Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM111789 t:L:(I7II/~IP/I JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF EQUALIZATION A. C. DALGLEISH DAVID G. DOUGLAS ARCHIE BARBER, JR. JAMES A. DE LEO CHAIRMAN VICE-CHAIRMAN MEMBER ALTERNATE M I NUT E S NEW CONSTRUCTION HEARING NOVEMBER 17, 1989 The Board of Equalization convened with Chairman A.C. Dalgleish, Vice-Chairman David G. Douglas, Member Archie Barber, Jr. and Clerk Dierdrei Keegan-Whiteford present. The Board dispensed with the reading of the Minutes of previous meetings at this time. BOE-89-053-R PETITIONER: William N. Pearson PARCEL NUMBER: 721-031-018 Petitioner William Pearson was not able to attend the hearing. The contents of the petition, and other testimony were read into the records of the hearing in the absence of the petitioner. It was noted that the petitioner informed the Clerk of his inability to attend and that he wanted his testimony presented for him. Robert Barry represented the Assessor's Office. This waterfront parcel consists of 1.34 acres with 150 front feet. It is Lot 2 of the Squamish Harbor Short Plat. The residence consists of a 1,664 square foot, two story structure of "fair +" quality construction. There is neither a garage nor a basement; there aren't any outbuildings. The revaluation is for land value at $46,000 and improvements for $50,890 for a total of $96,890. The petJtioner is not contestJng the land value as he is only allowed to contest improvement value on a new construction revaluation. BOE NRw Construction Minutes of November 17, 1989 Page: 2 The petition stated that: 1) The property could not be sold for the assessor's valuation of $96,890 as it is not completed. He pointed out that the floors aren't finished, and that there aren't any bathroom sinks or fixtures. He also noted that there isn't any landscaping, or driveway, or outside storage. 2) The cost, labor, and materials were about $25.00 a square foot. Given these figures he felt the improvement valuation of $30,000 would be more accurate than the $50,890 it is assessed at~ 3) The last valuation was less than half of the present valuation which is an increase of 41 percent in three years. The undated letter attached to the petition, stated that: 1) The only change in the property from 1989 to 1990 was the addition of eight indoor birch finish doors, four bi-fold closet doors, three inside room doors, and two railings on the stairs to meet the safetYlbuilding codes. He noted that the total cost of these items was about $1,000 and that he has the receipts. 2) This is vacation property. 3) The valuation should not reflect a finished house as there are only sub-floors, no finished floors, no bathroom sinks or fixtures, no heat on the upstairs level, and a kitchen sink that cost $29.95, 4) He pointed out that the cheapest building materials were used and that he provided the labor. In a phone conversation held with the Clerk, on November 6, 1989, the petitioner requested this additional information be added to the testimony: 1) The house meets the codes, but it isn't complete. 2) The house needs finish work, caulking, vinyl, and other work. Bob Barry presented the following factors for consideration: 1) The property was last looked at in October of 1986 when the Assessor did a revaluation in that area. BOP. New Construction Minutes of November 17, 198~ Page; 3 2) Generally the Assessor tries to view new construction on an annual basis, but it appears that this wasn't done in this case. 3) Building improvement values were based on following factors: a) The petitioner indicated a square footage of 1,200 square feet, but the measurements Bob Barry based his appraisal on showed 1,024 square feet on the main level and 640 square feet upstairs for a total of 1,664 square feet. These measurements were checked at the on-site inspection which was conducted at 9;50 a.m., on this date, with the Board present. b) Mr. Barry showed that on the Assessment Data Sheet (Exhibit #1) he listed the property as 95 percent complete, allowing for the lack of floor coverings and minor (in terms of value) incomplete aspects of this house. c) The next revaluation will be in 1990. d) The properties near the Hood Canal Bridge are bringing substantially higher market prices than they were a few years ago as a result of the "land boom" in the Kitsap Peninsula area. 4) Comparable properties (Exhibit #2, A & B & C) which recently sold are as follow: a) Parcel Number 996-600-020; sold for $129,000 on 9/13/89. It's assessed value is $94,590. This waterfront property has 73 front feet and consists of .63 acres. The residence was built in 1970 and its depreciated 14 percent. This Squamish Harbor Beach Tract house has 1,680 square feet and is rated "fair +" quality construction. The value includes a combined value of $9,050 on a garage, a carport, and other outbuildings. b) Parcel Number 996-600-033; sold for $140,000 on 7/21/88. It's assessed value is $84,725. This waterfront property has 73 front feet and consists of .56 acres. The residence was built in 1960 and it's depreciated 25 percent. This Squamish Harbor Beach Tract house has 1,612 square feet and is rated "fair" construction. The value includes a combined value of $6,935 on a basement garage and unfinished basement, c) Parcel Number 721-031-001; sold for $111,000 on 3/28/86. It's assessed value is $85,770. This waterfront property has 160 front feet and consists of ROE Npw r.onstruction Minutes of November 17, 1989 Page: 4 2.91 acres (located about 200 feet east of the subject property). The residence was built in 1910 with a depreciation of 10 percent. The house on this unplatted property consists of 1,096 square feet, rated as "average" construction. The value includes a combined value of $2,920 on an old barn and sheds. After reviewing these comparables and examining others in the vicinity, Mr. Barry noted that it seemed apparent to him that the values in the 1987 tables are consistent; these are the values being used for new construction. He figures that the values are about 70 percent of the current market values, which is what the subject property is assessed at, Member Archie Barber, Jr. noted that we are not equalizing on the basis of how much the petitioner paid for materials and labor, but we are equalizing on the basis of market value. Vice-Chairman Douglas asked Mr. Barry if the land values were based on site values in the Squamish Harbor Beach Tracts. He was informed that they were valued at $36,500 a site as most of the parcels in this subdivision are very close to 73 feet wide. The New Construction Hearing adjourned. continued the days' meeting with the New below. After a break, the Board Construction Determination NEW CONSTRUCTION DETERMINATION BOE-89-053-R PETITIONER: William N. Pearson PARCEL NUMBER: 721-031-018 The Board, along with Deputy Assessor Bob Barry, conducted an on- site inspection of the new construction which is under appeal. They were on-site at 9;50 a.m. Mr. Pearson had indicated, via a telephone conversation with the Clerk, that he would not be able to participate in the inspection. Vice-Chairman Douglas noted that the land was a cleared bank above a 50 foot cliff which dropped down to the water. The whole upper area had been cleared and graded. There was buried power, but the water source was not readily evident. He noted that there wasn't a driveway from the common access road into the three lots. The inspection of the house revealed that the interior was complete except for the carpet. The house was furnished and had an airtight stove in the living room and an open balcony on the upper level. Although there wasn't a basement, the footings were of continuous concrete. In the interest of resolving the claim of square footage, a measurement was made to confirm that the house was BOE New Construction MinuteR of November 17, 1989 Page: 5 actually 32 feet x 32 feet square and that the upper level was 32 feet x 20 feet. This substantiates that the total area of the home is 1,664 square feet rather than 1,200 square feet as claimed by the petitioner. Vice-Chairman Douglas moved to sustain the assessed valuation of $50,890 on the improvements as there is no clear and cogent evidence that the assessor made an error in appraising the improvements. Member Archie Barber, Jr. seconded the motion which passed unanimously. CERTIFICATE OF NEW CONSTRUCTION VALUE Assessor Jack Westerman, III submitted the certificate of New Construction Value to the Board. The certificate, pursuant to RCW 36.21.080 and 84.40.040, certifies that the value of new construction added to the 1989 assessment roll [subsequent to July 19, 1989] is $20,816,767. The certificate was subscribed and sworn to on October 12, 1989 before Norine Gastfield, Deputy Auditor for Jefferson County. The Members of the Board agreed to acknowledge and accept this certificate. OTHER BUSINESS OF THE BOARD There being no further business before the Board, the Board adjourned until November 30, 1989 at which time a review and approval of Minutes will be conducted. APPROVED BY: DATE APPROVED: t!~hb /3Q 1f/8S 1 -, ;J ':itt1-/? , CHAIRMAN ATTESTED BY~~~~P~~ D. K AN-WHITE D ~ {6~ ~' ARCHIE L. BARBER, JR., MEMBER CERTIFICATE OF NEW CONSTRUCTION VALUE . State of Washington TRti'FF.R ~rlN County Pursuant to RCW 36.21.080 and 84.40.040. I. JACK WESTERMAN III Assessor of JEFFERSON County. hereby certny that the value of new construction added to the 1989 assessment roll is $ 20.816.767* * NEW CONSTRUCTION ADDED SUBSEQUENT TO JULY (19TH) CERTIFICATION OF ASSESSMENT ROLLS TO B.O.E. OM ~::2ZL #ignature of Assessor Subscribed and sworn to before me this J.Po YJ~A1~ d/A'//~~1'7.//4Judnorfor day of rz,..~/I/ fl/yMJ~ ~ .19 ,; Cj County. FILE A COPY ON OR BEFORE SEPTEMBER 15 WITH: Department of Revenue Property Tax Division GA Building AX-02 Olympia, WA 98504-0090 FORM REV 64 0059 (6-89)