Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM110288 L'c. a.?";;z-2.?-:.4;% 1~((.n.;fl.Av JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF EQUALIZATION A. C. DALGLEISH DAVID G. DOUGLAS ARCHIE BARBER, JR. CHAIRMAN VICE-CHAIRMAN MEMBER ALTERNATE MINUTES NOVEMBER 2, I 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. NEW CONSTRUCTION HEARINGS BOE-88-093-R Parcel Number: 998-200-131 PETITIONERS: HERBERT AND DORLITA WEST were not present. Their petition was read into the Minutes in their absence. ASSESSOR'S OFFICE: DEPUTY ASSESSORS ROBERT KINGSLEY AND ROBERT SHOLD were present as representatives of the Assessor's Office. This property is Tala Shore #1, Lot 34, Port Ludlow is located at 240 Tala Shore Drive. The land is 75' x 254' and it is zoned as residential. There is a one bedroom home with an unfinished "daylight" basement and a carport. The purchase price of the property was $87,000.00 July 23, 1988. Rick Wells appraised the property on June 18, 1987 for the purpose of financing. The appraised value was $86,000.00. The Wests attached the appraisal report. The assessed valuation is currently: Land: $ 36,000.00 Improvements: $ 58,645.00 Total Valuation: $ 94,645.00 The petitioner believes the valuation should be: Land: $ 35,000.00 Improvements: $ 52,500.00 Total Valuation: $ 87,500.00 The reasons stated on the petition for challenging the assessed valuation follow: "We paid $35,000 for the land and borrowed an additional $25,682 to complete the house. Our total loan balance was 1 MINUTES o F NOVEMBER 2. 1 9 8 8 $47,065 which included paying off the land. The balance of the $87,000 was paid for in cash. Your new assessment is saying that our property has increased in value of $7,645 over a 13 month period. Being a Realtor I don't believe that is possible in Jefferson County." Deputy Assessor Robert KinQs1ey noted that the Wests did not purchase the property on Julv 23. 1988 as stipulated on the petition. Thev purchased the property on a Statutorv Warranty Deed on October 29. 1986 for $35.500.00 for the land on1v. The Appraisal was performed JUNE 18, 1987 and at that time the house was still under construction. The Assessor's were there in May 1987 and they had the house listed at 60% at that time. Mr. Wells did not state what percentage was complete at the appraisal, he just noted that it was "under construction". The May 28, 1987 valuation was listed as "building only" for $33,790.00, this being at the 60% completion. Mr. Kingsley also noted that Mr. Wells used two methods of appraisal, Cost Approach and Market Approach. When he used the Cost Approach he came up with approximately the same valuation as the Assessors had. When the Market Approach was used, Mr. Wells' appraisal was a lot lower than the Assessors' valuation. Mr. Wells' comparab1es were 12 miles, 10 miles and 16 miles away. One of the houses at 10 miles away was 40 years old, it was built in 1948. He was using this finished, older house, which was not in the area, as a comparable for a newer home which was only 60% complete. Mr. Kingsley had a problem going with this market approach. Mr. Wells' Cost Approach Appraisal was $99,300.00, the Market Approach was $86,000.00. Mr. Kingsley also commented that he did not understand Mrs. Wests' statement regarding why she felt the Assessor's Valuation was not fair and equitable. The Assessor's Office contends that at this time the Fair Market Value of the house is approximately $94,600.00. This includes a carport at $2,496.00 and the house as lOOt complete. The new appraisal was made August 8, 1988 and sent out on August 16, 1988. Mr. Kingsley added that in reference to the West's statements that they paid $35,000.00 for the land and borrowed an additional $25,682.00 , he has been unable to verify these figures. The County records and the West's records do not match. DETERMINATION OF THE BOARD The Chairman requested the Decision of the Board based on the foregoing information presented within the petition and by the Assessor's Office. MEMBER ARCHIE BARBER, JR. MADE THE MOTION TO SUSTAIN THE ASSESSOR'S VALUATION OF $94,645.00. VICE-CHAIRMAN DOUGLAS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE. 2 MINUTES o F NOVEMBER 2. I 9 8 8 CHANGE OF USE HEARING BOE-88-094-R Parcel Number: 601-074-028 PETITIONER: BEVERLY J. CONNOLLY was not able to be present. The Clerk submitted a message to the Board from Mrs. Connolly (dated October 31, 1988) in which the petitioner stated she would try to send further information to the Board in time for the Hearing as she could not attend due to car trouble. She had originally requested that the hearing be re-schedu1ed, but upon hearing that the next petitions to be heard would commence in 1989 she decided that the Board could read her petition into the Minutes in her absence. She was informed of her right to appeal to the Board of Tax Appeals in Olympia if she were dissatisfied with the Decision of the Board. The Clerk checked the mail for the information from Mrs. Connolly, but it had not arrived in time for the hearing. The Board read her petition into the Minutes in her absence. ASSESSOR'S OFFICE: DEPUTY ASSESSOR ROBERT SHOLD was present as a representative of the Assessor's Office. This 1.75 acre property is located just south of Point Whitney Shell Fish Laboratory. This is Lot #2 of the Connolly Subdivision. There is a 35 year old cabin on this property. The petitioner stated that it was in need of much repair. This property has not been listed for sale and it has not been appraised by any appraiser other than the County's. Mrs. Connolly stated that her reason for challenging the Assessor's valuation is that: "The value of property went from $80,000 to 102,000 as soon as subdivision was completed." She stated on her petition that she would bring her tax statements when she came in. She listed a parcel (number 601-074-027) as her only comparable. It's sale price was $40,000.00 June 30, 1988. She describes this property as "subdivision of property in question." She wants the valuation of her property reduced to: Land: $ 40,000.00 Improvements: $ 1,500.00 Total Valuation: $ 41,500.00 Mrs. Connolly included her Real Estate Excise Tax form and information on the Connolly Short Plat including an appraisal. The current Assessed Valuation is: Land: Improvements: Total Valuation: $ 47,560.00 $ 3,200.00 $ 50,760.00 Robert Shold stated that this is short platted property. At the time of re-va1uation in 1986 it was two parcels. One of these parcels was a 15 foot piece which was previously an easement. At the re-va1uation the Assessor's recognized that they had two parcels, one of which had 240 front feet of water front and the other which had 15 feet of waterfront for a total of 255 water front footage, plus 272 lineal 3 M I NUT E S o II' N 0 V E M B E R 2. 1 9 8 8 feet of tide lands. They placed a total value of $350.00 per front foot on the water front and $10.00 a front foot for the tide lands. There was a 15% reduction for excess frontage. The 15 foot parcel was carried differently, it was discounted 50% as there was not much you could do with this parcel. Mrs. Connolly consolidated these two parcels before she short platted. The 15 foot parcel had an approximate valuation of $2.600.00 and the combined parcels had a land valuation of $76,745.00. The 15 foot strip of land is included in this petition. The Short Plat was begun May 3, 1988 and it was processed in September. She Short platted this property into three pieces. Vice-Chairman Douglas clarified that the Short Plat resulted in three parcels, these being two waterfront parcels which are approximately 132 feet wide by 515 feet deep and one parcel on the road which is 264 feet wide and roughly 170 feet long. This petition involves Lot #2. Chairman Dalgleish ascertained that the Board has been on this property and that they do recall it in some detail. Robert Sho1d stated that she had a sale on Lot 1 for $45,000.00 which was recorded on 7/1/1988. The $350.00 a front foot the Assessors used was based on the sales the Assessors had at the time of re-valuation. Shold noted that there is a lot nearby which sold for $60,000.00 for 100 feet of waterfront. The adjoining property is also listed at $3eO.OO a front foot. The Board noted that essentially Mrs. Connolly is contesting the land valuation at this time. It is her right to appeal now as the Assessor's changed their valuation on her property due to the change of use as a result of the Short Plat. The Board determined that it does not have to consider the cabin in this petition. Vice-Chairman Douglas noted that the valuation on this property is consistent throughout the area. Robert Sho1d entered this comparable into the hearing: Lot 2 of the Strampe Short Plat which sold on May 5. 1987 for $60,000.00. It consists of 100 feet of waterfront and 106 feet of tide lands. This is a little larger piece at 2.39. acres. It is approximately 1/4 mile south of the Connolly property. Mr. Sho1d felt that the $40,000.00 piece of property Mrs. Connolly presented as comparable probably was not an actual indication of Market Value. There are other sales of higher prices. DETERMINATION 011' THE BOARD 4 MINUTES o F NOVEMBER 2. I 9 8 8 The Board determined that the information presented by the Assessor and by Beverly Connolly, within the petition, was adequate for making a Determination at this time. Chairman Dalgleish requested the Decision of the Board: VICE-CHAIRMAN DOUGLAS MADE THE MOTION TO SUSTAIN THE VALUATION PLACED ON THIS PARCEL AS A RESULT OF THE SHORT PLAT. MEMBER ARCHIE BARBER, JR. SECONDED THIS MOTION WITH THE COMMENT THAT THIS PARCEL IS CONSISTENT WITH THE VALUATIONS ON COMPARABLE PROPERTIES AND IS CONSISTENT WITH THE BASE VALUES USED BY THE ASSESSOR'S OFFICE. THE MOTION CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE. CHANGE OF USE HEARING BOE-88-095-LO Parcel Number: 601-074-029 PETITIONER: BEVERLY CONNOLLY was unable to be present as noted in the above petition number BOE-88-094-R. Her petition was read into the Minutes in her absence. ASSESSOR'S OFFICE: ROBERT SHOLD was present as a representative of the Assessor's Office. This 1.03 acre property is south of Point Whitney Shell Fish Laboratory. This is Lot #3 of the Connolly Subdivision. Mrs. Connolly stated in her petition that: "This property is unuseable (sic) in its present state and would be very difficult to attain value." The property is currently assessed at: Land: $ 4,000.00 Beverly Connolly would like the valuation of this property reduced to: Land: $ 2,000.00 Connolly did not list any comparab1es. Robert Shold stated that the $4,000.00 value he put on it was basically a site value. There aren't any comparable parcels that he could find. The parcel is not useable for anything. He stated that they will be re-va1uing the area in 1990. DETERMINATION OF THE BOARD MEMBER ARCHIE BARBER, JR. MADE THE MOTION TO REDUCE VALUATION TO $2,000.00 BASED ON THE ASSESSOR'S RECOMMENDATION AND THE INFORMATION PRESENTED WITHIN THE PETITION. VICE-CHAIRMAN DOUGLAS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE. CHAIRMAN DALGLEISH NOTED THAT THE MINUTES SHOULD SHOW THAT THE 5 MINUTES o F NOVEMBER 2. I 9 8 8 TOPOGRAPHY OF THIS PARCEL IS UNDESIRABLE UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES. MEMBER ARCHIE BARBER MADE THIS A MOTION. VICE-CHAIRMAN DOUGLAS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE. NEW CONSTRUCTION HEARING Chairman Dalgleish was unable to attend this hearing, in his absence Vice-Chairman Douglas acted as Chairman. BOE-88-096-R Parcel Number: 921-183-022 PETITIONER: BRAD MALONE was present. After being informed of the procedures of the Board, Mr. Malone was sworn in for testimony. ASSESSOR'S OFFICE: ROBERT KINGSLEY was present as a representative of the Assessor's Office. This property located at 2901 Oak Bay Road in Hadlock has a 28' x 48' mobile home. It is a 1985 Redman with three bedrooms. The petitioner purchased this property on 11/5/1987 for $14,100.00 cash. He stated that it is in need of repairs. The current, assessed valuation is as follows: Land: $ Improvements: $ Total Valuation: 41,300.00 22,545.00 $63,845.00 The valuation Brad Malone would like on the property follows: Land: $ 41,300.00 Improvements: $ 15,000.00 Total Valuation: $ 56,300.00 Mr. Malone stated that he'd researched many Mobile Homes. He gave the Board a clipping from the 11/26/88 - 11/1/88 SNO-KING in which he'd noted some of the Mobile Homes. When he was looking for Mobile Homes he found a brand new, 1987 American Mansion mobile home with three bedrooms, two baths and cathedral ceilings for $19,890.00 plus tax. He also located a Green Hill, which is considered better than American Mansion, for $21,950.00 plus tax. When he came across this 1985, repossessed Redman, he purchased it from a mobile dealer at a good price, $14,100.00. He had to pay approximately $850.00 to have it moved and another $250.00 to have it set up on the property. Mr. Malone is petitioning based on (I) what he paid for the mobile (2) that there is cosmetic damage and (3) that comparable NEW mobile homes sell between $19,000.00 and $23,000.00 including tax and moving. He thinks there may be some structural damage. He considers the utilities and interior of the mobile of inferior quality. He believes his mobile is worth about what he paid for it. He included his Disclaimer of Warranty Agreement and his Mobile Home Disclaimer Agreement (dated 11/5/87). He referred to the SNO-KING to verify his 6 MINUTES o F NOVEMBER 2. 1 9 8 8 pricing of new mobile homes. Mr. Kingsley stated that he did not view the interior of the mobile home. He did not consider a double-wide with siding as inferior grade. He graded this mobile as FAIR, which is one step above LOW. A deck is included in his valuation at $964.00. The mobile is 1,344 square feet, 1985 with an actual age of 4 years old and an effective age of 8 years because of its possibly being abused and its being a repossession. This gave it a depreciation of 26%. Mr. Kingsley cited actual mobile home sales in Jefferson County of similar types as comparab1es: 1) 1983 Fleetwood Kentwood, 24 x 48, sales price $32,460.00 2) 1979 Bendix Cosey, 56 x 24, sales price $18,500.00 (6 years older than the subject mobile home) 3) 1974 Kit, 24 x 64, sales price $15,750.00 (II years older than the subject mobile home) 4) 1983 single wide Kentwood, 66 x 14, sales price $22,000.00 Mr. Kingsley believes it is hard to determine a sales price from the newspaper. His prices came directly from excise tax forms. There is some question in his mind as to what the appraisal should be. He stated that though he felt he had an accurate appraisal on the mobile, he could be wrong. The Manufactured Homes Appraisal Guide under REDMAN GRANDVIEW had the cost to build this mobile home per square foot at $23.46. MUltiply this times the square footage of the Redman in question, 1,344, and it comes out to $31,530.00 BRAND NEW VALUE. When using the KELLY BLUE BOOK of April through September 1988, Mr. Kingsley came up with a depreciated value of $26,850.00 on a mobile in AVERAGE CONDITION. He considers Mr. Malones' mobile in less than average condition. The Board decided to take this petition under advisement and to take the afternoon to view the property in question. OTHER BUSINESS OF THE BOARD There being no further business before the Board, the board adjourned ".........~, !:II'" n.,.,eopo.....~.p.;'ON 1"=1:=.....0 APPROVED BY jjr:1/CJ j DATE APPROVED:!2c ./b.'/f',fQ' 7 MIN.~ C;-t~' A.C.DALG SH CHAIRMAN o F N 0 V E M B E R 2. 1 9 8 8 ~ -Jlt'- '. ~ 8 -<--/ ~' AR IE L. BARBER, JR., ER ~.~.. ATTESTED BG'~ . DIERDREI 8 1- WHIT