HomeMy WebLinkAboutM073189
{CA7 II""P I7f
JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARn OF EOUALIZATION
A. C. DALGLEISH
DAVID G. DOUGLAS
ARCHIE BARBER, JR.
JAMES A. DE LEO
CHAIRMAN
VICE-CHAIRMAN
MEMBER
ALTERNATE
M I NUT E S
J U L Y
3 1, 1 9 8 9
The Board of Equalization convened at 9:00 a.m. with Chairman A.C.
Dalgleish, Member Archie Barber, Jr. and Clerk Dierdrei Keegan-Whiteford
present. Vice-Chairman Douglas was absent. The Board dispensed with the
reading of the Minutes of previous meetings at this time,
BOE-89-030-R
PETITIONER: Jeanne Meacham Frye
PARCEL NUMBER: 988-801-705
Petitioner Jeanne Meacham Frye was not represented at the hearing. Robert
Kingsley represented the Assessor's office. The contents of the petition
were read into the records of the hearing in the absence of the petitioner.
This parcel consists of Lots 6 and 8, Block 17 of the Plummer Addition. It
is located at 511 Blaine Street. The parcel is a corner lot with paved
streets on two sides and all utility services available.
The petitioner is,not contesting the $66,185 valuation of the home
improvements, but is contesting the land valuation of $27,000 on the basis
that there isn't a marine view. The 1989 revaluation increased valuation
from $20,000 to $27,000. The petition included photographs of an adjoining
parcel where an old house is being modernized, and photos to indicate the
scope of their view from this parcel. Jeanne Meacham Frye requested that
the land valuation be dropped to $10,000 which is the valuation of an
adjacent parcel with a peek-a-boo view.
Robert Kingsley's response contained the following factors:
BOE MINUTES OF: JULY 31, 1989
Page:
2
1. Land comparables:
a) Parcel 988-802-001, Lot 3, BlocK 20, sold on 3/14/88 for $13,500.
b) Parcel 988-800-601, Lot 5 (N 30') and all of Lot 7, Block 6, sold
on 6/18/86 for $23,000 at $14,840 per lot.
c) Parcel 988-800-804, Lot 6 (less S 12') and Lot 8, sold on 3/13/89
for $30,000 at $16,855 per lot.
2, Copy of Neighborhood Code 6370 with six residential Land Code values
ranging from $15,000 per lot to $8,000, The subject parcel is
classified with Land Code 1116 for a lot value of $13,000 plus Land
Use Code 9802 for $1,000, totalling $27,000,
3. A map showing the location of comparables and legal documentation of
the comparable sales.
The Board will conduct an on-site inspection before making a determination.
BOE-89-040-TSC PARCEL NUMBER: 947-500-049 through 072
PETITIONER: Michael Doezie/Inslee, Best, Doezie & Ryder, P. S.
The petitioner, Michael Doezie, was not represented at the hearing. Bob
Shold represented the Assessor's office. The contents of the petition were
read into the record of the hearing by a Board member.
The subject parcel is a single town house unit in a building with seven
town house units located on the north shore of upper Discovery Bay titled
Discovery Bay Yacht/Racquet Club (Building 1, Unit 3A to 3X condominium),
This is a timeshare condominium with 1/24th interest increments, Each unit
has a part interest in the land on which the building is situated.
The petition included the following documents and factors:
1. A 22 page appraisal of the whole Discovery Bay Yacht/Racquet Club
facility which set the value of the seven unit condominium and
supporting facilities at $650,000. The appraisal was made in October
1985 by John V. Halberg, M.A.I. This information was presented within
the document:
a) Washington State consumer Protection Agency terminated sales of
the timeshare units in July 1984 until the tennis courts above
Highway 101 were completed,
b) Supporting data indicated that only 19.5 time shares had been
sold at the time of termination.
c) The estimated value of a town house, full-share, should be
$90,000 to $100,000 and the land share of a unit should be
$20,000,
BOE MINUTES OF: JULY 31, 1989
Page: 3
2. The subject unit was purchased as a full-share unit on April 15, 1988
for $63,960.41 under a foreclosure sale. The purchase included all 24
timeshare units of this town house.
3. The total seven unit building is currently insured for $432,500 with a
value of $61,785 per town house. The petitioner requests a valuation
of $67,500 to $77,000 for the town house.
Michael Doezie stated over the telephone, July 31, 1989, that he foreclosed
on the original developer and now he has a full, one owner unit and all
potential time shares. He stated that he is unable to dispose of the
property as timeshares, even though appraised as such. He feels that if he
could sell the property as timeshare, then the assessed valuation would be
fair. He cited RCW 64.36.20 as being pertinent, and stated that the
registration to sell as a timeshare was revoked, in 1986 or 1987, on the
whole Discovery Bay Condominium Project by the State Director of Licensing.
The RCW Chapter 64.36, entitled Timeshare Regulation, was copied by the
Clerk and submitted to the Board for review.
Robert Shold indicated that:
1. There has been a sale of a timeshare unit (Parcel 947-500-152), Unit
7/H, for $8,000 on March 22, 1989.
2. The assessor requires additional legal documentation stipulating that
the moratorium of timeshare sales in these buildings is still in
force.
The Board will conduct an on-site inspection before making a determination.
BOE-89-022-C
PETITIONER: Laure Anne Wilbert, Asst. Property
William E. Wilbert, Trustee
Marine Plaza Associates, A limited
PARCEL HUMBER: 989-710-201
Manager
partnership
Petitioner, Laure Anne Wilbert, was not represented at the hearing.
Assessor Jack Westerman, III, Assessment Operations Manager Jeff Chapman,
and Deputy Assessor Bob Shold were present as representatives of the
Assessor's Office. The facts of the petition were read into the record of
the hearing in the absence of the petitioner.
This parcel is a HUD Section 8, Low-income apartment complex for the
elderly and handicapped. The property is located on Lots 1 through 8,
Block 102 of Old Port Townsend, at the intersection of Quincy and Clay
Streets (619 Clay). The Marine Plaza has a legal commitment to provide
subsidized low-income housing for 40 years. Within the Sale Synopsis of
Subsided Housing Rules it states (under 221 D-3 Program) that rents are set
by HUD and subsidized for disparity between the market rents and set rents
on the loans placed at the low (3%) interest rate. It also states that a
BOE MINUTES OF: JULY 31, 1989
Page: 4
6% return on equity is allowed. Current valuation is $121,000 for land and
$799,000 for improvements for a total of $920,000.
The petitioner is seeking relief from the revaluation for the following
reasons:
1. The Assessor's calculation of the valuation regards 30% of the income
appropriate for expenses, whereas the petitioner maintains that the
actual expenses represent a figure closer to 70% of the income. This
is partially justified by the fact that renters do not pay for utility
costs, which have increased.
2. Federal regulations prohibit recovery of increased costs.
3. The petitioner would like to see adjustments to valuation, Land to be
reduced from $121,000 to $110,000.00 (-$11,000), and Improvements to
be reduced from $799,000 to $700,000 (-$99,000). This would be a
total reduction from $920,000 to $810,000.
4. The Certified Accountant statement of profit and loss indicated
principal payment required on the 3% interest mortgage is $399,417 and
that the 1988 Gross Income was $127,871. It lists the expenses as:
Expenses
Amount
% of Gross Income
Administration
Utilities
Maintenance & Operation
Taxes & Insurance
Financial
TOTAL COST BEFORE
DEPRECIATION
$ 32,445
32,873
9,362
13,805
30,216
$118,701
25.37
25.71
7.32
10.80
23.80
PROFIT
9,107
7.17 %
5. A certified letter from William E. Wilbert, dated July 26, 1989,
supplied comments from the audit firm for Marine Plaza:
a) The tax laws changed significantly January 1987.
b) The report used for the basis of the valuation was on sales prior
to 1987.
c) Since the tax law changed HUD Section 8 housing sales have nearly
ceased.
d) The economic market value is less than $500,000.
It was also stated in this letter that the Seattle area HUD was not able to
subsidize the project for the "high, local utility costs" and "extensive
maintenance" that exceeds their guidelines,
BOE MINUTES OF; JULY 31, 1989
Page; 5
Mr. Wilbert claimed that although the property management has created an
"...economically sound dwelling place...", under the "...guidelines of the
court appointed administrator, a decision to terminate occupancy by the
existing tenants, tear down the building and hold the land for future use
may be necessary if costs such as taxes, etc. continue to rise in
disproportionate amount in relation to economic and market value," He
requests that the Board withhold the increase of $120,000 in taxable
valuation. It was noted by the Board that this position appears to be
illegal due to 221 D-3 Program regulations of HUD which state that due to
the 3% interest rate and 6% return on equity allowed, the project must
remain in the proqram for 40 years.
Jack Westerman provided a 12 page package on this parcel which indicated
the following:
1. Land valuation is determined from Neighborhood Code 6285 and Land Use
Code 6018. 48,400 square feet x 2.50 = $121,000. Code 6018 is
defined as "Commercial area south of Lawrence Street, mostly
apartments" .
2. Improvement valuations are based on:
a) HUD 221 D-3 sales on eight comparable units with average expense
rate (%) of 59, GRM = 8.95, average yield 1.84%.
b) Using actual rents and vacancy allowance, 59% expense rate, and
1.84% rate of return, a value of $1,154,740 (which included land
at $121,000 for a net value of $1,033,740) was produced.
3. The 1989 increase of value ($920,000 from $800,000) represents a 15%
increase over the previous revaluation; and, during the same period,
Gross Income from the apartments rose by 32%.
4. An attachment, page 3, provides Residential Appraisal data for the
building with the Cost Approach equalling $829,250 and the Income
Approach equalling $797,500.
Jack Westerman stated during the hearing that he contacted the Department
of Revenue, including Bob Barnes and Joe Simmons (who is the Western
Washington Appraisal Chief) and asked whether the tax law changes were a
valid basis of appeals? He was told no, not since 1986. He was informed
that the Department of Revenue intends on conducting another study based on
tax law changes.
Jack Westerman also spoke with King County's Chief Appraiser Loren Clark
and Commercial Expert Bob Bryant, It was the consensus of opinion between
the Department of Revenue and the King County Assessors that the Marine
Plaza should be appraised like other apartment units. The valuation should
be made based on economic or market rent as it exists, without taking into
consideration the ownership of the property or whether the apartments are
vacant.
BOE MINUTES OF: JULY 31, 1989
Page: 6
It was noted that even given the study in 1986, sales of apartments (with
the same data) compared to those that were financed conventionally were
similar. It was also noted that the profit is guaranteed through HUD, and
that the Marine Plaza Apartments were assessed in the same manner as the
other apartments in Port Townsend,
The Board will conduct an on-site inspection before -.king a determination.
BOE-89-014-LO
PETITIONER: Ronald C. Schuttie
PARCEL NUMBER: 987-001-102
Petitioner Ronald Schuttie was not represented at the hearing. Bob Barry
represented the Assessor's office. The facts included in the petition were
read into the records of the hearing.
This parcel consists of Lots 3 and 4, Block 11 in the Phillips Addition to
Port Townsend, plus alleys and streets which were vacated on 11/5/47.
Currently the usage is for pasture land from one half block north of
Discovery Road and one block east of Eddy Street.
The main thrust of the petition is that since the 1970's Mr. Schuttie's
parcel has been land locked (no access) and valued at $2,185. The current
revaluation increased the valuation to $3,750 without relief for the lack
of access.
Bob Barry indicated that the current valuation is now based on Neighborhood
Code 6140 and Land Use Code 1118 for two lots at $2,500 per lot less 25%
for no access, equalling $3,750. He stated that there isn't any legal or
developed access as the street was laid out and then, in 1947, the land was
vacated when it was in agricultural usage. It is zoned residential with
agricultural use allowed. It was noted that since the petitioner purchased
this land in 1970 he was probably aware that it was landlocked.
Bob Barry listed Parcel Number 987-000-703, which sold for $3000 in
November 1988, as a comparable. This land consists of three lots plus
vacated streets and alleys. There isn't any legal or developed access and
the utility access is further away than that of the subject property. The
assessed valuation on this ,57 acre comparable was $3205 at 75% rate of
adjustment.
The Board will conduct an on-site inspection before making a determination.
BOE-89-033-LO
PETITIONER: Angelo Zamperin
PARCEL NUMBER: 948-315-101
Petitioner Angelo Zamperin was not represented at the hearing. Bob Barry
represented the Assessor's office. The facts presented with the petition
were read into the record of the hearing.
BOE MINUTES OF: JULY 31, 1989
Page: 7
This parcel consists of Lots 1 through 8, block 150 of Eisenbeis Addition,
located across the street from 1019 Hancock Street. There is a paved
street up to and including this block. The parcel is 200 x 200 feet of
pasture land, currently revalued at $28,000.
The petitioners' concerns are as follows:
1. The land valuation increased by 16% in this revaluation.
2. The land has been used as pasture and hay harvest for many years. It
should be classified as agricultural because that is the past and
future use intended for this land.
3. The petitioner would like a reduction from $28,000 to $24,000.
Bob Barry presented the following information to the Board:
1. Comparable sales in the area:
a) Parcel 948-312-201, Block 122, Eisenbeis Addition, sold April
1989 for $34,000 at $4,250 per lot.
b) Parcel 948-317-901, Lots 3 & 4, Block 179, Eisenbeis Addition,
sold August 1985 for $8,000 at $4,000 per lot. Access and
utilities were 1/2 block away at the date of sale,
c) Parcel 948-319-602, Lots 3 & 4, Block 196, Eisenbeis Addition,
sold February 1987 for $12,000 at $6,000 per lot. Access and
utilities are available.
2. Parcel revaluation was based on Neighborhood Code 6206 and Land Use
Code 1119, being 8 lots at $3,500 for a total of $28,000.
The Board will conduct an on-site inspection before _king a deteraination.
BOE-89-034-R
PETITIONER: Angelo Zamperin
PARCEL NUMBER: 948-332-901
Petitioner Angelo Zamperin was not
represented the Assessor's office.
into the record of the hearing.
represented at the hearing. Bob Barry
The contents of the petition were read
This parcel is one undivided block "B" within the Eisenbeis Addition. The
dimensions of the parcel are 460 x 460 feet
(or 4.96 acres). It consists of pasture land with a homestead located in
the southeast corner. The home is supported by a hay barn and out-
buildings. The revaluation is for land value at $45,640 and improvements
for $50,880 for a total of $96,520.
BOE MINUTES OF: JULY 31, 1989
Page: 8
The petitioner states the following facts:
1. Within the petition dated July 3, 1989:
a) The parcel was purchased in 1966 on a real estate contract.
b) The family lived in this home for 20 years, until transferred to
Camas, Washington.
c) Since the family moved, this parcel and block 151 across the
street have been rented for a total of $450 a month.
d) The 25% increase in four years is questioned. Mr. Zamperin
requests consideration of land value at $38,800 and improvement
value at $36,400 for a total of $75,200, which is a reduction of
$21,320.
2. In subsequent correspondence dated August 8, 1989, it was added that:
a) Mr. Zamperin could not get time off from work to be present at
the inspection.
b)
Previous revaluation of the parcel was $73,975.
better than 25% and there have been no changes,
years, with the exception of a coat of paint.
The increase is
in the past four
c) The Zamperins lived on the property for 25 years, they raised
their family there, and they intend on retiring there.
d) They requested consideration of a valuation between $73,000 and
$75,000.
Bob Barry presented the following factors for consideration:
1. The revaluation of land was based on Neighborhood Code 6206 and Land
Use Code 1158 (level, clear, good access, utilities readily available)
for this 4.96 acres at $10,000 an acre -10% for a total of $44,640,
Land Use code 9802 for site improvements was also applied for a figure
of $1000.
2. Building Improvement values were based on:
a) The house is single story, fair quality, in good condition with
an area of 1,344 square feet. There are three bedrooms and two
baths in this 1925 home, which was remodelled in 1985. It has an
effective age of 12 years and a 13% depreciation.
b) There is a 384 square foot attached garage, a 168 square foot
concrete porch, and a 138 square foot enclosed porch.
c) Out-buildings consist of a 280 square foot shed of good
construction, and a 160 square foot shed of fair construction;
BOE MINUTES OF: JULY 31, 1989
Page: 9
both depreciated by 30% for age, with a total valuation of
$2,765; plus a barn valued at $1,568 for a total of $4,333.
d) The replacement value of $53,500 on the house has been
depreciated to 87% for an adjusted value of $46,545, plus $4,333
for other improvements. This gives a total improvement value of
$50,878,
3. Exhibit three presented an analysis of the subject parcel valuation
with three other parcels' improvement values.
The Board will conduct an on-site inspection before making a determination.
BOE-89-032-R
PETITIONER: Judith Skeen
PARCEL NUMBER: 989-706-304
Petitioner Judith Skeen represented the petition at the hearing. Bob Barry
represented the Assessor's office,
This parcel consists of lots 6 and 8 (N 1/2 of each), Block 63, Port
Townsend Old Town, located at 1535 Jefferson Street. The land area is 55 x
110 feet. The home is a one story structure of fair + quality
construction, It is 1,386 square feet including two bedrooms and one full
bath. There is a 36 square foot concrete entry porch and a 100 square foot
concrete patio to the east. The original home was built in 1953 and was
remodelled in 1986. It has an effective age of 10 years and a physical
depreciation of 11 percent. The land has been revalued at $17,625.
Improvements are valued at $46,680 for a total of $64,305,
Petitioner Skeen presented her petition in two parts:
1. An eight page, prepared statement of her concerns about the manner in
which the revaluation was executed.
2. A 20 page exhibit of documentation which was used to review and assess
the manner in which the appraisal was made.
A brief summary of each expressed concern includes:
1. Improvement valuation questions:
a} Marshal] and Swift (1988), page A-19, indicates that the base
rate for this structure should have been $32.55 rather than
$34.10 under Fair Quality (Ex. 3, p. 3).
NOTE: The valuation was based on Fair + Quality for an
addition of $1.55 a square foot - + $ 2,148.30.
b) The adjustment for floor covering of $1.32 would adjust the base
rate to $33.87 rather than $35.42 (Ex. 2, p. 1).
BOE MINUTES OF: JULY 31, 1989
Page: 10
NOTE: No chanqe in valuation would be effective because both
parties used the same adjustment.
c) The adjustment for appliances (Ex. 1, p. 1) should have been $105
per Ex, 3, p, 3, rather than $1,108 as noted on the appraisal
sheet (Ex. 1, p. 1).
NOTE: A reduction of the valuation by - $ 1003.
d) The value of the concrete porch of 36 square feet (Ex. 2,
p. 2) with steps per Marshall and Swift (Ex. 3, p. 3) should he
assessed at $8.33 : $299.88, rather than $352 shown on Ex. 1, p.
1. The petitioner calculated $300.
NOTE: Differences: -$52.
e) The value of a deck in the evaluation appraisal is $909
(Ex. 1, p. 1). The petitioner does not have a deck; however she
acknowledges have a patio of 100 square feet which should be
valued at $2.92 a square foot for a total of $292. The assessor
used an area of 44 square feet at $2.92 per square foot (Marshall
& Swift Ex. 3, p. 3) for a total of $420.48.
NOTE: The difference is - $ 489.
f) Complete adjustment calculations of replacement value:
(I) Item
PF'titionF'r
As~essor (corrected)
Plumbing
Appliances
Fireplaces
Concrete Porch
Patio
TOTAL:
$
$ 470
105
1,385
300
420
$ 2,680
470
105
1,385
300
292
$ 2,552
NOTE: The petitioner's presentation indicates a total of $1,612
rather than the $2,552 above.
(II) Calculation of Replacement Value:
Item
Petitioner
(corrected)
Assessor
(corrected)
Base Rate
Lump Sum Adjustments
TOTAL:
$ 46,944
2,552
$ 49,496
$ 49,092
2,680
$ 51,772
NOTE: (a) With adjustments to Field Appraisal values of the
Assessor, the net chanae is -$ 676.
(b) With corrections to Petitioner calculation
errors, the net chanae to the petition: + $ 965.
BOE MINUTES OF: JULY 31, 1989 Page: 11
(c) The Assessor adjusted the replacement value by 87_
= $ 45,041.64.
(III) Effective Age,
The petitioner proposes that the effective age should be
governed by the construction of the original house in 1953,
It is her contention that the remodelling of the home in
1986 should not be considered as having an effect on the
effective age of a 36 year old house.
The petitioner presented a series of exhibits A 1 through A
5, Ex. pages 6 through 9, as comparable houses for
considering effective age. She concluded that the effective
age of 36 years should depreciate the value by 51% to
$23,792,
(IV) Determination of Land Values:
The petitioner takes the following positions on land
value
s:
a) That valuation of this parcel increased by 41% since
the last revaluation in 1985.
b) That bare lots have greater value than lots with
improvements on them.
c) She objects to the values set in Neighborhood Code
6280, Land Use Code 1116 at $14,000, Code 1115 at
$17,500; and Code 1114 at $20,000.
d) Judith Skeen presented proposed comparable lots and
values to substantiate her objections.
e) She petitions for her land to be valued at $14,000 with
a 25% reduction due to limited view, a church next
door, travel on Benton Street, loss of view because of
a house built next door, and excess traffic due to the
Courthouse, Post Office and Dental Clinic next door.
NOTE: The Assessor used Neighborhood Code 6280, Land Use
Code 1115 at $17,500 per lot adjusted to 95_ as an allowance for partial
view due to the house next door. The Assessor also used Code 9802 for site
improvements of $1,000 for a total valuation of $17,625.
Summary: Current Valuation: Possible Correction
Land, $ 17,625 $ 17,625
Improvements: $ 46,680 $ 45,040
$ 64,305 $ 62,665
BOE MINUTES OF: JULY 31, 1989
Page: 12
Judith Skeen stated that her fundamental disagreement is that she thinks
the Assessor used his own subjective methods of valuation, for his
convenience, where she believes an objective method exists for usage.
The Assessor, Bob Shold, presented documentation on sales and valuation of
four neighborhood parcel sales, evaluation work sheets, and residential
appraisals to substantiate valuation of this parcel. He also noted that it
is not required to use Marshall and Swift.
The Board will conduct an on-site inspection before making a determination.
OTHER BUSINESS OP THE BOARD
There being no further business before the Board, the board adjourned until
August 2, 1989.
APPROVED BY:
DATE APPROVED: ;I/];;/zf1JlA:'1V 30, /983
/
"........ c
/' /;
",~."
, CHAIRMAN
DAJ;?,~ ~q~.....
ATTESTED BY:~~~-~~
D. K AN-NHITEF
fLu e-d-
ARCHIE L. BARBER, JR., MEMBER