Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM100590 JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF EQUALIZATION A. C. DALGLEISH DAVID G. DOUGLAS ARCIllE BARBER, JR. JAMES A. DE LEO CHAIRMAN VICE-CHAIRMAN MEMBER ALTERNATE MINUTES OCT 0 B E R 5, 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. HEARINGS ZIER, George C. 351 Pleasant Harbor Blvd. Brinnon, Washington 98320 BOE: 90-066-R PN: 988 200 103 Jeff Chapman was present on behalf of the Assessor's Office. Chairman Dalgleish explained the hearing process to Mr. Zier and swore him in for testimony. Mr. Zier stated that he didn't have objections to the Deputy Assessor attending the on-site inspec- tion for the land. It was noted that since the appeal is on the land only, the house does not need to be viewed. Lel!al Description: This parcel is located in Pleasant Harbor, Block 1, Lot 3 (less TAX 34) and is in Tax District 441, with Land Use Code 1100, and Neighborhood Code 1220 at 351 Pleasant Harbor Road in Brinnon. The land consists of one improved lot of clear, sloping, medium bank with a good marine view valued at $55,000 and one site improve- ment rated at $2,500. The improvements, consisting of a fair(+) quality home in good condition, are not under appeal. Board of Equalization Minutes: October 5, 1990 Page: 2 Assessed Valuation: Land Only: Improvements: Total Valuation: $ 57,500 42.590 100,090 Petitioner ReQUest: Land Only: Improvements: Total Valuation: $ 41,580 42.590 84,170 Petitioner Testimonv: Mr. Zier stated that he read the memoran- dum from Assessment Operations Manager Jeff Chapman dated October 2, 1990 which explained the method of assessing. Mr. Zier sub- mitted an original signed document, dated October 5, 1990, for the file record and entered verbal testimony as follows: "As further support to the real estate business' concept of water-frontage being valued on a front foot basis, I submit that when the project of Pleasant Harbor Estates was offered to the public for sale the prices were set at $100 per front foot. Thereby a 60 foot lot was priced at $6,000. a 70 foot at $7,000, and so forth. The original purchasers of Lots #2 and #3 I knew personally. This pricing concept can also be verified through the original public record on file in Jeffer- son County, Pleasant Harbor Estates, which will bear out this valuation concept. As far as that front footage pricing, this is all I have unless you have further questions." There being no questions from the Board he continued: "I have something further, it's on a little different thought. Alright, after reading the report that came from Mr. Chapman, I want to, I ask particularly that you note a portion of the Appraiser'S Argument for Valuation, Item 1, quote, 'with im- proved waterfront lot sales, buyers often consider how the house is situated to take advantage of the view as well as the perimeter desirability. Minor differences in frontage are not a concern unless site quality is enhanced or diminished.' I submit that the site quality of [the] home on Lot 3 has been diminished and ask for a decrease in valuation in this addi- tional area. The situation is this, the homes on Lots 2 and 3 were built early in the project and were placed over 60 feet from the 20 foot plus vertical drop to the beach. The pur- chaser of Lot 4 built his home 20 feet from the vertical drop, over the objections of owners of Lots 2 & 3. The net result is that the entire house of Lot 4 removes any view other than straight ahead and to the left. To the right all a person can see is one huge roof expanse. One of the most enjoyable aspects of living on Hood Canal is the viewing of boats in and out of Pleasant Harbor. This is particularly so on Memo- rial Day, 4th of July, Labor Day and Shrimping Season. It is Board of Equalization Minutes: October 5, 1990 Page: 3 quite disappointing to view some of the sail boats and the large cruisers disappear from your view just as they are close enough to enjoy. The view to the left and right extends over 5 miles across the water to Oak Head and Seabeck, but the view to the right is 50 feet and a roof." Mr. Zier explained that his home is over 60 feet back from the bluff and that the entire house on Lot 4 is in front of his home on Lot 3. Assessor's Testimonv: Jeff Chapman explained that basically his presentation follows along the lines of the information which he prepared and submitted to the Board as exhibits. He stated that Assessor Jack Westerman III inspected the land, but he could not be present for the hearing. He stated that: "Basically the way we've assessed these lots and have his- torically assessed them is on a site basisa We've assessed every lot at the same value. All of these lots are improved sites with the exceptions of Lots 10 and 11, which have trail- er covers and, our information has, have full utilities in- stalled. We have considered that land of equal value at this pointe Most plats we assessed on a per site basis if the waterfront lots are relatively uniform. Here you do have dif- ferences in frontage varying everywhere from 53 front feet up to 110 front feet, but if you'll notice, because of the differences in depth and the road frontage, that many times the lots that have greater water front parcels are offset by the fact that they have lesser depth and are angled lots and they have less road frontage. Waterfront usually carries the greatest weight, but I think, all things considered, we couldn't establish enough of differences to really justify dealing out on a water front basis and then adjusting down for angles for say, Lot 1 to 14, and other types of site qualities. The smallest lots, as far as, in my opinion, in overall areas and size and all things weighed, would be Lot II, which isn't under appeal. It's one of the ones that have a trailer cover, and Mr. Zier's lot, Lot 3. Primarily because part of that lot had been sold to Lot 2 a while back, which took away some of the area. The way we came up with our values, again, like I say, this is the third time around at least, I don't have prior information for more than 1982, from part of 1982, but we've been assessing all of these on equal value. And we based our current valuation on the sales of Lot 1 and Lot 9." It was previously noted that all the lots have water and There aren't any bare land sales to use as comparables. and 9 are both improved land sales. power. Lot 1 Board of Equalization Minutes: October 5, 1990 Page: 4 Assessor's Comparables: Comparable #1: Lot 1 sold in November 1988 for $125,000, currently assessed at $109,595 (well under the sales price and using the same land value established for the subject lots). comparable #2: Lot 9 sold in February 1990 for $130,000, currently assessed at $100,215 (well under sales price and using the same land value established for the subject lots). Mr. Chapman has explained that the land value can only be deter- mined by abstraction in these cases, which is to take out the value of the improvements from the sales prices. Mr. Chapman also explained the valuations (as provided in verbatim testimony pages 2 - 4, Minutes of October 3, 1990; BOE: 90-060-R). Assessor's Exhibits: Exhibit #I: Area Map. Exhibit #II: Plat Map of Pleasant Harbor. Exhibit #III: Computer Fieldsheet for Subject Parcel. EXHIBIT #IV: Two page Memorandum dated October 2, 1990 from Assessment Operations Manager Jeff Chapman regarding the basis of evaluation on the subject property. EXHIBIT IV: Real Estate Excise Tax Form for Comparable #1 (discussed above). (See BOE: 90-060-R file) EXHIBIT #VI: Real Estate Excise Tax Form for Comparable #2 (discussed above). (See BOE: 90-060-R file) Mr. Chapman stated that his response to the argument that all of the subject lots should be valued on a waterfront basis is: "Yes, we do do acreage on a waterfront basis and there are a few plats that we do. Usually if there's a great unevenness between different lot sizes. All the plats in this area we did on a site basis, and we feel justified in doing that because once the site is improved, it's often hard to tell that the waterfront distance makes that much of a difference if it's only ten, fifteen feet. In this case, we felt when you con- sider all the different factors, that there was no reason to have a different value on each of these. As far as if we did do it on a waterfront basis, there's no real indication that a Board of Equalization Minutes: October 5, 1990 Page: 5 problem is that the appellant's property is over-assessed, but rather, you could argue, from basis of these sales, that the larger frontage pieces are under-assessed. 50 even if we did do it on a waterfront basis, this is not necessarily going to be to the appellant's benefit, but may indeed raise some of the other properties up. However, we still stand by that our argument is, all things considered that they balance out each other and basically we're justified at having all these lots on at the same price. As part of the appellant's argument about the setback, it doesn't particularly surprise me that that may indeed be the case, and that may indeed affect the value. I can't testify one way or the other, because I haven't seen it. But it may indeed limit the value on that property if, indeed, the house on Lot 4 is within 20 feet of the bank and on [Lot] three it's set back. It may indeed be something that should limit the value there. Lot 4, which belongs to Mr. Martin, actually sold for more than current value, when he bought it for more than current value, that was more than five years back. And so, I'm not using that as a sale, but that may, but reflecting the differences between what Mr. Zier had ori- ginally paid, and Mr. Martin, I feel it's probably right, for a number of reasons Lot 3 is indeed, probably worth a little less than number four, partially because of house location, partially because of the sale of part of the property of Lot 2, if anything, as far as location or size requirements, I could see adjusting Mr. Zier's lot down by five percent or ten percent. I cannot see adjusting any of the others down, except perhaps Lot 11, again because of it's size, and 10 and 11 because of possibly the fact that you couldn't build a house on those. I don't know. You really don't know what the limitations are on those properties, and those owners did not appeal. I guess that's all I have to say about these." Mr. Chapman stated that he can't really determine the impact of the setback until he views the property. Petitioner's Response: Mr. Zier asked to add a point of clarific- ation regarding what Mr. Chapman said about the sale of that "triangled" portion on Lot 3: "The reason that happened is when the house on Lot 2 was constructed, somebody goofed on the survey and the end of the house ended up across the line, actually on Lot 3. And the two original owners, being very close friends why, just a matter of, to make it legal, he sold off that corner to Lot 2. So that gets back again to surveys and how important all these lot lines and everything are." Board of Equalization Minutes: October 5, 1990 Page: 6 Petitioner's Exhibit: Exhibit #1: Two page written presentation to Board of Equalization: October 5, 1990. Board Action: The Board took this petition under advisement and explained the on-site inspection process to Mr. Zier as an on-site will be conducted before a determination is made. WINJE, William & Ethel 15927 NE 41st street Redmond, WA 98052 BOE: 90-058-LO PN: 988 200 206 Jeff Chapman was present on behalf of the Assessor's Office. Chairman Dalgleish explained the hearing process to Mr. and Mrs. winje and swore them in for testimony. Leqal Description: This property is described as Pleasant Harbor, Block 2, Lot 6 and is listed as Tax District 441, Land Use Code 9100, and Neighborhood Code 1220. There are building restrictions on the property and there is a 50% reduction for limited utility. The base rate for this unimproved lot was $15,000 x -50% = $7,500 valuation. Assessed Valuation: Land only: $ 7,500 Improvements: NONE Total Valuation: 7,500 Land Only: $ 3,500 Improvements: NONE Total Valuation: 3,500 Petitioner ReQUest: Petitioner's Testimony: Mrs. winje explained that the lot is her son's lot, and according to the Health Laws of the state of Washington or Jefferson county, her son is in a position of having a lot that cannot be sold because it is one lot and as she understands it, a well or septic system cannot be placed on one lot. It was noted that her son has not applied for a septic system. She stated that the rumor going around the tracts was that you had to have at least two lots to get a septic system. Mrs. Winje considers the lot unbuildable. Board of Equalization Minutes: October 5, 1990 ~e: 7 Assessor's Response: Jeff Chapman noted that a septic system was applied for in the past, but not by Mrs. Winje's son. He ex- plained that there was a Health Department letter sent to her neighbors who owned the adjacent lot, Mr. and Mrs. Herod, on August 14, 1980, stating that a minimum of two or more lots were needed for septic approval. The letter explained that although the Herod's did not meet the minimum size with one lot for a septic system, that the new owners of Lots 4 and 5 (combined for a total of 16,400 square feet) would receive septic approval. Assessor's Testimony: Jeff Chapman explained that there are basically nine lots in Block 2 with Lots 1 and 3 being built on, complete with a home and all utilities. Lot 2, which belongs to Mr. zier, has all utilities installed. Lots 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 are all unimproved. Lots 8 and 9 have belonged to one owner, therefore it is considered a two lot site. Lots 4, 5, 6, and 7 have been owned by different owners up to this time. The 1986 valuation of Lots 4, 5, 6, and 7 was $3,500 per lot, which included a 50 percent reduction from $7,000 which was the base rate. Lots 4, 5, 6, and 7 all have a semi-view around the houses of the waterfront, so they are considered at least fair view lots. Assessor Jack Westerman thought that all the lots have a base value of $15,000; however, he did apply a 50 percent reduction to Lots 4, 5, 6, and 7 due to the septic and utility problems. This brought the basic value of these lots up from $3,500 to $7,500. Lots 8 and 9 which can be built on as owned by one owner, was given a reduction because it is a large site. Jeff Chapman stated that he did speak with a representative of Johnston Realty about the problems with these properties, and there was a listing for both Mr. Herod (Lot 4) and Mr. Rath (Lot 5). The two owners got together and listed their property in conjunction with each other to make a site. Johnston Realty handled both sales simultaneously and $17,000 was offered for both lots, each being contingent on the other. Lot 4 (which has a road into it) sold for $9,000 and Lot 5 sold for $8,000; both were assessed at $7,500 each. It is his contention that a two lot site is worth $17,000, especially large lots. Mr. Chapman believes that Lots 1, 2, and 3 are worth $15,000 each as they are buildable and that the remaining lots are worth $17,000 as two lot sites (as the combined land is larger). He also stated that Lots 8 and 9 are over-valued at $22,000 and that these lots should be valued at $17,000. Mr. Chapman thinks that Lots 4 and 5 are worth at least $7,500 each since, despite what these lots were previously valued at, now they are owned by the same owner and a reduction isn't warranted as they sold for more than they are assessed at. The purchaser has bought a buildable site. Board of Equalization Minutes: October 5, 1990 Page: 8 Mr. Chapman's opinion is that although Lots 6 and 7 are owned by individual owners, they could get $7,500 for these lots if the owners got together and either sold the lots together or sold one of the lots to the other owner. The low end of value is con- sidered $3,500 a lot and the high end of value is considered to be between $7,500 and $8,000 a lot. Jeff Chapman doesn't recommend lowering Lots 4 and 5 because they are selling to a single buyer for what they are assessed at. He believes it is unreasonable to expect Lot 6 and Lot 7 to sell for $7,500 as the sale would be contingent on the sale of the adjacent lot, therefore he recommends a reduction to around $5,000 a lot on Lots 6 and 7. He noted that on Block 3, across the highway, Johnston Realty is listing Lots 3 and 4 at $9,000 plus for each lot, but they need to be sold as one site. Petitioner's Response: Mrs. Winje noted that they attempted to put in a well but were not able to and that a potential buyer wasn't interested in purchasing the subject property when he heard what the sales prices were in the vicinity. Assessor's Exhibits: Exhibit #1: A Plat identifying the location of the subject lot. Exhibit #2: A listing of the Assessor's Valuations of all the lots in Block 2 in 1986 and 1990. Comparison values. Exhibit #3: Computer Fieldsheet for subject property. Exhibit #4: Two page Memorandum from Jeff Chapman (Appraiser) regarding the Appeals of Pleasant Harbor Block 2 Lots (LTS 4 & 6). Board Action: The Board took this petition under advisement and will conduct an on-site inspection before making a determination. WINJE, Henry 1437A Bellevue Way HE Bellevue, WA 98004 BOE: 90-059-R PN: 988 200 108 Mr. Chapman was present on behalf of the Assessor's Office. Chairman Dalgleish waived swearing in Mr. and Mrs. Winje again as they were sworn in for testimony for the previous hearing on BOE: 90-058-LO. Board of Equalization Minutes: October 5, 1990 Page: 9 Leqal Description: This property is described as Pleasant Harbor, Block 1, Lot 8 at 441 Pleasant Harbor Road. The Tax District is 441, the Land Use Code is 1100, and the Neighborhood Code is 1220. The land is considered improved medium bank with a good marine view on clear, sloping land. This improved waterfront lot is valued at $55,000 with one improved site valued at $2,500. The improvements consist of a home of fair quality in average condition with 600 square feet, an 184 square foot deck, and stairs to the beach front. The petition lists the building as a 30' x 20' cabin on wood posts that isn't winterized and also listed a "small outhouse". The property was purchased in 1962. 1986 Assessed Valuation: Land Only: $ 36,000 Improvements: 18.260 Total Valuation: 54,260 Land Only: $ 57,500 Improvements: 20.370 Total Valuation: 77,870 Land Only: $ 36,000 Improvements: 18.260 Total Valuation: 54,260 1990 Assessed Valuation: Petitioner ReQUest: Petitioner's Testimony: Mr. winje stated on the petition that: "When this lot was bought it was priced according to waterfront footage which I understand is typical of waterfront property. All the lots in this development have been assessed at 57,500 irregardless of waterfront footage. I do not think our lot should be assessed as [sic] the same as those of greater footage such as (100' - 94' - 74')". Mrs. winje explained that her sister originally purchased this lot and the sale price was based on waterfront footage and the size, or depth, or angle had nothing to do with the cost. She stated that now the County says the property value shouldn't be based on waterfront footage. Mrs. Winje thinks that when there are advertisements in the newspaper, the first thing mentioned is waterfront footage. She asked: Why would our property go over $958 a front foot, when an 86 foot lot only goes for $868 a front foot, and an 110 front foot lot is valued at $522 a waterfront foot? Depth or waterfront, which brings in the most money? Board of Equalization Minutes: October 5, 1990 Page: 10 Assessor's Testimony: Jeff Chapman noted that Mrs. winje received a Memorandum from him explaining the basis of valuation on her property. He stated that the petitioner is requesting the 1986 value of $36,000 on the land valuation and $18,260 on the improvement valuation. He explained that in four years the housing and building costs have gone up along with the depreciation value on the house. Although the house is depre- ciated more, replacement costs are higher, so the valuation of the house went up. Jeff Chapman reported the method of valuation to Mr. and Mrs. winje, citing that the basis of site valuation is appropriate and in conformity with how other plats are valued. He presented the same basis of valuation and information as utilized in Mr. Zier's petition (BOE: 90-066-LO, Minutes of 10/5/90), Mr. Martin's petition (BOE: 90-060-R, Minutes of 10/3/90), and Mr. Leslie's petition (BOE: 90-061-R, Minutes of 10/3/90). It was previously noted that all the lots have water and power. There aren't any bare land sales to use as comparables. Lot 1 and 9 are both improved land sales. Assessor's Comparables: comparable #1: Lot 1 sold in November 1988 for $125,000, currently assessed at $109,595 (well under the sales price and using the same land value established for the subject lots). Comparable #2: Lot 9 sold in February 1990 for $130,000, currently assessed at $100,215 (well under sales price and using the same land value established for the subject lots). Mr. Chapman has explained that the land value can only be deter- mined by abstraction in these cases, which is to take out the value of the improvements from the sales prices. Mr. Chapman also explained the valuations (as provided in verbatim testimony pages 2 - 4, Minutes of October 3, 1990; BOE: 90-060-R). Board of Equalization Minutes: October 5, 1990 Page: 11 Assessor's Exhibits: Exhibit #I: Area Map. Exhibit #II: Plat Map of Pleasant Harbor. Exhibit #III: Computer Fieldsheet for Subject Parcel. EXHIBIT #IV: Two page Memorandum dated October 2, 1990 from Jeff Chapman (Appraiser) regarding Appeals of Pleasant Harbor Waterfront Lots (BLK 1, LTS 3, 4, 6, 7, & 8). EXHIBIT Iv: Real Estate Excise Tax Form for Comparable #1 (discussed above) . EXHIBIT #VI: Real Estate Excise Tax Form for Comparable #2 (discussed above). Mr. Chapman's response to the argument that all of the subject lots should be valued on a waterfront basis is: There is acreage waterfront on a few plats if there's a large discrepancy between lots, but all the plats in the Pleasant Harbor area have been valued on a per site basis with the justification that the difference in waterfront footage is balanced out by other factors such as depth and road access. There isn't any indication that the appellant's property is over-assessed, although it could be considered under- assessed based on comparable sales. The AsseSBorts office believes the current value is justified as well as the method of assessment. Board Action: After further discussion of the details of the subject property, the Board took the petition under advisement and explained that an on-site inspection would be conducted before a decision is made. Ronald Herod P. O. Box 144 Brinnon, WA 98320 BOE: 90-062-LO PN: 502 164 045 Jeff Chapman was present on behalf of the Assessor's Office. Chairman Dalgleish explained the hearing process to Mr. and Mrs. Herod and swore them in for testimony for this petition as well as petitions BOE: 90-063-R, BOE: 90-064-LO, and BOE: 90-065-R. Board of Equalization Minutes: October 5, 1990 Page: 12 Leaal Description: This 5.30 acre property is described as S16 T25N R2W TAX 42 (West of Jupiter Trail Road), listed as Tax District 441, Land Use Code 9100, and Neighborhood Code 1240. This unimproved acreage is rated at $4,500 an acre with a -15% adjustment for a partial gully through the property (5.30 acres x $4,500 x +85% = $20,723 rounded up to $20,275). Assessed Valuation: Land Only: $ 20,275 Improvements: NONE Total Valuation: 20,275 Land only: $ 10,000 Improvements: NONE Total Valuation: 10,000 Petitioner ReQUest: Petitioner's Testimony: Mrs. Herod explained that there is only one buildable site near a creek and that the other topography of this property are too steep to do anything with. She noted that there isn't much room for building on this site as there is a creek and there are building restrictions regarding how far you have to be from the creek to do any building. Mr. Herod stated on the petition that the asking price for the property was $18,500 [Johnston Realty for over two years] which was "wishful thinking - no offers" and that: "Prior assessed value should have been appealed years ago as former buyer sold off the desirable part of the property (formerly 7 1/2 acres), logged it, then turned it back leaving acreage that is not accessible due to steepness (grade) on west side, and east side is unusable due to steepness. Only useable property is in center section, scarcely enough for one building site." No comparable properties were listed or presented, however an exhibit was included which is a letter offering the adjoining property for $12,000, which Mr. Herod deemed to be "far more useable property". Mrs. Herod noted that the asking price of $18,500 is an attempt to "recoup what money we've got into" the property. The Herod's believe the asking price is too high and stated that the listing will be dropped soon since no one has been interested in their property. She also explained that, if the property were to sell, after negotiations and real estate commissions, they'd receive much less than $18,500. Board of Equalization Minutes: October 5, 1990 Page: 13 Petitioner's Exhibit: Exhibit #I: Letter to Mr. Herod with attached map and easement papers, dated February 12, 1990, from Port Ludlow Property Sales Associate, Land Division, Edwin E. Adams [note, not signed]. Adjacent property offered for $12,000. Exhibit #II: Map of the tax lots in the area showing subject property and the property for sale, Tax 35. Exhibit #III: A recorded easement of the subject property, Number 229982. Exhibit #IV: A second recorded easement of the subject property, Number 298546. Assessor's Response: Jeff Chapman stated that the Herods pur- chased the property in 1979 for $22,500. Petitioner's Testimony - continued: Mrs. Herod explained that the property is not the same size it was in 1979. Purchasers (who let the Herod's take back the property left) sold some of the land. Assessor's ReSDonse: Jeff Chapman explained that the Herods sold the property in January 1984 for $33,500 and the new owners then sold off a 1.70 acre portion of the property in May 1984, and then they forfeited the remainder back to the Herods after logging the timber off the land. Petitioner's Testimonv - continued: Mr. and Mrs. Herod confirmed that they are basing their petition on the topography of the land and the building restrictions, due to the creek, which means they can do very little with the property. Assessor's Testimony: Jeff Chapman noted that he had "aerials" to use. He explained that the issue has become a question of topography and view. He explained that there is a sign on the property and it is listed at $18,500, which is below the current assessed valuation. When he walked the property from the north, he found a potential, narrow building site up against Mount Jupiter Road (a "skid" road). The utilization of this site for building would entail a lot of grading. He stated that a water view is not possible from this property, although a partial mountain, or at least a territorial view. Board of Equalization Minutes: October 5, 1990 Page: 14 Jeff Chapman stated that after walking the parcels to the north and south of the property, he feels that the valuation is too high on the subject parcel. The land to the north is a better piece of land with a water view from the upper quarter of the property, and two building sites [listed with Windemere Realty for about $37,000 and valued by the Assessor at $30,000]. Mr. Chapman stated that the parcel west of the road [Tax 4~] is currently valued at $20,195 and it is virtually identical to the subject property in value, and yet it is a much nicer piece of property. Jeff Chapman also noted that [Tax 35) the property in the Petitioner's Exhibit #1 (above) which is offered for sale by Port Ludlow Realty for $12,000 in February 1990, does have a site near a road and a semi-view of the water. The main problem with this property is that the owner would need to find some way to get a graded road into the property as there is a "steep cut bank" and some of the adjacent property might be needed to accomplish this. He explained that by state Court ruling, what a purchaser would pay is the valid price of the property, not what the seller would net in a sale. Therefore, the value includes real estate commis- sions. It's what a purchaser is willing to pay for that proper- ty. He doesn't belieye there are many purchasers willing to pay $18,500 for the property, but he doesn't believe that it is worth as low as the $10,000 the petitioner is requesting. Jeff Chapman stated that the ravine doesn't really hurt Tax 35 as much as the 30% adjustment allows, but it seriously affects Tax 42, the subject property, upon which a 15% adjustment was given. Although Tax 41 is seriously affected by the ravine, the good view offsets this. Jeff Chapman recommended that a 35% reduction be given, instead of a 15% adjustment, for the ravine on Tax 42. This adjustment would bring the valuation down to $15,500. He explained that his recommendation may be a little high, but it is based on equity. Petitioner's Response: Mrs. Herod stated that she doesn't believe the property would sell at that value, and that although Tax 35 is valued at $16,980, she thinks that since it is available for $12,000 it certainly wouldn't sell for the assessed valuation, therefore, she doesn't believe the property is worth that much. Mrs. Herod noted that the easements could be con- sidered a detriment to the value of the property. Assessor's Testimony - continued: Jeff Chapman noted that the $12,000 valuation is not offered on the open market at this time and that he hasn't verified the letter. Board of Equalization Minutes: October 5, 1990 Page: 15 Assessor's Exhibits: Exhibit #1: Topography map of general Duckabush area, including subject area. Exhibit #2: Map of tax lots including subject property. Exhibit #3: Computer Fieldsheet for subject, Tax 42. Exhibit #4: Computer Fieldsheet for Tax 35. Exhibit #5: Computer Fieldsheet for Tax 41. Board Action: The Board decided to take this petition under advisement. An on-site inspection will be conducted before a decision is made. Ronald Herod P. O. Box 144 Brinnon, WA 98320 BOE: 90-063-R PN: 502 112 011 Jeff Chapman was present on behalf of the Assessor's Office. Chairman Dalgleish had previously sworn Mr. and Mrs. Herod in for testimony and explained the hearing process to them. Leqal Description: This .60 acre property is described as Sll T25 R2W TAX 7 and is subject to an easement. It is listed as being in Tax District 441 with Land Use Code 5900 and Neighbor- hood Code 1220. The land consists of one site at $7,500 and site improvements of $1,500 for a total land value of $9,000. The improvements, consisting of a garage, are not under appeal. 1986 Assessed Valuation: Land Only: $ 6,000 Improvements: 5,000 Total Valuation: 11,990 Land Only: $ 4,990 Improvements: 9,000 Total Valuation: 13,990 Land Only: $ 6,000 Improvements: 4.990 Total Valuation: 10,990 1990 Assessed Valuation: Petitioner ReQUest: Board of Equalization Minutes: October 5, 1990 Page: 16 Petitioner's Testimony: Mr. Herod stated on the petition that: "Our 350' well is a dry well so we have no water except rain water and none available in the fore- seeable future. OUr situation has not changed since our last appeal." Mrs. Herod stated that there isn't any water on the land, as indicated by the 350 foot dry well that was drilled by Mayberry Driller. A septic system is not operable because of the lack of water. The property is only considered useful for storage and a garden, which uses rain water. A six foot fence has been built to protect the property from further damage by juveniles. Assessor's Testimony: Jeff Chapman stated that the Assessor's Office doesn't have a lot of objections as the value isn't really reflective in this case. He explained that the Assessor Jack Westerman was placing values on the land in the area at about $7,500 for one acre sites. He reported that for a .60 acre parcel Mr. Westerman would have allocated a 25% reduction, although he didn't do so in this case. Jeff Chapman gave the recommendation to reduce the $7,500 base rate valuation by -25% due to size for a value of $5,625 and then to add to that $500 for site improvement, due to the hook-Ups (electricity), to bring the land to the adjusted value of $6,125 leaving the improvement value at $4990 for a total value of $11,115. He noted that this method of adjustment would work within the current system utilized by the Assessor's Office. Assessor's Exhibits: Exhibit #1: Exhibit #2: Location map showing subject parcel. Computer Fieldsheet for subject property. Exhibit #3: Recommendation for reduction in valuation as proposed by the Assessor. Board Action: The Board took the petition under advisement noting that an on-site inspection will be conducted before a determination is made. Board of Equalization Minutes: October 5, 1990 Page: 17 Ronald Herod P. O. Box 144 Brinnon, WA 98320 BOE: 90-064-R PN: 988 200 204 Jeff Chapman was present on behalf of the Assessor's Office. Mr. and Mrs. Herod explained that this petition is withdrawn on Pleasant Harbor, BLK 2, Lot 4, since the lot sold for $9,000 in conjunction with a second lot which sold for $8,000. Board Action: The Board accepted the withdrawal of appeal Boe 90-64-LO. MOTION Vice-Chairman Douglas moved to accept the withdrawal of BOE: 90-064-R, Parcel Number 988 200 204, as of October 5, 1990. Member Archie Barber, Jr., seconded the motion which carried by unanimous yote. HEROD, Emily P. O. Box 144 Brinnon, Washington 98320 BOE: 90-065-R PN: 988 200 106 Jeff Chapman was present on behalf of the Assessor's Office. Chairman Dalgleish had previously sworn Mr. and Mrs. Herod in for testimony and explained the hearing process to them. Leqal Description: This property is described as Pleasant Harbor Block 1, Lot 6 in Tax District 441 with Land Use Code 1100 and Neighborhood Code 1220 sited at 411 Pleasant Harbor Road. The land, which consists of an improved lot of medium bank with a good marine view and clear and sloping topography, is valued at $55,000. The site improvements are valued at $2,500. The improvements consist of a single story, 1,024 square foot mobile home of low(+) quality with a physical depreciation of 37%; a 535 square foot basement which is 20% finished, a porch of 95 square feet, and a deck of 332 square feet valued at $24,507. Additional improvements of a garage, loft, wall, and stairs are valued at $5,480. The method of assessment was as follows: The replacement value of the home is $38,900 x 63% (depreciation 37%) equalling $24,507 plus the additional improvements of $5,480 for a total of $29,987 on the building, plus $55,000 for one water- front lot, and $2,500 for site improvements for a total valuation on this property of $87,485. Board of Equalization Minutes: October 5, 1990 1986 Assessed Valuation: Land Only: Improvements: Total Valuation: Page: 18 $ 36,000 28.960 64,960 $ 57,500 29.985 87,485 $ 41,580 28.960 70,540 1990 Assessed Valuation: Land Only: Improvements: Total Valuation: Petitioner ReQUest: Land Only: Improvements: Total Valuation: Petitioner's Testimony: Mrs. Herod stated on her petition that: "All real estate valuations of waterfront should be based on front footage as that is [the] basis on which property was bought; however, all 60' prop- erties in Pls. Hbr. Blk. 1, Vol. 4 of Plats 42 have been appraised @ $57,500 as well as lots 1, 2, 9, 10, 13 and 14 which have front footages of 70 to 100+ ft. On a front foot basis, the 60' frontage lots should be proportionately appraised @ $41,580. There have been no improvements to [the] property that I can recall." Mrs. Herod explained that the Pleasant Harbor property owners paid $100 a front foot for the waterfront property and that the same ratio should be used now, instead of the per site method of valuation. She stated that those who had more waterfront paid more for their property. The valuation she requested is an approximate ratio which a neighbor figured out by using the larger waterfront properties as a basis. Mr. Herod pointed out that the bank is sloughing off and that his neighbors lost four front feet last year. Assessor's Testimony: Jeff Chapman explained that the Assessor's Office traditionally values plat sites on an acreage basis, and that basic acreage is generally valued on front footage. He noted that if there is a huge inequity between sites in a plat, then front footage may be used instead of sites. Jeff Chapman reported the method of valuation to Mr. and Mrs. Herod, citing that the basis of site valuation is appropriate and in conformity with how other plats are valued. He presented the same basis of valuation and information as utilized in Board of Equalization Minutes: October 5, 1990 Page: 19 Mr. Winje's petition (BOE: 90-059-R, Minutes of 10/5/90), Mr. Martin's petition (BOE: 90-060-R, Minutes of 10/3/90), Mr. Leslie's petition (BOE: 90-061-R, Minutes of 10/3/90), and Mr. Zier's petition (BOE: 90-066-LO, Minutes of 10/5/90). It was previously noted that all the lots have water and power. There aren't any bare land sales to use as comparables. Lot 1 and 9 are both improved land sales. Assessor's Comparables: Comparable #1: Lot 1 sold in November 1988 for $125,000, currently assessed at $109,595 (well under the sales price and using the same land value established for the subject lots). Comparable #2: Lot 9 sold in February 1990 for $130,000, currently assessed at $100,215 (well under sales price and using the same land value established for the subject lots). Mr. Chapman has explained that the land value can only be deter- mined by abstraction in these cases, which is to take out the value of the improvements from the sales prices. Mr. Chapman also explained the valuations (as provided in verbatim testimony pages 2 - 4, Minutes of October 3, 1990; BOE: 90-060-R). Assessor's Exhibits: Exhibit #1: Exhibit #2: Exhibit #3: EXHIBIT #4: EXHIBIT #5: EXHIBIT #VI: Area Map. Plat Map of Pleasant Harbor. Computer Fieldsheet for Subject Parcel. Two page Memorandum dated October 2, 1990 from Jeff Chapman (Appraiser) regarding Appeals of Pleasant Harbor Waterfront Lots (ELK 1, LTS 3,4,6, 7, & 8). Real Estate Excise Tax Form for Comparable #2 (discussed above). Real Estate Excise Tax Form for Comparable #1 (discussed above) . Board of Equalization Minutes: October 5, 1990 Page: 20 Mr. Chapman's response to the argument that all of the subject lots should be valued on a waterfront basis is: The justification for assessing these sites on a site basis is that the difference in waterfront footage is balanced out by other factors such as depth and road access. There isn't any indication that the appellant's property is over-assessed, although it could be considered under-assessed based on comparable sales. The Assessor's office believes the current value and method of assessment are justified. He noted that according to the comparables presented, raising the value of the larger lots, with the smaller lots as the base rate, could be a consideration. Board Action: After further discussion of the details of the subject property, the Board took the petition under advisement and explained that an on-site inspection would be conducted before a decision is made. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Vice-Chairman Douglas moved to approve the Minutes of July 23, and 27, 1990 and August 15, 1990 as written. Member Archie Barber, Jr., seconded the motion which carried by unanimous vote. SCHEDULING The Board worked on scheduling an Eagle Habitat hearing for October 26, 1990 and on SCheduling on-site inspections for the dates of October 19, 22, 24, and 29, 1990. The Clerk was in- structed to inform the parties involved of the dates and times when arranged. Board of Equalization Minutes: October 5, 1990 Page: 21 OTHER BUSINESS OF THE BOARD There being no further business before the Board, the meeting adjourned until October 10, 1990 at which time the Board will conduct scheduled hearings. APPROVED BY: DATE APPROVED: ~ f};lqq/ V O~~ A.C.D H, CHAIRMAN ~~ DAVID G. - UGLAS VICE-CHAIRMAN ATTESTED ~'<L :l6~ ~. ARCHIE L. BARBER, JR., MEMB