HomeMy WebLinkAboutM092690
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
SEPTEMBER
2 6, 1 9 9 0
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 Keegan present. The Board dispensed with
the reading of the Minutes of previous meetings at this time and
proceeded with the scheduled hearings.
HEARINGS
SAMPSON, Joseph B.
10 Moose Road
Quilcene, WA 98376
BOE: 90-047-R
PN: 601 334 056
Robert Kingsley was present on behalf of the Assessor's Office.
Robert Shold and will Butterfield of the Assessor's Office were
present for purposes of observation and training. Chairman A. C.
Dalgleish explained the hearing process to Mr. Sampson and swore
him in.
Leqal DescriDtion: This residential property is located at 10
Moose Road in Quilcene and is described as S33 T26 R1W TAX 61 TRACT
50 with Land Use Code 1100 and Neighborhood Code 2265. The
improvements consist of a 1,010 square foot, 2 bedroom home built
in 1969, with one full bath, and a deck. The home is depreciated
24% due to low quality construction. There is also a 480 square
foot garage of fair construction which is depreciated 15% as it is
unfinished. The property does have water and a septic system.
1989 Assessed Valuation:
Land Only:
Improvements:
Total Valuation:
Page: 2
$ 5,500
14.210
19,710
$ 6,000
31.030
37,030
$ 6,000
17.092
23,092
Board of Equalization Minutes: September 26, 1990
1990 Assessed Valuation:
Land Only:
Improvements:
Total Valuation:
Petitioner Reauest:
Land Only:
Improvements:
Total Valuation:
Petitioner Testimonv: Mr. Sampson stated that the Assessor had
said he would try to get a rebate for him based on the quality of
construction, yet he got about 100 percent increase in his
valuation. He was of the understanding that there would be very
little change in his valuation. He noted that he doesn't believe
any other place on the Coyle had their taxes doubled. The only
changes made to the structure are a covered roof and replaced
windows, and he feels replacing windows shouldn't increase
valuation. As Mr. Sampson's house is on the lower level of the
lot, but there used to be a trailer on the upper level, he
expressed concern that the assessment may include a non-existent
improvement.
Assessor Response: Mr. Kingsley noted that he is unaware of there
being an assessment based on a non-existent improvement.
Mr. Sampson explained that there hasn't been a trailer on the
property since he has owned it, but there are neighbors who
remember it. He feels the assessed valuation is unfair on the
improvements since the values are dropping. He is not contesting
the valuation on the land.
Board Comment: Chairman Dalgleish reminded those present that the
Board considers the valuation of the property as of January 1,
1990.
Board of Equalization Minutes: September 26, 1990
Page: 3
Petitioner Resnonse: Mr. Sampson felt this was unfair as the value
of real estate is dropping. He noted it was an economy measure to
roof in the porch as the deck was so slick you couldn't walk on it
and it would need replacing if it wasn't roofed in. He was also
troubled by comments made about the fact that he has an exhaust fan
over the stove as the house already had an exhaust fan over the
stove. A stall shower is the only thing added to the house, this
is part of a second bathroom.
Petitioner's Exhibits:
Exhibit #1: A two page letter attached to the Petition Form states
why the valuation is too high and that the "place looks
100% better" than it did when purchased. The
petitioner also stated that he didn't "think cosmetics
should double the value of a house." He requested the
same "tax treatment" as his neighbors, and Senior
Citizen Exemption Forms.
Photo Presentation:
Mr. Sampson presented the Board with
photographs of the subject property, but took
them with him at the end of the hearing.
These photographs showed what the house
looked like in the 1970's, in 1987 when he
bought it, and then in February of 1989.
Assessor's Testimony: Robert Kingsley explained that the property
was purchased in March of 1987 for $18,000. At that point in time
the property was assessed at the January 1986 valuation of $14,210
for improvements, and $5,500 for land for a total of $19,710 with a
depreciation of 65 percent. Mr. KingSley noted that the
photographs presented by Mr. Sampson show why the depreciation was
at such a high rate. On November 22, 1989 Mr. Kingsley was on the
property, he spoke with Mr. Sampson. The comment on the field
sheet from this visit was "lots of fix-up done since purchase in
1987".
Assessor's Exhtbi~~:
Exhibit A:
1986 ~esidential Appraisal Fieldsheet for Mr. Sampson's
prope:rty.
Exhibit B:
COmp~ter Fieldsheet with current valuation and
methodology used for subject property.
Board of Equalization Minutes: September 26, 1990
Page: 4
Mr. Kingsley noted that the basic characteristics of the house have
not changed. The main difference is physical depreciation of 24%
instead of 65% due to the fix-up since the purchase in 1987. He
stated that in essence he has not changed anything, he has just
reduced the depreciation attributed to the house. That reduction
in depreciation raised the improvement value from $14,210 to
$31,030. The 448 feet of deck that was roofed over was accounted
for in the 1986 valuation.
Mr. Kingsley commented that when Mr. Sampson referred to speaking
with the Assessor and that the indication was that there would be
little or no change in valuation, that this was only in reference
to the land.
Petitioner Comment: Mr. Sampson expressed further concern
regarding how his valuation could be raised from $14,000 to $37,000
for cosmetic improvements, noting that floor coverings and cabinets
were actually better when he purchased the home than they are now.
He stated that he had no objections to the Assessor being present
at the site inspection.
Board Action: The Board members advised Mr. Sampson that the
Assessor's Office would provide him with the Senior citizen
Exemption Form he requested. Mr. Sampson was informed of the on-
site inspection process and notified that he would receive a letter
stating when the inspection would occur.
WEIR, Frank C.
3417 Harbel Drive
Bremerton, WA 98310
BOE: 90-046-R
PH: 702 012 014
Robert Shold was present on behalf of the Assessor's Office.
chairman Dalgleish explained the hearing process to Mr. and Mrs.
weir and swore them both in for testimony.
Leqal Description: This 1.5 acre property located at West Leland
Valley Road in Quilcene has a small, 12 year old storage shed built
from a "kit". The property is described as being TX 0321 S1 T27
R2W LOT 4 (W 660' of S 1/2) West of County Road.
Assessed Valuation:
Land Only:
Improvements:
Total Valuation:
$ 8,925
1.215
10,140
Board of Equalization Minutes: September 26, 1990
Page: 5
Previous Valuation:
Land Only:
Improvements:
Total Valuation:
$
3,000
750
3,750
Petitioner Reauest:
Land Only:
Improvements:
Total Valuation:
$
3,000
300
3,300
Petitioner Testimonv: Mr. weir stated that there could be some
confusion on the assessment as he owns two parcels, one being 1.55
acres and the other being 1.5 acres.
Assessor Response: Robert Shold stated that this could be true as
one of the questions he has is on the building in question. The
photograph of the shed attached to the Assessor's information sheet
on the subject parcel does not match the photograph of the shed
submitted with the petition.
Petitioner Testimonv: Mr. weir explained that the building the
Assessor showed as being on the subject property, belongs to the
adjacent 1.55 acre parcel and that the building has no value. He
reported that it was built in a swampy area 40-50 years ago, and it
was subsequently abandoned and never used.
He said that the building across the road from the one shown by
Assessor, is the building being assessed. The shed portrayed in
the photograph attached to his petition is the correct shed for the
subject parcel, not the shed the Assessor has on record. He noted
that the shed was a potential liability, that it was not utilized,
and that it could attract unsavory problems, so he is considering
tearing it down. The land was purchased for access to a 25 acre
parcel of timberland.
Petitioner's Exhibits:
Exhibit #1:
Real Property Change-Of-Value Notice Dated June
11, 1990
Exhibit #2:
Photograph of a shed (not the shed on the subject
property - see Assessor's Testimony below).
Board of Equalization Minutes: September 26, 1990
Page: 6
Assessor's Testimonv: Robert Shold ascertained where the shed was
located. He and the petitioner came to the conclusion that the
shed attached to the Assessor's records is the correct structure
rExhibit Al and that the Petitioner's attached DhotoqraDh is NOT of
the shed on the sub;ect DroDertv.
Robert Shold recommended that the land value be reduced from $8,925
to $5,250 on Parcel Number 702 012 014, which is the original
petition parcel number. Mr. Shold explained that the assessed
valuation should not have been raised. He did not make a
recommendation on the improvement valuation.
Assessor's Exhibits:
Exhibit A:
The correct cabin situated on Parcel Number
702 012 014.
Exhibit B:
A map showing the subject parcel in pink and the
comparable sale in blue.
Exhibit c:
Real Estate Excise Tax Form of the comparable
property Parcel Number 702 021 007, which sold for
$4,200 on July 22, 1987.
Board Action: The Board took the petition under advisement and
explained the on-site inspection process to Mr. Weir, informing him
that he would receive a notification by mail as to when the
inspection will occur. Mr. Weir had no objections to the Deputy
Assessor viewing the property. It was noted that if Mr. Weir
disposes of the building in question, he is to notify the
Assessor's Office to enable a proration of the valuation.
PORTER, Donalda C.
P. O. Box 545
Molalla, Oregon
BOE:
PN:
PN:
90-001-LO (a & b)
954 600 101 (a)
954 600 125 (b)
Robert Kingsley was present on behalf of the Assessor's Office.
Mr. Butterfield of the Assessor's Office was also present for
purposes of observation. Chairman Dalgleish explained the hearing
process to Ms. Donalda Porter and swore her in.
Board of Equalization Minutes: September 26, 1990
Page: 7
Leqal DescriDtion: The subject property is split into fifths for
purposes of taxation. Four-fifths of the property is under appeal
as Ms. Porter has property rights and pays taxes on these portions.
The land is in Goodfellow's Manhattan Beach Tracts and is
considered low bank waterfront with beach access, a good marine
view, and sloping, wooded topography. The total breakdown for the
full property is as follows:
TOTAL BASE LAND VALUE: 498 feet x $400 = $199,200 reduced -70
percent for excess frontage, access, topography, and depth for a
total of $59,760 plus 581 feet x $400 = $232,400 reduced -50
percent for excess frontage, access, and topography for a total of
$116,200. The original base value of $431,600 for 5/5ths interest
had an average reduction of 59.23 percent to arrive at the $175,955
adjusted base valuation. To accommodate taxation, each 1/5th
interest was established at approximately $35,190. Donalda Porter
has two parcels, one with 3/5th for a total of $105,575 and one
with 1/5th for a total of $35,190. Her total valuation on the
subject property is $140,765.00. The remaining parcel (#954-600-
126) of this property, which is not under appeal, is 1/5th interest
at $35,190.
Parcel Number 954-600-101 consists of BLK 1, 1 THRU 10, 1/5th
undivided interest, and is zoned residential.
Parcel Number 954-600-125 consists of BLK 1, 1 TO 10, undivided
3/5th interest, and is zoned residential in Tax District 231.
Combined Assessed Valuation on 4/5ths: Land Only:
Improvements:
Total Valuation:
$ 140,765
NONE
140,765
$ 1,000
NONE
1,000
Combined Petitioner ReQUest on 4/5ths: Land Only:
Improvements:
Total Valuation:
petitioner Testimonv: Ms. Porter stated on her petition that her
"opinion of value is based on unimproved government camping sites,
allocating $10.00 per night for 10 days' use only per year" and
that it is "Also for all years since the recording of the Aldermere
Club By-Laws in 1952". She stated her specific reason as to why
she challenged the Assessor's Valuation as being "Assessor has been
taxing using marketable properties as comparables. I contend that
this is illegal and taxes should be refunded to owners. Any and
Board of Equalization Minutes: September 26, 1990
Page: 8
all purchases of this property have been by related individuals
acquainted with title problems and assisting financially to relieve
family financial problems - - these are not arms length
transactions, and not open market sales". Ms. Porter also noted
that the property is unique and therefore she is not aware of any
comparables.
Petitioner's Listed and Included Exhibits:
Exhibit A:
Exhibit B:
Exhibit c:
Exhibit D:
Exhibit E:
A letter dated August 22, 1990 from herself, a
"licensed" "Real Estate Slsperson [sic] in Oregon since
1961 - contends property not marketable".
A copy of the first page of a six page letter dated
August 16, 1990 from W. C. Henry, Attorney, Port
Townsend, "identifying problems with each of the five
(5) undivided interests of ownership".
A copy of the "original Aldermere Club By-Laws recorded
6/11/52, Deeds V 133 P 445-7".
A recent "sketch map of the property, showing the area
of the marshy land and the road route".
Aldermere Club Members as of August 3, 1990 and a
breakdown of apportioned interests among the relatives.
Ms. Porter explained that she is only representing her 4/5th
interest and that she cannot speak for the total property. She
requests the valuation be lowered because it is only used for
camping. She receives separate billings for her interest in this
property.
She gave a detailed explanation of the background of the Aldermere
Club and the various interests in the property, reading from her
letter, the By-Laws of the Aldermere Club, a list of relatives, and
a portion of the letter sent her by Attorney Chuck Henry (she
didn't submit the whole letter). She stated that she cannot build
on this property yet because it needs sanitation approval and that
a bull dozer scraped potential building sites but there was clay
underneath. She hasn't had the property perk tested yet nor has
she applied for the test. Ms. Porter considers the title clouded
by the various ownerships and inheritance rights and as such feels
it is not marketable and should not be assessed with comparable
properties. She stated that only factors which affect the price
between a willing seller and buyer should be considered and since
there are clouds on the title, this should be taken into
consideration when assessing the property.
Board of Equalization Minutes: September 26, 1990
Page: 9
When it was pointed out that Ms. Porter paid $36,000 for 1/5th
interest of this property when she claims that the whole 5/5th is
worth only $1,000, she stated that "at this particular time I feel
it's only worth a thousand dollars for the highest and best use.
You certainly can't sell it under its present condition except to
one of the other members, as I have bought out the other members.
Now the reason I paid that, that there, in those days, is because
for two reasons" one being a way to simplify the division of the
property and two being she was so happy to "get rid of that family"
that she "would have paid $50,000 just to get them out of the way".
She also stated that since the death of her father in 1956 she's
been helping her mother in her business affairs and has been
attempting to negotiate with the other owners.
Ms. Porter also stated that she has "paid out, right now, this
year, and been charged, pretty close to $1,000 just for attorneys
to analyze this thing [Aldermere Club & Title] and see what the
problem is". She wants the title to be a consideration when the
Assessor values her property.
Assessor's Testimonv: Robert Kingsley explained that Ms. Porter
purchased 1/5th interest in lots 1 through 10 of the property in
1984 for $36,000 on a Real Estate Contract and she is continuing to
pay on this contract when she claims the whole property is only
worth $1,000 today. Mr. Kingsley stated that another 1/5th
interest in this property is currently assessed at $35,190.
Board Comment: Chairman Dalgleish noted that the Board is to
determine the valuation based on the January 1, 1990 valuation
regardless of who the owners may be. He suggested that Ms. Porter
have a perk test (soil log test) completed on the property. He
noted that if a denial is received on the whole twelve acres, there
may be room for an alternative septic system. A sketch of the
property was reviewed.
Assessor's Testimonv - continued: Robert Kingsley stated that the
valuation is based on waterfront footage at $400 per foot previous
to the adjustments made. He reviewed the valuation of the property
under question, noting that there are comparables in the area and
that he heard nothing from Ms. Porter which proves the Assessor's
Office is incorrectly assessing the property. He mentioned that a
title report has not been produced by the petitioner and that the
subject property is in the re-valuation area for 1991 and will be
revalued as of January 1, 1991. He pointed out that the Assessor's
Office doesn't take into consideration who owns the property when
it is assessed.
Board of Equalization Minutes: September 26, 1990
Page: 10
Board Comment: Vice-Chairman Douglas questioned the front footage
being valued at $400 a foot when the current values show $700 a
front foot as the base.
Assessor's Testimony - continued: Robert Kingsley explained that
the current assessment is four years old. He presented comparable
properties to support the Assessor's determination that the
property is correctly valued.
Assessor's Comparables:
Comparable #1: Parcel Number 954 600 120, Lot 30, Block 1, sold
for $55,000 in May 1990. The front foot value is
just over $500.
Comparable #2: Parcel Numbers 721 174 009 and 721 174 015,
Section 17 north of the subject property, T27N,
R1E sold in February of 1990. This five acres,
with 110 waterfront feet, sold for $86,500. The
front foot value indicated by this sale is over
$700.
Comparable #3: Parcel Numbers 954 600 113 and 921 292 016 are
used as an abstraction to illustrate the front
foot value of property in subject property's area.
This property includes lot 22, lot 1 of
Goodfellow's Manhattan Beach Tracts, and another
parcel known as Oak Bay Unrecorded Tracts lot 14.
These two properties sold together for $88,500.
The current assessed value for both of these
parcels totals $49,600. Oak Bay Tracts lot 14 is
assessed at $19,600, when this value is subtracted
from the sales price of $88,500 the indication is
that lot 22, lot 1 of Goodfellow's Manhattan Beach
Tracts sold for about $68,900. This indicates a
value of over $400 per front foot.
Assessor's Exhibits:
Exhibit #1: Subject Parcel Number 954 600 101 computerized
Fieldsheet for 1/5th undivided interest.
Exhibit #2: Subject Parcel Number 954 600 125 computerized
Fieldsheet for 3/5ths undivided interest.
Exhibit #3: Remaining Parcel Number 954 600 126 (not under appeal)
computerized Fieldsheet for 1/5th interest.
Board of Equalization Minutes: September 26, 1990
Page: 11
Exhibit #4: Real Estate Contract and Real Estate Excise Tax Form
for the sale of 1/5th undivided interest to Donalda
Porter from Trustee for Cecil & Myrtle Harper. Sale
shown as $36,000.
Exhibit #5: Goodfellow's Manhattan Beach Tracts Map showing
location of Comparable #1.
Exhibit #6: Copy of Real Estate Excise Tax Form, and Computerized
Field Sheet for Comparable #1, Parcel Number 954 600
120. Sale Price $55,000 and Assessed Valuation
$31,000.
Exhibit #7: copy of Real Estate Excise Tax Form, Computerized Field
Sheet, and a location map for Comparable #2, Parcels
721 174 009 and 721 174 015. Sale Price $86,500.
Assessed Valuation on Parcel Number 721 174 009 is
$28,050.
Exhibit #8: Copy of Real Estate Excise Tax Form for Comparable #3,
Parcels 954 600 113 and 921 292 016 as illustration for
an abstraction. Both parcels sold together for
$88,500.
Board Action: The Board took the petition under advisement and
explained the on-site inspection process to Ms. Porter. Ms. Porter
stated that she didn't have any problem with the Deputy Assessor
viewing the property with the Board of Equalization.
MONTGOMERY, Alan L.
58th Floor
Columbia Center
Seattle, WA 98104
HOE: 90-016-R
PN: 601 094 002
Robert Kingsley was present on behalf of the Assessor's Office, and
William Butterfield attended to observe the proceedings. Chairman
Dalgleish read the petition into the record, as Mr. Montgomery was
not present.
Leaal Description: This 5.22 acre property is described as TX 0321
S9 T26 R1W T2 & TL TX I 3.45CH (CH = "chains" = 66 feet of
waterfront property per chain / 3.45 CH = 227.70 feet of
waterfront). This Camp Harmony (Dabob Bay) property has four, one
room sleeping cabins, a cookhouse, and small out buildings. The
petitioner considers the construction substandard and noted that it
Board of Equalization Minutes: September 26, 1990
Page: 12
is not insulated and that the buildings aren't suitable for year-
round living. The Assessor considers the quality and condition to
be average. The property has been valued as follows:
165 Front Feet x $700 = $115,500 plus 228 Front Feet x $20 x
93% (-7 for excess tidelands) plus 1 site valued at $4,000 for a
total of $123,740 plus improvements with a physical depreciation
of 26%. The improvement valuation with the adjustment and
sleeping cabins is valued at $19,120. The total assessed
valuation of the property is $142,860.
Assessed Valuation:
Land Only:
Improvements:
Total Valuation:
$ 123,740
19.120
142,860
Petition Statement of Assessed
ASSESSOR):
Valuation (INCORRECT FIGURES AS PER
Land Only: $ 124,060
Improvements: 19.120
Total Valuation: 143,180
Petitioner Reauest:
Land Only:
Improvements:
Total Valuation:
$ 88,500
19.120
107,620
Petitioner Statement as Der Petition: Alan Montgomery explained in
an attachment to his petition that his Dabob Bay waterfront should
be valued similar to the neighboring property values of the
strong's to the north and the Fulton's to the south. He stated
that the Strong's land was valued at $375 per front foot x 177 for
a total of $66,310 and that the Fulton's property was valued at
$439 per front foot x 330 for a total of $144,860.
Mr. Montgomery explained that the summer cabins on all three
properties are identically located on the beach and that the height
of the bank behind and the width of the sandspit in front of these
cabins is similar. He stated that the land under his main cabin is
underwater during winter high tides therefore it would have to be
located at the top of the bank to be a year round residence. He
does not think it should be valued as no-bank waterfront because he
doesn't have low bank use all year. He noted that the only
"distinguishable feature between my property and my neighbors [sic]
is that the portion of the migratory sandspit in front of my cabin
has been cleaned and graded.
Mr. Montgomery presented comparables of unimproved land which are
within a half mile of his property.
Board of Equalization Minutes: September 26, 1990
Page: 13
Petitioner's Comparables:
Comparable #1: Parcel Number 601 102 013 sold for $90,000 in
April of 1990 at $450 x 200 front feet. The
petitioner considers this the most comparable
parcel due to the same height of bank, a road to
the beach, a beach-front site (although smaller
than subject parcels' site), and its being
suitable only for a summer cabin or trailer.
Montgomery noted that a year round residence
have to be located at the top of the bank on
comparable.
Mr.
would
this
Comparable #2: Vol. 265 254-255-255A, sold for $79,800 on
September 16, 1988 for $306 x 260 front feet.
Mr. Montgomery believes his property should be "valued at no
greater than $500 per front foot (177 front feet at $88,500) to
bring it more in line with the assessed values of my neighbors and
the actual sales prices of the comparables." He is not contesting
the value of the improvements.
Petitioner Attachment and Exhibits:
Attachment: Letter dated July 30, 1990 stating his position on the
valuation of the subject property.
Exhibit #1: Photograph of his property and the Strong's and
Fulton's properties.
Exhibit #2a: Copy of Mr. Montgomery's 1990 Assessment for 1991
Taxes.
Exhibit #2b: Copy of Mrs. Fulton's 1990 Assessment for 1991 Taxes.
Exhibit #2c: Copy of Mr. Strong's 1990 Assessment for 1991 Taxes.
Exhibit #3a: Copy of a map showing Comparable #1.
Exhibit #3b: Copy of a map showing Montgomery property and
Comparables #1 and #2.
Exhibit #3c: Copy of Sales Presentation from Hood Canal Properties
for Comparable #2 which notes that the 260' of
waterfront is medium bank.
Exhibit #3d: Statutory Warranty Deed for Comparable #2.
Board of Equalization Minutes: September 26, 1990
Page: 14
Assessor's Testimonv: Robert Kingsley stated that the strong land
was not valued at $375 a front foot. It was actually valued at
$700 a front foot, as were all of these parcels. Adjustments were
made to the $700 base value depending on the property.
After reviewing how the properties were actually assessed, it was
determined that Mr. Montgomery's valuation of $500 a front foot was
extracted from the comparables presented after the adjustments had
been calculated. The property has water, roads, and power.
Mr. Kingsley commented that the Strong property is an inferior
property so the topography adjustment was -50 percent and -7
percent for excess tidelands. Fulton received a topography
adjustment of -30 percent plus an additional adjustment of -12
percent for excess front footage and -16 percent for excess
tidelands.
Robert Kingsley stated that the comparables used by Mr. Montgomery
are not comparables as they are not no bank. Mr. Montgomery is
comparing medium to high bank values and sales prices to his
property. Mr. Kingsley presented maps and field sheets for each of
Mr. Montgomery's comparables. The base of his comparables for low
to medium bank is $450 a front foot. He also pointed out that Mr.
Montgomery's Comparable #2 is one sale old. The parcel sold since
the comparable sale, and Mr. Kingsley feels it's unacceptable to
present the previous sale when there is a newer sale on the
property. The most recent sale was 1/2 interest for $45,000.
Mr. Kingsley stated that he wants to make clear to Board is that no
bank waterfront sales indicate that it is worth at least $700 a
front foot.
Assessor's Comparables:
Comparable #1: The McClanahan's property, Parcel Number 701 304
018, sold for $110,000 with approximately 120
waterfront feet valued at over $916 a front foot.
This is no bank waterfront without tidelands. The
sale was in January of 1989.
Comparable #2: The Grindle's property, Parcel Number 701 321 005,
sold for $70,000 for 100 waterfront feet valued at
$700 a front foot. This is no bank waterfront.
Comparable #3: The Hudson's property sold for $78,000 in March of
1990. This was 100 front feet valued at $780 a
front foot.
Board of Equalization Minutes: September 26, 1990
Page: 15
Abstraction
Comparable #4: The Dietz's property, Parcel Number 501 032 008,
sold for $250,000 with a triple wide mobile home
with a detached garage valued at $80,490. The
$250,000 minus $80,490 indicates a land value of
$169,510 divided by 250 front feet of waterfront
for a front foot value of $678 for low bank, not
no bank.
Assessor's Exhibits:
Exhibit I:
Computerized Fieldsheet for Montgomery's subject parcel
#601 094 002.
Exhibit II: Computerized Fieldsheet showing base rate of $700 a
front foot, previous to adjustments, on Strong's parcel
#601 094 003.
Exhibit III: Computerized Fieldsheet showing base rate of $700 a
front foot, previous to adjustments, on Fulton's parcel
#601 094 005.
Exhibit IV: John & Frances Dietz sale to James & Karen Almon. Real
Estate Excise Tax Form for Parcel Number 501 032 008
showing a sale in April 1990 for $250,000 with an
abstracted land value of $678 per front foot.
(Assessor's Comparable Number 4)
Exhibit V: Neighborhood / Land Code Rate Sheet listing no bank to
low bank waterfront on Dabob Bay at $700 a front foot.
Exhibit VIa: Daniel Kadish sale to Judith Huntington & Kerry
Dominick. Real Estate Excise Tax Form for 1/2 interest
in Parcel 601 102 025. This is the resale of Mr.
Montgomery's Comparable #2. The 1/2 interest sold for
$45,000.
Exhibit VIb: Jeffry E. Powers sale to Daniel Kadish & Rosalyn
Roberts c/o Alan Montgomery, Attorney. Real Estate
Excise Tax Form for whole of Parcel 601 102 025. This
is the sale Mr. Montgomery used as Comparable #2. The
sale was for $79,800.
Exhibit VIc: Computerized Fieldsheet for Comparable #2, Parcel
Number 601 102 025, showing the valuation at $65,000 at
$250 x 260 front feet without adjustments. The $250 a
front foot is for medium to high bank waterfront.
Board of Equalization Minutes: September 26, 1990
Page: 16
Exhibit VIIa:
Ralph & Frances Hudson sale to Earl & Janice Russ.
Real Estate Excise Tax Form showing sale of this
property, of 100 front feet, at $78,000 in March
1990. (Assessor's Comparable Number 3)
Exhibit VIIb:
Map of Earl & Janice Russ property.
Exhibit VIIIa:
George & Bernice Grindle
Hickey for Parcel Number
August 1985 for $70,000.
Number 2)
sale to Jerry & Julia
701 321 005 sold in
(Assessor's Comparable
Exhibit VIIIb:
Map of Jerry & Julia Hickey property.
Exhibit IXa: Thomas and Julie McClanahan sale to Edward Squillaco.
Real Estate Excise Tax Form for Parcel Number 701 304
018 showing sale at $110,000 in January 1989.
(Assessor's Comparable Number 1)
Exhibit IXb: Map of Edward Squillaco property.
Exhibit Xa: James Burns sale to James & Heather Olson. Real Estate
Excise Tax Form for Parcel Number 601 102 013 showing
sale at $90,000 in April 1990.
Exhibit Xb: Computerized Fieldsheet for Parcel Number 601 102 013
showing assessed valuation at $85,500 at the rate of
$450 a front foot x 200 feet and reduced 5% for excess
front footage.
Exhibit Xc: Map of Parcel Number 601 102 013.
Board Action: The Board took the petition under advisement and
noted that an on-site inspection will be conducted. The Clerk was
instructed to call Mr. Montgomery, as he requested, and let him
know the status of his petition.
Board of Equalization Minutes: September 26, 1990
Page: 17
ANDERSON, Edward W. BOE: 90-023-LO PN: 712 063 003
1520 Eden Valley Road BOE: 90-082-LO PN: 712 063 005
Port Angeles, WA 98362 BOE: 90-083-LO PN: 712 063 007
BOE: 90-084-LO PN: 712 063 012
BOE: 90-085-LO PN: 712 063 006
BOE: 90-086-LO PN: 712 063 016
Jeff Chapman was present on behalf of the Assessor's Office, and
William Butterfield was present to observe the proceedings.
Chairman Dalgleish explained the hearing process to Edward W.
Anderson and Charles Gage and swore them in for testimony. The
petitioner stated that there was no problem with the Assessor
viewing the property with the Board.
The Board determined that the testimony will be presented
collectively for all six parcels in question, as the problem is
common to these adjacent parcels. The subject parcels were also
purchased under one affidavit.
Property Description for Parcels accepted on petition. filed
accordinq to appropriate procedure:
o
BOE: 90-023-LO PN: 712 063 003 is described as S6 T27
R12W, Residual of Government Lot 14 (N17A N of
Bogachiel Road) Less Tax 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 12, 13, and
a portion of Tax 41. This 11.96 acre, unimproved
parcel is currently assessed at $23,920 ($2,000 an
acre). The Tax District is 601, the Neighborhood Code
is 1908, and the Land Use Code is 9100.
Assessed Value:
* Recommended Value:
* ($750 an acre)
$23,920
$ 8,970
Sale Price of six parcels:
Reouest for total value:
$10,000
$10,000
o
BOE: 90-082-LO PN: 712 063 005 is described as S6 T27
R12W, Tax 1, and is a .36 acre site currently assessed
at $3,000. The Tax District is 601, the Neighborhood
Code is 1908, and the Land Use Code is 9100.
Assessed Value:
Recommended Value:
$3,000
$ 500
Sale Price of six parcels:
Reouest for total value:
$10,000
$10,000
Board of Equalization Minutes: September 26, 1990
Page: 18
BOE: 90-083-LO PN: 712 063 007 is described as S6 T27
R12W, Tax 3, and is a .51 acre site currently assessed
at $3,000. The Tax District is 601, the Neighborhood
Code is 1908, and the Land Use Code is 9100.
o
Assessed Value:
Recommended Value:
$3,000
$ 500
Sale Price of six parcels:
Reouest for total value:
$10,000
$10,000
BOE: 90-084-LO PN: 712 063 012 is described as S6 T27
R12W, Tax 8, and is a .82 acre site currently assessed
at $3,500. The Tax District is 601, the Neighborhood
Code is 1908, and the Land Use Code is 9100.
o
Assessed Value:
Recommended Value:
$3,500
$ 500
Sale Price of six parcels:
Reouest for total value:
$10,000
$10,000
BOE: 90-085-LO PN: 712 063 006 is described as S6 T27
R12W, Tax 2, and is a .41 acre site currently assessed
at $3,000. The Tax District is 601, the Neighborhood
Code is 1908, and the Land Use Code is 9100.
o
Assessed Value:
Recommended Value:
$3,000
$ 500
Sale Price of six parcels:
Reouest for total value:
$10,000
$10,000
BOE: 90-086-LO PN: 712 063 016 is described as S6 T27
R12W, Tax 12, and is a .94 acre site currently assessed
at $3,500. The Tax District is 601, the Neighborhood
Code is 1908, and the Land Use Code is 9100.
o
Assessed Value:
Recommended Value:
$3,500
$ 500
o ASSESSED VALUATION TOTAL:
RECOMMENDED VALUE TOTAL:
SALE PRICE TOTAL:
REOUEST FOR VALUE TOTAL:
Sale Price of six parcels:
Reouest for total value:
$ 39.920
$ 11.470 (Assessor!
$ 10.000
$ 10.000 (Petitioner!
$10,000
$10,000
All six, adjacent parcels, totaling 16 acres, are located at South
Bogachiel (Old Star Route 1) at the low, river, bottom area on
Dowans Creek Road. The sales transaction for these parcels is
Board of Equalization Minutes: september 26, 1990
Page: 19
$10,000 and the owners listed are Edward and Melanie Anderson
(Husband and Wife), Evelyn Anderson (Single Woman), Charles Gage
(Single Man), and Ross Anderson (Single Man).
Property Description for Parcels under ouestion which were NOT
filed properly. but are to be considered for eoualization upon the
recommendation of the Assessor and the reouest of the Petitioner:
o
PN: 712 063 009 is described as S6 T27 R12W, Tax 5, and
is a .23 acre site currently assessed at $3,000. The
Tax District is 601, the Neighborhood Code is 1908, and
the Land Use Code is 9100. Petitioner and Assessor
requested consideration for equalization. *Legal
OWner: ANDERSON.
Assessed Value:
Recommended Value:
$3,000
$ 500
Sale Price of parcel: $
Reouest value of land: $
500
500
o
PN: 712 063 011 is described as S26 T27 R12W, Tax 7,
and is a .24 acre site currently assessed at $3,000.
The Tax District is 601, the Neighborhood Code is 1908,
and the Land Use Code is 9100. Petitioner and Assessor
requested consideration for equalization. *Legal
OWner: ANDERSON.
Assessed Value:
Recommended Value:
$3,000
$ 500
Sale Price of parcel: $
Reouest value of land: $
500
500
o
PN: 712 063 017 is described as S26 T27 R12W, Tax 13,
and is a .23 acre site currently assessed at $3,000.
The Tax District is 601, the Neighborhood Code is 1908,
and the Land Use Code is 9100. Assessor requested
consideration for equalization. *Legal OWner: MATAYA
SALE IN PROGRESS.
Assessed Value:
Recommended Value:
$3,000
$ 500
Sale Price of parcel: $
Reouest value of land: $
500
500
Petitioner's Testimony: Edward Anderson reported that he'd
actually purchased the subject property for $10,000 (plus $1,000
for two of the parcels not listed on the petition form) in May of
1990 although the sales were recorded on August 1, 1990. He
pointed out that the only parcel he isn't appealing is the Mataya
land, Parcel Number 712 063 017, since he doesn't have ownership of
this yet.
Board of Equalization Minutes: September 26, 1990
Page: 20
Assessor's Comment: Jeff Chapman noted that he doesn't have a
problem with the Board considering the two parcels Mr. Anderson did
not identify in the appeal, these two parcels are 712 063 009 and
712 063 011. He explained that Mr. Anderson has three different
sales from three different land owners. He feels there shouldn't
be a problem evaluating these parcels along with the others,
especially since the Assessor and the appellant are not out of
agreement in regard to valuation. He noted that the main problem
is deciding how far to go with the equalization process in the
Bogachiel River area.
Petitioner's Testimony - continued: Mr. Anderson explained that
the property was basically purchased for the elk habitat. He said
he wouldn't build a house on the land, but at one time there was an
easement road through the property. Currently, the access is off
the County road, but you have to cross a creek now as all the
culverts are gone leaving a beaver pond. The roads are blown out
and a large portion of the land has become a pond which is
protected by the Department of Fisheries as it is considered fish
habitat, especially for rearing salmon. Portions of the land are
underwater all year, becoming puddled water in the summer. The
property stakes are still set.
Mr. Charles Gage explained that private land is limited.
Mr. Anderson stated there isn't any timber. The trees on the
property are within 200 feet of the river so they cannot be cut
down. He explained that the land has been purchased for elk
habitat, not for subdivision for mobile homes or any other use.
Since the land is almost gone, with the exception of private land,
he purchased this for his children to have somewhere to hunt in the
years to come.
Mr. Gage pointed out that there is Government land adjacent to the
subject property.
Board Comment: Chairman Dalgleish asked if Mr. Anderson planned to
put the whole property under one parcel number?
Petitioner Response: Mr. Anderson responded that it doesn't matter
to him.
Assessor Response: Jeff Chapman explained that if the property
were consolidated it would be easier for the County Assessor as
currently the land must be valuated as separate parcels since they
are identified as parcels and therefore they stand on their own
Board of Equalization Minutes: September 26, 1990
Page: 21
merit. If combined, the property wouldn't be dividable. He noted
that the sale of the subject property still hasn't been processed
due to a subdivision boundary violation, created by an inaccurate
legal description, that must be resolved.
Petitioner Response: Mr. Anderson does not believe the portion
considered a subdivision boundary violation, has been sold to him.
He believes the problem to be a boundary line adjustment. He felt
one tax statement, instead of six, and a combined parcel for the
subject land would be fine as he isn't considering subdividing the
property in the future. He explained that he paid about the same
amount per acre ($17,000 for 23.50 acres) for his property which
adjoins the subject land. He is asking that the valuation be
lowered to the sale price.
Mr. Anderson suggested that, to be fair to most of the homeowners
in the area, anything below the "Amatella Creek" should be re-
evaluated as the river has relocated. Some lots are missing
because of the flooding.
Assessor's Testimony: Jeff Chapman stated that basically the
Assessor has valued property across the road at $750 an acre and
the property on the river side at $2,000 an acre. The larger piece
of Mr. Anderson's property is valued at $2,000 an acre, for about
12 acres. The smaller parcels are valued as sites at $3,000 each.
Mr. Chapman noted that the real problem is how to distribute the
value among all these parcels. He explained that in order to
consolidate the parcels Mr. Anderson will have to go to the
Assessor's Office to initiate action. He noted that as separate
recreational sites the property may be valued at more than it would
be valued on a per acre basis under consolidation.
Mr. Chapman explained that all the recent sales have been to Mr.
Anderson, this includes the $10,000 sale for the six parcels under
appeal and the two $500 sales for Tax 5 and Tax 7 (which are
currently valued at $3,000 each). The Assessor's Office has no
reason to question these sales and it is assumed that they are arms
length transactions (although they may be liquidation prices "which
may be what's called for in this area"). He believes the question
is: What are we going to use for values here, considering the six
parcels?
Mr. Chapman stated that the recommendation is that all of the
smaller parcels be reduced from $3,000 each to $500 each, including
the parcels under appeal, and Tax 5 and Tax 7 (belonging to Mr.
Anderson), and Tax 13 (which belongs to Mr. Mataya). He stated
that this puts these properties on the rolls at the sale price.
The recommendation on the larger piece, currently assessed at
Board of Equalization Minutes: September 26, 1990
Page: 22
$2,000 an acre, is to reduce valuation to $750 an acre for a total
of $8,970, bringing the whole subject property (all six parcels)
down to $11,470. He reported that all the property purchased by
Mr. Anderson, including those parcels omitted from the appeal,
would have a total assessment value of $12,470 if the Assessor's
recommendation were accepted. In addition to this, Tax 13 would be
valued at $500.
Assessor's Exhibits:
Exhibit A:
Exhibit B:
Exhibit C:
Exhibit D:
Exhibit E:
Exhibit F:
Exhibit G:
Exhibit H:
Exhibit I:
Exhibit J:
Computer Fieldsheet for BOE: 90-023-LO Parcel
Number: 712 063 003.
Computer Fieldsheet for BOE: 90-082-LO Parcel
Number: 712 063 005.
Computer Fieldsheet for BOE: 90-083-LO Parcel
Number: 712 063 007.
Computer Fieldsheet for BOE: 90-084-LO Parcel
Number: 712 063 012.
Computer Fieldsheet for BOE: 90-085-LO Parcel
Number: 712 063 006.
Computer Fieldsheet for BOE: 90-086-LO Parcel
Number: 712 063 016.
Computer Fieldsheet for Parcel Number: 712 063 009
for parcel petitioner thought he was appealing.
Sale Value $500. Assessor agreed to consider this
parcel in the equalization hearing.
Computer Fieldsheet for Parcel Number: 712 063 011
for parcel petitioner thought he was appealing.
Sale Value $500. Assessor agreed to consider this
parcel in the equalization hearing.
Computer Fieldsheet for Parcel Number: 712 063 017
for a parcel recommended for equalization by the
Assessor. Sale Value $500. Not under appeal by
petitioner as sale is still in progress.
Real Estate Excise Tax Form (four pages) of
$10,000 sale of subject property. Mr. and Mrs.
Vannausdle's sale to Anderson family and Charles
Gage.
Board of Equalization Minutes: September 26, 1990
Page: 23
Exhibit K:
Exhibit L:
Exhibit M:
Exhibit N:
Exhibit 0:
Real Estate Excise Tax Form (two pages) of $500
sale of Parcel Number 712 063 009, under
consideration for equalization as per Assessor and
Petitioner. Mr. and Mrs. Morrison's sale to
Anderson family and Charles Gage.
Real Estate Excise Tax Form (two pages) of $500
sale of Parcel Number 712 063 011, under
consideration for equalization as per Assessor and
Petitioner. Mr. Patterson's sale to Anderson
family and Charles Gage.
Computer print out of Assessor's Recommendation
dated September 26, 1990. This includes
recommendations for parcels not under direct
appeal.
Map of Tax 7, 5, and 13 not under direct appeal,
and the six parcels under appeal.
Letter from Jeff Chapman, Assessment Operations
Manager dated August 31, 1990 re: Appeal of Edward
Anderson and Mr. Chapman's view of the acceptance
of the appeal in question. Recommended
consideration of appeal and other parcels
presented.
Jeff Chapman explained that the Deputy Assessor, who valued the
land in the subject property area, is no longer with the Office and
that no one else has been on the West End. He felt the questions
are: "Does the Board go out there? And, where do you draw the line
at?" He noted that the County doesn't have the money or the
resources to provide an aerial photograph, but the State did
provide this service this year. The only problem is, the Assessor
does not have maps to compare these aerials to.
Petitioner Comment: Mr. Anderson stated that the Department of
Natural Resources has maps, which would save the County a lot of
money. He suggested the area be photographed from the air and then
an overlay of the existing maps be completed to determine property
changes.
Board of Equalization Minutes: September 26, 1990
Page: 24
Mr. Anderson also stated that he had no problem with the
recommended reduction in valuation, although this means he will be
paying taxes on fish habitat. He stated that there isn't power or
water, that the area is very primitive, and that it is not fair to
pay taxes on property that is no longer existent. He pointed out
that he is not appearing before the Board to appeal other people's
values, although he deems it unfair to assess for property that is
now unusable. He feels that the "fair, and just, and honorable
thing to do" is to re-value the whole area affected by the
Bogachiel River.
Assessor's Comment: Jeff Chapman stated that it will take a lot of
time, money, and resources to address the problem with the
Bogachiel River. He noted that the next re-valuation of the area
in question is 1992. He also pointed out that the Department of
Natural Resources shoots nine by nine aerials, which are very
small, and that it will be tough to overlay these to determine the
details of the properties in question, especially where growth
overhangs the river.
Board Action: After further discussion regarding the legal
description, the title company's actions, boundary adjustments, the
affects of the changing configuration of the river, and potential
methods of re-assessing the area, the Board took the petition under
advisement. An on site inspection will be considered and if one is
to occur the petitioner will be notified by mail.
Vice-Chairman Douglas noted that it wouldn't be fair for the Board
of Equalization to re-value the whole area affected by the
Bogachiel River unless the Assessor, the property owners, and the
Board had an understanding of how much of the land is still usable.
He feels that appropriate survey maps need to be provided to insure
an accurate equalization of the area.
Assessor's Comment: Jeff Chapman noted that in the subject
property's area there are sales and Mr. Anderson's testimony to
indicate value, but going beyond that, there isn't any data to
support equalization.
Board of Equalization Minutes: September 26, 1990
Page: 25
CERTIFICATE OF NEW CONSTRUCTION
Vice-Chairman Douglas presented the CERTIFICATE OF NEW CONSTRUCTION
VALUE provided to the Board of Equalization by Assessor Jack
Westerman III, and subscribed and sworn to before the Auditor for
Jefferson County, Mary Gaboury, on September 17, 1990. He read the
certification into the record of the minutes:
Pursuant to RCW 36.21.080 and 84.40.040, I, Jack
Westerman III, Assessor of Jefferson County, hereby
certify that the value of new construction added to
the 1990 assessment roll is $44,317,515*. *New
construction added subsequent to certification of
assessment rolls to B.O.E. An additional $3,549,822
in new construction was included in the
certification.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The Board reviewed the Minutes of July 10, 17, and 25, 1990.
MOTION
Vice-Chairman Douglas moved to approve the Minutes
of July 10, 17, and 25, 1990 as presented. Member
Archie Barber, Jr. seconded the motion which carried
by unanimous vote.
Board of Equalization Minutes: September 26, 1990
Page: 26
OTHER BUSINESS OF THE BOARD
There being no further business before the Board, the Board
adjourned until September 28, 1990, at which time hearings will be
held.
APPROVED BY:
DATE APPROVED: 1/-~ Z~W
e-(ALG~IRMAN
~~Q
DAVID G. UGLA~ICE CHAIRMAN
A....,ED ~~
IERDREI KE
(L"t'. p( g~ ~
ARCHIE L. BARBER, JR., ER