Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM073090 .~~, . 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 N U T E S J U L Y 3 0, 1 9 9 0 The Board of Equalization convened at 9:00 a.m. A.C. Dalgleish, Vice-Chairman David G. Douglas, Barber, Jr. and Clerk Dierdrei Keegan present. pensed with the Minutes of the previous meeting with hearings. with Chairman Member Archie The Board dis- and proceeded HEARINGS RUFF, James W. Post Office Box 622 Quilcene, WA 98376 BOE: PN: 90-027-LO 601 342 015 Robert Kingsley was present on behalf of the Assessor's Office. Mr. Ruff's petition was read into the record of the meeting in his absence. Leaal Descriotion: This unimproved parcel 601 342 015 is descri- bed as 0321 TAX, S34, T26, R1W, TAX 9, TL, TAX A (S 1/2) consist- ing of 9.52 acres located North of Hazel Point on the East side of the Dabob Peninsula. Assessed Valuation: Land Only: Improvements: Total Valuation: $ 167,100 NONE 167,100 Petitioner Reauest: Land Only: Improvements: Total Valuation: $ 137,000 NONE 137,000 Board of Equalization Minutes: July 30, 1990 Page: 2 Petitioner's Testimonv: Mr. Ruff submitted a petition form and attached a letter dated June 29, 1990 as an exhibit giving "comparisons of assets of properties". In the petition Mr. Ruff stated that the property was purchased in 1968 and that it had been for sale in 1986 for four months at $200 a foot. His speci- fic reason for considering the assessed valuation too high is that the $700 a foot for 100 feet is not comparable. He pointed out that there was a comparable sale of $115,000 on June 15, 1990 on the West side of the Toandos Peninsula (mid-way) with the property consisting of 250 feet of waterfront with approximately six acres, a house, two wells, a road to the beach, and tide lands. He listed the value as being $450 a foot for the 250 feet of waterfront. His letter detailed the differences between his property and this comparable: Comparable: $115,000 * Road on property to beach Subject: $167,100 * No road on property or within 800 feet of beach * No house * No well * No electricity * Short rock beach * Tide lands included * House on property * Two wells * Electricity * Long sandy beach * Tide lands included * About 100 feet more depth * 10 mile less commute Mr. James Ruff also stated in his letter that on comparison he failed to believe 100 feet of his property should be valued at $700 per foot. He explained that he is not disputing the $250 per foot section, "but in the event the bridge goes out - and it will - even this valuation will be above sale price." Assessor's Testimonv: Robert Kingsley stated that the petitioner has 480 front feet of waterfront. He has 200 front feet on at $700 a front foot. He provided a handout showing the subject property valuation as listed below: * 200 Front Feet at a rate of $700 x 75% = $105,000 (-25% excess front footage): LAND CODE 1151 NO BANK TO LOW BANK WATERFRONT ON HOOD CANAL. * 280 Front Feet at a rate of $250 x 75% = $52,500 (-25% excess front footage): LAND CODE 1153 HIGH BANK WATERFRONT ON HOOD CANAL. * 480 Front Feet at a rate of $ 20 x 75% = $7,200 (-25% excess front footage): LAND CODE 9302 ACCESS TIDE LANDS. * TOTAL COMBINED VALUATION OF PARCEL: $164,700 Board of Equalization Minutes: July 30, 1990 Page: 3 Mr. Kingsley explained the discrepancy between the assessed valuation presented by the petitioner ($167,100) and that of the Assessor ($164,700) as being a change in tide land valuation. Everyone who held tide lands over the standard front footage was provided with new notices of a change in valuation. Mr. Ruff's change in valuation is not indicated on his petition. Robert Kingsley provided a copy of information he located on the petitioner's comparable. He reported that the sale was to three buyers: William and Janis Clevenger, John and Patricia Gray, and James and Nancy Rivetts. The Real Estate Excise Tax form showed the property as being sold for $115,000 on June 4, 1990, it's assessed valuation is $74,250. The comparable included a house on a high bank property. The subject property is partially no bank and included a cabin. Mr. Kingsley does not feel this is a comparable property. Mr. Kingsley also presented: Item #1: A neighborhood code computer print out for Board review. Item #2: Three low, no bank, waterfront comparables showing a range ~n value from $700 a front foot to $1,100 a front foot. These three comparables are un- developed. Item #3: One sale of a developed waterfront property (James and Karen Almon: Parcel number 501 032 008 sold April 17, 1990) which is an "abstraction" which shows somewhere between $678 to $720 a front foot for medium bank. Board Action: The Board took the petition under advisement and agreed to conduct an on-site inspection of this property before making a determination. EASTER, Scott B. 3007 W. Laurelhurst Drive NE Seattle, WA 98105 BOE: 90-026-R PN: 601 032 002 Robert Kingsley was present on behalf of the Assessor's Office. Chairman Dalgleish explained the hearing process to Mr. Easter and swore him in. Mr. Easter stated he had no objection to the Assessor being present at an on-site inspection. Board of Equalization Minutes: July 30, 1990 Page: 4 Leqal DescriDtion: This parcel 601 032 003 is described as S3 T26 R1W GOV LOT 2 (S150' of N300') TL TAX E (LS TL TAX E-1) with Land Use Code 1100 and Neighborhood Code 2210. The improvements of this 3.88 acre parcel consist of a 982 square foot home (with a deck) built in 1959 and considered fair; a 240 foot low quality completed basement; a 742 square foot basement garage of low quality, and a shed/sleeping cabin. This residential property is located on the Coyle Peninsula. Assessed Valuation: Land Only: Improvements: Total Valuation: $ 81,100 42.465 123,565 $ 41,100 42.465 83,565 Petitioner Reauest: Land Only: Improvements: Total Valuation: The Land values were figured at the following rates: * 150 front feet x $700 x 70% (-30% for depth) = $73,500; LAND CODE 1151 NO BANK TO LOW BANK WATER FRONT ON DABOB BAY (UNIMPROVED) . * 180 front feet x $20 = $3,600; LAND CODE 9302 TIDELANDS (UNIMPROVED) . * 1 site x $4,000 = $4,000; LAND CODE 9808 (IMPROVED). * TOTAL LAND VALUATION = $81,100 Petitioner Testimonv: Scott Easter explained that his family purchased the property in the '60s. They bought the North 300 feet of Lloyd's parcel and spent 3 - 4 years constructing the home. Scott Easter and his father did the "finish" work. The family utilized the property almost exclusively for summers and on weekends. A few years ago Scott Easter and his sister began the process of separating the property, dividing it in half from East to West. The subject parcel is basically the right hand portion of the original property. The division was created to enable his sister to build her own home on the North half of the original parcel. He presented an exhibit: Exhibit #1: A photograph depicting both Parcel Number 601 032 003 (the subject parcel) on the right hand portion of the photograph and Parcel Number 601 032 005 (Scott Easter's sister's parcel) on the left hand side. He pointed out that the configuration of the raw land of both parcels is "virtually identical". Board of Equalization Minutes: July 30, 1990 Page: 5 Mr. Easter said that he is basically before the Board because the assessment of the original 300 foot parcel was between $30,000 and $40,000 but when this parcel was split, the value on the 150 foot South parcel in question went from $47,800 to $81,100 for the raw land. The value on the undeveloped North parcel went down from $46,800 to $41,100. He feels when the $41,100 valua- tion on the North parcel is compared with the South parcel value of $81,100 that it isn't equitable since as far as he can tell, after 25 years of living on the property, the land is the same size and identical in terms of geographic configuration. As far as physical development of the properties, aside from zoning and Shorelines considerations, he believes the development challenges would be about the same. He stated that he did not have a problem with the valuation on the North parcel and in fact he believes it is consistent in relation to the best comparable properties he has reviewed. A description of how the North parcel was valued follows: The North Parcel 601 032 005 described as S3 T26N R1W GOV LOT 2 (N 150') TL TAX E-1 of 3.53 acres and is valued as follows: * 150 front feet of unimproved land x 250 = $37,500; LAND CODE 1153 HIGH BANK WATERFRONT ON DABOB BAY. * 180 front feet of unimproved land x 20 = $3,600; LAND CODE 9302 TIDELANDS. * TOTAL VALUATION OF PARCEL $41,100. Mr. Easter listed and discussed the following comparables: Comparable #1: Parcel Number 601 102 025 sold for $79,800 on September 30, 1988. The property is a 260 foot parcel which is approximately 1/2 to 3/4 miles to the south of the subject property. He noted that this parcel comes in between $250 to $300 a waterfront foot. He feels this is the same general range the Assessor used for the North parcel. Vice-Chairman Douglas confirmed that it was about $307 a waterfront foot. Comparable #2: Parcel Number 601 102 013 sold for $90,000 in April 1990. The property is a 200 foot parcel approximately 2 - 3 miles to the south of the subject property. Mr. Easter con- siders this land superior to his property. Board of Equalization Minutes: July 30, 1990 Page: 6 Mr. Easter does not think $250 to $300 a waterfront foot is unreasonable. He questioned the approach the Assessor uses on determining high, medium, and low bank topography and stated that as he understands the situation, there isn't any scientific process or actual definition to making the determination. He felt it was strictly determined by the experience of the Asses- sor. Mr. Easter said that he did not agree with the Assessor's rationale for putting $700 a waterfront foot value on the land, just because the house was already built at water level, being cut into the hill in the mid-60s. The topography is the same as the adjacent parcel. Mr. Easter believes you should "value dirt as dirt and houses as houses" and that you should value all dirt with the same conceptual approach. He did not think where a house was located or could be located should have any significant impact on the land valuation. Mr. Easter stated that he assumes that if something happened to the house, that now he would have to go through the Shorelines process in order to build the home again. He could theoretically have to re-build farther from the bank, on top of the hill, to satiSfy Shoreline requirements. Assessor's Testimonv: Robert Kingsley explained that the North 150 feet was valued at the high bank rate and the subject proper- ty was valued at the low/no bank rate of $700 a waterfront foot. When he had arrived to assess the property all he had was his field notes and a workbook to work from. The comments available listed a sleeping cabin and no bank waterfront, high at the rear, level area at the beach. He was not aware of where the property lines were, upon seeing the sleeping cabin he assumed he was on the subject property. North of the sleeping cabin it becomes high bank again. Mr. Kingsley stated that he mistakenly placed a high bank rate on the Easter property North of the subject property. In 1982 the property was on at a no bank rate of $350 a waterfront foot. In 1988 the property was segregated for family reasons, this was accomplished using $300 a front foot based on the 1986 revalua- tion when waterfront footage was lowered to $300. Both pieces were given the $300 a front foot value. In 1990 sales showed that low bank waterfront should be valued at $700 a front foot, so this valuation was placed on the subject parcel with the house. Mistakenly assuming where the boundary was, due to the mix up with the sleeping cabin, he had valued the northerly parcel at the high bank rate. Mr. Kingsley stated that the property is low bank. Petitioner Comment: Mr. Easter asked Mr. Kingsley if he called the property no bank just because the house was there or because of the bank configuration. Board of Equalization Minutes: July 30, 1990 Page: 7 Assessor ResDonse: Mr. Kingsley responded that it was because the house is located on the no bank waterfront. He explained that he discussed the ability to get a building permit on the no bank waterfront in 1990, on the northerly parcel, and he found that this may not be a reasonable request due to the Shoreline Permits. As a result, he chose not to change the high bank rate to low bank. He noted that it is his understanding that if you go to get a building permit, you would not be allowed to put a septic system on the beach. Mr. Kingsley stated that he checked into the ability to re-build if something were to happen to Mr. Easter's house, and he found that if Mr. Easter were to begin to re-build the structure within one year, he would be able to keep the home on the beach. Petitioner Questions: Mr. Easter asked Mr. Kingsley if he would agree that the land is roughly the same geographic configuration as the adjacent parcel now that he knows where the property line is, and if he would change the value on the high bank property if a house were built at the low bank level? Mr. Kingsley stated that if Mr. Easter's sister decided to build at the low bank level, and could be permitted to do so, he would request a change to the waterfront rate of low bank. This would indicate low bank use and highest and best use would be low bank. This would in turn, increase the value of the property. If there are two identical pieces of property with one having a permit to build at low bank and the other to only build at high bank, the property with the low bank permit would be of greater value. Mr. Easter asked how the property would be assessed if the septic were pumped up the hill to a containment tank, and a home were built at low bank? Mr. Kingsley explained that the property would be valued as low bank, as the market would indicate this value. Board Comment: Vice-Chairman Douglas reminded the petitioner that we are bound by market value. Assessor's Testimonv - continued: no bank sales and one medium bank arables: Mr. Kingsley presented three sale for supporting comp- Comparable #1: This medium bank sale is considered an "abstraction" as there is a mobile home on the property. The Almon property, Parcel Number 501 032 008, has a mobile home, a garage, and decks which are valued at $80,490. The property sold for $250,000 and subtracting the improvements of $80,490 a Board of Equalization Minutes: July 30, 1990 Page: 8 land value of $169,510 for 250 front feet is left which is $678 value per front foot. with the excess front footage adjustment for parcels over 150 feet, the value is raised to about $720 a waterfront foot. This property is on the Hood Canal and the configuration of the property is sloping. Comparable #2: This land only Hickey property, Parcel Number 701 321 005, consists of 100 front feet low/no bank waterfront which sold for $70,000 in August 1985. This is $700 a front foot. The property is located on the Bolton Penin- sula, Lindsey Beach, which is across the bay from the Easter property. The houses in the area are generally at water level without any bank. comparable #3: This land only Russ property, with a combina- tion of Parcel Numbers, consists of 100 front feet which sold for $78,000 in March of 1990. The market value is $780 a front foot. This property is also located at Lindsey Beach. Comparable #4: This land only Squillace property, Parcel Number 701 304 018, consists of 100 front feet which sold for $110,000 in January 1989. This property is located on the West Side of the Bolton peninsula, the opposite side of Lindsey Beach on East Quilcene Bay County Road. The market value is $1,100 a front foot. The configuration is gradual, down to the water. Petitioner Comment: Mr. Easter noted that none of the com- parables have high bank with pre-existing development like the subject property. They have gradual, no bank topography. He explained that this is his concern "in a nutshell". He feels the comparables presented are not valid for his kind of property. Board Action: The Board took this petition under advisement and explained the on-site inspection procedure to Mr. Easter, inform- ing him of the possible date and that he would be notified by mail. Board of Equalization Minutes: July 30, 1990 Page: 9 PAPRITZ, Gordon R. BOE: 90-029-LO PN: 802 363 015 3 Lincoln Beach Road BOE: 90-030-LO PN: 802 363 016 Port Townsend, WA 98368 BOE: 90-031-LO PN: 802 363 017 BOE: 90-032-LO PN: 802 363 018 BOE: 90-033-LO PN: 802 363 019 BOE: 90-034-LO PN: 802 363 020 BOE: 90-035-LO PN: 802 363 021 BOE: 90-036-LO PN: 802 363 022 BOE: 90-037-LO PN: 802 363 023 BOE: 90-038-LO PH: 802 363 024 BOE: 90-039-LO PN: 802 363 027 Robert Shold was present on behalf of the Assessor's Office. Chairman Dalgleish explained the hearing process to Mr. Papritz and swore him in. Pronertv Descrintion for BOE: 90-029-LO PN: 802 363 015: This five acre parcel (#3) is described as 0301 TX, 836 T28 R2W TAX 11 with an easement. The property is located between Discovery Bay and Quilcene and was repossessed on a balance due of $42,500. The property is not currently offered for sale. Assessed Valuation: Land Only: Improvements: Total Valuation: $ 15,000 NONE 15,000 Petitioner Reauest: Land Only: Improvements: Total Valuation: $ 11,500 NONE 11,500 Pronertv Descrintion for BOE: 90-030-LO PN: 802 363 016: This 5.40 acre parcel (#4) is described as 0301 TX, 836 T28 R2W TAX 12 with an easement. The property is located between Discovery Bay and Quilcene and was repossessed on a balance due of $42,500. The property is not currently offered for sale. Assessed Valuation: Land Only: Improvements: Total Valuation: $ 15,000 NONE 15,000 Petitioner Reauest: Land Only: Improvements: Total Valuation: $ 11,500 NONE 11,500 Board of Equalization Minutes: July 30, 1990 Page: 10 Property Description for BOE: 90-031-LO PN: 802 363 017: This five acre parcel (#5) is described as 0301 TX, 836 T28 R2W TAX 13 with an easement. The property is located between Discovery Bay and Quilcene and was repossessed on a balance due of $42,500. Assessed Valuation: Land Only: Improvements: Total Valuation: $ 15,000 NONE 15,000 Petitioner Reauest: Land Only: Improvements: Total Valuation: $ 11,500 NONE 11,500 Property Description for BOE: 90-032-LO PN: 802 363 018: This five acre parcel (#6) is described as 0301 TX, 836 T28 R2W TAX 14 with an easement. The property is located between Discovery Bay and Quilcene and was repossessed on a balance due of $42,500. Assessed Valuation: Land Only: Improvements: Total Valuation: $ 15,000 NONE 15,000 Petitioner Reauest: Land Only: Improvements: Total Valuation: $ 11,500 NONE 11,500 Property Description for BOE: 90-033-LO PN: 802 363 019: This five acre parcel (#7) is described as 0301 TX, 836 T28 R2W TAX 15 with an easement. The property is located between Discovery Bay and Quilcene and was repossessed on a balance due of $42,500. Assessed Valuation: Land Only: Improvements: Total Valuation: $ 15,000 NONE 15,000 Petitioner Reauest: Land Only: Improvements: Total Valuation: $ 11,500 NONE 11,500 Board of Equalization Minutes: July 30, 1990 Page: 11 ProDertv DescriDtion for BOE: 90-034-LO PN: 802 363 020: This five acre parcel (#8) is described as 0301 TX, 836 T28 R2W TAX 16 with an easement. The property is located between Discovery Bay and Quilcene and was repossessed on a balance due of $42,500. Assessed Valuation: Land Only: Improvements: Total Valuation: $ 15,000 NONE 15,000 Petitioner Reauest: Land Only: Improvements: Total Valuation: $ 11,500 NONE 11,500 ProDertv DescriDtion for BOE: 90-035-LO PN: 802 363 021: This five acre parcel (#9) is described as 0301 TX, 836 T28 R2W TAX 17 with an easement. The property is located between Discovery Bay and Quilcene and was repossessed on a balance due of $42,500. Assessed Valuation: Land Only: Improvements: Total Valuation: $ 15,000 NONE 15,000 Petitioner Reauest: Land Only: Improvements: Total Valuation: $ 11,500 NONE 11,500 ProDertv DescriDtion for BOE: 90-036-LO PN: 802 363 022: This 5.50 acre parcel (#10) is described as 0301 TX, 836 T28 R2W TAX 18 with an easement. The property is located between Discovery Bay and Quilcene and was repossessed on a balance due of $42,500. Assessed Valuation: Land Only: Improvements: Total Valuation: $ 15,000 NONE 15,000 Petitioner Reauest: Land Only: Improvements: Total Valuation: $ 11,500 NONE 11,500 . ProDertv DescriDtion for BOE: 90-037-LO PN: 802 363 023: This 5.60 acre parcel (#11) is described as 0301 TX, 836 T28 R2W TAX 19 with an easement. The property is located between Discovery Bay and Quilcene and was repossessed on a balance due of $42,500. Board of Equalization Minutes: July 30, 1990 Page: 12 Assessed Valuation: Land Only: Improvements: Total Valuation: $ 20,000 NONE 20,000 Petitioner Reauest: Land Only: Improvements: Total Valuation: $ 11,500 NONE 11,500 Property Description for BOE: 90-038-LO PN: 802 363 024: This five acre parcel (#12) is described as 0301 TX, 836 T28 R2W TAX 20 with an easement. The property is located between Discovery Bay and Quilcene and was repossessed on a balance due of $42,500. Assessed Valuation: Land Only: Improvements: Total Valuation: $ 15,000 NONE 15,000 Petitioner Reauest: Land Only: Improvements: Total Valuation: $ 11,500 NONE 11,500 Property Description for BOE: 90-039-LO PN: 802 363 027: This five acre parcel (#15) is described as 0301 TX, 836 T28 R2W TAX 23 with an easement. The property is located between Discovery Bay and Quilcene and was repossessed on a balance due of $42,500. Assessed Valuation: Land only: Improvements: Total Valuation: $ 15,000 NONE 15,000 Petitioner Reauest: Land Only: Improvements: Total Valuation: $ 11,500 NONE 11,500 Petitioner Testimony: Mr. Gordon Papritz discussed the 11 parcels in question as one package. He explained that the original owner paid on the contract for many years and then failed to make payments for two years. As a result of this Mr. Papritz had to repossess the property which was 15 five + acre tracts. At the time of repossession there were still 11 tracts against the contract and about $42,800 owed against the property as a whole. He reported that it was over 10 years ago that the transaction was made and he doesn't remember how much was paid. The individuals who purchased the 80 acres had relatives in the Real Estate business, yet they refused to make a deal to save the J Board of Equalization Minutes: July 30, 1990 Page: 13 property. They did not recoup it. The owners had written many underlying contracts. Only one of the many who had a contract wished to pay what was owed. The other purchasers owed about $9,000 each. They were not willing to make the payment for these five acre tracts. They said that the property was not worth it and that it wouldn't perc. These individuals originally paid from $15,000 - $17,000. These buyers had already invested $8,000 to $12,000 and yet they were not willing to put $9,000 more into the property. That indicated that the property wasn't worth $9,000 a five acre tract. He feels this makes market value. since Mr. Papritz repossessed these tracts, he has not put them back on the market, but he anticipates pricing the tracts for $12,000 to $12,500 in the hopes that people will be willing to pay $10,000 for the land. There have not been any soil logs or perc tests. He reported that a survey was done and that the stakes are probably in place. The terrain is considered steep. Assessor's Testimonv: Robert Shold provided a survey map and explained that he didn't have knowledge of what was happening with the tracts at the time of revaluation. He was only aware of a resale in 1986 for $12,000 for parcel 14, which had originally been priced at $17,500 in 1979. The original sales prices of these tracts 11 years ago were inflated and now people aren't even willing to pick up the same land for $5,000 or $6,000. Petitioner Comment: Mr. Papritz noted that parcel 14 is the only parcel with a house on it and there are rumors that this land also carries water. Assessor's Testimonv - continued: Bob Shold reported that there are 15 parcels involved and that if adjustments are made to the parcels being appealed, they will also need to be made for the remaining parcels. All the parcels are valued as sites at $15,000 with the exception of those with improvements. Of the parcels under appeal, Lot 11, BOE 90-037-LO is valued at $15,000 for land with $5,000 for an eight foot chain-link fence. Two other lots, not under the Papritz appeal, have improvements on them: Tax 9, Parcell on the survey map, was valued at $18,000 due to its large size. Tax 22, Parcel 14 on the survey map, was valued at $15,000 plus $2,500 for site improvements for a total of $17,500. There is a source of water and a septic system to support the mobile home unit on the property. Board of Equalization Minutes: July 30, 1990 Page: 14 Petitioner Comment: Mr. Papritz stated that he felt $10,000 would be a fair valuation on each parcel. Board Action: The Board took the petitions under advisement and explained the on-site inspection procedure to Mr. Papritz, informing him of the anticipated inspection date and that he would be notified by mail. * * * * * * * There being no further business before the Board, the Board adjourned until August 8, 1990 at which time on-site inspections will be conducted. July 30, 1990 at 9:00 a.m. for scheduled hearings. DATE APPROVED:SEPT. 2.19,/950 APPROVED BY: {l1Jl:~IRMAN ATTESTED BY~~~ DIERDREI K EG 9u~ Ii:L '-( ~ j'): ~ ).- AR IE L. ARBER, JRI', MEMBER