HomeMy WebLinkAboutM080888
O"1''f-CU?~ ItJ-7-Sg
JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF EQUALIZATION
A. C. DALGLEISH
DAVID G. DOUGLAS
ARCHIE BARBER, JR.
CHAIRMAN
VICE-CHAIRMAN
MEMBER
ALTERNATE
MINUTES
AUGUST
E I G H T H,
198 8
The Board of Equa1ization 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-88-072-LQ Parce1 Number: 502-101-015
PETITIONER: ELSIE E. ANDREW was present. After being informed
of the proceedings of the Board, she was sworn in for testimony.
ASSESSOR: ROBERT SHOLD was present as a representative of the
Assessor's Office.
The current assessed valuation is:
Land: $ 22,500.00
This property is described as Section 10, T25N, R2W, five acres of
undeveloped land with a steep hillside. It is tax 46, Parcel 10
4/198, The property has been offered for sale for three years with
Eva Taylor. The asking price: $25,000.00. On the petition Elsie
Andrew stated her specific reasons for disagreeing with current
valuation as:"I have other 5 acre parcel in same area but this
particular tract is very steep on a ridge that runs down to a canyon.
I see no buildable site. (sic)" She did not list the amount she felt
the property should be reduced to.
In the hearing Elsie Andrew stated that the land was surveyed in 1978.
She and Mr. Lammers owned various pieces which they divided up. She
is contesting a piece that cannot be bui1t on because it is on a high
ridge with very difficult access. There is a road down below, but it
is very steep all the way down to that road. There doesn't appear to
be a market for this land. The property is overgrown with alder, so
it is somewhat difficult to locate. She hopes the Board will take a
look at the land and re-va1ue it based on current information.
Mr. Shold recommended that the Board inspect this property. He
concurred with Elsie Andrew that the property is very steep and that
it may not have any buildable site.
The Board will inspect this property on August 29, 1988 in the
morning. The Board will make a determination after conducting the on-
site inspection.
BOE-88-071-LQ Parcel Number: 001-063-006
PETITIONER: STANLEY J. PAWELEK was present. After being
informed of the procedures of the Board he was sworn in for testimony,
ASSESSOR: ROBERT BARRY was present as a representative of the
1
MINUTES
o F
AUGUST
E I G H T H.
1 9 8 8
Assessor's Office.
This property is currently assessed at:
Land: $ 73,440.00
This property is described as: "East 400 ft. of Gov. Lot 113, Sec. 116,
T30N, RIWWM" and it consists of 12.14 acres located at Hastings and
McMinn in Port Townsend. His petition is based on three factors:
(1) The difference in the amount of front footage, estimates
between Mr. Pawelek and the Assessor.
(2) The dollar amount used in assessing the front footage.
(3) Discrepancies in the assessed values in the comparable
sales, even when assuming the Assessor's cost parameters.
*(1) Mr. Pawelek: showed a map which was made in 1984. This
map indicated the dimensions of his property as being 400' wide x
1,321' wide. He stated that he went to the Public Utilities District
and obtained a topographical map from an aerial survey, which is
considered an accurate map of the area. He transposed the figures
from the map he presented over the topographical map. This is when he
realized that the P.U.D. overlays on this map indicated boundaries
which made it appear as if he had no bank frontage. He does not
believe this to be correct. There do appear to be encroachments upon
his property. According to his calculations he estimated that his
southerly line should be about 50' above what the P.U.D. map
indicates. Other surveys were estimates done in 1985. Mr. Pawelek is
planning on having his property surveyed as there appear to be
problems with his southern boundaries. When he used the same
technique Deputy Assessor Barry used, he came out with between 44 and
50 feet of front footage. The original survey indicated 47'.
*(2) In regard to front footage, he used Bob Barry's
comparables to show how extreme they are in the high and low
valuations. (A)March 1987 selling price of $50,000.00 for 6.70 acres
with 330 front feet. Parcel #: 2122006, Sec. 12, T30N, RIW, Lot 2,
W330'. The assessed valuation was $69,105.00 in 1988. The cabin was
valued at $1,430.00 and the terms were 50% down and 50% in four years.
(B) December 1985 selling price of $120,000.00 for 6.57 acres with 296
front feet. Parcel #: 1063014, Sec. 6, T30, RIW, Tax 47. The
assessed valuation was $68,500.00 in 1988. The terms were Deed of
Trust $100,000.00. With the assessor's figures and all the
comparables presented, he calculated the average cost per front foot
to be $257.00. When you discount the two extremes listed as (A) and
(B) above, the average cost per front foot works out to be $251.00.
Thus his average ran between $251.00 and $257.00 per front foot.
*(3) Regarding the Assessor's comparables, when he used the
parameters which the Assessor said he'd used in calculating the
valuation of his property(these being $270 per front foot with 850
foot depth and $4,500.00 for any back acreage)he came out with
different, estimated, assessed valuation figures than the Assessor
did. The range of difference was from $1,405.00 to $21,165.00.
Mr. Pawelek stated that when he applied the Assessor's figures to his
property he came out with $62,618.00 (when using $270.00 per front
foot). $61,786.00 is the figure he got when he based his valuation on
the $251.00 figure per front foot. He petitions the Board to use this
fiaure as the amount of assessed valuation he would like to see on his
property: $61,786.00.
Mr. Barry presented the record of survey on which he relied on in
valuing Mr, Pawelek's property. The survey was a recorded survey by a
licensed surveyor. In 1985 this was considered the most reliable
source of information available in terms of size and front footage of
the property. Using the scale and the line drawn on the survey as the
approximate top of the bank he got 170 feet measured along the bluff
of frontage. In terms of width, and to be consistent with other
properties, this was 120 feet of front footage east-west, This is
what the Assessor used as the figure for assessing value, He felt the
question is how much bluff, front footage there actually is on the
property.
2
MINUTES
o F
AUGUST
E I G H T H.
198 8
The petitioner stated that there are no stairs from the bluff to the
waterfront. He estimated that the bluff was about 60' above the
waterfront and that the actual waterfront property is 44'.
Mr. Barry stated that other non-waterfront properties in the area were
assessed at a minimum as $4,500,00 an acre. If Mr. Pawelek's property
were considered NON-WATERFRONT acreage, at 12.14 acres it would work
out to be $54,630.00. Bob Barry used the following figures for
calculating the subject property's worth: $270.00 per front foot (for
up to 150-160 front feet-beyond that a standard table is used in which
a multiplier reduces the frontage due to excess frontage) x 122 =
$32,940.00. This is representative of a 900' depth for waterfront,
which works out to 2.52 acres. 12.14 - 2.52 and rounding downward,
Mr. Barry figured the property had 9.0 acres of back acreage at
$4,500.00 an acre. 9.0 x $4,500.00 = $40,500.00 + $32,940.00 =
$73,440.00 total assessed valuation. He considers this property to
have a good building site. He used two comparables for the Board:
(1) Sold July 1987 for $55,000.00 with frontage of 160 feet
and 5.82 acres. The 1988 assessed valuation was $55,000.00. The
terms were Deed of Trust $47,500.00. Parcel #: 2014002, North Star
Estates. One good building site on the waterfront with only a little
more than half the acreage of the subject property.
(2) Sold April 1988 for $48,000.00 with frontage of 165 feet
and 5.60 acres. The 1988 assessed valuation was $50,450.00.
Parcel #: 2014001, North Star Estates. This property has less acreage
than Comparable (1) and a 30' right of way on one side of the
property.
Mr. Barry feels the problem comes back to how much of a waterfront
building site Mr. Pawelek's property has. He feels that he has nearly
twice the acreage of the comparables with at least as good a view,
building site. Mr. Pawelek's property does not have an easement
running through it for access to other properties. He may have a
source of access on the south end of his property which may enable him
to sell that portion separately.
Mr. Pawelek felt that access on the southern portion should not be
considered as he would have to make arrangements with another owner.
He does not feel that his building site is superior. The calculations
Mr. Barry used were somewhat unclear to him.
Mr. Barry reiterated his previous statements for the clarification of
Mr. Pawelek.
The Board advised the petitioner that his form was not filled out
properly but they were considering it out of courtesy. The Board took
this petition under advisement. After conducting an on-site
inspection they will make their determination,
BOE-88-070-LO Parcel Number: 936-000-103
PETITIONER: EDGAR G. BUNNELL was present. After being
informed of the procedures of the Board, he was sworn in to give
testimony,
ASSESSOR: ROBERT SHOLD was present as a representative of the
Assessor's Office.
The property is described as being located on 281 Tog Road in Brinnon,
Washington. The land is 100' x 225' and is zoned residential. There
is a frame house with a basement, 24' x 44'. There is also a garage
with a basement, 24' x 24', The property has not been listed for
sale. The land is currentlv assessed at: $26.000.00. The Detitioner
feels his valuation should be reduced to $20.000.00 as four lots in
the same block sold for $6,000.00 and $7,000.00 less than the assessed
3
MINUTES
o F
AUGUST
E I G H T H.
1 9 8 8
valuation of his lot. He feels his lot is comparable to the lots
which sold for so much less. The listed comparables are as follows:
(l)Lot 107, 90' x 196', sold for $20,000.00 November 24, 1986,
including the tidelands across the road.
(2)Lot 108, 90' x 190', sold for $21,000.00 November 24, 1986.
(3)Lot 110, 80' x 190', sold for $19,000.00 December 17, 1986.
Mr, Bunnell is onlv contestina the land valuation, He has beach
rights. He submitted a letter with his petition from Loren Ceder,
dated July 21, 1988, which is an update on the Brinnonwold area. The
letter indicated that (A) Land in the area is being surveyed (B) The
land will be put on the market for $12,000.00 to $13.000,00 a lot (C)
There will be no guarantee of water and power and that (D) There are
problems with clearing the title on several one acre lots. Mr.
Bunnell stated that every time there is a high tide he doesn't have
any land.
Mr. Shold stated that at one time the beaches there were Community
Beaches, but now they are privately owned. The three sales Mr.
Bunnell presented were cited as his comparables, plus one other recent
sale:
(4)Lot Ill, sold for $20,000.00 November 24, 1986.
All these lots are a little smaller than Mr. Bunnell's lot. Based on
these sales Mr. Shold recommended that the subiect property be valued
at $20,000.00.
The Board took this petition under advisement. After conducting an
on-site inspection on August 29th, 1988 they will make their
determination.
BOE-88-073-LO
PETITIONER: STEVE LOPES was present.
the procedures of the Board he was sworn in.
ASSESSOR: ROBERT KINGSLEY was present
the Assessor's Office,
Parcel Number: 904-042-005
After being informed of
as a representative of
The property was described as Sec. 4, T29N, R2W is 5,52 acres zoned
open space/agriculture with no improvements. The property was not
listed with a Broker; but it has been offered for sale since July 1st,
1988. The current assessed valuation is: Land: $ 24,840.00
The petitioner would like the valuation reduced to $ 19,000.00 based
on other land on Craig Road. He stated that the other properties are
valued about the same as his land; but they are all substantially
improved with landscaping, roads, wells and septics where his parcel
is NOT improved. He noted that other land sales in the immediate area
have been lower than their assessed valuations. He pointed out that
his land is for sale at $19,000.00. He listed two comparables:
(1) Parcel I: 902-041-008 sold for $11,000.00 on July 6, 1987.
This is Tax #12, Sec. 4, T29N, R2W and consists of 5 acres in the
subject property's vicinity.
(2) Parcel I: 902-042-027 sold for $18,950.00 on January 31,
1986. This is Tax 129, Sec. 9, T29N, R2W and consists of 5 acres just
below his property.
Mr. Lopes purchased his property for $19.000.00 in the last few weeks.
it is in the process of closina. This is the price he offered the
seller and this is the price accepted as a cash purchase.
When Mr. Kingsley re-assessed this year he could not find a pattern of
where the property values were going, so he kept the same appraisals
used in 1984. In light of the sale Mr. Lopes has of $19,000.00 and
the two comparable sales presented, he recommends that there may be a
trend of reduced valuation. He did note that the properties in the
area consist of lots of pasture with few trees and there is generally
good access. The subject property was described as having a
4
MINUTES
o F
AUGUST
E I G H T H.
1 9 8 8
territorial view. The neighboring properties are assessed as follows:
(1) Tax 2 for $22,590.00.
(2)Tax 17, Land Only, $12,085.00.
(3)Tax 12, which sold for $12,000.00 and is listed as a
comparable above, (1), has an assessed valuation of $19,015.00.
(4)Tax 3, $22,180.00 for Land Only.
The Board took this petition under advisement, They will conduct an
on-site inspection before making a determination.
BOE-88-074-R Parcel Number: 712-064-008
PETITIONER: JEANNE MEYERS was not present. In her absence the
petition was read into the Minutes.
ASSESSOR: ROBERT BARRY was present as a representative of the
Assessor's Office.
The property was described as being located at HC 20, Box 553, Forks,
Washington at the end of Dowan's Creek Road, This land is 5.59 acres
and is zoned pasture. There is a rough, unfinished cabin on the land.
The petitioner purchased this property May 7, 1984 for $21,000.00 with
the terms being $13,000.00 down and the balance at 11 1/2 percent.
She noted that the balance has been paid off. The property has been
offered for sale since January of 1988. Jeanne Meyers is asking
$23,000.00. The property is not listed with a Broker. The petition
did not list any comparable properties. The assessed valuation is
currently: Land: $ 13,910.00
Improvements: $ 18,540.00
Total Valuation: $ 32,450.00
The petitioner seeks a reduction to:
She desires this reduction because:
"The building on this property is a very rough, unfinished, unwired
cabin with no septic tank. We had it built for a total cost of
$1,400. If it continues to be appraised at $18,540. and we do not
sell it, we will be very tempted to just light a match to it as that
is too expensive to keep a cabin for friends to stay in on
occassion(sic)."
Land: $
Improvements: $
Total Valuation:
13,910.00
2,000.00
15,910.00
Mr. Barry presented two comparables:
(1) Parcel #: 712-064-018 is 5 acres sold March 1986 for
$21,500.00. This is bare "pasture" land with river frontage. The
price averaged out to $4,300.00 per acre.
(2)Parcel #: 712-064-003 and Parcel #: 712-064-009 are a total
of 1 acre with a 384 square foot cabin. This sold September 1, 1985
for $18,000.00. This is non-river frontage property.
Mr. Barry was on this property. The rustic cabin was 780 square feet.
There was also a low quality car port of 360 square feet which
accounts for $540.00 of the value of improvements. Mr. Barry stated
that the property is owned jointly by a Richard L. Stokes and Jeanne
Meyers, husband and wife. The County records show that this property
was purchased toqether with Tax #24 for the sum of $43.000.00. Tax 24
is shown as 6.17 acres. He has the total assessed valuation on the
subject property as $32,455.00. Mr. Barry presented maps and a
photograph, He considers the cabin well built and its value as
$18,000.00 when the car port is deducted. He believes there is a wood
stove and some plumbing and possibly a composting toilet system. Mr.
Barry felt that the Board should consider that the subject property
was purchased with Tax #24 and that between the two properties there
were two old cabins. The total valuation is only $4,000,00 more than
what she originally paid and now there is a new cabin.
5
.
MINUTES
o F
AUGUST
E I G H T H.
198 8
The Board took this petition under advisement. After conducting an
on-site inspection the Board will make a determination.
OTHER BUSINESS OF THE BOARD
There being no further business before the Board, the board adjourned.
They will meet for on-site inspections before convening for
Determinations and Hearings on August 22, 1988.
APPROVED BY:
DATE APPROVED:r!!lt. ?'; IqlfR
g;iu~
....STED BY~
REI ITEFO
~. ii9.*CBAI....
~e:~;/ 6~d~
ARCHIE L. BARBER, JR., ER
6