Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM100491 cc OJ.:1,)$or .a - b\-CLY JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF EQUALIZATION A. C. DALGLEISH DAVID G. DOUGLAS ARCmE BARBER, JR. JAMES A. DE LEO CHAIRMAN VICE-CHAIRMAN MEMBER ALTERNATE MINUTES OCT 0 B E R 0 4, 1 9 9 1 The Board of Equalization convened at 9:00 a.m. with Chairman AC. Dalgleish, Vice- Chairrnan 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. MR. AND MRS. DONALD J. COTE 1611 GRIFFITH POINT ROAD NORDLAND, W A 98358 BOE: 91-103-R PN: 021 321 053 BOE: 91-104-R PN: 021 321 054 After Chairman Dalgleish introduced the Board members, explained the hearing proc- ess and swore in Deputy Assessor Bob Shold and Mr. & Mrs. Cote, he verified that this appeal is for parcel number 021 321 053. Mr. Cote stated that the parcel they are appealing is #021 321 054. He asked that this petition be withdrawn. Vice-Chairman Douglas moved to accept the withdrawal of petition number BOE 91-103- R as requested by Mr. & Mrs. Cote. Member Archie Barber seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. r--r-I ..I!i.I!~I~~~t.i..~....lllill~I~....I~!III'.I....illl!! Chairman Dalgleish. explained That e~~ry- :""""" "" " """-" "., h.d h~ ~.m m "'''I.. I.. petIlIon. ,?'",n,','inn?i?,:i::''''''''''.''.''''??'''''''''''':i::'''''":i::""",,,,,,,""',i.,,?,,,,',,,,,,,,,,?,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.,,,,.'."n?,'"'i?" He noted that this petition is for a parcel. 75 acres in size with a value on the land of $51,000 and $86,690 on the improvements, for a total of $137,690. Board of Equalization Meeting: Minutes of October 4, 1991 Page: 2 Mr. Cote stated that last year's valuation was $67,115 on the improvements. He is not questioning the valuation of the land. The value of the building was increased to $86,690 in 1991, which is roughly a 35% value increase in one year. Member Archie Barber explained that the property was assessed on the normal four year re-evaluation cycle, while the improvements were assessed when they were done. Mr. Cote stated that he thought everything was re-evaluated annually. He added that he is question- ing the improvement value. He thought he was told that it was assessed on the replacement value and he feels he can replace the building for considerably less than it is assessed at. He presented one comparable (PN 021 321 052) which is only a land value. This is Tax Lot 75 which is .77 acres in size. The sale price was $28,000 in October 1988. Bob Shold presented a copy of the computer field sheet for the subject property and he reviewed three comparable sales: Comparable #2: Tax 103 (Mfidavit #61702) sold March of 1990 for $320,000. (Land value is $144,600 and buildings $99,845). Mr. Cote noted that there is more square feet in the house on this lot. Tax 53 and 54 (Affidavit #61603) sold for $230,000 in March of 1990. The house on this property is one story and is inferior to the one on the subject property. Tax 33 and the south half of Tax 34 (Mfidavit #60044) sold in September 1989 for $200,000. The house is 1 1/2 stories built in 1974. Comparable #1: Comparable #3: Bob Shold explained that the building value is calculated using replacement cost. He then reviewed the form used in the appraisal and what is considered in that determination. Mr. Cote stated that he is a contractor and his hard cost for replacement is a cost that does not include profit, etc. Bob Shold explained that the Assessors Office has to use the cost as if a contractor were building the house. Vice-Chairman Douglas reported that the on-site inspection will be conducted in October 25, 1991 in the afternoon. Assessor Exhibits: #A-l Computer field sheet for subject property #A-2 NeighborhoodlLand Code Rate/Description Listing #A-3 Listing of sales for area #A-4 Map of Plat of Nordland showing subject property, Tract 77 #A-5 Comparable 1: Computer field sheet on Tax 103. #A-6 Comparable 2: Computer field sheet on Tax 53 and 54. #A-7 Comparable 3: Computer field sheet on Tax 33 in south half of 34 Board of Equalization Meeting: Minutes of October 4, 1991 Page: 3 WILLIAM J. ELDRIDGE 561 OLELE POINT ROAD PORT LUDLOW, W A 98365 BOE: 91-101-R PN: 921 283 006 BOE: 91-102-R PN: 921 283 001 Chairman Dalgleish introduced the Board members, explained the hearing process, and then swore in William J. Eldridge and Deputy Assessor Robert Kingsley. William Eldridge stated that he purchased this piece of property and then a few years later purchased the other half of the lot. Robert Kingsley presented maps which he noted show that the parcels Mr. Eldridge is talking about are side by side. This appeal is on the waterfront parcel and the next appeal is on the piece of property right behind this one. William Eldridge reported that he has talked to all his neighbors, and he has the piece of waterfront with the highest bank on this portion of Olele Point (from the point called Tidal Marsh to Olele Point itself). His neighbor with 160 feet of no bank waterfront (900 feet deep - left of Tax 9 on map) are assessed at $150,560 for their land only. His property has approximately a forty foot high bank along the beach. He is assessed $66,500 for his 75 feet of waterfront. The neighbor's assessment is for their entire piece. He is assessed separately on two pieces of property and consequently is paying the waterfront per foot value for half of his property (lot) in addition to the assessment on the back piece. Chairman Dalgleish asked why he doesn't ask the Assessor's Office to tie the two parcels together if he doesn't intend to split it up? Mr. Eldridge said he doesn't intend to split it up and he may ask the Assessor to combine the lots into one. As it stands now, he feels he is being double-taxed on this property. Chairman Dalgleish asked if Mr. Eldridge could sell each of these pieces of property separately? Mr. Eldridge answered that he would have to recreate the easement for access to the back piece of property because when he purchased the second piece the easement was no longer specified on the deed. Chairman Dalgleish noted that, in his opinion, if Mr. Eldridge intends to maintain the parcel as one site, he should contact Assessor and have it listed as one parcel number. Mr. Eldridge added that the neighbors with the no bank waterfront are paying $941 a front foot and he is paying $889.33 a front foot on his waterfront property. Robert Kingsley presented the computer field sheet on the subject property. He noted that when he got the appeal which stated "neighbors property" he didn't know which neighbor so he took the neighbor to the west. Mr. Eldridge's comparable has 160 feet of waterfront which is assessed at $900 a front foot. The value is reduced by 1% for excess front footage. The value is $142,560. There are two dwellings on the property so there are two site improvements of $4,000 each for a total valuation of $150,560. He continued by noting that the appellants property is assessed for 75 feet of waterfront at $800 a front foot. The base Board of Equalization Meeting: Minutes of October 4, 1991 Page: 4 rate difference on the front footage is that the subject property has a higher bank. The appellant also owns the tidelands, while the owners of the comparable property do not. Tidelands are valued at $20 per front foot for a total of $1,500. There is one site improvement on the subject property assessed at $4,000. The total valuation of the subject property is $65,500. If Mr. Eldridge's parcels were combined there would be a lower value on them. The ability to sell the parcels separately increases their value because the owner would not have to go through the red tape to divide them for sale. He then suggested he would recommend a 5% depth reduction on the waterfront parcel. This would bring the value to $57,000 for the land. With the site improvements and tidelands that would make the assessed value $62,500. Added to the assessed value of the back parcel, the total of the two would be $69,700. If the parcels were combined into one parcel the assessed value would be $65,500. The difference of $4,200 is the added value because there are two separate parcels. The question to Mr. Eldridge is if it is worth $4,200 to him to have the ability to sell off part of his property without having to go through government regulations? Mr. Eldridge stated that by his calculations on the McCarthy property with no bank waterfront is valued at $1.045 per square foot. He is assessed $2.48 per square foot for his property. Robert Kingsley explained that on a waterfront site the majority of the value is for a homesite on the property within a 100 feet of the waterfront. The rest of the property is there to accommodate a driveway or other utilities, etc. The standard appraisal process doesn't recognize square foot value on waterfront parcels. Mr. Eldridge stated that he is still assessed over 150% more on his property than the no bank waterfront property in the area. Robert Kingsley then reviewed the Neighborhood Code sheet with Mr. Eldridge. The different codes in an area include a description of what the water- front is like and the value per front foot (i.e. $900 per front foot for low to no bank, $850 per front foot for medium high bank and $800 per front foot for high bank). Robert Kingsley stated that there is a question about the building on this parcel also. The appellant states that the building valuation is considerably more than the replacement cost. William Eldridge said that the house has no insulation under it. It has R19 in the ceilings and Rll in the walls. The house was built in 1968 and he purchased it in 1970. He has poured a concrete slab in the garage and then closed it in and added two bedrooms. The front of the house was moved out 7 feet in the 1970's. Half of the house is built on a slab and the other half is on a perimeter foundation. Robert Kingsley stated that the Assessor's Office comments on the construction on this house date back to 1979. Assessor Exhibits: #A-l: Map of Oak Bay Waterfront with subject parcel #A-2: Computer field sheet for subject property. #A-3: Neighborhood/Land Code Rate/Description Listing Board of Equalization Meeting: Minutes of October 4, 1991 Page: 5 Chairman Dalgleish reported that the as- sessed value of this property is $11,200 for the land which the petitioner feels should be $4,500. The improvements are valued at $15,800 and the appellant is asking that they be reduced to $12,000. The total assessed value of this property is $27,080 and the appellant is asking that this be reduced to $16,500. William Eldridge said that he stated his argument for this property in his review of the last petition. There are lots in the Oak Bay Waterfront Tract that are non-waterfront, with limited views, valued at $7,250. There is another lot with no waterfront view, no community water system which is valued at $6,000. Chairman Dalgleish asked if the property has a well on it? Mr. Eldridge answered that it has a hand dug well that is 15 feet deep that has water in it in the winter. There is no septic system on the property. There is electricity to the building. Vice-Chairman Douglas asked if the 20% reduction is for the size of the parcel? Robert Kingsley answered that is correct. This site is valued as a one acre site with a 20% reduction because it is .7 acres. He reported that the Assessor's Office uses the mapped acreage unless there is a recorded survey of the property. Vice-Chairman Douglas reported that the on-site inspection of both of Mr. Eldridge's properties are scheduled for October 30, 1991 in the morning. Assessor Exhibits: #A-l Computer field sheet for subject property LAWRENCE KURT DELAY 1924 S. SALEM DRIVE ANCHORAGE AK 99508 (DELAY) JOAN TENENBAUM 351 REEF ROAD NORDLAND, WA 98358 (TENENBAUM) BOE: 91-100-R PN: 021 184 003 Vice-Chairman Douglas noted that this petition is being represented by Joan Tenenbaum who is a 50% owner of the property. Chairman Dalgleish reported that a letter was received from Mr. Delay stating that he would not be present. He has requested that the date of the hearing be changed but was advised that it could not be. Board of Equalization Meeting: Minutes of October 4, 1991 Page: 6 Joan Tenenbaum explained that she is aware of the correspondence between the Board and her ex-husband who submitted the petition for this reduction. Chairman Dalgleish then introduced the members of the Board, the Clerk and Deputy Assessor Robert Shold. He explained the Board's hearing process. The Clerk reported that Joan Tenenbaum has a 50% ownership of this property and the petition was filed by Mr. DeLay without her knowledge. She is here as her own representative. Chairman Dalgleish then read Mr. Delay's petition into the record in his absence. The home/apartment is located at 351 Reef Road in Nordland. The view is west toward Indian Island. There is 250 feet of waterfront with tidelands. The apartment (approximately 700 square feet) is one bedroom plus a work area, and a garage of approximately 980 square feet. Mr. Delay has indicated one comparable sale in Kilisut Reef Estates. Lot 1 was sold for $100,000 in July 1990. The Clerk then read item 9 of the petition into the record. The appellant has submitted a copy of County Resolution 99-90 and Section 63 HB2929 regarding potable water and is requesting that the valuation be reduced to $120,000 from $139,130. Supplemental information has been submitted by Ms. Tenenbaum the Clerk reported. Bob Shold stated that he has nothing to add to the two appraisals submitted to Board and to the Assessor's Office by Ms. Tenenbaum. He questioned the viability of this appeal since Ms. Tenenbaum is here to represent that the property is worth considerably more than the assessed value. The two exhibits submitted by Ms. Tenenbaum indicate a value of $200,000 and $275,000 which is substantially more than the assessed value. Joan Tenenbaum stated that at the time she and Mr. DeLay purchased this property in 1985 they were married. The purchase price was $52,500. They are now divorced and a court order states that they are to sell the property and divide the proceeds 50/50. She has no quarrel with the assessed valuation. She reported that she did not know of this petition until last Monday. She added that there are inaccuracies in the petition. The petition states that the property has not been appraised by anyone except the County Assessor. It has been appraised two times by other appraisers before the petition was signed. One of the appraisers Mr. Delay hired himself. He states the reason the property should be reduced in value is because of the Growth Management Act and the County Resolution regarding a potable water source and that he is now forced to drill. Ms. Tenenbaum stated that it was always their intention to have a well drilled. In fact Mr. DeLay asked the Superior Court in Anchorage to force her to install a well. The Court denied his motion because the property in question was part of a divorce action. She stated she is requesting that the value of the property not be changed. She clarified that the "apartment" is a 24 by 60 foot building that is about 2/3 shop space and 1/3 residential space. The residential space includes one small bedroom, living room, kitchen, and bath. Vice-Chairman Douglas clarified that the Assessor's Office has the property assessed as follows: Board of Equalization Meeting: Minutes of October 4, 1991 Page: 7 250 feet of waterfront at a rate of $500 a front foot. There are adjustments of minus 7% for excess frontage, and minus 15% for excess height. There is a 50% reduction on the tidelands as well a 9% reduction for excess tidelands. There is a site improvement of $2,500. This totals $102,125. The unadjusted value of the land could be $130,180. It appears that the Assessor has given valid judgement as to how to determine the land value. The building is listed as a one story house. The replacement value of the residence is $41,117 which was reduced to $37,005 because it is 90% complete. The on-site inspection is scheduled for October 25, 1991 in the afternoon, Vice-Chairman Douglas reported. LOIS D. HARGRAVES 23202 67TH AVE W. MOUNTLAKE TERRACE, WA 98043 BOE: 91-058-LO PN: 998 200 329 Deputy Assessor Robert Kingsley was present on behalf of the Assessor's Office. Chairman Dalgleish read the petition into the minutes in absence of the petitioner. Lois Hargraves owns Tala Shores Division #3, Lot 30, which is 83 feet by 428 feet in size. This is a waterfront lot with a view across Hood Canal. The property is assessed at $60,000 and the appellant is asking that it be reduced to $35,000. She believes that a 71.43% increase in value in one year is excessive on this unimproved lot. Ms. Hargraves purchased the lot in May of 1966. Robert Kingsley reviewed three comparable sales: Comparable #1: Lot 32, Division #3 of Tala Shores. This bare land sold for $60,000 in April 1990. Comparable #2: Tract 33, Tala Shores #1. This was a bare land sale for $62,000 in January 1990. Comparable #3: This sale is of the house just north of the subject property. This property was re-evaluated in January 1991 with land valued at $62,500 (including site improvements) and the residence at $53,440. The total valuation was $115,940. This property sold in August of 1991 for $156,000. The on-site inspection of this property is scheduled for October 23, 1991 in the morning. Assessor Exhibits: #A-l Computer field sheet of subject property. #A-2 Map of area showing subject property in yellow and comparable sales #A-3 Neighborhood/Land Code Rate/Description Listing #A-4 Real Estate Excise Tax Sheet on Comparable #1 #A-5 Real Estate Excise Tax Sheet on Comparable #2 Board of Equalization Meeting: Minutes of October 4, 1991 Page: 8 #A-6 Real Estate Excise Tax Sheet on Comparable #3 #A-7 Listing of Sales within a Given Area - Values from Appraisal File Code 3362 LAURASON T. HUNT 800 BELLEVUE WAY NE, SUITE 300 BELLEVUE, W A 98004 BOE: 91-105-R PN: 983 401 307 Laurason T. Hunt was present when Chairman Dalgleish introduced the members of the Board and the Clerk and then explained the hearing process. The Chairman swore in Mr. Hunt and Deputy Assessor Robert Kingsley. Laurason Hunt stated that he purchased his house in August of 1986 for $146,500. The appraised value of the house by a financing institution at that time was $138,000. He paid higher than the appraised value because he had favorable seller financing terms. The house at that time was in better condition than it is today. A contractor gave him a value of $60,000 on the house itself. The house was not built to code. It is not a shake roof house as stated by the Assessors Office. Wood shingle roofing only covers the deck, not the house. The roof over the deck and house leaks and no one can tell him the kind of roofing material to use. If the property was valued at $138,000 in 1986, he feels the increase to $146,500 in 1991 is to much. Mr. Hunt continued by noting that the waves of the December storm went mid-way up the windows on his house taking away the bank. Erosion is a problem. The bank at one point is 5 feet and goes up to 12 feet in height. The biggest problem is the northern part of the property being eroded. They have lost about two feet of sand. He is having problems with the hot mopped portion of his roof. His next door neighbor purchased his home in 1989 with a similar situation and paid $74,900 (the house was not as good as Mr. Hunt's, but his property is better because all of it is usable). Mr. Hunt then reviewed sales in the Tala Shores area. He then reviewed sales in the Paradise Bay area. The one that he feels is most comparable to his property is Mr. Watson's. This sale was in January of 1989 for $74,900. Mr. Hunt added that he really doesn't understand how the Assessor appraised the house at $89,500. When he purchased the property he felt that the land was more valuable than the house. Robert Kingsley explained that the Assessor's valuation is based on the Marshall and Swift Valuation Manual. The square footage of the house is determined, a quality grade is assigned and then a depreciation factor is determined from a site inspection. The purchase of this property was in 1986 at a price of $146,000. The Assessor used the sale price as a large consideration of what fair market value is for the property. In this case, if the fair market value in 1986 was $146,000, that would mean, with a 4 % per year inflation factor, the house would be worth considerably more now than it was in 1986. Board of Equalization Meeting: Minutes of October 4, 1991 Page: 9 Mr. Hunt reported that he only owns 1/272nd of the tidelands of that property. Someone who buys a non view site can walk to beach and has as much right to utilize it as he has. There is a considerable amount of traffic and use of beach by the owners of all of the lots. Robert Kingsley asked Mr. Hunt if he would sell his property today for $152,000? Mr. Hunt answered that he wouldn't sell the house for any price. home in his family to pass on to his children. He negotiated a financing. He added that he wouldn't sell the property for $152,000. He plans to keep this price based on seller Robert Kingsley stated that the point of his question was to figure out a fair market value for this property. He feels a more reasonable fair market value would be between $184,000 to $185,000 based on what he's seen sell in this area. Vice-Chairman Douglas reported that the Board will make an on-site inspection of this property on the morning of October 23, 1991. Mr. Hunt asked that the Board members look at the property to the north of his when they make their on-site inspection. Assessor Exhibits: #A-l Listing of Sales within a Given Area - Values from Appraisal File Code 3362 A-2 Listing of Sales within a Given Area - Values from Appraisal File Code 3362 A-3 Computer field sheet on subject property. A-4 Neighborhood/Land Code Rate/Description Listing A-5 Map of area showing comparable sales ARTHUR AND HELEN BRUNSTAD 691 PIONEER DRIVE PORT LUDLOW, WA 98365 BOE: 91-107-R PN: 990 600 328 Deputy Assessor Robert Kingsley was present on behalf of the Assessor's Office. Chairman Dalgleish read the petition into the minutes in absence of the petitioner. This petition is for Lot #28 in Port Ludlow #2, Area 3. Mr. Brunstad states that when he purchased the property in 1976 it had a good view of the sound to the east. Trees have since grown and obscured the view. Removing some damaged tree at a cost of over $800 has provided minimal view improvement. The Brunstad's paid $15,000 for their lot 15 years ago. The 15 year old home is 1,248 square feet in size with a half basement. It is a small home and is not comparable to surrounding properties. Robert Kingsley reported that he believes the house could be sold at the new assessed value. He can't answer if the land value is correct. Chairman Dalgleish noted that Mr. Brunstad is not questioning the value of the improvements, he is questioning the land value. Robert Kingsley then presented a map and some comparable sales in the area: Board of Equalization Meeting: Minutes of October 4, 1991 Page: 10 Comparable #1: The house next door to the Brunstad's sold for $210,000 in February 1991. The house is a little bigger than the one on the subject property. Lot 26 which is two lots away from subject property. This property sold for $325,000 in February of 1991. Lot 33. This lot sold for $75,000 in December of 1989. Comparable #2: Comparable #3: Robert Kingsley continued by noting that Lot 27 is a problem because it is right next door to the subject property and is very comparable to it and it is assessed at $40,000. It sold for $40,000 in December of 1990. He then reported that Lot 29 is valued at $80,000, Lot 28 is valued at $80,000, Lot 27 is valued at $40,000 for some reason, while Lot 26 is also on at $80,000. He continued by noting that there are sales that suggest that a land value of $80,000 is not too high in two cases in the local vicinity but then a property sold for only $40,000 right in the middle of these lots. Vice-Chairman Douglas noted that the on-site inspection is scheduled for October 15, 1991 in the morning. Assessor Exhibits: #A-l: Map of area showing subject Lot 28; Comparable #1 (Lot 29), Comparable #2 (Lot 26); and Comparable #3 (Lot 33) A-2: Real Estate Excise Tax Form and Computer Field Sheet on Comparable #1 A-3: Real Estate Excise Tax Form and Computer Field Sheet on Comparable #2 A-4: Real Estate Excise Tax Form and Computer Field Sheet on Comparable #3 A-5: Computer Field Sheet on Lot 27 adjacent to subject property There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was recessed and will reconvene on Tuesday October 8, 1991. APPROVED BY: DATE APPROVED: / / YidkJ A.C.DALGlEISIt, CHAIRMAN ~~Q~~ DAVID G. DO LAS, VICE HAIRMAN 1~~ /; J Jrfj~ ATTEST: (l~;L. A-. ~r ~ ARCHIE L. BARBER, JR., MEMBER otdif7IJ. #/z;, JJ pW1j, ~~l Itt...:: ' ~ Q