HomeMy WebLinkAboutM092691
cc ~ (15{5;W1)
1c9,,,z-QI
. JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF EQUALIZATION
A. C. DALGLEISH CHAIRMAN
DAVID G. DOUGLAS VICE-CHAIRMAN
ARCHIE BARBER, JR. MEMBER
JAMES A. DE LEO ALTERNATE
MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 26,1991
The Board of Equalization reconvened at 9:00 a.m. with Chairman AC. Dalgleish, Vice-
Chairman David G. Douglas, Member Archie Barber, Jr. and Clerk Dierdrei Keegan present.
Bob Shold of the Assessor's Office was also present. The Board dispensed with the reading
of the Minutes of previous meetings at this time.
ROBERT AND MARTHA VAN ETTEN
310 SMITH ROAD
NORDIAND, W A. 98358
. Chairman Dalgleish introduced the Board members, explained the hearing process, and then
swore in Robert Van Etten and Deputy Assessor Bob Shold. Mr. Van Etten explained that
this petition is for the property next door to 310 Smith Road in Nordland. The property was
purchased for $20,000 two or three years ago from an owner who had held it for approximate-
ly 15 years. The former owner could not gel approval for an on-site septic system and Mr.
Van Etten noted that he purchased the property to protect his property which is an identical
1/2 acre. The former owner told him it could be used for recreational purposes including a
self-contained camper.
BOE: #91-080-LO
PN: 921 051 009
Chairman Dalgleish asked if the denial of the septic permit is on record anywhere? Mr.
Van Etten answered that he doesn't have any idea because he had nothing to do with it.
Bob Shold reported that the Assessor has been aware, for at least 12 years, that this property
has been denied a septic permit. He then reminded the Board that the Health Department had
discussed these early septic denials with them in 1988. Waterfront parcels were effected more
than others, but with the alternative septic systems that are currently available, many parcels
previously denied on-site septic system permits have been selling for very high prices with
alternative septic (mound) systems installed. Unless the owner has applied for a septic permit
within the last two years, it is hard to determine if the basis for the denial still exists. The
Assessor's Office used to reduce the fair market value of a parcel by 50% if there was a
septic permit denial. As a result of the Health Department changes the Assessor's policy was
altered to reduce the fair market value of a property with septic problems by $10,000. That
is the primary assessment change on this parcel. The base rate of waterfront went up
. significantly this year.
.
.
.
Board of Equalization: Minutes of September 26, 1991
Page: 2
Chairman Dalgleish asked the value of this property after the last re-evaluation? Vice-
Chairman Douglas reported that it was $16,800. Chairman Dalgleish asked if Larry Fay,
the present Director of Environmental Health, follows the same principles as the previous
Director? Bob Shold stated that he does. It is his understanding that the policy regarding
alternative systems is the same as when Rick Micklich was the Director.
Vice-Chairman Douglas asked Mr. Van Etten if there is a well on the property and if the
lot is large enough to meet the 100 foot setback requirement? Mr. Van Etten answered that
there is a well, but he would have to check about meeting the 100 foot setback. He added
that he uses a rain water catchment system. He added that the value of the property went up
171 % which he feels does not seem reasonable.
Bob Shold added that sales since the revaluation indicate that the base rates are extremely
conservative. The Assessor's Office uses a rate of $650 a front foot. A property located to
the north of Mr. Van Etten's with 200 feet of waterfront sold in August for $232,500. The
base rate was set by using Griffith Point, which has a paved road access, as the standard.
Vice-Chairman Douglas reported that the land valuation was based on land code 1515, with
80 front feet at $750 per foot which is $60,000. A ten percent reduction was given to
$54,000. There is 80 front feet of land code 9301 for tidelands at $20 a front foot or $1,600.
Land Code 9818 is for site improvements at a rate of $10,000 with a 100% reduction (septic
denial) so the net result is a total valuation of $45,600.
Bob Shold will have the Cartographer review the front footage on both of Mr. Van Etten's
parcels because there may be a discrepancy of five feet.
Vice-Chairman Douglas reported that the on-site inspection of the property is scheduled for
the late afternoon of October 25, 1991.
Assessor Exhibits:
# A-I Computer field sheet of subject property.
A-2 Letter to BOE dated Oct. 13, 1988 from the Health Department.
A-3 Reference Sales, Not a Comparable - $232,500 bare land sold 8/16/91.
A-4 Listing of Sales on Griffith Point, Marrowstone Island, with low bank waterfront.
A-5 Neighborhood/Land Code Rate/Description Listing.
A-6 Parcel Map of Area.
.
Board of Equalization: Minutes of September 26, 1991
Page: 3
BARRY L. GRAHAM
784 OLYMPUS BOULEVARD
PORT LUDLOW, W A. 98365
BOE: #91-081-R
PN: 931 500 102
Chairman Dalgleish introduced the Board members, the Clerk, the Assessor's Office
representative, Robert Kingsley, and then explained the BOE process. He then swore in Barry
Graham and Robert Kingsley.
Barry Graham stated that his points are self-evident when the chart he submitted is reviewed.
He used the addresses of 206, 860, 402, and 710 Olympus Boulevard as comparable. He
then read from the letter submitted with his petition dated July 30, 1991. He is asking that
the total valuation be reduced to $169,000.
.
Robert Kingsley addressed the appellants valuation point by point with Exhibit #2 (Letter of
July 30, 1991). Chairman Dalgleish reminded Mr. Kingsley that the appellant is only
appealing the valuation of the improvements.
Item #1: Robert Kingsley noted that the appellant states that the house
has one bedroom and one bath which "probably diminishes its
value." He needs market evidence that proves that this diminish-
es the property's value. He has not seen any evidence that the
number of bedrooms effects home sales. The trend currently
seems to be bigger homes with fewer bedrooms and bathrooms.
Item #3: AIl properties in that area are subject to the same noise, dust and dirt
from the General Construction quarry. Vice-Chairman Douglas reported
for the record that there is an application before the County Commis-
sioners to allow General Construction to expand the operations of the
quarry to construct pontoons for a floating bridge. Three of the major
issues in this application are noise, dust and protection of the aquifer.
Robert Kingsley added that all homes including those used for
comparison are impacted by the quarry. He questioned how that issue
is revellent?
Item #4: The appellant states that he is responsible for his own septic and water
system repairs and feels that should not be part of the valuation on a
continuing basis. His house is also subject to repair, for which he is
responsible. The septic and well (water system) are viewed as
improvements to the property which enhances the value of the property.
Item #5: The appellant states that the asking prices for real estate in the area do
not reflect what homes are actually selling for. The Assessor's office
does not base anything on asking price. They deal with actual sales
price and what the subject property's market value is.
Item #6: This item deals with unfair differences in square foot values of homes.
The subject property is valued, according to the appellant, at $63.35 a
square foot. The more square feet in a house of the same quality, the
lower the cost per square foot becomes. Just dividing the number of
square feet into overall value is an over simplification of the appraisal
process.
.
.
.
.
Board of Equalization: Minutes of September 26, 1991
Page: 4
Barry Graham stated that he questions Mr. Kingley's comment about houses getting smaller.
He added that all the homes in the Mats Mats area are going to be impacted by the quarry
and their change of operations. He is concerned about the degradation of the water. A
change of operation at the quarry will mean there will be a heavy industrial area instead of
a minor nuisance which everyone knew was there when we moved in. The fact still remains
that there will be dust, dirt, and noise especially with a north wind.
Robert Kingsley stated that one bedroom and one bath may present a problem, but he is
reserving judgment on that until he has evidence that it is a problem.
Vice.Chairman Douglas reported that the on-site inspection of this parcel is scheduled for
the afternoon of October 30, 1991.
Barry Graham added that in addition to the General Construction project the County is
contemplating approval of aquaculture projects in this area, which will have an impact.
ROBERT L BlAIR
1344 RIDGEWOOD LANE
BOUNTIFUL, UT. 94010
BOE: #91-079-LO
PN: 990 600 102
Vice-Chairman Douglas read the petition into the record in the absence of Robert Blair.
This petition is for Lot 2, Area 1 of Port Ludlow #2. The lot has a partial view, is zoned
for residential use, and there is no building on the site. The land is currently valued at
$70,000 by the Assessor and the petitioner is requesting that this value be reduced to $45,000.
The property was purchased on November 15, 1988 for $27,500. The appellant states the lot
has only a partial view because of the terrain. Covenants prevent building a two story house.
The house is located near the County road which results in excessive noise. He also
submitted a list of comparable sales for consideration.
Robert Kingsley presented copies of the appraisal sheets for the properties that Mr. Blair
used for comparison to his property to challenge their use.
Comparable #1: (port Ludlow 2 Area 2 Lot 98) This lot sold in 1991 for $16,500.
The property is assessed at $20,000. It is in a completely different area of Port
Ludlow, across the County road and way back up in the trees. It is not comparable to
the subject property.
Comparable #3: (Port Ludlow 2, Area 2 Lot 53) This lot sold for $18,500 in 1991.
It is assessed at $20,000. It is not a comparable lot to the subject property.
Comparable #6: (Squamish Harbor Beach Tracts including tidelands) Mr. Blair says
these beach tracts including tidelands are assessed at $37,500. In reality they are
assessed at $65,000.
.
.
.
Board of Equalization: Minutes of September 26, 1991
Page: 5
Robert Kingsley then presented his comparable sales:
Comparable #1: Lot 37, Port Ludlow #2, Area 1. This lot sold for $64,000 in January
1990. It is located about eight lots south of the subject property on the same street.
Comparable #2: Lot 38, Port Ludlow #2, Area 1. This lot sold for $69,950 and is
located on the same street, 10 blocks south of the subject property.
Comparable #3: Lot 15, Port Ludlow #1, Area 2. This lot sold in December 1990 for
$85,000.
Assessor Exhibits:
# A-I: Computer field sheet of subject property.
A-2: Computer field sheet for Comparable #1 from appellant.
A-3: Computer field sheet for Comparable #3 from appellant.
A-4: Computer field sheet for Comparable #6 from appellant.
A-5: Assessor's Comparable #1, Lot 37, Port Ludlow #2, Area 1
A-6: Assessor's Comparable #2, Lot 38, Port ludlow #2, Area 1
A-7: Assessor's Comparable #3, Lot 15, Port Ludlow #1, Area 2
A-8: Plat Map showing subject property and comparable.
A-9: Map showing Port Ludlow #2, Area 1 with subject parcel highlighted
A-IO: Neighborhood(Land Code Rate/Description Listing
DAVID E. WOODRUFF
371 S. BAY WAY
PORT LUDLOW, WA. 98365
BOE: #91-082-R
PN: 976 800 038
Chairman Dalgleish began the hearing at 1:15 p.m. even though Mr. Woodruff was not
present after being granted a 15 minute grace period. The Chairman read the petition noting
that the assessed value for the land is $105,680 with improvements of $50,865 for a total of
$156,575. The appellant is requesting a reduction on the land to $59,900 and on the
improvements to $39,830 for a total of $99,730. Chainnan Dalgleish then read an adden-
dum letter dated July 22, 1991 into the record.
Vice-Chairman Douglas clarified that Mr. Woodruff feels that the assessed valuation should
be reduced now because of the pending issues regarding aquaculture and Indian Treaty rights.
He suggested the values be kept at the reduced rate until four years after final action is taken
on these issues.
Vice-Chairman Douglas stated there may be another building on this parcel. He suggested
that the Assessor's Office check it out. He added that the on-site inspection is scheduled for
the morning of 30th of October.
.
.
.
Board of Equalization: Minutes of September 26, 1991
Page: 6
ALLEN C. AND ANNELIESE F. KLOSKE, SR.
P.O. BOX 805
FREELAND, W A. 98249
BOE: 91-083-LO
PN: 998-200-101
Chairman Dalgleish explained the Board's hearing process and then swore in Allen and
Anneliese Kloske and Deputy Assessor Robert Kingsley.
Allen Kloske stated that they purchased this property in 1966. They have Lot 1 in Tala
Shores 2 and Lot 1 in Tala Shores. They have had the property surveyed. A creek runs
through the property from a 24" culvert under the highway which is more than a drainage
ditch. It erodes the property. This is waterfront property with a high bank that has the
potential for a nice view. The bank is at least 50 feet high. Chairman Dalgleish asked if
the culvert is deliberately run onto Mr. Kloske's property? Mr. Kloske stated that the culvert
dumps onto an adjacent property and then runs onto his property. Mrs. Kloske added that
she doesn't understand why the Public Works Department stops the pipe and lets the water
run onto the adjacent properties.
Robert Kingsley reported that this property is valued the same as all the others with
waterfront at Tala Shores. The value was established by comparison to sales of other
properties in Tala Shores. The Assessor's Office did not take into account that there was an
open ditch on this property. He added that in this case he recommends that the Board visit
the site.
Vice-Chairman Douglas reported that the Board will visit this site the morning of September
27, 1991.
Assessor's Exhibits:
#A-l: Computer field sheet for subject property.
A-2: Plat map of Tala Shores.
A-3: Computer listing of sales within a given area.
Petitioner's Exhibit:
#P-l: Plat map of Tala Shores, Vol 4 Page 28 of Plats, showing culvert placement.
RUSSELL I. TILLMAN
631 GRIFFITHS POINT ROAD
NORDLAND, WA. 98358
BOE: #91-084-R PN: 021 324 018
BOE: #91-085-LO PN: 021 324030
Chairman Dalgleish introduced the members
of the Board, the Clerk and Deputy Assessor
Bob Shold. He then explained the Board's
hearing process and swore in Bob Shold and
1111111~IIIIIIIII!ill!llll~lllllil
N.II
....
.
.
.
Board of Equalization: Minutes of September 26, 1991
Page: 7
Russell Tillman. He reported that this appeal is on an .84 acre piece of property located on
Killisut Harbor. Russell Tillman confirmed information.
Mr. Tillman stated that he doesn't know if the valuation is fair or not. The three properties
that the Assessor's Office showed him as comparisons were all valued lower than his. He is
looking for parity, to be equal, with his neighbors. The comparison properties are larger and
much deeper from front to back, and each of them has a third interest in another piece of
property that has 520 feet of waterfront.
Chairman Dalgleish asked what front foot value was used for Mr. Tillman's property?
Bob Shold reported that the base rate for all the low bank waterfront in this area is $750 a
front foot. No adjustments to the value were made on this property. He added that a
number of years ago this property was owned by the Heinzinger family. Their property was
divided by court order among the three brothers in the family. Those three parcels are the
ones which Mr. Tillman is referring to. The base rate for these parcels is $750 a front foot,
the same as Mr. Tillman's. The contention is not that the property is being overvalued in
respect to its market value but, in comparison to these three parcels.
Chairman Dalgleish asked if the adjoining properties on Killisut Harbor are valued in the
same manner?
Bob Shold answered that these three parcels are the only ones that were adjusted. He advised
that this is not an accurate assessment of these parcels. He agrees that they are undervalued
in comparison to Mr. Tillman's.
Vice-Chairman Douglas reported that the Board will make an on-site inspection of the
property on October 25, 1991, late in the morning. He then asked for clarification that Mr.
Tillman is using the values on the three lots as comparisons for his property? Mr. Tillman
indicated that is correct.
Assessor's Exhibits:
#A-l: Map showing parcels that are comparable to Petitioners and lower in valuation
A-2: Computer field sheet for subject property.
A-3: Computer field sheet on comparable #1, Tax 47 & Tidelands Tax D3 plus 1/3
interest in communal area.
A-4: Computer field sheet on comparable #2, Tax 45 & Tidelands Tax Dl plus 1/3
interest in communal area.
A-5: Computer field sheet on comparable #3, Tax 46 & Tidelands Tax D2 plus 1/3
interest in communal area.
l!ill.lllfl~l.;.IIIII~i~I~!il~~1111111111 ~:~~oua;~~~ea~nd ~~e~i~~~ss~~~~;~~~ ~~
.!ilii...\!:l}iiiiiltiiii}I.iiiniiir...\riiiii,..,.'" the communall~t being used for comparison.
Vice-Chairman Douglas asked the purpose
of the communal lot? Bob Shold stated that the communal lot is primarily a tidal basin.
.
.
.
Board of Equalization: Minutes of September 26, 1991
Page: 8
It does has some value, but by definition of the Shorelines Act no building would be allowed
on it. He disputed Mr. Tillman's contention that this property is worth $200,000.
Archie Barber added that Mr. Tillman wondered why the one third interest in this communal
lot was not reflected on the comparable value? Bob Shold clarified that this communal lot
has a value, but it is not what Mr. Tillman has stated he feels it's worth. It is valued at the
same rate as the tidelands.
Vice-Chairman Douglas reported that this communal parcel is called Lot B and has been
valued under land code 9301 as unimproved land. There is 520 front feet of waterfront valued
at a rate of $20 per front foot, with a 27 percent adjustment for excess tidelands. The
resulting value is divided by three so that one third interest is $2,505. This amount appears
as part of the value of each of the three lots being used for comparison.
Mr. Tillman stated that the value is on the tidelands of this communal lot, but the uplands are
not being valued.
Vice-Chairman Douglas noted, and Bob Shold confirmed, that the Assessor's Office is bound
by statute to view the three lots and the communal lots as they were established by the Court.
There being no further business before the Board, the meeting adjourned.
APPROVED BY:
DATE APPROVED:
07/ ~.id
AC.DAL SH, CHAIRMAN
/,;;{ / C)() J r; I
/ I
ATTEST:
r~.~a~~
erdrei L. Ke an {/ 0
('~~ /?~~,
ARCHIE L. BARBER, JR., MEMBE