Laserfiche WebLink
<br />JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF EQUALIZATION <br /> <br />A.C. Dalgleish <br />David G. Douglas <br />Archie Barber, Jr. <br /> <br />Cha i rman <br />Vice-Chairman <br />Member <br />Alternate <br /> <br />MINUTES <br /> <br />5 AUGUST 1987 <br /> <br />Chairman Dalgleish called the meeting to order at 9:15 AM, All Board members and <br />Clerk Lea were present. <br /> <br />BOE-87-052-R - Parcel No. 996-400-307- Petitioner Barnhouse was present at the <br />hearing. Bob Shold represented the Assessors office. The petitioner purchased <br />the subject parcel consisting of 5 lots with a duplex apartment improvement there <br />on for $130,000 in June 1987, and stipulated that this purchase should demonstrate <br />the valuation of the parcel. <br />The Assessor pointed out that a previous appeal (BOE-85-074-R) was reviewed <br />by the State Revenue Board and ruled that the valuation should be reduced from <br />$152,520 to $121,000. The market price at that time was $130,000. The petitioner <br />had used the parcels covered by BOE-87-053-R and BOE-87-054-R as further justification <br />for a reduction in valuation. The Assessor recommended that the Board inspection . <br />might justify an adjustment in the improvement valuation. <br /> <br />BOE-87-053-R -Parcel No. 996-400-504/506 - Petitioner Barnhouse was present at the <br />hearing and Bob Shold represented the Assessors office. The petitioner purchased <br />these two parcels consisting of 5 lots with a ~plex apartment, on each 2~ lot a~~ <br />for $62,000 per parcel on 06-26-87. Compara151e dat.... in the petition indicated a <br />revenue of $650.00 per month f,rom lach unit, <br />The Assessors office pointed out that the only comparables available Were for <br />sale of new duplex units in Chimacum Estates at $60 to 10,000. Sale of the subject <br />parcel was not completed in time for consideration in revaluation cycle. <br /> <br />BOE-87-054-R - Parcel No. 961-802-001/002 - Petitioner Barnhouse was present at the <br />hearing, and Bob Shol d represented th.e Assessors offi ceo The petiti oner (1) purchased <br />these two parcels in June 1987 for $124,000 (2) used purchase of tWI1l previous <br />petitioned parcels as justification for reduction of valuation from $133,310 to <br />$124,000. <br />The Assessors office reported that a recent review of income property in the <br />Hadlock area by the State Department of Revenue indicates that there has been a <br />decl ine in rento.t ir,comes in the area and suggested that the Board may want to <br />assess the income information at the time of their inspection of this and the previous <br />two petitions. <br /> <br />BOE-87-050-LO - Parcel No. 002-332-022- Petitionerdatliff was present at the <br />hearing, and Bob Shold represented the Assessors office. The petitioner stupulated <br />that he deliberately purchased this unimproved land with no power or water in <br />August t983 for $12,500. Subsequently a sawmill and gravel pit ~n thre~ sides of <br />his land have been activated, and he has subsequently discovered that a neighbor bought <br />a parcel in February 1987 for $1,000, He has built a 12'x20' shack since purchasing <br />the land with no power or water service. <br />The Assessors office reported that much of the land in this area has been <br />purchased for delinquent taxes or delinquient payments to a local water districtJso <br />purchase prices do not reflect values of land. It was also pointed out that the <br />area will be reassessed in the next year cycle. <br /> <br />BOE-87-051-R - Parcel No. 002-341-036 - The petitioner was not present at the <br />hearing. Bob Shold represented the Assessors office. The petition stipulated that <br />(1) the parcel was purchased in October 1986 for $65,000, (2) an, appraisal made at <br />the time of the purchase set the value at $66,000 and (3) that the house was said <br />to be 30 years old. <br />The Assessor reported (1) that the records show the house to have been built <br />in 1970 (17 years old) (2) that current land values in the area support the $12,000 <br />land valuation, and (3) that there may be justification for a adjustment in <br />depreciation at the inspection. <br />