HomeMy WebLinkAboutM100390
JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF EQUALIZATION
A. C. DALGLEISH
DAVID G. DOUGLAS
ARCHIE BARBER, JR.
JAMES A. DE LEO
CHAIRMAN
VICE-CHAIRMAN
MEMBER
ALTERNATE
MINUTES
OCTOBER
3, 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.
H EAR I N G S
MARTIN, James L.
Post Office Box 124
Brinnon, WA 98320
BOE: 90-060-R
PN: 988 200 104
Jeff Chapman was present on behalf of the Assessor's Office.
Chairman Dalgleish explained the hearing process to Mr. Martin
and swore him in for testimony.
Leqal Description: This parcel is described as Pleasant Harbor
BLK 1, Lot 4, in Volume 4 of Plats, Page 42. The property is
located at 371 pleasant Harbor Road in Brinnon. The Tax District
is 441, the Land Use Code is 1100, and the Neighborhood Code is
1220. The building, which consists of an average quality home in
good condition, is not under appeal. The land is considered
medium bank with a good marine view and clear, sloping
topography. It is currently appraised at $55,000 with and
additional $2,500 in value being allotted for the site
improvements.
Assessed Valuation:
Land Only:
Improvements:
Total Valuation:
$ 57,500
60,125
117,625
$ 41,580
60,125
101,700
Petitioner Request:
Land Only:
Improvements:
Total Valuation:
Petitioner's Testimonv: Mr. Martin stated that all properties in
his block are appraised at the same value, yet all lots in that
block have different waterfront footage. He explained that he
and his neighbors feel that an inequity occurs when Realtors
appraise these properties on waterfront footage, while the County
Assessor appraises on a site basis.
Mr. Martin noted that he has 61.5 feet, while other lots have
more front footage (from 70 feet to 95 feet), such as Lots 1, 2,
10, 13, and 14. He noted that if you base the price on a per
linear foot basis, some of his neighbors have almost twice as
much front footage as he has. He feels that his property is not
as valuable as the lots with more frontage and doesn't feel it
should be assessed in the same manner. He said that a per site
value is unfair, although he has no objection to the appraisal on
the buildings. He believes his land is worth $41,580.
Assessor's Testimonv: Jeff Chapman explained that the situation
and the Assessor's argument is identical in all five of the
Pleasant Harbor Petitions that are before the Board this year.
Mr. Martin is correct in stating that the properties are assessed
on a site basis rather than a front footage basis. All the lots
have water and power. There aren't any bare land sales to use as
comparables although there are two improved land sales.
Assessor's Comparables:
Comparable 11: Lot 1 sold in November 1988 for $125,000.
Comparable #2: Lot 9 sold in February 1990 for $130,000.
Board of Equalization Minutes: October 3, 1990
page: 3
Mr. Chapman explained that the land value can only be determined
by abstraction in these cases, which is to take out the value of
the improvements from the sales prices. Mr. Chapman went on to
explain the valuations as follows:
"Currently, using the $57,500 throughout here and our
improvement values we have lot nine, ah one, assessed
at, lot one assessed at $109,595, the one that sold for
$125,000. So we're basically $16,000 below the sale
price. And on lot nine, we have it assessed at
$100,000 and it sold for $130,000. So, even using the
$57,500 on these two lots, we're well below the sales
price. And also, here, I've done, and I went by lot
frontage, bank line. I wrote down here what the
frontage is as compares. You can see, lot one I have
down as 86 feet and lot nine, the other sale, was 70
feet of frontage. Most of the appellants are in the 60
foot range...Basically what I did is I thought, well,
assuming that you used a 60 foot base and $57,500,
which is our land value, what would these lots be worth
if you used the front foot? And you'd still be well
under the sale price. So, our argument is this: It is
common, in fact all acreage we basically value on a
front foot basis, ah, with plats, we usually value them
on a site basis. That is particularly true if there is
a uniformity in the sites. If basically the waterfront
sites tend to be uniform in size, we basically will, in
a plat like Port Ludlow, Kala Point, Suquamish Harbor,
in all the ones in this area, which includes:
Sunnys1ope, Pleasant Harbor, Pleasant Tides. We did
all of these on a site basis. The reason is because we
find that with platted sites, that generally a buyer
will look at, particularly improved platted sites,
they'll look at the house, how it's situated on it,
they'll look at the general topo of the area, what kind
of view it has, and a few feet one way or the other in
frontage isn't going to make a difference. NOW, this
is a different kind of thing here, You're talking about
a difference in some cases between 62 feet and up to
110 feet. Our argument here was basically it's true
that lot 14 has 110 feet of frontage, but also, lot 10
has 102 feet of depth; where many of these in the
middle with 60 feet are everywhere from 130 to 150 feet
of depth...Also, of course, the road frontage varies
quite a bit from one to the other. I mean, you know,
you can get anywhere from 40 up to 60 feet of road
Board of Equalization Minutes: October 3, 1990
Page: 4
frontage...Basically what Jack [Assessor Jack
westerman, III] thought here was that, the way this was
platted is, it tried to give every lot virtually an
identical worth. Now again, that's an assumption we're
making. The reason is because of the lots that tend to
have more frontage tend to be shallower, they tend to
be angled, they tend to have less road frontage. Now,
true, the waterfront usually carries the greatest
weight, but all things considered, and the fact that
these are all improved, we did these, we considered
these to be relatively uniform and therefore we valued
them like we do almost all our plats. A Realtor going
in there and trying to sell one lot over another, may
indeed say, 'this has ten extra feet of frontage, and
as good a lot, and just a little bigger' he would try
to sell it for a higher value. But for mass appraisal
we figur~d everything balanced out and therefore we
equated everything at $57,500. Actually $55,000 plus
$2,500 for the site improvements, since these are all
improved, they are all on at $57,500. I also, in area
too, you would see a complete difference here if you
actually took the square footage of these lots you'll
find that some of the appellants lots, like five, six,
seven, or, six, seven, eight, and nine, are the biggest
lots in the area and the smallest lots, which are lots
one, two, and eleven, twelve, thirteen, and fourteen
have the greater front footage. So basically when they
platted this they took that into consideration. They
gave more frontage to the smaller lots. So, in that
case, that's what we did, is we basically said, 'Well,
we're going to just treat them all equally, we'll put
them all on at $55,000 plus $2,500 in improvements'.
And even at that, we came in well below the sale
prices. The appellants have all argued that we should
consider frontage here. If we did that, then the
consideration becomes: Are we over- valuing the
appellants or are we undervaluing the lot with the
larger size. In other words, is $57,500 appropriate
for the appellants and should the larger ones be on at
a higher value or is the other way around? Of course,
our argument is that they're all virtually identical,
so we value them all the same."
Jeff Chapman also explained that even when the parcels are
figured by the front footage with adjustments for depth,
topography, and road frontage, the figures are going to be close
in value. For the sake of simplicity, these lots were valued as
Board of Equalization Minutes: October 3, 1990
page: 5
sites. The difference of water frontage should not make a
difference in the value, as in the opinion of the Assessor, there
isn't enough evidence to justify it. He noted that if size were
to be a factor in valuation, then $57,500 would probably be
retained as the base rate along with the 60 foot lots, and then
values would be raised, taking into consideration the depth and
topography adjustments. After looking at these lots, the
Assessor's opinion is that the parcels would certainly bring the
price that they are assessed at.
Petitioner's Response: Mr. Martin stated that he just feels
there is an inequity in the way the lots were appraised and that
the valuations should be based on a waterfront basis.
Assessor's Response: Jeff Chapman noted that in Pleasant Tides
there weren't any sales, but based on Pleasant Harbor the lots in
Pleasant Tides were assessed at $55,000. Some of the better lots
with more frontage had 15 to 20 percent added, bringing the
values up to between $65,000 and $70,000.
Assessor's Exhibits:
Exhibit #1:
Area Map.
Exhibit #2:
Plat Map of Pleasant Harbor.
Exhibit #3:
Computer Fieldsheet for Subject Parcel.
EXHIBIT #4:
Two page Memorandum dated October 2, 1990
from Assessment Operations Manager Jeff
Chapman regarding the basis of evaluation on
the subject property.
EXHIBIT #5:
Real Estate Excise Tax Form for Comparable #2
(discussed above).
EXHIBIT #6:
Real Estate Excise Tax Form for Comparable #1
(discussed above).
Board Action: The Board took this petition under advisement and
will conduct an on-site inspection of the land before making a
determination.
Board of Equalization Minutes: October 3, 1990
page: 6
HOLWAY, virginia
Post Office Box 25
Oystervil1e, WA 98641
BOE: 90-052-LO
BOE: 90-053-LO
BOE: 90-054-LO
PN: 602 352 019 TAX K
PN: 602 353 038 TAX J
PN: 502 021 002 TAX A
Commercial Tidelands
Robert Kingsley was present on behalf of the Assessor's Office.
Chairman Dalgleish explained that Ms. Holway telephoned to say
she could not be present at the hearing. He read her petitions
for the three subject parcels into the Minutes of the meeting.
Leqal Description for TAX K PN 602 352 019 BOE 90-052-LO:
This 44.23 acre parcel of commercial tideland is described
as S35 T26 R2W TL TAX K and is located near Brinnon. The
current rate of assessment is $1,250 an acre for this
unimproved property, which is used for commercial oyster
beds.
Assessed Valuation:
Land Only:
Improvements:
Total Valuation:
$ 55,290
NONE
55,290
Petitioner Request:
Land Only:
Improvements:
Total Valuation:
$ 11,050
NONE
11,050
Leqal Description for TAX J PN 602 353 038 BOE 90-053-LO:
This 40.98 acre parcel of commercial tideland is described
as S35 T26 R2W TL TAX J and is located near Brinnon. The
current rate of assessment is $1,250 an acre for this
unimproved property, which is used for commercial oyster
beds.
Assessed Valuation:
Land Only: $ 51,225
Improvements: NONE
Total Valuation: 51,225
Land Only: $ 15,000
Improvements: NONE
Total Valuation: 15,000
Petitioner Request:
Board of Equalization Minutes: October 3, 1990
page: 7
Leqal Description for TAX A PN 502 021 002 BOE 90-054-LO:
This 72.98 acre parcel of commercial tideland is described
as S2 T25 R2W TL TAX A and is located near Brinnon. The
current rate of assessment is $1,250 an acre for this
unimproved property, which is used for commercial oyster
beds.
Assessed Valuation:
Land Only: $ 91,225
Improvements: NONE
Total Valuation: 91,225
Land Only: $ 30,525
Improvements: NONE
Total Valuation: 30,525
Petitioner Request:
Petitioner's Testimonv: Ms. Holway stated on her three petitions
that the property was purchased in the 1930's for an unspecified
sum and that:
"The land has not changed, not all the acreage can be
used, but all of the pieces are leased to Coast Oyster
Co. until 1992. My husband & I leased this for the
benefit of our disabled son. We pay the taxes, I am 81
and trying to continue."
Petitioner's Exhibit:
Exhibit U:
Letter from Coast Oyster directed to the
Assessor's Office on behalf of Mrs. Holway.
The letter was written by Gordon V. Hayes,
Regional Manager, puget Sound, on August 27,
1990.
Vice-Chairman Douglas read the Petitioner's Exhibit #1 into the
Minutes of the meeting. The main points of the letter are as
follow:
1) Coast Oyster Company is leasing Tax Lots A, J, and K in
the Brinnon area.
2) Mrs. Holway informed Coast Oyster that the land has
been reassessed as follows:
Tax Lot A: $30,525 to $91,225
Board of Equalization Minutes: October 3, 1990
Page: 8
Tax Lot J: $15,000 to $51,225
Tax Lot K: $11,050 to $55,290
3) The tidelands have some commercial value but the value
hasn't increased as rapidly as upland real estate.
4) The productivity of the land hasn't increased anywhere
near the assessed increases.
5) Access on Tax Lot A could become restricted as it
borders the Dosewa11ips state Park.
6) Tax Lot J has no restrictions but it takes four years
to grow oysters or clams to maturity with the condition
of the shellfish being good only from April through
June of these years.
7) Tax Lot K is only good as a holding area for
transplanted, mature oysters, which is rarely
necessary. This is due to most of Tax Lot K being
below the mean low tide level which means most of the
land never uncovers.
8) Tax Lot K hasn't been used for at least 10 years.
Assessor's Testimonv: Robert Kingsley reported that the previous
valuations of 1986 are what the petitioner is requesting that the
valuation be reduced to. He explained that these acreage parcels
are oyster farms and noted that he researched how the State
Department of Fisheries values oyster lands. Fisheries grades
the lands on a one to five quality rating depending on what the
oyster land may be used for with possibilities such as seeding
only; seed and development; or for seed, development, and full
growth. He stated that to determine the value of oyster land it
needs to be examined as to the production capabilities.
Assessor's Exhibits:
Exhibit I: Oyster Land Sales list of comparables from
Department of Revenue (listed below). The
indicated value per acre of subject property
is estimated at $1,500.
Exhibit II: Map of Oyster Lands: Resurvey of State Oyster
Reserve, Brinnon. Subject properties are
listed.
Exhibit IlIA: Computerized Fieldsheet showing current
valuation for BOE: 90-052-LO.
Exhibit IIIB: Computerized Fieldsheet showing current
valuation for BOE: 90-053-LO.
Board of Equalization Minutes: October 3, 1990
page: 9
Exhibit IIIC: Computerized Fieldsheet showing current
valuation for BOE: 90-054-LO.
Exhibit IV: Real Estate Excise Tax Form for Comparable
Sale #2 (listed below) for Parcel Numbers 602
353 036 and 602 353 037. One hundred acres
of tidelands, TAX E & G, sold for $449,000 on
August 6, 1987.
Exhibit V: Computerized Printout showing Theodore W.
Holway as owner of TAX A, TAX K, and TAX J
along with property descriptions.
Department of Revenue Comparable Sales (Exhibit I):
Sale 1:
Sale 2:
Sale 3:
Part of Quilcene Oyster Reserve Discovery Bay Land
Company sold for $10,530 August 1989, Ex. Number
59768. The acreage is 7.012493. $10,530 divided
by 7.012 Acres = $1,500 per acre valuation.
Taylor United sold for $449,000 August 1987, Ex.
Number 55055. This is an 100 acre land sale
consisting of Tax E & G. The sale included live
shell fish and a Department of Natural Resources
lease. Value of Shell Fish: $205,500
Value of DNR Lease: $ 50.000
Total: $255,500
$449,000 - $255,500 = $193,500 land value.
$193,500 divided by 100 Acres = $1,935 per acre.
Due to the need to use abstraction of inventory
and estimated lease value to indicate acreage
value the value per acre may not be accurate. The
subject property tidelands encircle this
comparable.
Coast Oyster Company sold 15 acres for $3,750
August 1986, Ex. Number 53156. $3,750 divided by
15 Acres = $ 250 per acre. Poor quality land for
shellfish growing and inferior to subject
properties.
It was noted that the above sales indicate a value range between
$ 250 and $1,935 for oyster land. The subject property is
estimated to be valued between the range of Sale # 1 and Sale # 2
at $1,500 an acre. For a 50 acre parcel, as of January 1, 1990,
Board of Equalization Minutes: October 3, 1990
Page: 10
the land value would be estimated at $75,000 based on $1,500 x 50
Acres = $75,000. The Department of Revenue provided the work up
on these sales and estimations of value.
Robert Kingsley stated that the Assessor's Office chose to use
$1,250 per acre on all three appeals, although the Department of
Revenue recommends $1,500 an acre.
Board Action: After further discussion of the leasing and
production capabilities of oyster lands, the Board took the three
Holway petitions under advisement.
Frederic C. Helm
9202 N.W. 27th Avenue
vancouver, WA 98665
BOE: 90-055-R
BOE: 90-056-R
PN 601 074 003 (house)
PN 601 074 023 (garage)
Robert Kingsley was present on behalf of the Assessor's Office.
Chairman Dalgleish explained the hearing process to Mr. Helm and
swore him in for testimony.
Petitioner's Testimonv: Mr. Helm explained that the parcels
under appeal are adjacent to each other and there is a garage on
one parcel and a residence on the other. He did appeal the
valuation in 1986 (BOE: 90-021-R) but he didn't appear before the
Board of Equalization in person. He stated that if the Board
makes an on-site inspection, the Deputy Assessor may also be
present. He stated that the total improvement cost to date has
been $53,000 for the cabin, garage, and well house on the
properties in question.
* * *
Leqal Description for PN 601 074 003 (house) BOE 90-055-R:
This 2.84 Acre parcel is described as 57 T26 R1W TAX 3 and
is situated in Tax district 441 with Land Use Code 1100 and
Neighborhood Code 1330 at 500 Whitney Point Road, Brinnon.
Both the land and improvements are being appealed.
The land has 131 front feet of improved land on at $400 a
front foot with an adjustment of +25% for beach access and
131 front feet of unimproved tidelands at $20 a front foot
and one improved site valued at $2,500. The rate was
Board of Equalization Minutes: October 3, 1990
page: 11
calculated at: 131 Front Feet x $400 x 125 (100% + 25% for
beach access) equaling $65,500 plus 131 front feet x $20 a
front foot for tidelands equaling $2,620 plus one site at
$2,500 for a total land valuation of $70,620.
The improvements consist of a house of average(-) quality in
good condition which was built in 1981. The building is
1,425 square feet; the basement is 1,425 square feet; the
carport is 240 square feet; the garage is 576 square feet;
the deck is 700 square feet; and the patio is 360 square
feet. The improvement value was figured at $77,643 at 96%
complete for a value of $74,537 plus the additional
improvements of $2,981 for a total of $77,518 rounded off to
$77,520.
Assessor's Exhibits for BOE: 90-055-R:
Exhibit I:
Map of subject property and location.
Exhibit II:
Exhibit III:
Exhibit IV:
Exhibit V:
Exhibit VI:
Data Sheet for parcel with notation by
previous assessor to add carport, that the
building was complete, and that it was of
better quality than previously assessed for.
Computer Fieldsheet for subject property.
Computer Fie1dsheet for comparable property,
Parcel Number 501 032 008, which is assessed
at $157,790 including improvements.
Real Estate Excise Tax form for comparable
property, Parcel Number 501 032 008, which
sold for $250,000 including improvements.
Computer Fieldsheet for comparable property,
Parcel Number 602 264 004, which is assessed
at $106,470 including improvements.
Board of Equalization Exhibits for BOE: 90-055-R:
Exhibit A:
RCW: 84.40.030 Basis of valuation -
Leasehold estates - Real property --
Criterion of value.
Board of Equalization Minutes: OCtober 3, 1990
page: 12
Exhibit B:
RCW: 84.48.150 Valuation criteria including
comparative sales to be made available to
taxpayers.
Exhibit c:
Photographs of subject property improvements
during construction.
1990 Assessed Valuation:
Land Only: $ 70,620
Improvements: 77,520
Total Valuation: 148,140
Land Only: $ 50,000
Improvements: $ 60,190
Total Valuation: $ 110,190
Land Only: $ 68,000
Improvements: 52.000
Total Valuation: 120,000
1986 Assessed Valuation:
Petitioner Request:
Petitioner's Testimonv on BOE 90-055-R:
Mr. Helm stated that the structure went up in value between
28 and 29 percent since 1988. The County purchased the
right-of-way for expansion of a road out to a shellfish
laboratory in the vicinity. The Assessor pointed out that
he has 2.84 Acres after the County purchased the property he
noted that he has 2.80 Acres as the County purchase was
4/100s of an acre. Therefore, he believes the Assessor is
incorrect by 4/100s of an acre in the land valuation. He
also explained that the Assessed Valuation of this parcel
figures out to 57 cents a square foot. Since the value on
the adjacent parcel is 55 cents a square foot, he sees no
reason for the discrepancy and stated that there is no basis
for the difference in values on the land. The topography is
identical, including the timber. He also explained that the
County purchased the right-of-way for 55 cents a square
foot.
* * *
Leqal Description for PN 601 074 023 (qaraqe) BOE 90-056-R:
This 2.39 Acre parcel is described as being in the Strampe
Short Plat, Lot 2, with tidelands abutting. The land is
Board of Equalization Minutes: October 3, 1990
page: 13
subject to an easement. The property is adjacent to 500
Point Whitney Road and has a garage situated on it. This
parcel is in Tax district 441 with Land Use Code 9800 and
Neighborhood Code 1330. Both the land and improvements are
being appealed.
The land is valued at 95 front feet of improved low to
medium bank with oyster lands at $400 a front foot adjusted
by 40+ percent consisting of access to the beach (+25%) and
an easement road to Lot 1 (+15%), as well as another 95
front feet of unimproved tidelands valued at $20 a front
foot. There is one improved site valued at $2,500. The
land value was figured at 95 front feet x $400 x .140% (the
+40% for beach access & easement road) equalling $53,200
plus 95 front feet of tidelands x $20 equalling $1,900 plus
$2,500 for site improvements for a total of $57,600 on the
land.
The improvements consist of a garage valued at $14,620.
Assessor's Exhibits for BOE: 90-056-R:
Exhibit I:
Computer Fieldsheet for subject property.
Exhibit II:
Assessor's Worksheet with photograph of
improvements on subject property.
Exhibit III:
Real Estate Excise Tax form for subject
property showing sale at $100,000 on May 20,
1988.
Board of Equalization Exhibits for BOE: 90-056-R:
Exhibit A:
RCW: 84.40.030 Basis of valuation -
Leasehold estates - Real property --
Criterion of value.
Exhibit B:
RCW: 84.48.150 Valuation criteria including
comparative sales to be made available to
taxpayers.
1990 Assessed Valuation:
Land Only:
Improvements:
Total Valuation:
$ 57,600
14,620
72,220
Board of Equalization Minutes: October 3, 1990
Page: 14
Petitioner Reauest:
Land Only:
Improvements:
Total Valuation:
$ 57,200
11.500
68,700
Petitioner's Testimonv on HOE 90-056-R:
Mr. Helm stated that he built the building with a kit that
cost $27,900, but the building was assessed in 1986 at
$60,000. The land value was $11,340 in 1988. Although
there were no changes or modifications to the structure of
the building, there was a 28.9 percent increase in Assessed
Valuation.
Mr. Helm explained that the Assessed Valuation on the land
value for this parcel is at 55 cents a square foot. Since
the value is 57 cents a square foot on the adjacent parcel,
he feels there shouldn't be a discrepancy and that there
isn't any basis for the difference. The topography is
identical, including the timber. Right-of-way was purchased
by the County for 55 cents a square foot (The County
Purchase Order on this transaction is 13340, dated February
1988) .
* * *
Assessor's Testimonv: Robert Kingsley responded to Mr. Helm's
comments and explained that cost and market value are not
necessarily synonymous. He explained that:
"...by State Law the Assessor's Office is required to assess
property at 100 percent of it's true and fair market value.
So, one of my arguments would be the original cost to build
the house, cabin, whatever you want to call it
(interrupted).....
* * *
Petitioner's and Assessor's General Testimonv on both appeals:
This section is a verbatim transcription of the proceedings.
Mr. Helm: (Interrupting Mr. Kingsley) What, would you quote the
urn, the WAC, or whatever, where that, where that ah, where it is
required?
Board of Equalization Minutes: October 3, 1990
page: 15
Mr. Kinqsley: I, I don't (interrupted).
Vice-Chairman Douqlas: I can get it.
Member Archie Barber, Jr.: This is what we've been told each
year in training, and they did quote a couple of RCWs.
Mr. Helm: I have referenced a Department of Revenue, Property
Taxes in Washington and ah, where they said there were three
common approaches for techniques to evaluate each real property:
market, cost, and income. And ah, this is a Department of
Revenue publication here, that ah, and so, that's all, I'm
curious as to where it is mandated that one versus another. I
would agree on market value for older property. I think that's
appropriate, because there's a substantial amount of time that
has elapsed. But, when it's a property that is fairly recent and
you're not really putting in a significant depreciation into it,
I think then that ah, cost is a valid approach to assessment of a
property.
Member Archie Barber, Jr.: I think part of the terminology they
use when they say you'll use market value, is that ah, well,
they're describing a matter-of-fact transaction. A willing
seller and a knowledgeable buyer.
Chairman Dalqleish: In your cost, you figure your own labor at a
certain value?
Mr. Helm: That was some of it, yes. There is some in there.
Chairman Dalqleish: They would go according to each area of the
country, and what the average labor is, I have no idea what they
charge, what they figure is labor.
Mr. Helm: There is some obviously where I had not, but ah...
Chairman Da1qleish: He's coming up with it now (referring to
Vice-Chairman Douglas' research for Mr. Helm).
Vice-Chairman Douqlas: Go ahead, it'll take me a minute to find
the paragraph here.
Deputy Assessor, Mr. Kinqs1ey: Do you want me to continue?
Chairman Dalqleish: Yes. Go ahead.
Board of Equalization Minutes: October 3, 1990
Page: 16
Mr. Kinqs1ev: Okay. And ah, to continue on here, the cost
figures that are being used are costs based on 1980, 1981.
Mr. Helm: No. That's not correct either. Because I never got
an occupancy permit until, this reflects costs that were all the
way along borne by me until about 19' (year not stated), when I
was really finished with the thing, about 1984 or '85. The only
thing that's been done is a roof. So, we have continuing costs
that are reflected in this figure that I've written. But ah, the
package price, when I paid the sales tax on it, and when I bought
it all, was in 1980ish. Yes, you're right on that, on the 27th.
Mr. Kinqsley: Okay. In other words, I mean, you couldn't go buy
that same package at today's dollars at 1980 cost. They won't
sell it to you at that, at that amount.
Mr. Helm: Not today, but a couple of years ago, yes.
Mr. Kinqslev: Okay, well, I'm also required by State Law to
value your property as of January 1st, 1990.
Mr. Helm: But that didn't hold for me in 1986.
Mr. Kinqslev: I was not employed by the Jefferson County
Assessor's Office in 1986.
Mr. Helm: As long as we're; you people were unfair.
Mr. Kinqslev: Okay. You stated there was an increase of $17,330
over a four year period, or twenty-eight percent increase. The
appraiser's comments that was, there, who was there on March 30,
1990, found no one was home and he said that 'it's finished, add
a carport and some decking' I believe. Okay, so he raised it
from 90 percent complete to 100 percent complete. We have the
basement rated as zero percent finished.
Mr. Helm: Okay.
Mr. Kinqsley: Okay. He added a carport, pretty basic carport,
240 square feet, fair quality with a metal roof and no floor
covering. Minimum value associated with the carport. A couple
hundred added square feet to the deck at say (interrupted).
Mr. Helm: There has been no addition to it.
Mr. Kinqslev: Ah, okay, they may have incorrectly measured it in
the 1986 survey.
Board of Equalization Minutes: October 3, 1990
Page: 17
Mr. Helm: It was the pictures that your, that the Assessor, that
the Assessor's Office took in 1986 as I was completing the
carport. They took it earlier, when the ah, when the Board was
there, in 1986, the carport had been completed. These are your
pictures.
Chairman Da1qleish: May I see them?
Mr. Helm: Yes. And no roof has been added since then, and the
ah, carport has been, the framing has been completed. It was
actually completed when you visited that site in 1986.
Chairman Dalq1eish: Metal roof, you say?
Mr. Helm: Uh huh.
Chairman Dalqleish: You mean that corrugated aluminum steel,
corrugated steel?
Mr. Kinqslev: So anyway the point, the point is that the $17,330
increase, you, we need to take out the 10 percent from raising it
from 90 percent complete to 100 percent and then adding the
carport value and a little bit of the decking, so therefore the
actual increase isn't $17,330 it's somewhat less than that
(interrupted).
Mr. Helm: Alright, I (interrupted).
Mr. Kinqslev: And you divide, let me finish please. You divide
that by four over four years, the actual per year increase is not
that much. Now the inflation rate of four to seven percent over
four years would be anywhere from 16 to 28 percent if there were
no changes at all. So. I just wanted to make that
(interrupted).
Mr. Helm: I would appreciate it if you would withdraw those
points because they're incorrect. Ah, I've shown here from your
own pictures that the carport was under construction, the deck is
as it was at that time, and ah, here's the deck. I don't know
what you are alluding, what part of the deck you are alluding to
when you're ah, from your March reassessment. I think it's kind
of hard to go with, as you say.
Mr. Kinqslev: Well, is it, okay. Do you have 700 square feet of
deck or do you have 500 square feet? That's the question. If
you had, had 700 and you haven't added any, then you were
Board of Equalization Minutes: October 3, 1990
Page: 18
underassessed in 1986 because we only carried 500 square feet of
deck. That's the point, and that's all that I want.
Mr. Helm: There has been no deck added since 1986.
Mr. Kinqs1ev: You know how many square feet of decking?
Mr. Helm: I have not measured it.
Mr. Kinqslev: Okay. Well, we did. And (interrupted).
Mr. Helm: We can check it again.
Mr. Kinqslev: Okay, and we can check.
Mr. Helm: We can re-check it when we get there.
Mr. Kinqslev: I have a few comparable sales on homes that are
approximately the same size, valued in approximately the same
value range, that have sold recently for quite a bit more than
assessed value. And the reason I made copies of these houses
that have sold is just to point out to everyone here that there
is ah (interrupted).
Mr. Helm: What year were the assessments made? Eighty-six or
ninety?
Mr. Kinqs1ey: Well, they vary. Just to point out that homes
sell for a lot more than assessed value in a lot of cases.
Chairman Dalqleish: Is this beach land?
Mr. Helm: Tidelands.
Chairman Dalqleish: You have beach, the tidelands?
Mr. Helm: Yes.
Mr. Kinqslev: Okay, the other thing I'd like to talk about on
this particular piece is how we valued it. Ah, we didn't value
it on a per square foot basis. We value waterfront property on a
per front foot of waterfront.
Okay, Mr. Helm was referring to a right-of-way that was purchased
at what, 55 cents per square foot?
Mr. Helm: Um huh.
Board of Equalization Minutes: October 3, 1990
page: 19
Mr. Kinqslev: Well, this right-of-way is not waterfront, it's,
you know, back, way back from the waterfront where the road is
and it's hard to compare waterfront property to a strip of land
along the road, ah, I'd have to guess several hundred feet from
the water. So we really don't recognize that County purchase of
right-of-way land as a true and fair method to value waterfront
property. Okay.
Mr. Helm: What you're saying then, is a chunk of land along 101
with ah, that's 10 foot from the road, could be valued the same
as a chunk of land where you have a depth of around 800 feet?
Mr. Kinqslev: Ah, we value property on, from one neighborhood to
another, that the per front foot values differ, and method of
assessment values, depending on neighborhood.
Mr. Helm: What do you show as front footage on number 55 (BOE:
90-055-R)?
Mr. Kinqslev: Okay, we show it as mapped at 131 front feet.
Mr. Helm: In 1986 they were claiming 140.
Mr. Kinqsley: Also, the reason the acreage amount change, is
this, I believe this area has just been re-mapped within the last
four years. And, we go by map acreage, so a lot of, a lot of
properties in this revaluation area changed, acreages changed.
Chairman Dalqleish: What I understand you're saying now is this,
003, or what we call 55, that is 131 foot? This doesn't include
both parcels now, does it?
Mr. Kinqs1ev: No.
Chairman Dalqleish: One-thirty-one is where your house is, is
that?
Mr. Helm: That's correct.
Chairman Dalq1eish: Alright, thank you. And what do you have it
on for front foot?
Mr. Kinqslev: Ah, we have it on at $400 a front foot, there's a
positive adjustment of 25 percent due for a road asset, access.
Chairman Dalqleish: Four hundred plus 25 percent?
Board of Equalization Minutes: October 3, 1990
page: 20
Mr. Kinqslev: Right. For road access to the beach, beach area.
And when we (interrupted).
Mr. Helm: Where's the road access?
Mr. Kinqsley: Well, I guess we'll see it when we get there
(Referring to on-site inspection).
Mr. Helm: There's a trail. Well, there's a trail.
Mr. Kinqslev: Okay, trail access to the beach.
Mr. Belm: Twenty-five percent, huh.
Mr. Kinqslev: Ah, the tidelands, which are also 131 feet, is on
for $20 a front foot. And then, for site improvements to this
property, we added $2,500. And, that includes costs for drilling
well, installing a septic system, running power to the
improvement, and I think everyone would agree we're way low on
that degree. Okay, so that's for 90-55-R.
Ninety-56-R.
Chairman Dalqleish: Nine, what was that?
Mr. Kinqslev: The, the new one that I want to discuss or the old
one?
Chairman Dalqleish: No, no, 90, ah, 90-5.
Mr. Kinqslev: That was just the appeal. That's all I had to
talk about on appeal number 90-55-R.
Chairman Da1qleish: Oh, okay.
Mr. Helm: I wasn't really quarreling with the land, other than
that your square footage was off on that 55 (BOE-90-055-R), and
that you used one rate per square foot on one property, one
contiguous piece of property, and you used another rate on the
next piece of property.
Mr. Kinqslev: Well, we valued both on its per front foot basis,
both pieces.
Vice-Chairman Douqlas: Mr. Chairman, can I interject something
here?
Board of Equalization Minutes: October 3, 1990
Page: 21
Chairman Dalqleish: Yes.
vice-Chairman Douqlas: The two statutes that define the methods
of value are.
Mr. Helm: Um huh.
vice-Chairman Douqlas: The first one is the 'Basis of valuation'
84.40.030 (Revised Code of Washington).
Mr. Helm: 84.40.030, 84.40.030.
Vice-Chairman Douqlas: It says, in introduction:
"All property shall be valued at one hundred
percent of its true and fair value in money
and assessed on the same basis unless
specifically provided otherwise by law."
Okay, consistent.
The 84.48.150 (Revised Code of Washington) 'Valuation criteria
including comparative sales to be made available to taxpayers'
and it says:
"The assessor shall, upon the request of any
taxpayer who petitions the board of
equalization for review of a tax claim or
valuation dispute, make available to said
taxpayer a compilation of comparable sales
utilized by the assessor in establishing such
taxpayer's property valuation."
Okay. So it is a function of the sales value.
Mr. Kinqslev: True.
vice-Chairman Douqlas: But there are other methods of
determining valuation.
Member Archie Barber. Jr.: The most generally used, however, for
valuing commercial property are a combination thereof.
Vice-Chairman Douqlas: Commercial property. Right.
Board of Equalization Minutes: October 3, 1990
Page: 22
Mr. Kinqs1ev: Okay, now, for 90-56-R, looking over the
petitioner's petition, I noticed that ah, item number four,
purchase price of property, date of purchase and terms was
conveniently left blank, when indeed he's purchased the property
May 20th, 1988 for $100,000 (interrupted).
Mr. Helm: Okay, ah, there's a property, ah, finish it up. Yeah.
Mr. Kinqsley: Okay, I'm just going by the Excise Tax Affidavit
that states that the purchase price (interrupted).
Mr. Helm: Well, let's, then let's go ahead and get Mr. Olson
from urn, from the Realty Company, because Olson and I had a piece
of property that was further down the, down the road that I
traded, and that was part of the trade.
Mr. Kinqslev: So, this,
"I certify under penalty of perjury (from the
Real Estate Excise Tax form Number 56622
signed by Mr. Helm on May 20, 1988 with gross
sale stated as being $100,000)"
so on and so forth that the above information is true and
correct, that, that indeed is not what took place? Is that what
is happening here?
Mr. Helm: There was, there was a trade, a section, I don't know
what the I.R.S. Statute number, there was a property trade.
Waterfront property in Paradise Cove, Brinnon, in the south of
Brinnon, that I traded to Hanson's for this property, plus cash.
Mr. Kinqslev: Was there an affidavit filed on that piece of
property?
Mr. Helm: I believe so. I, I would check with the Realtors, and
then you will know what the ah, what that property in Brinnon was
valued at, ah, around forty, around fifty-some thousand dollars;
as I recall to the best of my knowledge.
Mr. Kinqslev: I'd be happy to pull my tax records out.
Vice-Chairman Douqlas: I wouldn't mind.
Mr. Kinqslev: Well (interrupted).
Board of Equalization Minutes: October 3, 1990
Page: 23
Mr. Helm: So, that, it, because it was confusing, I did not put
down, there was no attempt at deception or ah, I'm not trying to
evade, or (stopped speaking).
Mr. Kinqslev: I understand what you're saying.
Mr. Helm: Okay.
you're trading an
value on another,
understand that.
But because there was a property trade where
inflated value on one property for an inflated
$100,000 is not the true basis, I think you'd
Chairman Dalqleish: well, we'll have to get that clarified
though. That's a matter, see, that's a matter of record they've
got there.
Mr. Helm: Thank you.
Chairman Da1qleish: And you say that isn't correct.
vice-Chairman Douqlas: Well, I think, I think, it's not a
semantic situation but it's closer, ah, where we're clear, where
we are stuck is that we have to use records of sale. And maybe
there'd be some merit in getting documentation that would show
the relationship as it was appraised in that sale. It could
clarify the situation.
Mr. Helm: There has been, there is no question about the value
of the land on this property. I don't know why it's been brought
up. I have no problem with the value on the land. So, I'd like
to go ahead and confuse the matter, we are talking about the
structure on that parcel.
vice-Chairman Douq1as: Was the structure, it was a part of the
purchase from the value?
Mr. Helm: Yes it was. Okay.
Chairman Da1q1eish: You're only contesting the improvements.
vice-Chairman Douqlas: Yeah, he says he's contesting the
improvements and he's looking for about a $3,100 reduction in the
cost of that building.
Mr. Helm: Yeah. It hasn't got a change since it was purchased.
Board of Equalization Minutes: October 3, 1990
Page: 24
Chairman Da1Qleish: Well, don't you think you ought to have that
clarified for the records for sometime down the road when you
sell that thing?
Mr. Helm: Well, I haven't, I was not aware of it. I didn't get
a copy of that, that you have there (referring to the Real Estate
Excise Tax form).
* *End of verbatim transcription of proceedings* *
* * *
Assessor's Testimonv - continued: Robert Kingsley explained that
the garage valuation increased because the previous appraiser
determined that electricity, a bathroom, and insulation were
added. It was noted that there is a septic tank on this lot.
Petitioner's Response: Mr. Helm explained that there has been
power since 1988, and that the bathroom and insulation were added
in 1986, but nothing has been done since the purchase of the
building in 1988.
Board Action: Vice-Chairman Douglas requested a detail of the
land trade for future purposes, and to help the Board evaluate
the real cost of the land. The Board took the petition under
advisement and discussed the on-site inspection with Mr. Helm.
LESLIE, John
8403 170th Avenue E.
Sumner, WA 98390
BOE: 90-061-R
PN: 988 200 107
Jeff Chapman was present on behalf of the Assessor's Office.
Chairman Dalgleish explained the hearing process to Mr. and Mrs.
Leslie and swore them in for testimony. The Leslies stated they
had no objection to the Deputy Assessor being present at the on-
site inspection.
Leqal Description: This property is described as Pleasant
Harbor, Block 1, Lot 7 within Tax District 441, Neighborhood
1220, and with Land use Code 1100. The site is located at 421
Pleasant Harbor Road in Brinnon. The land consists of an
improved lot of medium bank with a good marine view and clear,
sloping topography valued at $55,000. There is also one improved
site valued at $2,500. The residential land size is 60 x 210
feet and it is on Pleasant Harbor Road, which goes down to the
Board of Equalization Minutes: October 3, 1990
Page: 25
spit. The improvements, which consist of a vacation home, are
not being contested.
Petitioner Request:
Land Only: $ 57,500
Improvements: 40,420
Total Valuation: 97,920
Land Only: $ 36,000
Improvements: 40,420
Total Valuation: 76,420
Assessed Valuation:
Petitioner's Testimonv: Mr. Leslie stated on his petition form
that all the lots in the area are assessed the same regardless of
the size. He also noted that the value increased too much in one
year and that the per foot cost is over $950 per foot.
Mr. Leslie explained that the assessment change in one year is
too high and that some lots have more waterfront than others. He
wants the land reduced to its prior value of $36,000 which was
the assessed valuation since 1982.
Assessor's Testimonv: Mr. Chapman explained that the petitioner
didn't have time to study the information he provided and that he
may respond to it at a later date. He referenced BOE:90-060-
R,
which was heard in the morning, noting that this case is similar
in nature (Please see BOE: 90-060-R beginning on page 1, October
3, 1990 Minutes with verbatim transcription of Assessor's
Testimony page 2 - 4).
Jeff Chapman reported that most plats are assessed on a site
basis for waterfront property, particularly if the sites are
relatively uniform. He explained that buyers tend to consider
how an existing home is situated, where the front porch is
located, and the general site qualities, not the actual front
footage. He noted that properties with more waterfront tend to
be oddly shaped or to have less road frontage or usable area.
Properties with less waterfront generally have more usable
footage. He stated that there are not enough differences between
sites to make numerous adjustments in value, therefore the sites
were assessed at $57,500 with $55,000 being for the unimproved
lots and $2,500 for the utility improvements.
Board of Equalization Minutes: October 3, 1990
Page: 26
Mr. Chapman suggested that the Board consider this question: If
these properties are valued on a waterfront footage basis, are
the appellants values too high or too low? Based on current
sales, it could be argued that the values are too low. He
reported that these sites have been historically valued on a site
basis, including the 1986 assessment year. He also noted that
the increase is really a four year increase due to the four year
assessment cycle, although the majority of the increase took
place in the last couple of years because of the high demand for
waterfront properties. He feels that the value is consistent
with how other platted properties are valued.
All the lots have water and power. There aren't any bare land
sales to use as comparables although there are two improved land
sales.
Assessor's comparab1es:
Comparable #1: Lot 1 sold in November 1988 for $125,000.
Comparable #2: Lot 9 sold in February 1990 for $130,000.
Mr. Chapman explained that the land value can only be determined
by abstraction in these cases, which is to take out the value of
the improvements from the sales prices. Mr. Chapman went on to
explain the valuations (as provided in verbatim testimony page 2
- 4, Minutes of October 3, 1990; BOE: 90-060-R).
Board of Equalization Minutes: October 3, 1990
Page: 27
Assessor's Exhibits:
Exhibit U:
Exhibit 112:
Exhibit 113:
EXHIBIT 114:
EXHIBIT IS:
EXHIBIT 116:
Area Map. (See BOE: 90-060-R file)
Plat Map 'bf Jleasant Harbor. (See BOE: 90-
060-R file).
Computer Fieldsheet for Subject Parcel.
Two page Memorandum dated October 2, 1990
from Assessment Operations Manager Jeff
Chapman regarding the basis of evaluation on
the subject property. (See BOE: 90-060-R
file)
Real Estate Excise Tax Form for Comparable #2
(discussed above). (See BOE: 90-060-R file)
Real Estate Excise Tax Form for Comparable #1
(discussed above). (See BOE: 90-060-R file)
Board Action: The Board took this petition under advisement and
will conduct an on-site inspection of the land before making a
determination.
OTHER BUSINESS OF THE BOARD
There being no further business before the Board, the meeting
adjourned until October 5, 1990.
APPROVED BY:
DATE APPROVED :t2.c/~~.,;Y' 2( /,9.7'0
tl-/~
A.C.D SH, CHAIRMAN
ATTESTED a~d~
DIERDREI KEE
ICE-CHAIRMAN
J:J..cJ : .
ARCHIE L.
;f tS~ ~
BARBER, JR., ER