08 August 14
Board of Commissioners
Board of Equalization
08 August 14
4/6/2009 9:40:54 AM
11/29/2007 10:55:15 AM
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
All rights reserved.
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View plain text
<br />JEFFERSON COUllTY BOARD OF EQUALIZATION <br /> <br />A.C. Dalgleish <br />David G. Douglas <br />Archie Barber. Jr. <br />James A; DeLeo <br /> <br />Chairman <br />Vice-Chairman <br />Member <br />Alternate <br /> <br />M I NUT E S <br /> <br />August 14, 1985 <br /> <br />The meeting was called to order by Chairman Dalgleish. Ail members of the Boar~ <br />David Douglas and Archie Barber and clerk Connie Barlow~were present. Minutes will <br />be approved at a later.date. <br /> <br />/ <br /> <br />v <br />BE-85-16-C thur -17-C; r.lark Litchman represented a conglomerate of ownerships of three ..., <br />parcels ,of land making up the Pleasant Harbor Marina. These properties have over 1400 <br />feet,of water front with two major docks/slip areas. There are also several buildings, <br />swimming pool, jaccuzzi, etc. on shore. Petitioner requests consideration of assessing the <br />valuation on the basis of land, building and marina values rather than to base valuation <br />on income not forth coming. Petitioner requests reduction of valuation from $2,168,000 <br />to $764,000 due to business failure and requested basing valuation of land on front footage <br />of the property. The Board requires a clarification of parcel boundaries prior to <br />inspection. ' <br /> <br />BE-85-29-C: James D. Carlson petitioned for a reduction in valuation from $272,000 to <br />$245,000. The main issue was the valuation of the lower floor of one building which is <br />arranged for use as a clinical office; and wnich has been assessed on the basis of ^ <br />business income. Washington State Department of Revenue was represented by Mr.Robert <br />Barnes in support of this hearing. <br />It was determined that Mr. Barnes of the Department of Revenue made an inspection of the <br />clinical area in early July, 1985, and subsequently reduced the valuation of the building <br />by$10,500. It was also established that the land is currently valued on the basis of a <br />residential use and that the cl inical use has "Conditional" zoning. Sale val ue of this <br />building-may be affected by the requirement for a zoning variance for the clinic area <br />5hb<</4-sftelclthere be a potential buyer. Board will seek clear understanding o.f zoning limitations <br />prior to decision. <br /> <br />BE-85~41~C Mr. William L Massey and Mr. White represented the petitioner. Assessor <br />Jack Westerman III and Washington State Department of Revenue representative Fred Mercer <br />supported... this hearing. The petitioner is seeking a reduction in valuation <br />of land from $1,044,000 to $300,000 and an increase in valuation of building from $732,000 <br />to $800,000. ' <br />The property in this petition is the Water Street Plaza located in the llQ8 olock <br />of Water Street on the water front. Several points were deemed at issue in the valuation. <br />.1. The valuation of land was determined on the basis of $1,000 per front footage <br />of waterfront. The State Appraiser, County Assessor and the Petitioner have differences <br />as to the exact front footage of land in the parcel. The petitioner protested that <br />the orientation of the building and the use of the building does not make use of the <br />land as "water front." Length and depth of property must be confirmed prior to decision. <br />, 2. Several appraisals of the property bring differing valuation between $1,776,000 <br />and $1,466,000. . <br />3. Property was purchased on June 7, 1985 ata price of $1,100,000--- terms of $550,000 <br />down and assumption of $550,000 Real Estate Contract. There is a potential that sale was <br />made under duress. <br />4. The issue was raised whether current use of open space for parking would meet <br />with current parking requirements of City Zoning Codes. <br />The Board must seek further deminsional and zoning information before inspection and <br />final decision on this petition. <br /> <br />There beiQg no further business, the meeting was adjourned. <br /> <br />~ <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.