10,000.00.
BOE-88-005-G-LO is of Glenwood Addition and consists of 10 Lots
approximately 50 x 100 feet. Zoned residential and listed for sale by
Mr. Stroeder of Port Townsend Realty at $1,000.00 a lot. No sales have
occurred. No sewer lines, no development potential singly and no market
demand for the property are the reasons Mrs. Sinclair stated for the
reduction of this Block 11. She requested it be reduced to $800.00 a
lot for a total valuation of $8,000.00. This block was assessed at
$1,800.00 a lot for a total valuation of $18,000.00.
Mr. Shold recommended that this block be reduced to $1,000.00 a lot for
a total valuation of $10,000.00.
BOE-88-005-H-LO is of Glenwood Addition and consists of 10 Lots
approximately 50 x 100 feet. Zoned residential and listed for sale by
Mr, Stroeder of Port Townsend Realty at $1,000.00 a lot. No sales have
occurred. No sewer lines, no development potential singly and no market
demand for the property are the reasons Mrs. Sinclair stated for the
reduction of this Block 12. She requested it be reduced to $800.00 a
lot for a total valuation of $8,000.00. This block was assessed at
$1,800.00 a lot for a total valuation of $18,000.00.
Mr. Shold recommended that this block be reduced to $1,000.00 a lot for
a total valuation of $10,000.00.
15
.
MINUTES
OF AUGUST
THIRD
OTHER BUSINESS OF THE BOARD
There being no further business before the Board, the board adjourned
until August 5, 1988.
APPROVED BY:
DATE APPROVED:~ ~ /lrYt
a~~~Jd
.....STED ~1at<~
DIERDREI WHITEFO
E-CHAIRMAN
r~(/e~~.
ARCHIE L. BARBER, JR., BER
16