Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM121499rA William S. Marlow Richard A. Broders James A. DeLeo 1820 Jefferson Street PO Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 James A. DeLeo, District 1 William S. Marlow, District 2 Richard A. Broders, District 3 JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF EQUALIZATION MINUTES DECEMBER 14,1999 Chairman Vice -Chairman Member Chairman William S. Marlow called the meeting to order at 9:30 a.m. in the presence of Vice -Chairman Richard A. Broders and Member James A. DeLeo. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Vice -Chairman Broders moved to approve the minutes of August 3, and 4, 1999. Member DeLeo seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. HEARING WAIVERS/ASSESSMENT CORRECTIONS Member DeLeo moved to accept a petition withdrawal from the following individual based on the assessment correction agreed to by the appellant and the Assessor's office: APPELLANT Melanie Richards APPEAL NO. PARCEL NO. BOE 99 -92 -LO 990 600 244 Vice -Chairman Marlow seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. EQUALIZATION; DABOB COVE; WILLIAM WEAVER Chairman Marlow explained that the Assessor's office inadvertently left out a parcel during the Boards equalization of property located in the Dabob Cove area on September 29, 1999. Vice -Chairman Broders moved to equalize the valuation of parcel number 701 344 043 by reducing the value by $5,000 for lack of beach access for a new valuation of $41,875. Member DeLeo seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. (See also minutes of September 29, 1999) Phone (360)385-9100 / 1-800-831-2678 Fax (360)385-9382 jeffboc acojefferson.wa.us BOARD OF EQUALIZATION MEETING MINUTES - DECEMBER 14, 1999 Page 2 HEARINGS John & Peggy Molsness BOE: 99-94-R PN: 972 903 905 1070 55"` Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 Mr. Molsness was present. Appraiser Robert Shold represented the Assessor's office. After explaining the hearing process Chairman Marlow swore them in. The property under appeal is a residence on a 100'x 100' lot located at 1070 55`h Street, Port Townsend. Mr. Molsness stated that he believes the value of his property should be based on the construction costs. He presented materials in support of his case and noted that he requested the information the Assessor's office used in valuing his property, but he never received it. The current assessment of the property is $158,880 ($26,000 for the land and $132,880 for the improvements). Mr. Molsness estimates the value to be $126,431.91 ($26,794 for the land and 90% of $110,708.79 for the improvements). Mr. Shold stated that he is filling in for Mr. Schuck who appraised the property, but, could not attend the hearing today. It appears as though the appellant did not receive any information from Mr. Schuck regarding how the property was assessed. Mr. Shold excused himself briefly to copy the information in the Assessor's file for Mr. Molsness. Mr. Shold stated that in looking at the information he is uncertain about some things and does not feel that he can provide any credible testimony without consulting Mr. Schuck. At the close of the hearing the Board concurred to conduct an inspection of the property and make a determination at a later date. Hervey K. Hicks BOE: 99-93-E PN: 939 900 003 370 Dennis Blvd. Port Townsend, WA 98368 Mr. Hicks was present. Lead Property Technician Sherrie Shold and Senior Administrative Clerk Wendy Ward represented the Assessor's office. After explaining the hearing process Chairman Marlow swore them in. This appeal is based on the denial of a Senior Citizen and Disabled Persons Exemption by the Assessor's office for 1999. It is believed by the Assessor's office that Mr. Hicks does not reside at 370 Dennis Blvd., Port Townsend for a continuing period of six months or more. If that is the case, then Mr. Hicks would not qualify to receive the Senior Citizen Exemption. Mr. Hicks noted that he needs at least 45 minutes to 1 hour to present his testimony as it is a very complex case. The Board asked that Mr. Hicks present as much oral testimony as possible and submit a copy of his written testimony for the Board to review. Mr. Hicks began by addressing the concerns of the Assessor's office as outlined in their response to his appeal. The Assessor's office states in their response that "The only phone listing for Mr. Hicks is in Agassiz (British Columbia, CANADA). When we called this number in February 1999, the answering machine answered "Hicks Custom Cabinets." Mr. Hicks stated that comment is ludicrous. He has had the same message on his machine for years. He has never worked in the cabinet business and he has never been employed in any woodworking business. He does not know how to make a cabinet. BOARD OF EQUALIZATION MEETING MINUTES - DECEMBER 14,1999 Page 3 Since Mr. Hicks' previous business was music, he presented and read letters of reference from distinguished scholars and musicians in support of his character. The Assessor's response states "According to Mr. Hicks' separation agreement, April 8, 1999, he is a resident of Agassiz." Mr. Hicks stated that the separation agreement was for him as a Canadian citizen. It has nothing to do with the United States and would not mention anything but Agassiz. Mr. Hicks also provided a copy of his separation agreement between he and his wife. He noted that he feels he is being harassed by the Assessor's office. The Assessor's response states "We have two affidavits from neighbors stating Mr. Hicks is not a permanent resident of Cape George". Mr. Hicks stated that he asked the Assessor's office staff for the identity of the individuals who were saying he doesn't live here, because it is not true, he does live here. The Assessor's response states "...Mr. Hicks does not reside at 370 Dennis Blvd., Port Townsend for a continuing period of six months or more." Mr. Hicks stated that he spoke with Prosecuting Attorney Juelie Dalzell who talked with State officials who said that an individual has to reside at their home for six months out of the year, not for a continuing period of sLv months. He has not been here for a continuing period of six months. He believes the Assessor's office makes up these rules. Mr. Hicks also believes that the pressure put on him by the Assessor's office to provide a signed separation ag=reement, caused his marriage to end. Chairman Marlow asked that Mr. Hicks conclude his testimony to allow the Board to hear testimony from the Assessor's office. Mr. Hicks asked that the Board schedule another time to continue this hearing so that he may present all of his testimony. This is very important to him as it means he may not be able to live in the United States if the Assessor's office is upheld on their decision. Mr. Hicks added that he is a disabled veteran and he gave everything that one person could give to this Country. He feels that he does not deserve to be harassed by the Assessor's office. Much of the information requested by the Assessor's office had nothing to do with what they really needed. Chairman Marlow stated that the Board will consider scheduling additional time for the hearing and notify both parties of the decision. Lead Property Technician Sherrie Shold clarified that the denial was based on residency not income, therefore, they will not be addressing what documents are required for income. Ms. Shold stated that the separation agreement repeatedly states that Mr. Hicks is a resident of Agassiz. She believes that if he were a resident of the United States the agreement would have stated such. The agreement also states that he resides in the family home located in Agassiz. In addition there are two (2) affidavits from property owners who live adjacent to Mr. Hicks' property here in Port Townsend. The affidavits state that Mr. Hicks is not a resident. During a recent property inspection conducted by an appraiser of the Assessor's office it was observed that this property appears to have an absentee owner. The Assessor's office searched the Internet for a phone listing for Mr. Hicks and the only phone listing they could find was in Agassiz, B.C., CANADA. He did not have a local listing. When the Assessor's office staff called the phone number in Canada the answering machine stated "Hicks Custom Cabinets". All of the references that Mr. Hicks has BOARD OF EQUALIZATION MEETING MINUTES - DECEMBER 14,1999 Page 4 provided are from individuals who are not from this area. Ms. Shold continued by stating that the Assessor's office sent a request for address verification to the post office which came back saying that Mr. Hicks does receive mail at 370 Dennis Boulevard, Port Townsend, however, it is not picked up regularly. The Assessor's office sent him a registered/return receipt letter which was not responded to within three weeks and the post office returned it to the Assessor's office. Ms. Shold stated that for these reasons the Assessor's office recommends the exemption be denied. Mr. Hicks responded that his house in Agassiz is going to be put on the market which is why he has a phone at that residence. He does not have a phone at his residence in Port Townsend, because, he cannot afford to pay for two (2) phones. Mr. Hicks urged the Board members to call the phone number to his house in Agassiz to see for themselves that the message does not say anything about custom cabinets. As far as him picking up his mail regularly, he stated that he doesn't pick up his mail regularly anywhere. He has had a difficult time dealing with the ending of this marriage and he has been in mourning. When he is at his residence in Port Townsend he stays in the house with the shutters closed, so there is absolutely no way any of the neighbors would know whether he is home or not. He is home for a month at a time and he is gone for a month at a time. Mr. Hicks presented photographs of his house which show that no one could possibly know whether or not he is in the house. One of the individuals who submitted an affidavit presented by the Assessor's office, is lying. He stated that only his former wife actually knows when he was in Canada and when he was here. She knows this because her name is also on the house in Canada and he must keep her informed of when he leaves that house uninhabited. An affidavit from his former wife is included in his supporting documentation. Mr. Hicks questions why his neighbors would submit affidavits to the Assessor's office about his residency without being solicited for them. The Assessor's office staff stated that they did not in any way elicit information from anyone. Vice -Chairman Broders asked Mr. Hicks if he has a drivers license, and if so, where was it issued? Mr. Hicks replied, yes, it was issued in Port Townsend as well as his vehicle registration. He added that he pays taxes here and is a registered voter here. In closing Mr. Hicks noted that this has been a systematic contracted harassment of him by the Assessor's office. The Prosecuting Attorney Juelie Dalzell finally told the Assessor's office staff to layoff. Ms. Shold responded that Prosecutor Juelie Dalzell did not tell the Assessor's office that they were harassing Mr. Hicks. At the close of the hearing the Board advised that Mr. Hicks' request to continue the hearing will be considered and both parties will be notified of the Board's decision. A. K Sharma BOE: 99 -91 -PP PN: 10-71661 K D. Whitcher, Agent 310 Alcohol Loop Road Port Hadlock, WA 98339 Mr. Whitcher was not present. Lead Technician Kathleen Guzman and Appraiser Robert Kingsley represented the Assessor's office. After explaining the hearing process Chairman Marlow swore them in. This is an appeal of personal property which consists of restaurant equipment and hotel furniture/equipment located at the Old Alcohol Plant Inn and Marina. Mr. Whitcher stated on his appeal form that "We have only one (1) piece of new equipment. That was purchased in 98' approx. $5,500. Everything else is so old that we cannot buy parts BOARD OF EQUALIZATION MEETING MINUTES - DECEMBER 14, 1999 Page 5 for it. Most of our hotel furniture dates back to the (70's). To the best of my knowledge, the only new furniture we have are the t.v.'s." The personal property is currently valued at $100,000 ($50,000 for the restaurant equipment and $50,000 for the hotel furniture/equipment). Mr. Whitcher estimates the value to be $19,000 ($9,000 for the restaurant equipment and $10,000 for the hotel furniture/equipment). Ms. Guzman stated that she sent the appellant and presented the Board with information on personal property. Mr. Whitcher has never responded with an inventory list for the Assessor's office to value. Without the inventory list the Assessor's office used the value of $100,000 which was obtained from the State Department of Revenue years ago. The value of $100,000 was based on a sale which occurred in 1989. Ms. Guzmanstated that is the only documentation that the Assessor's office has available to them for valuing the property. She noted that she did not apply a depreciation factor because, without an inventory list, she does not know what equipment they have and the Assessor's office staff does not have the time or resources to enable them to inspect the personal property of all business. Mr. Kingsley stated that when he was conducting his inspection of the real property he asked Mr. Whitcher why he has not submitted an inventory list. Mr. Whitcher stated that it is all used property and not worth much. Mr. Kingsley believes that they probably do not have a complete inventory list. Discussion ensued regarding the depreciation of personal property. After reviewing all the information submitted and hearing the testimony of the Assessor's representatives, the Board concurred to conduct an inspection of the property and make a determination at a later date. Sam Swanson 2190 Swansonville Road Port Hadlock, WA 98365 BOE: 99-64-R 99 -65 -LO 99 -66 -LO 99-67-C 99-77-C 99-78-C 99-79-C 99-80-C 99-81-C PN: 901112 012 901 112 010 901112 041 901 112 002 901 013 012 901 013 013 901 013 014 901 013 015 901 013 016 Mr. Swanson was present. Appraiser Robert Shold and Assessor Jack Westerman represented the Assessor's office. After explaining the hearing process Chairman Marlow swore them in. Mr. Swanson stated that the following four (4) parcels used to be the old Jenkins farm. One (1) parcel contains Cottons Concrete Batching Plant and Shop and the other three (3) parcels are additional acreage from which gravel has been removed. Mr. Swanson is appealing the value because under the new zoning regulations this property has been downzoned to one (1) unit per ten (10) acres, and he does not believe that the Assessor's office took that into consideration when they valued the property. All four (4) parcels total approximately 20 acres and are located at 121 Bromwell Road, Port Hadlock. Parcel #901112 012: This parcel is owned by Shold Excavating, Inc. It consists of approximately 6.54 acres with an office and shop. The concrete plant is located on this parcel. The plant is a commercial operation and all the property around it has been downzoned to residential. Currently the property is valued at $92,550 ($72,550 for the land and $20,000 for the improvements). Mr. Swanson estimates the value to be $55,000 ($35,000 for the land and $20,000 for the improvements). BOARD OF EQUALIZATION MEETING MINUTES - DECEMBER 14, 1999 Page 6 Mr. Shold stated that he presented the Board with documentation which supports the valuation of all four (4) parcels. Mr. Westerman explained how the land was valued. One (1) acre was given a site value of $25,000. The residual 5.54 acres were valued at $7,500 per acre, which is a commercial acreage rate. The site improvements (well and septic) were valued at $6,000. Mr. Westerman stated that each of these parcels are valued as one (1) potential building site with residual acreage. Mr. Swanson stated that he can develop a building site for less than $25,000. Mr. Westerman stated that there aren't many residential or commercial one (1) acre building sites available with water, power and septic already installed. This parcel is commercial. Mr. Swanson asked if it is zoned commercial? Mr. Westerman replied that it is not zoned commercial, but, its use as commercial property is grand -fathered. Mr. Swanson feels that $7,500 per acre for the residual land is too high. It is just farm land which is comparable to similar property selling for $2,000 an acre. Mr. Westerman noted that the residual acreage can be used for commercial purposes which is why it is valued at a commercial rate per acre. Mr. Swanson stated that he disagrees. If he goes to the Permit Center to apply for a new building permit or attempts to change anything on the property, it is rejected. He noted that Shold Excavating wanted to develop an asphalt batch plant on a portion of the property and they were denied. They are unable to do anything on this property. Mr. Westerman stated that the property can continue to be used as a concrete batch plant, correct? Mr. Swanson replied, yes. However, the issue is that the property assessment was increased when the County has actually devalued the property by downzoning all the property around it to residential and just grand- fathering the use of his property. The concrete plant does not show on the maps as commercial. It would be nice if the Building Department and the rest of the County thought it was commercial, but, they don't. The Assessor should take into consideration the downzoning of the property which has ruined the value. Parcel #901112 010: This parcel is jointly owned by Mr. Swanson and John T. Shold and consists of approximately 8.8 acres. Mr. Swanson stated that half of this property is a wetland. It is recorded on the County maps as a wetland with a 50 foot setback requirement. He believes the Assessor's office should have reduced the value by at least 50% for the inability to use a portion of the property. On the remaining portion of the property he dug two (2) ponds. So, now there are two (2) more wetlands. is there a 50 foot setback requirement from manmade wetlands as well? He stated that a comparable parcel sold recently for $2,000, yet his property is assessed at $5,000 per acre with a reduction of 25% for wetlands. This property has also been devalued by the County's downzoning, and the Assessor's office has not even taken that into consideration. Currently the property is valued at $55,265. Mr. Swanson estimates the value to be $35,000. BOARD OF EQUALIZATION MEETING MINUTES - DECEMBER 14,1999 Page 7 Mr. Westerman explained that this parcel is valued strictly as residential property. One (1) potential building site at $25,000 and the residual acreage at the residential rate of $5,000 per acre, less 25% for wetlands. Vice -Chairman Broders asked if the Assessor's office could present the Board with comparable sales information which supports their assessments for these parcels? Mr. Westerman replied that the sales information should be made available to the Board for review. Mr. Swanson stated that $5,000 per acre for a swamp is ridiculous when he cannot do anything with the property. Parcel #901 112 041: This parcel is jointly owned by Mr. Swanson and John T. Shold and consists of approximately 7.1 acres. Mr. Swanson stated that this property also has wetlands. According to the assessment it is being assessed as commercial property at $7,500 per acre. He has never done anything with this property except to dig some drainage ditches, if the Assessor's office had really looked at this parcel they would have seen the wetlands. No reduction for wetlands was given and at least 75% of this parcel is wet. Currently the property is valued at $53,250. Mr. Swanson listed his estimate of value on the petition form as $30,000, however, now he believes the property should be assessed at $2,000 per acre. Mr. Westerman stated that it was the understanding of the Assessor's office that this property was an extension of parcel number 901 112 012 as far as the commercial use of the property. During physical inspections it is difficult to determine the boundary between the two (2) parcels. Mr. Swanson may be correct, if this parcel is no longer used for the operation of the concrete batch plant. Mr. Westerman noted that wetlands do not necessarily devalue residential properties as long as there is a building site. Sometimes wetlands, such as ponds, enhance property values. The farmland which is selling for $2,000 an acre is located in the middle of the valley and cannot be developed. All that can be done with it is farming, thereby, resulting in a lower market value. Mr. Swanson reiterated that if the Assessor's office staff had actually looked at the property, the values would not be as high. He realizes a bird watcher would be happy to pay the current assessed value, but, he currently owns it, and for him, what used to be property with 2 or 3 building sites, is now downzoned to 1 building site. Mr. Swanson traded straight across the property known as "Bishop Acres" for this property. He traded property that now has 20 or 30 houses on it for property on which he will only be able to build two houses. How can the Assessor's office place a value on the property without even looking it. Mr. Westerman stated that he has looked at the property, but, it has been a while. Mr. Westerman did not do the revaluation for this area. Chairman Marlow asked Mr. Swanson if he ever had the wetlands on the property delineated? Mr. Swanson replied no, however, he did have a licensed engineer recently survey the property and place new survey sticks on the property to flag the boundaries. The survey is recorded with the County. Parcel #901112 002: This parcel is jointly owned by Mr. Swanson and John T. Shold and consists of approximately 9.8 acres with an old house and shed. Mr. Swanson stated that this property is a reclaimed pit and is used to make concrete septic tanks and water tanks. It is connected to the Shold Excavating operation. All but 20% of the sand and gravel located on this property has been excavated. Currently it is undergoing reclamation. The ongoing operation of the property is commercial, however, the new zoning regulations do not BOARD OF EQUALIZATION MEETING MINUTES - DECEMBER 14, 1999 Page 8 increase the value of the property. He and Mr. Shold applied for a permit to operate an asphalt batch plant and invested over $20,000 in studies, just to be outright refused by the County. Years ago they did operate an asphalt batch plant on this property to do work for the County. The property has been used as a gravel operation for 30 years and now this parcel has been downzoned and can only have one house on it; the old house which is already on it. This parcel is currently assessed at $82,500 ($75,000 for the land and $7,500 for the improvements). Mr. Swanson estimates the value to be $42,500 ($35,000 for the land and $7,500 for the improvements). Mr. Westerman stated that this parcel is strictly valued as residential property with one (1) building site. The residual acreage was valued at the residential rate of $5,000 per acre. Mr. Swanson added that the comparable property that he presented which sold for $2,000 an acre does have a building site on it. It is comparable to his property. After reviewing all the information submitted and hearing the testimony of both parties relating to the above four (4) parcels, the Board concurred to conduct an inspection of each parcel and make a determination at a later date. The following five (5) parcels are owned by Sam Swanson and are located in Port Hadlock. Mr. Swanson stated that he and four (4) other partners initially purchased this property approximately 20 years ago to develop a commercial center in Port Hadlock. He noted that all of this property was zoned commercial and now portions of it have been downzoned by the County to residential. Parcel #901 013 012: This parcel is part of Kively Center in Port Hadlock located off of Oak Bay Road. It is currently assessed at $270,390 ($108,230 for the land and $162,160 for the improvements). Mr. Swanson rents the buildings on this property to local businesses and he feels the parcel should be assessed using the income approach. He estimates the value to be $210,000 ($90,000 for the land and $120,000 for the improvements). Mr. Westerman stated that the only change in the land value was the increase in the commercial site value from $6,000 to $8,000. The improvement value was increased from $135,130 to $162,160. The improvements were valued using the cost approach. Mr. Swanson stated that property in Port Hadlock does not rent for as much as property located in Port Townsend and Port Ludlow. He believes that the downzoning of the adjoining property has devalued this property. The town will never grow, because, all the property in the area has been downzoned to residential. The Assessor's office increased the total value of all the parcels by 20%. The small businesses renting space in the buildings located on this property did not grow 20% to have to pay 20% more rent. These small businesses are not making any money. The County has prevented any growth by rezoning all the commercial properties to residential. Mr. Swanson stated that he doesn't know what properties the Assessor's office used as comparable, because, everything else in the area is new. His buildings are 17 years old. The value is too high. Mr. Westerman admitted that he also questions the commercial areas in Port Hadlock. He noted that he even testified before the Board of County Commissioners regarding the rationale behind narrowing the commercial areas in Port Hadlock. However, Real Estate is defined as a supply and demand commodity. When the demand is high and supply is low, values tend to go up. When supply is high and demand is low, values tend to go down. The argument can be made that by narrowing the commercial area of Port Hadlock, the winners are the individuals who own the only commercial property in the area, because, there will not be any other commercially zoned property to compete with. Mr. Westerman stated that he understands that the downzoning BOARD OF EQUALIZATION MEETING MINUTES - DECEMBER 14, 1999 Page 9 of residential property negatively affects the value when an eight (8) acre parcel that could once be short platted into four (4) building sites is now considered one (1) building site. However, the narrowing of the commercial base in any area does not negatively affect the value of property which is zoned commercial, it enhances the value. Downzoning negatively affects the adjacent properties which might have at one time been able to convert to commercial. Parcel #901 013 013: Mr. Swanson stated that this parcel is also part of Kively Center in Port Hadlock located off of Oak Bay Road. The buildings on this property are rented by individuals who are just trying to make a living and live out their dreams by running small businesses. The parcel is currently assessed at $300,200 ($104,780 for the land and $195,420 for the improvements). Mr. Swanson estimates the value to be $230,000 ($80,000 for the land and $150,000 for the improvements). Mr. Swanson noted that he feels the County has hurt all these businesses, regardless of Mr. Westerman's argument that less is more. That argument remains to be seen, and "remains to be seen" does not pay next years taxes. Mr. Westerman stated that the only change to the land value of this parcel was also just an increase of $2,000 for the site improvements. The improvement value was increased from $159,745 to $195,420. Vice -Chairman Broders asked if the Assessor's office has any relevant sales information that would be usable for these cases? Mr. Westerman stated that the land values were not significantly increased. Vice -Chairman Broders asked about commercial building sales? Mr. Shold stated that the only sale of commercial property that he is aware of is the sale of the old post office to the Public Utility District #1 (PUD). Mr. Westerman noted that the post office sold for more than its current assessment. Mr. Swanson stated that the buyer was a government agency and the purchase price was more than the government had it assessed for. You can see that something is rotten with that setup. Mr. Westerman noted that he would not consider that a comparable property sale. He said Mr. Swanson is absolutely right. Governments tend to pay more money, because, it is not their hard earned money. It is the taxpayers hard earned money. Mr. Westerman stated that there is not much market activity in Port Hadlock at this time which is why land values did not warrant much of a change. Parcel #901013 014: Mr. Swanson stated that this parcel is also part of Kively Center in Port Hadlock located off of Oak Bay Road. He noted that the new businesses in Port Hadlock are businesses that used to rent space in his buildings, such as, Ferinos and Peninsula Video. Those businesses built their own new buildings because Mr. Swanson's buildings are old and not worth the current assessed value. The current assessed value is $306,885 ($115,370 for the land and $191,515 for the improvements). Again Mr. Swanson believes this property should be valued using the income approach. He estimates the value to be $230,000 ($90,000 for the land and $140,000 for the improvements). Mr. Westerman noted that again the only change to the land value was an increase of $2,000 for site improvements. The building value on this parcel is a little higher than those on the other parcels, due to the fact that when Peninsula Video moved out of this building, significant improvements were made to this BOARD OF EQUALIZATION MEETING MINUTES - DECEMBER 14,1999 Page 10 building in order to satisfy the new tenant North Sound Bank. The increase in value reflects the improvements made to the building. Parcel #901013 015: Mr. Swanson stated that a portion of this parcel is used by North Sound Bank for their parking lot. On another portion of this parcel there exists a 50 + year old building which is basically a house with two apartments added above it, and another two (2) bedroom house. He noted that the County has rezoned a portion of this commercial property to residential, and he does not think that this downzoning of his property is reflected in the current assessment. Mr. Swanson stated that he had future plans to building a commercial building on this parcel, but, the County took it upon themselves to subdivide his land. The County took half of this parcel and rezoned it residential. This property was zoned commercial when he purchased it. It is not residential property. He argued with the County to keep it commercial, but, they refused, and now the downzoning is not reflected in the current assessment. The property is currently assessed at $197,550 ($83,825 for the land and $113,725 for the improvements). Mr. Swanson estimates the value to be $160,000 ($80,000 for the land and $80,000 for the improvements). Mr. Westerman stated that the land value did not change. The majority of this parcel was valued as residential, however, more of it should have been valued as commercial. The construction of the buildings is residential in nature, even though Mr. Swanson may be using them for commercial purposes. Parcel #901013 016: Mr. Swanson stated that this parcel is the old gravel pit where Mel Kively's house was. Currently there is a mobile home on the property that is owned by his daughter who pays the taxes on it separately as personal property. The property has a septic system and water available. Here again, the County took this commercially zoned property and drew a line across the middle of it and zoned half of it commercial and half of it residential. The County's new dividing zone line does not even coincide with a property line. The zoning for this property is one (1) unit per five (5) acres. The entire parcel is only 5.86 acres to begin with. So, now all he can do with the property is use it for the mobile home which is already on it. The property appears to be a nice piece of property, but, now he doesn't know what he will be able to do with it. The current assessment is $90,600. Mr. Swanson estimates the value to be $75,000. Mr. Westerman stated that this parcel is strictly valued as residential even though half of it is zoned commercial. Chairman Marlow asked how much of the property is usable? Mr. Swanson answered that a good portion of the property is usable, but, the problem is not the usability, the problem is the zoning. Mr. Westerman stated that the potential of the property is unknown. Mr. Swanson stated that the property has been harmed by the County's downzoning. Mr. Westerman agrees that Mr. Swanson and many other property owners have lost potential value. Had Mr. Swanson been able to develop a commercial enterprise, his property would be worth more than the current assessment. Discussion ensued regarding how the parcel was valued and how property values relate to property taxes. BOARD OF EQUALIZATION MEETING MINUTES - DECEMBER 14, 1999 Page 11 After reviewing all the information submitted and hearing the testimony of both parties relating to the above five (5) parcels, the Board concurred to conduct an inspection of each parcel and make a determination at a later date. Meeting adjourned. Attest: JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF EQUALIZATION Erin K. Lundgren, Clerk of the Board William S. Marlow, Chairman Richard A. Broders, Vice -Chairman James A. DeLeo, Member