Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM101790 . JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF EQUAliZATION A. C. DALGLEISH DAVID G. DOUGLAS ARCHIE BARBER, JR. JAMES A. DE LEO CHAIRMAN VICE-CHAIRMAN MEMBER ALTERNATE MINUTES OCT 0 B E R 1 7, 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 T. C. and Carolyn Chawla 10 BayclifT Place Port Townsend, W A 98368 BOE: 90-075-R (New) PN: 965 000 028 Robert Kingsley was present on behalf of the Assessor's Office. Bob Shold was present for purposes of observation. Chairman Dalgleish explained the hearing process and introduced the Board members and Assessor's Staff to Mr. and Mrs. Chawla before swearing them in for testimony. Leeal Description: This property is described as Kala Point Division #3, Lot 170 and is subject to an easement. The property is in Tax District 161, with Land Use Code 1100, and Neighborhood Code 9999. It is sited at 10 Baycliff Place, Port Townsend. The land is high bank waterfront with a good marine view and sloping, wooded topography. The lot is valued at $55,000 and the site improvements are valued at $1,000 for a total land value of $56,000 (not under appeal) for this 23,920 square foot lot which is zoned single family residential. Board of Equalization Minutes: October 17, 1990 Page: 2 The new construction, as verified by Mr. and Mrs. Chawla to Mr. Kingsley, consists of a two story, single family home rated as excellent quality and in excellent condition without any depreciation and considered 100% complete. The home was built in 1989 and is inhabited by Mr. and Mrs. Chawla. The exterior is siding/stucco (lap) with extensive grey brick work on the structure and garage ($10,000 added for the brick work). The roof is of grey tile. There is a concrete perimeter foundation and frame construction on the first floor. There are four bedrooms, three full baths, one half bath (4 toilets, 2 showers, 1 tub/shower). There are four fireplaces with two fireplaces per each two-story high chimney and there is a heat pump. There are built-in appliances consisting of one range/oven, one hood/fan, one dishwasher, one garbage disposal, one trash compactor, one microwave, and an electric garage door. Eighty percent of the home is carpeted with the remaining 20 percent being tiled. The 100% complete house consists of 2,833 square feet on the first floor, and 1,563 square feet on the second floor. There is a basement area of 1,856 square feet of average quality, which is not assessed as complete (the basement will be worked up separately from the house as completion occurs). There is a 45 square foot, concrete front porch, a 982 square foot wooden deck, and an attached garage of 726 square feet, considered very good quality, with siding/stucco (lap) exterior and a tile roof. The interior of the garage is finished. Of the $357,370 the house is assessed at, $10,000 is for the brick work, $172,850 is for the new construction at 100% complete, leaving the base value 2L.$174.520 from the previous valuation, although, according to documentation, the valuation is reflected at $184,520 (Exhibit G). The Chawlas "counter appealed" to the Assessor's staff when they received their original 1990 Assessment for 1991 Taxes form showing a total valuation of $425,040. The valuation was dropped to $413,370. As the Chawlas were not satisfied with the results of the counter appeal, they petitioned the Board of Equalization on September 4, 1990. 1988 Assessed Valuation: Land Only: Improvements: Total Valuation: (pre-land & home improvements) (See Exhibit H - la"d only) 1989 INTERIM Assessed Valuation: (See Exhibit G - new construction) Land Only: Improvements: Total Valuation: 1990 Assessed Valuation: (Pre-Connter Appeal) (See Exhibit 4 - corrected notice) Land Only: Improvements: Total Valuation: $ 55,000 NONE 55,000 $ 56,000 184.520 240,520 $ 56,000 369.040 425,040 Board of Equalization Minutes: October 17, 1990 Page: 3 1990 Assessed Valuation: (Land & home improvements at 100%) (See Exhibits I, 3a, & 4) (After Counter Appeal) Land Only: Improvements: Total Valuation: $ 56,000 357.370 413,370 Petitioner's Request: (See Petition submitted) Land Only: Improvements: Total Valuation: $ 56,000 263.760 319,760 * * *THE FOLLOWING IS A VERBATIM TRANSCRIPTION OF* * * * * *THE CRA W!A'S AND ROBERT KINGSLEY'S TESTIMONY* * * Chainnan Dahdeish: Alright, Mr. and Mrs. Chawla, you may have the floor. Mrs. Chawla: Well, um, if I may, what I'd like to do is just briefly read to you the letter that we attached to the petition form to the Board first, and then also a letter from, from our builder. Chairman Dahdeish: You may, you may, Mrs. Yes, you may. Alright, you may read it into the record. Mrs. Chawla: Okay, um, Dear Members of the Board: The construction on the above listed property was started in 1988 and completed in 1989. Upon receiving the Real Change-oj-Value Notice for 1991 taxes from the assessor's office, mailed on 8/09/90. we went to the assessor's office to ask for an explanation of how they arrived at the assessed value of the property. At that time we discovered that they had assessed the house as having an entirely masonry exterior. However, we informed the appraiser that this was not correct, as only the front is. brick veneer. The appraiser, Mr. Robert Kingsley, revised the assessment to reflect this and reduced the building value by $11,670. We still felt that the Real Property Change..of.Notice Valuation, corrected as shown, ah, corrected one. mailed on 8122/90 does not fairly reflect the value of the property. Upon questioning as to how he arrived at the assessed value of the property Mr. Kingsley informed us that when he appraises new construction he: Goes for the Max, if his assessment is not questioned he feels he has undervalued the property. We pressed for an explanation for the methodology he utilized to arrive at the assessed value. He explained that the various qualities of construction are divided into six categories. The rates given in the, ah, are 1988 rates. However, these values must be raised six percent for each year after 1988. And then the 1988 rates at low was [$] 26.03 per square foot up to excellent at [$] 66.69. In addition, urn, several different costs have to be added, for example: Carpeting had to add $4.46 per square foot, for tiled floor $8.27 per square foot, for a tile roof you would subtract $1.30 per square foot. Plumbing fixtures, they have a base of seventeen, and any in addition, over seventeen will be an additional $1,275 for each fixture, over seventeen. For the fireplace one would have to add between $4.425 and $5 ,800 each. The heat pump, the built in appliances, etcetera, etcetera, the deck and the garage. And then, upon inquiring which quality of construction has he classified our home, he replied: Excellent. We also inquired about the assessed values of two of the neighboring homes located on the same cui de sac. Next door. on lot 171 Kala Point Division 3, owned by the Renfros, and the other on lot 172 Kala Point Division 3, owned by the lindemans. We also asked what quality of construction they have used in assessing these two properties. The quality of construction of the Renfros' home on lot 171 is classified as: Vel)' Good. And the lindeman's home as: Very Good minus. We questioned him as to why he has classified the quality of construction of our home as excellent, whereas our next door neighbor Renfro's, located on lot 171 Kala Point Division 3, is classified as very good, when the same builder KED-TER Construction, Inc. has built both homes. We always had believed that the quality of construction in both homes were identical.- The builder has used the same materials, same subcontractors and consequently the Board of Equalization Minutes: October 17, 1990 Page: 4 Mrs. Chawla - Continued: construction qualities are identical. The attached letter from the president of KED-TER Construction, Inc. attests to our claim. And then, we also attached, urn, the sheets on those three homes with the original letter. The qualities of construction, those were as follows: On Lot 71 [Lot 172], Lindeman's that was very good minus; evaluated the land value on all three homes as identical, it's [$] 56,000 on all three of them. But on Lindeman's very good minus quality, that worked out at $53.37 per square foot. Next door to us, on the Renfro's, of the very good quality category, theirs worked out at $66.55 per square foot. And then, off on one lot, 170, worked out at $81.30 per square foot. Mr. Kingsley further stated that when he visited the home to appraise it during construction he saw that we had a curved stailway and that he talked to the dry wall hanger, who said that it was a difficult house to dry wall and that the person who hung some of the dry wall did a bad job and that he had to rehang some of the dry wall parts, parts of the dry wall himself. I am sure that you would agree that any workman who's worth his salt is going to brag about his work. Since Mr. Kingsley's stated goal is to go for the max, which of course he has in assessing our property, we must very seriously question his fairness and subjective judgement, colored by his stated goal, in appraising our property knowing fully well that the two properties are built by the same builder. One cannot help but feel victimized by this attitude on the part of the assessors' office. Nobody objects to paying a fair share of ones taxes to maintain the services for the community and the local government. However, it must be fair and bear some relation to what other members of the community are paying. We therefore petition that the quality of construction be reclassified as Very Good to match the classification of Mr. Renfro's home, on the basis that it was built by the same builder who has attested to the fact that the qualities of construction are identical. Allowance must also be made for the fact that our home is a two storey construction as compared to Mr. Renfro's home which is single level construction. As you well know, a two storey home costs less to build per square foot than a single storey home. If we use this as the basis, the assessed value per square foot must lie somewhere between $5337 per square foot (the assessed value of the two storey home on lot 172), up to $66.55 per square foot (the assessed value of the one storey home located on lot 171). We propose that $60.00 per square foot should be a reasonable compromise and a fair assessment value. Based on this assessed value per square foot, we believe the assessed value of the house on lot 170 should be $263,760. Mr. Chawla: This is without the land. Mrs. Chawla: That's without the land. That's the improvements. Chairman Daleleish: Yes. Mrs. Chawla: And then I have here a copy urn, of the letter from KED-TER Construc- tion, the President, which is the builder, of ah, our house. And this is addressed to the Board: Dear Board Members, this is to state that I was the builder and contractor for the Renfro's home on lot 171 in Kala Point Division 3 and also for the home next door for the Chawla's on lot 170 in Kala Point Division 3. I have employed the same subcontractors to build both homes. I have used the same materials and achieved the same finish on all details. The only differences in materials is the cement roof tiles and the brick veneer on the front of the Chawla's residence, with the added difference that the Chawla's residence is a two-storey home and the Renfro's home is a single level home. I hope the above information will be useful to you in arriving at a fair assessment value for the Chawla's residence. Sincerely, Joe Tweter, President Chairman Daleleish: Any questions from the Board at this time? Vice-Chairman Douelas: What was the figure that you quoted as being the, urn, cost per square foot for your house? Mrs. Chawla: Urn, that was $81.30. Board of Equalization Minutes: October 17, 1990 Page: 5 Mr. Chawla: That is a the, the (interrupted). Mrs. Chawla: The ah, the improvements. Mr. Chawla: That improvement [is] assessed value. Vice-Chairman Doualas: Yes. Mrs. Chawla: That's the assessed value, and that does not include the lot. None of those figures do. Mr. Chawla: Why don't we give a copy of this, if we have it for them. Mrs. Chawla: Yeah. Sure. Mr. Chawla: So they have those figures in front of them. It is pretty hard to remember the figures. Mrs. Chawla: Let me give you this one, that one's got markings on it. Vice-Chairman Doualas: Oh, okay. Chairman Dalaleish: Mr. Kingsley. Mr. Robert Kinaslev: Okay, ah, it sounds to me that, that ah, a matter of the appellants believing that the quality of their home is different from how I graded it. Okay. Urn, on or about August 17th, after they came in for the counter appeal when I lowered the value due to the ah, masonry correction. I called and asked if I could get another look at the house since ah, the first time I was there it was about, it was under construction, some- where around fifty percent or less. And then, when I went back for the new construction in 1990 no one was home, so I could kind of just peek in the windows. I was denied the appointment. They stated that I would just want to raise it up even higher. Urn, and then, the other thing I was curious about with this contractor that you have with KED-TER Construction: Do you have a copy of your contract price? Your original contract with the builder? That might shed some light on, you know, what it costs to build. Mr. Chawla: I do believe that's personal, what we've, what we paid him or not. I would not. I think it's in our right not to assist you in any way to come out with any price at all. Because it's up to you to do your research, and I, and I think we would not assist you, in fact we would not even allow you to enter the house, because that, ah, it appears to be within our right to be able to do that. Mr. Robert Kinaslev: I have nothing further to add. Chairman Dalaleish: Okay. Board of Equalization Minutes: October 17, 1990 Page: 6 Vice-Chairman Doul!las: Ah, question. Did you say that you had a review of the evaluation and the main adjustment on the ah. Mr. Robert Kinl!slev: Right. Vice-Chairman Doul!las: Okay, when was that? August 15th? Mr. Robert Kinl!slev: Ah, the, since the change date to the counter appeal was August 17th, so it was right around that date. Vice-Chairman Doul!las: Okay, and, and, ah, are the figures, the [$] 357,370 a result of that change? Or, was. Mr. Robert Kinl!slev: Right. The result of the change. Vice-Chairman Doul!las: That is the, okay. Mr. Robert Kinl!slev: Most people, they ah, paid less than what I have it assessed at. They don't hesitate to bring forth the contract to prove the point. That's all I want to say. Mr. Chawla: Ah, that. Yeah, the point is ah, the, the real cost is not what's in the contract, you know, some of it we paid materials. Ah, so you really not likely to know what the real cost is because we don't have all the details together. We paid as we went along, and some of the was the cost, you know, so, so they're not likely to know what the real cost is. And, furthermore, I believe it's within our right, Board can tell us differently. Ah, the ah, we do not have to help you in any way, in arriving at the real cost, of what it is. Mr. Robert Kinl!Slev: That's true. Mr. Chawla: So, what, you know, why you asking us our help if it help you to raise our taxes? Mr. Robert Kinl!slev: Oh, you paid more then? Mr. Chawla: No, I didn't say I paid more than that, I said what you really want to do is to have us help you in every way (interrupted). Mr. Robert Kinl!sIev: I, I want you to help prove that you, that I should lower it. That's all I want. Mr. Chawla: What, we, we. You. Chairman Dall!leish: Alright. Gentlemen. We're not getting anywhere this way. Does the Board have any questions at this time? Board of Equalization Minutes: October 17, 1990 Page: 7 Vice-Chairman Doul!las: Um, do we have the copy of your ah, computer thing that we've been passing back and forth? Chairman Daleleish: Thank you. Member Archie Barber, Jr.: Are these copies for the Board Members also? Mr. Chawla: Yes. Chairman Dall!leish: You certainly will have one. Ah, are these all the same, has everybody got, or are these three different? Mr. Robert Kinl!slev: Those are the same. Chairman Daleleish: Well, do you folks have anything further to say? Mrs. Chawla: Well, I think it was interesting, um, we did a little bit of research on this, and we, you know, found an interesting thing. What we did was we went through and looked at all the properties at Kala Point. And we worked out a chart [Petitioner's Exhibit 31, what we did was we went through and got the um, price per square foot. Chairman Dall!leish: Have you got one of those for the Assessor? Mrs. Chawla: Yeah. Um, of every home. And it, it was interesting to look at the way these wrote down, which is in the different categories. And, as you can see, the majority of the homes lie in the average plus, good minus, good um, categories with four in fair, which happened to be the lowest category and this is the quality um, at Kala Point. And only three in the excellent category. Um, one of the three had, was ah, a home that was sold on the, on the market, and so that, those figures were obviously available to the Assessor's Office. And the other two were, urn, homes that had, you know been built for the individual privately, and ah, are being lived in. One of them happens to be ours. And um, these three homes, I don't know what it is affects the prices of these when they go out, but it seems that the entry on these three homes is a little different. Ah, we're from the mid-west. We moved here from the mid-west. And, you know, we're both under fifty-five so we put our money in the house so we wouldn't have to pay capital gain at this point. And ah, we're used to the brick from the mid-west, and of course, brick is very cheap in the mid-west so that's what we used. And here, lumber's cheaper. And, that's why the rest of the house is lumber. But it, and I may be entirely wrong, but it seems that it's the impression that the front of the house gives. Now ours is two storey, with a brick over the front door, and I think it gives, well, I think it gives a nice impres- sion, but I am prejudiced. And the other two homes have interesting entrances, that are in the excellent category. And I don't know if that is what is swaying this or not. And um, another point, I, you know, I don't really like to bring it up, but it, it seems to me, you know, that um, one of these people was a Californian, and ah, they are more comfortable paying the high prices in the area because they had received a substantial Board of Equalization Minutes: October 17, 1990 Page: 8 Mrs. Chawla - Continued: capital gains from the property they have sold. The other two of us happen to be, foreigners, happen to be naturalized citizens, Indian and Chinese. And urn, I don't know, I, I just get a funny feeling about that, and I hope I'm wrong on that point. But I think it was interesting in the way these broke down in that, that just these three went on, you know the slightly different entrances, that, if you go through Kala Point they are different. Mr. Robert Kinl!slev: They're, they're also bigger homes, so. Mrs. Chawla: I'm sorry. They're bigger homes, but my feeling is we shouldn't be paying for a bigger home because we're paying per square foot. And, whether it's a small rebuilt home or big beautiful built home, then you're paying for that. And just because something's bigger doesn't mean that those people, you know, okay they have the money to pay for that but it doesn't mean they have an unlimited checking, you know, hope it didn't give that impression. Chairman Dall!leish: Thank you. Any questions to the Board? Vice-Chairman Dou21as: Ah, for the record, Dierdrei [aerk D. Keegan], we have, ah, three exhibits from the Petitioner, exhibit one is a letter, which was read into the Minutes. Exhibit two is the construction company letter, and exhibit three is the ah, information on the ah, square footage in Kala Point homes, cost per square foot. And, the Assessor's exhibit consists of the computer data sheet which shows how the assessed valuation was determined. Chairman Dall!ieish: Any further questions? Memher Archie Barber. Jr.: Ah, I ask, for Robert, ah, do comparables, sales, have any bearing on new construction appraisals? Mr. Robert Kinl!slev: Ah, that's ah, that brings up a good point. They ah, are com- paring, these are nineteen, ah, 1987 rates [indicating chart: Petitioner's Exhibit #3], where their house, being new construction goes in on 1989 rates. Nineteen eighty nine [1989] rates per square foot are, you know, higher than 1986 rates, so it's very difficult to compare a new construction home under a 1989 rate with existing homes that are under a different table year for the base rate. So, this thing here is irrelevant to anything, in my mind. Member Archie Barber. Jr.: These are eighty six [1986] rates? Mr. Robert Kinl!slev: Ah, well, when did we do Kala Point? Let's see. Mrs. Chawla: It says here, the year eighty eight [1988]. Mr. Robert Kinl!slev: Okay. Table year eighty eight [1988], okay. And they came in table year eighty nine [1989]. So there, there's a small percentage difference. Board of Equalization Minutes: October 17, 1990 Page: 9 Mrs. Chawla: What kind of rate? Mr. Robert Kinl!slev: I would guess about six percent, something. Mrs. Chawla: If I may also point out that the two other homes, other than ours, in the excellent category, were finished, moved into after our home. So I assume, that they are in the same table as our home, in the excellent category. Mr. Robert Kinl!slev: Probably, yeah. Mrs. Chawla: It's there so I can, ah. Mr. Chawla: And also, our contract was signed in 1988, and, with a very depressed, ah, construction business at that time. Ah, the builders were really, ah, jockeying hard to be able to get the contract, ah, we had a three, three bids of (indiscernible) different (indiscernible), the one that we accepted, naturally, was the lowest bid. Ah, those, those at the time were the lowest of; it's really the cost of what we have paid, the cost at that time ranges from, from almost $50 to $70. Ah, correct me if I'm wrong, at that time. And so, and we hear the add, the assessed value is coming off of the (indiscernible). Um, way beyond what was the prevalent cost at that time. People, were, the builders were charging, you know. They were charging from fifty odd, 50 odd dollars to about $70 depending upon the construction. You know. So, that's one of the things that really bugged us, we said 'Gee whiz there's a 1988 cost of, what's lower?'. Mr. Robert Kinl!slev: Well, by State Law we, we're required to ah, assess in a certain manner and whether or not it's consistent with what the manner you think it should be done, ah, there's a problem there. Mr. Chawla: Yeah, well the thing of it is, ah, um, Mr. Kingsley, is that uh, you have done the assessing backward. You want to have put down a certain set value, and then you start working backward ah saying, 'Well, gee, how can I achieve the maximum out of it?' Then you start by classifying in excellent category. Excellent and very good category, they are construction qualities. Mr. Robert Kinl!slev: Ah, I'm aware of that. I, I'm the appraiser, what are you? Mr. Chawla: Um. Mr. Robert Kinl!slev: Are you an appraiser? Mr. Chawla: No. I'm a citizen. I'm the one who pay [pays] the taxes. I'm the one who [is] supporting your salary. You, paying, paying your wages. So I am very, very powerful if you have it. Eh, any ideas about it. I am the one who pays your salary, never forget that. Never forget that. Board of Equalization Minutes: October 17, 1990 Page: 10 Mrs. Chawla - Continued: And so, going backward is that, in other words, eh, if, if you want to get a sudden ah, sudden assessed value, go, go backward. Get, ah, appraise it excellent and you probably will come out right. What you have to do is to go what the construction quality is. Mr. Robert Kinl!slev: That, that's right. Mr. Chawla: Our letter proves that the construction quality of the Renfro's home and our home are identical. So therefore, it should be very good, like, like Mr. Renfro's home is. Mr. Robert Kinl!slev: No. In my opin (interrupted). Chairman Dall!leish: Gentlemen, we're not gonna get anywhere arguing back and forth on here, on this. Board of Equalization will take this under advisement. This Board will come and take a look. We want to see inside, is that alright with you? There's an argument on quality this and that. Now, if you're asking us to sit in judgement, it is only fair that we be able to see. You don't have to let the Assessor in there, that's your privilege. And of course, you may deny us coming in there too. And then, we'll have to go on the looking at the house from the outside, not knowing anything about the inside. We won't know whether you've got one bathroom or three. We won't know if you've got a fireplace with an insert or what not. We don't know if it's got built-ins or what not. Do you have any objections to this Board? Mrs. Chawla: Well, I mean, all that information is correct that's on this sheet [indicating the computer fieldsheet] as far as plumbing fixtures and all of that stuff. But the thing that we are saying is, well you better look at the builder, the home next door. I mean, that's going to be infringing on them. Mr. Chawla: See, we have to compare the quality. Chainnan Dall!leish: We're speaking about the quality. You say it's one quality, they say it's another. Mrs. Chawla: Dh huh. Chainnan Dabdeish: Do you have objections to us looking at the place then? Mr. Chawla: Well, what was our, ah, eh, the contention is ah, ah, the ah, the house next door, we, you know, whatever taxes we pay has got to have relationship with the rest of the homes in the community. That. Well, we saying Sir, the next door home is built by the same builder, same quality, classified in one way, other home classified in a different way. And so, in order for us to be able to compare the two, because I'd like to see that we have some relationship to the next door or to any, any other home. Dh, you know. And, just because of a home is bigger, therefore we should be paying the maximum taxes because we can afford to, that's, that's their contention. The Assessor's Office. Board of Equalization Minutes: October 17, 1990 Page: 11 Mr. Robert Kinl!slev: Not true. Mr. Chawla: Ah, let me, let me finish. Ah, so, what we [are] saying is that if we had a real relationship in what the construction be next door and to us, then I think it should be, you should be able to see the next door and compare the next door with us. And if they are comparable, then we should be classified the same, particularly if the builder is the same. Chairman Dall!leish: In other words, then you're objecting to us to coming in. Is that right? Well, we'll just have to look at it from the outside. Vice-Chairman Doul!las: Mr. Chairman, may I make a suggestion. I think that it would be within the jurisdiction of the Board of Equalization to ask the Assessor to provide us with the equivalent work sheets for these other two houses, so that we can at least reach some, develop some comparables. Mr. Chawla: I think we have, we happen to have a copy of those. Mrs. Chawla: I have the computer sheets in print. Vice-Chairman Doul!las: Well, we can get these from the Assessor's Office. Ah, I, I think it would be helpful if we had the one, the one on lot 171 and 172 as well as this as exhibits so that we can look at it. Mr. Robert Kinl!slev: Sure. Chairman Dahdeish: Then, getting back to it, on his work sheet, the built-ins, the hardwood floors or carpets, or whatever it is, as he has stated. Mrs. Chawla: That's correct. Chairman Dall!leish: Fine. Okay, alright. But I'll, I'm still making (interrupted). Mrs. Chawla: We went over that, and that's correct. Chairman Dall!leish: I'm still making a note that the Board was denied to see the interior. Member Archie Barber. Jr.: Is your main contention that your classification of construc- tion should be very good in comparing to, comparing to your neighbor's home (inte- rrupted). Thank you. Mrs. Chawla: That, that is it. Mr. Chawla: That's correct. Board of Equalization Minutes: October 17, 1990 Page: 12 Mrs. Chawla: That's all we're asking. We're not arguing with him on the different things he's added on, no. It's just, since he used all the same subs and all of the, you know, same materials, supplies and every, I mean, they're obviously style differences and, you know, roofs are different, front is different. Theirs is a one storey whereas ours is a two, two storey. But everything else was the same. Mr. Robert Kinl!slev: Isn't theirs like a different style, I mean. Mrs. Chawla: Oh, a totally different style. Mr. Robert Kinl!slev: Yeah, okay. Mr. Chawla: But the quality is the same. Mrs. Chawla: There's is a very modem style. Ours is a very traditional style. Mr. Robert Kinl!sley: Urn huh. Member Archie Barber. Jr.: Well, that's, that's what I'm, I'm trying to get to the comparison for the arrivals, to each of you, ah, of why you think it should be very good or why Robert thinks it should be excellent. Now, your arrival at very good, ah, category, is understand, comparing your house to nearby homes. Nearby homes. Mrs. Chawla: Yeah, the one next door by the same builder and then a very good minus, the one next door to that. Chairman Dall!leish: Well, maybe the others need to be raised? I don't know, we'll have to go take a look at that. Mr. Robert Kinl!slev: I would suggest, also, they, the Board might want to look at the other excellents to compare them to their house. Chairman Dall!leish: Well, the Board, as they say, will take it under advisement. The Board will go down and take a look. Vice-Chairman Doul!las: You have received, I believe, a notice of when we are going to make this inspection, this Friday? Mrs. Chawla: Yeah, unfortunately I'm going to have to take my husband to the Virginia Mason, he's not well, and he has two appointments there. Chairman Dall!leish: Oh, it's Friday, is it? Vice-Chairman Doul!las: Yes. There's a notice letter here. Chairman Dall!leish: Okay. Thank you (interrupted). Board of Equalization Minutes: October 17, 1990 Page: 13 Mrs. Chawla: (Unintelligible) but it's evident we [don't] have to be there, so I didn't change the doctor's appointment. Vice-Chairman Doul!las: Yeah, no, okay. Chairman Dab!leish: Let's see, that'll be October? Vice-Chairman Dou21as: Nineteenth. Chairman Dal21eish: Um huh. Friday, October 19th. Vice-Chairman Dou21as: Oh, boy. Chairman Dall!leish: Okay, I want to thank you Mr. and Mrs. Chawla. Mrs. Chawla: Well thank you, I appreciate it. Chairman Dall!leish: And ah (interrupted). Mr. Chawla: There was one other point that really, ah, that has a, there were three homes ah, I think of, this, this home here is ah, the highest of ninety-six one quarter, and of course that was based on, according to the sale value. So the point we wanted to make here is that, you see these, particularly this ninety-six, is that being, ah, built by the developer and ah, sold to a realtor. So, there's a mark-up of twenty-five to thirty percent. This might work to our bad, on the, so we have not gone through that. Chairman Dal21eish: We'll determine that, and as I say, when you get our, our decision, you have the right to appeal to the State Board. * * *END OF VERBATIM TRANSCRIPTION OF* * * * * *THE CRA WIA'S AND ROBERT KINGSLEY'S TESTIMONY* * * Board Action: The Board took this petition under advisement and will conduct an exterior, on-site inspection before making a determination. PETERS, Harold D. 198 Stearns Road Chehalis, W A 98532 BOE: 90-074-LO OS/OS PN: 501 143 001 Open Space/Open Space Assessor Jack Westerman ill was present on behalf of the Assessor's Office. Robert Kingsley and Bob Shold were present for purposes of observation. Chairman Dalgleish explained the hearing process and introduced the Board members and Assessor's Staff to Mr. and Mrs. Peters before swearing them in for testimony. Board of Equalization Minutes: October 17, 1990 Page: 14 Lellal Descrivtion: This 15.16 acre property is described as S14, T25, R2W, TAX 1, and TAX 4 (less TAX 20) on Tax District 441, with Land Use Code 8100, and Neighborhood Code 1230. The property is sited at 1271 Black Point Road and the petitioners list the use as "Growing Timber". The Assessor has the land listed as being utilized as open space which is 780 front feet valued at $600 a front foot with an adjustment of -34% for excess topography with an additional -50% reduction for Open Space I Open Space classification for a total valuation of $154,440 (780 Front Feet x $600 = $468,000 x 66% = $308,880 x 50% = $154,440). 1986 (Previous) Assessed Valuation: Land Only: Improvements: Total Valuation: 1990 Assessed Valuation: Land Only: Improvements: Total Valuation: Petitioner Request: Land Only: Improvements: Total Valuation: $ 1,485 NONE 1,485 $ 154,440 NONE 154,440 $ 1,485 NONE 1,485 Petitioner's Testimony: Mrs. Peters explained that they appealed to the Board of Equalization because the assessed valuation was raised from $1,485 to $154,440. She noted that as she understands the situation, this figure was set by the Assessor's Office because the property was moved to the classification of Open Space I Open Space. Her contention is that the property is Open Space / Timber. She noted that the timber is still on the property, and that it has grown in the last 10 or 12 years since the 1978 appeal. The property has been under Timber Oassification for the past 14 years. Mrs. Peters explained that in 1978 the Peters filed suit against the Jefferson County Board of Equaliza- tion and the County Assessor with the State Board of Tax Appeals. The State Board reduced the assessed valuation from about $68,000 back to $1,485. The change indicated to the Peters that the Black Point property was still under "Timber Classification rather than Open Space I Open Space". Board Resvonse: Vice-Chairman Douglas verified that the Open Space I Open Space designation is recent as the property has been classified under Open Space / Timber until 1990. The Peters did not apply for Open Space I Open Space, the change was at the discretion of the County Assessor's Office. Board of Equalization Minutes: October 17, 1990 Page: 15 Assessor's Testimonv: County Assessor Jack Westennan ill reported that one of the things that needs to be clarified is that the State Board of Tax Appeals has no authority to either accept or deny property into Open Space / Open Space, Open Space / Timber, or into Open Space / Agriculture. He pointed out that the State Board of Tax Appeals doesn't have the statutory authority to place property into either Classified or Designated Timber Land. The applications for Open Space / Agriculture are made to the Jefferson County Assessor. The applications for Open Space / Open Space and Open Space / Timber are made to the Legislative Authority of Jefferson County, which in this County, are evaluated through the Planning Department with the final approval through the Board of County Commissioners. * * *THE FOLLOWING IS A VERBATIM TRANSCRIPTION OF* * * *ASSESSOR JACK WESTERMAN ill'S TESTlMONY* Jack Westerman: This piece of property, as I, in looking at the records, was not, never accepted into the Timber Classification; and I'll read from urn, the Order of the State Board of Tax Appeals in 1979 regarding this piece: The property may not be valued as Timberland because the County Commis- sioners did not accept the application for Timberland Classification. The County Commissioners did offer and agree to the Open Space Classification for this property. So, the next question [that] comes is that now we have a piece of property that's in Open Space / Open Space. Ah, we determined the valuation back in 1979 for all Open Space / Open Space property at fifty percent of Fair Market Value. That was overturned by the State Board of Tax Appeals, they, they put the property, ah, they made the determination at that time, to value it as if it were Timberland. We haven't really contradicted the ah, the State Board of Tax Appeals. The valuation of Open Space / Open Space properties at the time that Peters appealed in 1979 was that it will be no less than the lowest agricul- tural value. Property that has no use, under Open Space / Open Space, will not be valued at anything any less than the lowest agricultural value. And that was $75 an acre, they placed a value of $97 an acre on it. So, we didn't have any contention, but what's, what's really difficult about this thing is that the Peters have, as a result of that, made the assumption that this property's in Open Space / Timber because of the methodology of valuation by the State Board of Tax Appeals eleven years ago. Well, that's simply not true. This property is not recorded under an Open Space / Timber application. It's recorded under an Open Space / Open Space application. There were some changes in the method- ology in which the Legislature allowed County Assessors to value Open Space / Open Space in 1986. Of course, this is seven years after the Peters appealed. So, there was no way that either they or I had, had the knowledge of what the, what the Legislature would do in the future. The reason for that, that the, that the County Assessor's Association approached the Legislature in regards to coming up with a methodology for valuation of Board of Equalization Minutes: October 17, 1990 Page: 16 Jack Westerman _ Continued: Open Space I Open Space land is that, the original Open Space Act was very unclear. All the original Open Space, the original Open Space Act, under which the 1979 appeal was filed and held, in, for the appellants, was that Open Space I Open Space property with no current use will not be valued at anything any less than the lowest agricultural value. That was it. In the case of Open Space I Ag' land, they were very clear in the methodology of valuation. In the op', in the case of Open Space I Timberland they were very clear in the methodology for valuation. In the case of Open Space I Open Space they were very unclear, other than it will not be any lower than the lowest ag' value. So, the Assessor's Association approached the Legislature in 1986 and the Legislature passed a law which allowed a different methodology of the valuation of Open Space I Open Space property. And what it did is it gave every County the ability to set up what they called an Open Space Public Benefit Rating System. By that, the Legislature was saying that, that the Counties could adopt a methodology for determining what the Public Benefit of having a piece of property in Open Space I Open Space was, and that they would get a reduction in their assessment that's commensurate with the Public Benefit. Makes a lot of sense from the standpoint if we have a very environmentally sensitive area, or parcel of property, that is unique, that is, that the Community and the County itself feels is really important to maintain in its natural state. In a point system, it could get 90 percent off. From Market Value you could get 90 percent off. If it was a piece of property that was minimally, you know, it had very minimal Public Benefit, then the amount that it would get off would be, you know, very minimal, maybe only ten percent. So, what they [Legislature] did is they said, you can set up. Counties are allowed to set up a Public Benefit Rating System. Ah, Jefferson County is in the process of doing that, at this point in time. And let me read you, because the Peters Appeal, and legitimately so, states that: Revaluation is not being contested, or whether other property is assessed at equal rates. So they, the Peters aren't appealing either the Fair Market Value that we've established; they don't argue that; they don't argue even the equity of it; what they're arguing is, is that the Assessor is not following the provisions of valuation of Open Space I Open Space under [Revised Code of Washington] 84.34, and 84.34.055 specifically states: Open Space Plan and Public Benefit Rating System: The assessed valuation shall be developed by the County Assessor and shall be a percentage of Market Value based on the Public Benefit Rating System. That's 84.34.055 subparagraph 1. Subparagraph 4 of the same chapter says: The Open Space Plan and Public Benefit Rating System under this section may be adopted after taxes payable in 1986 and thereafter. Board of Equalization Minutes: October 17, 1990 Page: 17 Jack Westerman. Continued: So we didn't have the benefit of doing this in 1979 when the Peters initially appealed this piece of property. It goes on to say in 84.34.060, which is classified as a Determination of True and Fair Value of Classified Lands and Computa- tion of Assessed Value, is that: Open Space land with no current use may be valued based on the Public Rating System adopted under 84.34.055. Ah, so, what we've got now, is we've got that Chapter and the reason, the Board needs to understand the reasoning for, behind, well: Why didn't you? If you're saying that you didn't ah, the County didn't accept the Peters application for Timberland: Why didn't they? You know, what, do they have statutory authority not to accept this to be under Open Space / Timber or either under Classified, or well, it's only 15 acres. Under Open Space / Timber. Why couldn't you do that? Why didn't you do that? What prevented the County Commissioners from doing that? Well, if you look under [Revised Code of Washington] 84.33 for Forest Land, what you see is that, ah, under paragraph 3: The Assessor shall act upon the application with due regard to all relevant evidence and without anyone or more items of evidence necessarily being determinative, except that the application may be denied for one of the following reasons without regard to other items: And, there are items A, B, C on this. And item C says lands, the lands abut: The land abuts a body of salt water and lies between the line of ordinary high tide and a line parallel such ordinary high tide and 200 feet horizon- tally landward therefrom. Which means that, the Legisla', the Legislation, even under the Forest Land Act, stipulated that you can't place property in Timber Land or Forest Land Classification that's within 200 feet of abutting saltwater. That was the reason that the County Commissioners denied this particular property for Open Space / Timber. It is right on salt water. We have no piece of property in this county that's within 200 feet abutting salt water that's either in Open Space / Timber Land or Classified or Designated Forest Land. And, as the Peters well know, that's also the case with their piece of property on Marrowstone Island. The 200 feet is in Open Space / Open Space, the portion behind that is in Open Space / Timber. In this particular case of this one, the entire piece is in Open Space / Open Space. So, the County Commissioners couldn't accept this property in Open Space / Timber. They didn't have statutory authority to do so, even if they had wanted to they couldn't. So we go: Well what was the Legislative Intent? Why did the Legisla'? Why does the Legislature preclude property within 200 feet of abutting salt water from being in either Open Space / Timber or Classified or Designated Forest Land? Well, everyone can draw Board of Equalization Minutes: October 17, 1990 Page: 18 Jack Westerman _ Continued: their own conclusions of why. Mine. I, I, the only thing I can think of is that they didn't want property within abutting saltwater, within 200 feet of abutting saltwater, used for Commercial Timber purposes. They wanted it used for other purposes. Well, why didn't they? Well, if you grow and harvest timber right along saltwater, what you find is that you create a lot of environmental problems. All the slash comes down, erosion occurs, a number of problems occur. They felt that for the main- tenance of the environmental conditions, for sluff off, and everything else, they don't want property in that, within 200 feet of abutting saltwaters throughout the entire State of Washington. To be in either Open Space I Timber or aassified or Designated Forest Land. So, now we're faced with this methodology of: How do we value this piece of property? The Peters successfully, and you know, and to their bene', to their regard, made an appeal, made an application, after being denied Open Space I Timber Land under Open Space / Open Space. So, how do we come up with a valuation of that? Well, the Legislature now, since 1986, gives the counties the ability to do an Op', to do a Public Benefit Rating System. Jefferson County doesn't have one, although, a, a specific one, although what you have in Jefferson County is every parcel of Open Space I Open Space property. When we speak of the equity of what we're going to do here, every parcel of Open Space I Open Space other than this piece, previous to now, and the Peter's piece on Marrowstone Island, which we'll be revaluing next year, is on at 50 percent of Fair Market Value. And we will continue to assess them all equitably, based on that. Then they regard, then the next question comes is that: Why have you selected this? There's not a Public Benefit Rating System, why Westerman, have you selected 50 percent of Fair Market Value? Well, it signifies some Public Benefit, for this property being in. It doesn't delineate in the specific reasons that a Public Benefit Rating System would, but it's similar in that the property that won't perk, that you can't build on; this was our rationale behind it. If you can't build on it, and it won't perk, it tends to sell for about 50 percent of it's Fair Market Value. In this case, what we have is a piece of property that you can't build on, you know you obviously can't build on it because you've, they've agreed to keep it in its natural state under Open Space I Open Space. So, the land itself has sort of the same restrictions, but because of a contract that we entered in with the Peters, that property that can't, that doesn't perk, has restrictions because of its physical nature in that it won't support building on it. So in both cases you can't build on it. When on one case we're at 50 percent, we felt that was fair and legitimate to acknowledge that because they're retaining the property in its natural state, ah, that they should also get a break. You can't build on theirs either, so we give them 50 percent. And we do that throughout. For equity purposes, we do that throughout the County. The only two parcel that have never been at that are one, this parcel, only because we were over-ruled in that methodology previous to 1986. By the way, with a Public Benefit Rating System, for this particular piece, and for the piece on Marrowstone. And the truth is, is that on the piece on Marrowstone the Public Benefit Rating System is going to be in place by the end of the year [1990], and it will be valued at that in the revaluation notice next year [that] will go out to the Peters and reflect that. Board of Equalization Minutes: October 17, 1990 Page: 19 Jack Westerman - Continued: So, ah, you know it's ah; assumed that the Peters would be appealing. If I owned a assessed valuation went from $1,485 to $154,440 you can bet certainly understand the Peters' position on this. it's not our intention; we piece of property and the that I'd be appealing, so I The truth is, is that the Fair Market Valuation is $308,880 from this waterfront parcel. The Peters really haven't questioned that, it's just our methodology of valuation. And, I am sure that the State Board of Tax Appeals for 1990 is going to be interested in hearing this case also. In looking at the case for the 1979 one [appeal], I will obviously be addressing a few things that that Board, that the State Board at that point in time ques- tioned. For instance, that the, that the local Board had no jurisdiction, not to include this in Timber, is totally against what the Statutes of the State of Washington indicate. So we ah, [interrupted]. Vice-Chairman Doul!las: So, how come the ah, that was not brought to their [State Board of Tax Appeals & Peters'] attention at the time of the hearing? Jack Westerman: Well, you know, it's really hard, ah, as I recall Mr. Peters was represented by a Mr. Baker, an attorney who did an excellent job in presenting their case, and ah, we weren't represented by the Prosecuting Attorney at that time. We presented the case ourselves. We had, we had no idea, we basically presented our case, we had no idea what the State Board would write. And they certainly have a right to make a decision any way they see. We decided not to appeal this to the Superior Court, based on the decision at the time. Ah, what you get is, you get one piece of property ah, that's then Open Space / Open Space at that time, the Peters later on got the Marrowstone Island piece in Open Space / Open Space, ah. And, do you spend, let's say in a Superior Court case, $50,000 on a valuation of a piece of property that in taxes, even if we win, you know, is maybe, you know, $500. You know, it seems a waste of the Peters, you know, ah, and they and every property owner, pay the taxes that pay for that court case. It seemed like a losing proposition at the time and wasn't a wise move. But, we're going to continue to do this equitably, the same way that we value other Open Space / Open Space property throughout the County. And we certainly understand the Peters' ah, Peters' position. Vice-Chairman Dou2las: I have one other question. We received a document which I don't have with me, it's upstairs [in Board of Equalization Office]. How does this, the new [Washington] Administrative Codes that were issued in July [1990], affect, on Open Space, affect this issue? Jack Westerman: They don't really, the most of the WAC rule changes that were filed are around Open Space / Ag'. They redelineated this for commercial purposes. Before Open Space / Agricultural, ah, was just, you could grow your own beef, you could grow your own garden, you could grow your own herbs, you could have sheep and do your own clothes, and you could prove an income over a period of time. Now the new WAC rules say that this has to be a commercial, agricultural purposes. You have to make cash money from the sale of this. Your own use is excluded. So most of the WAC changes around Board of Equalization Minutes: October 17, 1990 Page: 20 .Jack Westerman - Continued: the Open Space Law are around Open Space / Ag'. Now that the Legislature in '86 ah, identified and came up with a Public Benefit Rating System, [this] is the method that determined the valuation, which I happen to agree with. You know, if the Peters for instance, owned a piece of property under Open Space / Open Space that everyone agreed was, fit in all the categories on the point systems that they adopted, that was really within the Public Benefit, they may get an adjustment of 90 percent, which would be much less than [$] 154,000. If this particular piece of property, however, has very little Public Benefit under the point system, ah, that the Planning Commission and the Planning Department and the County Commissioners come up with, then they may get a lot less than 50 percent off. Ah, so it just, you know, it'll depend on the characteristics of the individual piece of property and how, you know, how, the degree of Public Benefit for that individual piece of property. And it's good, it's a much more fair way to do it than 50 percent for everyone. Mrs. Peters: What number is that 1986 Statute? Jack Westerman: Ah, what you want to look at, Mrs. Peters, is [Revised Code of Washington] 84.34.055. Mrs. Peters: Okay. Jack Westerman: And then for the rationale behind exclusion is [RCW] 84.33.130, three, and three "C". Mrs. Peters: Does that go along with that, that one there? Three and three "C"? Jack Westerman: Three and three "C" go with 84.33.130; before I'd given you 84.34. Mrs. Peters: Three "C". .Jack Westerman: Right. Vice-Chairman Doul!las: Eighty-three, come again. Jack Westerman: Eighty-four thirty-three one thirty is the rationale that the County Commissioners couldn't accept it into the Open Space / Timber, which is why the agree- ment was struck for Open Space / Open Space, you know, recorded under that criteria. Chairman Dall!leish: What is this three "C" "C"? Jack Westerman: Three "C", Mr. Chairman, is around the property abutting saltwater. The exclusion of property within 200 feet of abutting saltwater. Mrs. Peters: It's a part of 84.33.130? Board of Equalization Minutes: October 17, 1990 Page: 21 Jack Westerman: Yes Ma'am. Chairman Dall!leish: Okay, any questions? Jack Westerman:Oh, Mr. Chairman, here's ah, just to get an idea where this property's located, ah, and why it's described as Mrs. Peters said. What you have is, you have Tax 1 which is 10 acres; and Tax 4 which is, I can't tell here [referring to document], five point "0" six? Mrs. Peters: It's probably 15 and point one six. Jack Westerman: Right, okay. So what you get are ten point "0" eight and five point "0" eight. This just shows you, this shows you the location [referring to map]. What you do is you come down 101 [Highway], turn off at Black Point, go all the way around, and this, these two are the properties [indicating parcels on map]. What Robert [Kingsley] will be talking about now, is this little property here, so that sort of gives you some; map I put together. Chairman Dall!leish: Mr. Peters, you have a question? Mr. Peters: Yeah [indiscernible]. Chairman Dall!leish: Grandfather Clause? Mr. Peters: Yeah [indiscernible]. Chairman Dall!leish: Repeat that again. Jack Westerman: Well, yeah, it's a good point. Mr. Peters' point is that, so, but this application was accepted prior to the '86 law that gave you the right to value it according to the Public Benefit Rating System. You, you see the point Mr. Peters is trying to make here Mr. Chairman? Chairman Dall!leish: No. I don't. Jack Westerman: Mr. Peters is saying that, that's fine, for property that goes into Open Space / Open Space after 1986. You can value it on the Public Benefit Rating System. Chairman Dall!leish: Urn huh. Jack Westerman: Now this particular law, ah, that was one of the questions that we'd come up with. The Legislature, according to the Department of Revenue, was very careful in the wording of this. Every piece of property, including ones that have been in the program, are to be valued when the Public Benefit Rating System is put in place, under the Public Benefit Rating System. Now [interrupted]. Board of Equalization Minutes: October 17, 1990 Page: 22 Mrs. Peters: That was 1986? Jack Westerman: Yeah. So, even the ones that we approved [interrupted]. Chairman Daleleish: That is regarding the Grandfather Clause? Jack Westerman: That's right. They're disregarding it in one case, but in another case they're saying: Okay, let's assume that you have this point system set up, then if you don't get 10 points, you know, let's say the maximum you can get is 100 points, if you don't get at least 10, you will not be accepted in Open Space I Open Space. Costs more administratively to take care of than what you're going to get off anyway. Ab, what they said was that for the grandfathered properties, is even if they don't get 10 points, you have to leave them in the program. You can value them according to the Benefit Rating System, but you can't pull them out of Open Space I Open Space. New properties may not qualify if they don't get 10 points. But, if we had a piece of Open Space I Open Space, just as an example, ah, Mr. Peters' neighbor. He was in Open Space / Open Space, Mr. Jones, let's say, and his property under the Point System only came up with eight points, we could not exclude him from, we could not pull him from the program and say: You don't qualify anymore, you have to pay Compensating Tax and come out of the Program. So, it's an important point that Mr. Peters makes as: What about the Grand- fathering? And the Grandfathering does in one sense, ah, work, in that all properties that were previously into the program will continue to stay in the program; doesn't work from the standpoint that all property, according to the Department of Revenue and the way this, this particular Statute is worded, all property will be valued on the Public Benefit Rating System. They didn't address the Grandfathering. They didn't allow the Grandfathering. Chairman Daleleish: Any further questions? Mrs. Peters: Will we be able to get a copy of this tape? .Jack Westerman: Ma'am, you're meeting with the Board of Equalization, it's totally up to them. Mrs. Peters: Will we be able to get a copy of this tape? You talked so fast I couldn't have written it in shorthand. Chairman Daleleish: Well, I don't see why not. .Jack Westerman: You do minutes of the [interrupted]. Chairman Daleleish: Yes. Jack Westerman: Don't you in fact do minutes? Chairman Daleleish: We can do detailed minutes of it. Board of Equalization Minutes: October 17, 1990 Page: 23 Clerk D. Keel!an: Yes. Yes, ah, we'd be happy to provide a copy of the minutes, but it will take a while for me to get to them. Mrs. Peters: That will be a part of it. Clerk D. Keel!an: Right. Mrs. Peters: What is, you taped will be a part of the minutes. Is that right? Clerk D. Keel!an: Right. What I taped I will transcribe. I don't always do verbatim, but I think I will do Jack's [Assessor Jack Westerman Ill] portion verbatim, this time. Mrs. Peters: Well, we'd appreciate it. Jack Westerman: And then we'll send a copy of those minutes, ah, typed up. You know, get the Peters' address. Clerk D. Keel!an: Right. Jack Westerman: You already have it. Chairman Dall!leish: But we will ah, we will keep the, that tape will be with us for four years; time that you, four, or five now? Clerk D. Keel!an: Six. Chairman Dall!leish: Alright, they've changed it to five years now. Clerk D. Keel!an: Six, okay. Chairman Dall!leish: Ah, or six. But, for us to make a copy of this tape in its entirety is a little bit of a chore, but we'll keep it here. Anytime you want it, but ah, she will make you a detailed, the minutes, the same as we're going to get to work from. Clerk D. Keel!an: Okay. Chairman Dall!leish: And if you have any questions, why you feel free to call Dierdrei [Clerk D. Keegan] and urn. Well, anything further you want to tell me? * * *END OF VERBATIM TRANSCRIPTION OF* * * * * *THE ASSESSORS' TESTIMONY* * * Board of Equalization Minutes: October 17, 1990 Page: 24 Mrs. Peters quoted page four of the State Board of Tax Appeals September 5, 1979 Final Decision, Property Tax Appeal Docket Number 18354, paragraph four which was provided with the 1990 Peters appeal: The assessor's contention that the property may not be valued as timberland because the county commissioners did not accept the application for timber- land classification we find is not material. The county commis- sioners did offer and agree to the open space classification for this property. The agreement contains no descriptions or restrictions as to open space uses, and the term open space is broad and subject to many interpretations. Currently, "Open Space" has not been defined in the agreement, in the statute, by judicial interpretation or by use to exclude a use as timberland. Whatever the reasons may have been for denying timberland classification, preventing the cutting of trees on the shore lands, for example, these reasons were not embodkd in the contract agreement. Once the current use open space classification has been granted, the controlling factor in the valuation for assessment and tax purposes under RCW 84.34.060 is the use of the property. Assessor's Exhibits: Exhibit #A: Computer Data Sheet Exhibit #B: Location Map Exhibit #e: Copies of Applicable Revised Code of Washington Rules from 1989 Edition; Title 84. Petitioner's Exhibits: Exhibit #1: Not Available: 1979 Aerial photograph listed on Petition Form was not attached and not available. Exhibit #2: Attachments, pages 3 and 4 of State of Washington Board of Tax Appeals, Docket No. 18354, Final Decision dated September 5, 1979. Board Information: Exhibit I: Complete (4 pages) Copy of Docket No. 18354; Harold P. Peters, Appellant vs. Jack Westerman III, Jefferson County Assessor, Respon- dent; September 5, 1979. Exhibit II: Copy of Washington Laws, 1990 1st Ex. Sess., Ch. 5, pages 1773 - 1775. Board Action: The Board took this petition under advisement. A determination will be provided after further consideration of the testimony presented. Board of Equalization Minutes: October 17, 1990 Page: 25 PETERS, Harold D. 198 Stearns Road Chehalis, W A 98532 BOE: 90-073-R PN: 502 143 011 Robert Kingsley was present on behalf of the Assessor's Office. Chairman Dalgleish explained that the Peters did not need to be sworn in since they were sworn in for the preceding hearing. Lel!al DescriDtion: This .35 acre property is described as S14, T25, R2W, Tax 20 (Less East 200 feet), sited at 1271 Black Point Road, Brinnon. The tax district is 441, the land use code is 1900, and the neighborhood code is 1230. The improvement is listed as a one story vacation cabin of average quality, but in poor condition. The cabin was built in 1955. The land valuation is listed as one improved site at $5,000 and one improved site at $500. Petitioner Reauest: Land Only: $ 5,500 Improvements: 3.395 Total Valuation: 8,895 Land Only: $ 4,000 Improvements: 500 Total Valuation: 4,500 Assessed Valuation: Petitioner Testimonv: Mrs. Peters explained that the appeal is based on the size of the cabin, which she claimed was built in 1949 at a cost of $100. She stated that the cabin is 288 square feet with dimensions of approximately 24 x 12 feel. Assessor's Testimonv: Robert Kingsley stated that he inspected the cabin on October 16, 1990, while working in the area, and he found that Mr. and Mrs. Peters have a good case. Robert Kingsley recommended that the valuation of the cabin be reduced to the previous assessed value of $500. Mr. Kingsley stated that the land should not be reduced. The land was previously valued at $4,000. The current valuation was arrived at by assigning $5,000 for a small, parcel site (less than an acre) and $500 for the hook-up of electric utilities. Assessor's Exhibits: Exhibit #1: Computer Field Sheet. Exhibit #2: Map showing property location. Board Action: The Board took the petition under advisement and planned to conduct an on site inspection before making a determination. Board of Equalization Minutes: October 17, 1990 Page: 26 SOTER, David and Edna 60 4th Avenue Kirkland, W A 98033 DOE: 90-072-R PN: 502 162 005 Robert Kingsley was present on behalf of the Assessor's Office. Chairman Dalgleish read the petition into the Minutes of the meeting in the absence of Mr. and Mrs. Soter. Le2al Descriution: This 4.02 acre parcel is described as S16, T25, R2W, Tax 5, and is listed as Tax District 441 with Land Use Code 1100 and Neighborhood Code 1240. The property is sited at 100 Gran Road in Brinnon. The improvements consist of a one story, 612 square foot home of fair quality and in good condition. The building is listed as being built in 1940 and remodelled in 1986. Additional improvements consist of a deck, a garage, and a picnic shelter/shed. The land is valued at one improved acre at $3,500; 3.02 unimproved acres at $3,500 an acre totalling $10,570; and one improved site at $2,500. Petitioner Request: Land Only: $ 25,355 Improvements: 16.570 Total Valuation: 41,925 Land Only: $ 16,570 Improvements: 10.000 Total Valuation: 26,570 Assessed Valuation: Petitioners Testimonv: David and Edna Soter explained, on their petition, that the "new construction was done in 1984-5. Enclosed are copies of checks for cement work & lumber used. It did not come to any $20,000. as you can see. We did the work ourselves. The house was built in 1945. (We think.) The garage had only dirt floor & was not enclosed". It was stated that they did not know of any comparable property sales and that the property has not been offered for sale, and that the property has only been assessed by the County Assessor. Petitioner's Exhibits: Exhibit #1: 1990 Assessment for 1991 Taxes, Real Property Change-Of-Value- Notice. New Construction is listed at $20,000. Exhibit #2: Copy of three checks from 1984 and 1985. Exhibit #3: Letter to Clerk Keegan stating that the Soters could not attend the hearing due to work. Board of Equalization Minutes: October 17, 1990 Page: 27 Assessor's Testimonv: Robert Kingsley stated that the previous appraisal was conducted by an appraiser who no longer works for the Jefferson County Assessor's Office. Mr. Kingsley went to the subject property, to complete a physical inspection and take photos. He found the property appraisal to be "fair, true, and accurate". His contention is that the appeal is based on the $20,000 new construction assessment. Mr. Kingsley stated that the house was worth more than the previous assessment of $2,365 and that the petitioners may be confused about the new construction amount as the assessment didn't occur until this year although the improvements were added by the petitioner several years ago. Robert Kingsley could not see into the house, but from what he could see from the exterior inspection, he believes the method of appraisal and the valuation to be correct. Assessor's Exhibits: Exhibit A: General Location Map. Exhibit H: Prior residential appraisal record (1986). Exhibit C: Computer Fieldsheet. Hoard Action: The Board took this petition under advisement. The petitioners will be notified of the on site inspection date. YAMASHITA, Eiichi 902 E. Allison Street Seattle, WA 98102 HOE: 90-043-TL PN: 601 282 002 HOE: 90-044-TL PN: 602 211 004 HOE: 90-045-TL PN: 601 284 019 Robert Kingsley was present on behalf of the Assessor's Office. Chairman Dalgleish explained the hearing process to Mr. Yamashita and swore him in for testimony. It was noted that the three Yamashita appeals presented today are of lands not contiguous, although the same appeal applies to all parcels. Lellal Description of HOE: 90-043-TL: This 3,465 front feet of unimproved tidelands is valued at $20 a front foot with a -46% adjustment for excess tidelands for a total valuation of $37,422. This land is described as S28; T26; R1W; TL TAX A, C; TL TX B (less the west 120 feet). The parcel is in Tax District 321, with Land Use Code 9300, and Neigh- borhood Code 2240. This land is used for oyster farming through Western Oyster. The tideland fronts Lots 1 and 2 and part of Lot 3 in Section 28, Township 26, Range 1 West. Mr. Yamashita describes it as being 1/2 mile plus 700 feet of limited tideland. Board of Equalization Minutes: October 17, 1990 Page: 28 Assessed Valuation: Land Only: Improvements: Total Valuation: $ 37,422 NONE 37,422 Petitioner Request: Land Only: Improvements: Total Valuation: $ 13,775 NONE 13,775 Lellal Description of HOE: 90-044-TL: This 2,640 front feet of unimproved tidelands is valued at $20 a front foot with a -44% adjustment for excess tidelands for a total valuation of $29,570. This land is described as 821; T26; R1W; TL TAX No. C with the parcel being in Tax District 321 with Land Use Code 9300, and Neighborhood Code 2240. This land is used for oyster farming through Western Oyster. Mr. Yamashita describes the land as "Second Class" and lists it as fronting Lots 1 & 2, with a land size of 1/2 mile. Petitioner Request: Land Only: $ 29,570 Improvements: NONE Total Valuation: 29,570 Land Only: $ 12,630 Improvements: NONE Total Valuation: 12,630 Assessed Valuation: Lellal Description of HOE: 90-045-TL: This 500 front feet of unimproved tidelands is valued at $20 a front foot with a -26% adjustment for excess tidelands for a total valuation of $7,400. This land is described as 828; T26; R1W; T.L. TAX NO. D; and 7.58 CH with the parcel being in Tax District 321 with Land Use Code 9300, and Neighborhood Code 2240. This land is used for oyster farming through Western Oyster. Mr. Yamashita describes the land as second class tideland fronting Lot 3 and that it consists of 417 feet between the meander line and line 07 mean low. Petitioner Request: Land Only: $ 7,400 Improvements: NONE Total Valuation: 7,400 Land Only: $ 2,025 Improvements: NONE Total Valuation: 2,025 Assessed Valuation: Board of Equalization Minutes: October 17, 1990 Page: 29 Petitioner's Testimonv: Mr. Yamashita explained that he has a State Tideland Lease and he is appealing the assessed valuation based on the rental charged by the Department of Natural Resources. He believes that the same kind of value should be applied to the tidelands that he owns as is charged on the land owned by the Department of Natural Resources. Mr. Yamashita was advised, by his accountant, that in general, his kind of commercial property is worth about ten times the normal rental. He stated that after receiving the letter sent him by Mr. Kingsley, he would consider amending his approach to valuation. Mr. Yamashita noted that there was nothing to substantiate whether the land consisted of four or five acres, but he considers 1/4 of the land as poor and 3/4 as good oyster farming land. He suggested charging different values for different levels of production (quality of land), as the production directly affects the value of the land. He explained that he believes the amount he is being assessed does not take into consideration the direct relation between the area of productive land and the area of land not directly related to produc- tivity. The State of Washington does lease on the basis of productivity, which equates with depth, as the deeper the tidelands the greater the production. Petitioner's Exhibits: Exhibit #1: Contour Map showing location of Tidelands. Exhibit #2: Copy of Aquatic Land Lease. Exhibit #3: Dimensional Information; State of Washington Second Class Lease situation in front of and adjacent to Lots 3 and 5. Assessor's Testimonv: Robert Kingsley stated that Mr. Yamashita apparently has developed a method of evaluation, it would be difficult for the Assessor's Office to implement that method for all parcels. He explained that in order to utilize a method sug- gested by Mr. Yamashita, all the tidelands would have to be equalized on the same basis. Mr. Kingsley noted that most of the Jefferson County oyster lands are valued based on an acreage basis, not front footage. As the Assessor's Office does not have a survey of Mr. Yamashita's oyster lands to determine precise acreage, the assessment is based on an estimation. Robert Kingsley did not provide a recommendation to the Board, although he reported that the State owns the tidelands that lay below the mean, low tideline. Because the State owns the portion of tideland below the mean, this property is not available for use unless leased from the State. Resultant from this information, Mr. Kingsley believes Mr. Yamashita has four acres of tideland available, instead of five. Assessor's Exhibits: Exhibit #A: Computer Fieldsheets of subject properties. Exhibit #B: Letter of September 14, 1990 from the Assessor's to Mr. Yamashita. . Board of Equalization Minutes: October 17, 1990 Page: 30 Board Action: The Board took the Yamashita petitions under advisement. It was suggested that a combined inspection at low tide by the County Assessor, the State Department of Natural Resources, and the Board of Equalization should be held before a change in valuation is considered. Mr. Yamashita agreed that sustaining the valuation on his properties at the current rate was reasonable until such time as a correlation of the actual usable area, the productivity factors of these areas, and comparisons between the State leasing structure and the County method of standard assessment of tidelands could be made. It was noted that the Board will not conduct an on-site inspection of the subject parcels, as previously scheduled. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The Minutes of August 17, 1990 were reviewed by all Board Members. Archie Barber, Jr. moved to approve the Minutes as written and Vice. Chairman Douglas seconded the motion which carried by unanimous vote. There being no further business before the Board, the meeting adjourned until October 26, 1990 at 9:00 a.m. During the interim, and subsequent to the next meeting date, the Board is scheduled to conduct on-site inspections on October 19, 22, 24, 26, and 29, 1990. APPROVED BY: DATE APPROVED: p,.A. St-;; jq'(; ~ ~-I ~~ A.C. ALGLE, IRMAN ATIESTED ~j 'ij.Cfdr&j- , DAVID G. DOD LAS, VICE HAIRMAN _~r- "'; A t 6..A.-t~ ARCHIE L. BARBER, JR., ME BER