THE CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU, ALASKA
BOARD OF EQUALIZATION
MAY 11, 1998
MEETING NO. 98-17: The Board of Equalization meeting, held in the Assembly Chambers of the Municipal Building, was called to order at 5:50 p.m. by Mayor Dennis Egan. Mayor Egan announced that the meeting would start earlier than advertised because there were appellants in the audience.
Assembly Present: Garrett, Kibby, MacKinnon, Perkins, Powell, Mayor Egan, Hagevig, Muñoz, Koelsch
Assembly Absent: None
A quorum was present.
Staff Present: Marian Miller, Municipal Clerk; John Hartle, Assistant City Attorney; Craig Duncan, Finance Director; Shane Horan, City Assessor.
Mr. Hartle briefly reviewed the memorandum of May 4, 1998 regarding the Board of Equalization: Standards and Procedures, which were included in the packet.
1. Appeal No. 116 Parcel No 2D040C030023
Housing First Inc. on behalf of West Juneau Housing Partnership
This property is located at 1801 Douglas Highway and is a 15-unit apartment complex built in 1996. Mr. Horan stated this was a clarification as staff had proposed a valuation of $672,500. At Housing First’s Board meeting, the Board agreed on a value of $658,400. Mr. Horan recommended the current assessed value for this property be reduced to $672,500. Mr. Duncan clarified there was a math mistake in the net income projection. The number that Housing First actually moved, after discovering the math mistake, has been corrected. He does not believe, at this point, there is any disagreement over the number staff is recommending.
Kathleen Strasbaugh, Board member of Housing First, testified they were in discussion with the Assessor’s office last week. Mr. Duncan and Ms. Longenbaugh talked about the $658,000 figure. The Board meeting was on Saturday and she is only authorized to accept $658,400 because they did not get through to the end of the page. She pointed out on page 14 of the Hillview appeal, $658,400 is at the bottom of the range of potential values that the Assessor’s office discussed. The Assessor’s office and the organization is still working through what is the appropriate capitalization rate. The capitalization rate in Anchorage is 11.4, at a minimum, and last year the Assessor’s office proposed 9 and is now down to 7.2. The maintenance costs at the Hillview Apartments are such that every few thousand dollars is very important to them. That is why she does not feel comfortable saying go ahead with $672,500 although it is a substantial improvement over the $772,000 which was the original proposal. They will continue to work with the Assessor so they can come to complete terms next year. They are very concerned about the relatively low capitalization and the employment of debt service when that may or may not be a real factor in a fair market price of a restricted property.
Mr. Perkins asked what was the figure to date that they have come to. Ms. Strausbaugh stated she was authorized and signed a letter accepting $658,400 and that was about half way through the Assessor’s packet.
Mr. Powell clarified the discussion was between $672,500 and $658,400. Mr. Duncan stated that those amounts had been adjusted significantly down from where they originally started. He stated that a number had been quoted based on a wrong income number.
Mr. MacKinnon asked if this was an appeal or adjustment on both the Gastineau Avenue site and the Douglas Highway site. Mayor Egan stated that they were being taken one at a time. Mr. Horan indicated appeal no. 116 is strictly the Hillview Apartment project.
MOTION – by Garrett, to grant the appeal and set the assessment at $672,500 for the reasons laid out in the Assessor’s memo of May 11, 1998.
Mr. MacKinnon offered a friendly amendment at $658,400.
Mr. Garrett stated he was using the figure from the recommendation on page 16.
Mr. Powell clarified the motion was for the staff’s recommendation of $672,500.00.
There being no objection to the motion, it was so ordered.
2. Appeal No. 117 Parcel No. 1C070B0T0020
This appeal was withdrawn
3. Appeal No. 104 Parcel No. 3D1801000010
This is a .5 acre Forest Service permitted site bordering Stephens Passage on the backside of Douglas Island. The appellant states the land is occupied under USFS Special Use Permit. Because it is federal land, he argues it is not taxable. He has appealed to the BOE for the past five years and has had his value reduced to $0. The fact that Mr. Boddy has the right of this property for at least one year for his own personal use, by virtue of the Special Use Permit, staff recommended that the $1,000 assessment (the amount paid by Mr. Boddy in 1998) on the parcel remain unchanged.
MOTION – by Garrett, to grant the appeal and set the value at $0 because Mr. Boddy does not have exclusive use of this property. There being no objection, it was so ordered.
4. Appeal No. 77 Parcel No. 3D1801000020
This is a .5 acre Forest Service permitted site bordering Stephens Passage on the backside of Douglas Island. Mr. Boddy states the BOE has determined that this land is non taxable because it is Federal property and he does not have a possessory interest. He is appealing on the same basis as in the past four years. The fact that Mr. Boddy has the right of this property for at least one year for his own personal use, by virtue of the Special Use Permit, staff recommended that the $1,000 assessment (the amount paid by Mr. Boddy in 1998) on the parcel remain unchanged.
MOTION – by Garrett, to grant Appeal No. 77 and set the value at $0 because Mr. Douglas Boddy does not have exclusive use of the property. There being no objection, it was so ordered.
5. Appeal No. 114 Parcel No. 7B0801050060
This is a single-family residence with an apartment located at 1811 Bartlett Avenue. Ms. Duncan states on the appeal form that she considers the market value to be $0. Staff recommends reducing the building value from $148,200 to $121,700.
MOTION – by MacKinnon, to accept staff’s recommendation on this appeal. There being no objection, it was so ordered.
6. Appeal No. 204 Parcel No. 3B4401000060
This property is a 7.39 acre water front lot improved with a single-family residence located at 34201 Glacier Highway. Mr. Hooton requests: The CBJ Assembly be directed to determine a fair property tax rate for remote rural roaded areas as requested by petition from that area and as stipulated in AS 29.45.010 (2), (3); and the CBJ Board of Equalization assign a "temporary proportionate value" of the Base Mill Rate / Base Mill Rate + Roaded Service Area Millage Rate (about 47%) to remote properties that do not have any more access to the CBJ services than the Non-Roaded areas within CBJ. This would remain in effect until the CBJ Assembly can act on the enclosed petition. This is not an appeal of property value; it is an appeal as to the fairness of mill rate levy. Staff recommended no change in value
Mayor Egan asked if public testimony should be taken because this is being heard by the BOE. Mr. Hartle counseled that this appeal does not ask for a reduction in value or an increase in value. It regards the fairness of the mill rate for Mr. Hooton’s property and as such would not fit under the charge of the BOE.
Larry Hooton, 34201 Glacier Highway, testified that this was brought up last year and at that time Mr. Garrett thought the Assembly would take a look at it in the interim. This has not happened so he wished to remind the Assembly members and BOE that this would be worth looking at. Roaded vs. unroaded, the definition needs more study in regards to CBJ serviced road or non-CBJ serviced roads. He feels this is similar to Greens Creek where they have roads that are not serviced by CBJ.
Mr. Garrett thanked Mr. Hooton for the reminder.
There was no action required on this appeal.
7. Appeal No. 157 Parcel No. 2D040T150070
This is a single-family residence on a view lot located at 1101 First Street, Douglas. Mr. Damon is requesting that his land value be lowered from $110,000 to $90,000. The justification for his valuation arguments are detailed on page 4 of the report included in the packet. Staff recommendation states that all the houses on First Street that compare to Mr. Damon's are assessed $110,000. If a property has less of a view it is assessed for less. No change in value is warranted.
Clarke Damon, 1101 First Street, testified that he is only appealing the lots value and he agrees with the value of the buildings. He stated the shop was built when the property was commercially zoned. He provided back ground on the lot as being a steep lot with a creek flowing through. Because of the creek, CBJ has a restrictive clause over 1/3 of the lot allowing them to enter the property at their will. The Assessor’s report states they have a great view but they have no yard because of the creek and the commercial building taking up the space. The CBJ has lowered the lot value by doing several actions. One action includes changing the zoning from commercial to residential. Now he is restricted to keep the commercial activity that he has done in the past, he cannot change it and if he sells the property, a new owner looses the right. Next, CBJ has decided to vacate E Street which is directly opposite his property. This vacation restricted the access to his shop by a number of feet and it is now difficult to bring boats in to park in the shop area. The Assembly has determined not to honor their request to be included in the Master Plan to allow rezoning. Another disadvantage is that this lot is in front of Mike’s Place. The Assessor visited the property and did not mention in the report that looking across plotted lots on the other side of First Street on the beach, which are privately owned, with the vacation of the street it eliminates any access his property has to the beach. It also makes it a disadvantage to his customers who want to come to the shop by water. The Assessor further does not state that he is looking at the view and seeing the sewer plant and the barge terminal. Further, the Assessor does not state the reason this lot is the only lot that was increased in assessed value for this year. Mr. Damon referred to item b) under issues in the staff report. The analysis states it is consistent with comparable sales although there have been no comparable sales in the area. Looking at c), the Assessor may be confused about the lot lines because they also have two lots and they are not appealing the value of the second lot. Under item e), referring to Mike’s Place, a number of years ago Mike’s Place added a deck on the back of the building which is through their lot line and places their bedroom 15 feet from their rear yard setback. Mike’s customers continue to walk down the stairs from the deck to look at the creek in his yard. Item f), when the Assembly vacated the street, that protected the view property. Based on the appeal last year, he requested the value remain at $90,000.
MOTION – by Muñoz, to set the lot value at last years assessment of $90,000 based on the points raised by Mr. Damon, in particular the proximity to the night club and the fact that the creek is running through the property and a percentage of the property is accessible by CBJ at all times.
Mr. MacKinnon asked for a review of last years appeal. Mr. Horan stated it was pretty much the same points and elements of discussion. Mr. MacKinnon asked if the other lots that are considered as comparable, 1003, 1301, 1403 and 1407, are assessed at $110,000. Mr. Damon stated only 1003, the other two are at $70,000. Mr. Horan verified 1403 and 1407 were assessed at $110,000 and 1301 is assessed at $70,000. Mr. Damon stated the two side by side lots are $70,000. Mr. Horan stated that was correct, the ones that look out are at $70,000. The only other $110,000 are 1403, 1407, and 1003.
Mr. Kibby verified the $70,000 lots are the ones that look directly out front into someone else’s house and that there is no view other than the mountain. Mr. Horan stated that was correct.
Mr. MacKinnon verified with Mr. Damon that he has a lot of boats in the yard. He asked him if he felt that that contributes to what he feels should be a lower assessed value. Mr. Damon said no and that the boats are on the vacant lot which he is not appealing. He added that looking at the history, this lot has increased $107,000 since he bought it, if the $110,000 assessment is accepted.
Mr. MacKinnon objected to the motion.
yeas: Garrett, Hagevig, Kibby, Muñoz, Perkins
nays: Powell, Koelsch, MacKinnon, Mayor Egan
motion carries 5:4.
8. Appeal No. 24 Parcel No. 2D040T250040
Walsh, John and Dawn
This is a single-family residence on a view lot in Douglas located at 1316 Second Street. The request is to lower the building value because of condition. The appellants request a lower land value because the lot is too narrow to allow making the house wider. Mr. Walsh also would like part of H Street vacated. Staff recommended reducing the building value from $93,700 to $73,500, and reducing land value from $110,000 to $100,000.
Dawn Rider-Walsh, 1316 2nd Street, appellant, thanked the Assessor’s office for lowering the assessment of the house. The property was lowered by $10,000 after an appraisal came from an adjacent lot. She stated their lot is a substandard lot and is 3500 square feet. The house if ver small and the lot is too small for a garage or a large family home. The land is assessed almost twice as much as the adjacent property on 2nd Street. Her land has increased 286% in four years. She has gathered assessed values of similar properties. Some have a view and others are a water front property. Hers is the smallest and assessed the highest per square foot.
Mr. Powell asked what she was asking for. Ms. Rider-Walsh thought a fair price would be $70,000 or $80,000 for the lot. Mr. Powell clarified she was not objecting to the building.
Mr. MacKinnon asked the dimensions of the lot. Ms. Rider-Walsh stated 35’ X 100’. She added that seven feet of the property has a CBJ easement. She will be trying to get the city to vacate that easement as she is trying to do improvements. She has been paying taxes on that easement since 1985. She said buildable property is 28’ X 100’.
Mr. MacKinnon asked the required setbacks on either side of the property. She said that she is on the property line on the south side and it is suppose to be five feet. The front is suppose to be 20 feet but she is encroaching on the city property. The other side of the house is suppose to be 20 feet because it is a corner lot. Since so many of the lots in Douglas encroach, it is possible to get a variance for the setbacks. She added that if she were to buy the land and go by the setbacks to build a house, she would have a house that is five feet wide.
Mayor Egan asked if they assessed the sauna. Ms. Rider-Walsh said that at one time they assessed the sauna. She does not know what it is now, but she protested because in her file it said it had plumbing and electricity and was like a cabin. She said the plumbing is a garden hose and her file has been corrected. One of her neighbors said the sauna should lower the property value.
MOTION – by Powell. to lower the land assessment value to $70,000 for the reasons that it is an unusual size lot, and the effects of the setbacks on the lot. There being no objection, it was so ordered.
9. Appeal No. 112 Parcel No. 4B2301070081
This is an improved 2.16 acre water front lot with 282 feet of water overlooking Auke Bay, located at 12401 Glacier Highway. Mr. Haffner requests a reduction in land value from $250,000 to $225,000 as was done by the BOE in 1997. Staff recommends that because all of the other improved properties in the area are assessed at $250,000, no change in value is recommended.
Ron Haffner, 12401 Glacier Highway, appellant, testified that last year the property was reduced by $25,000 based on his testimony. This year, an Assessor told him that they added $25,000 back on because they did not believe the BOE’s judgement was correct. The lack of respect for your judgement by the Assessor is unbelievable. Last year he paid $4,300 to the CBJ for property taxes on his home. This too is unbelievable. The upper half of his property still floods every year and he still has a cliff for a beach instead of a nice sloping sanding beach like his neighbors. He asked the value be reduced by the $25,000 the Assessor added based on these facts.
MOTION – by Garrett, to grant the appeal and lower the value on the property to $225,000 because it does not have the same beach access and because of the problems with flooding. There being no objection, it was so ordered.
10. Appeal No. 44 Parcel No. 8B3301010090
This property is a 21,003 sq. ft. lot with 131 feet of water front, located at 17013 Towers Road on Lena Loop. Ms. Fujioka requests a reduction in value based on its location near a rock quarry that will probably be in existence until at least 1999. Staff recommended no change in value. The value placed on Ms. Fujioka’s parcel is consistent with the values placed on the neighboring parcels and consistent with sales in the area.
Sarajean Fudioka, 17013 Towers Road, appellant. She noted that she used the proposed land assessment figure in her appeal and she wished to correct it. She stated the adjusted property tax for the land in 1997 was $116,600. The 1998 assessment was listed at $160,000 which is a $44,400 increase, up 38%. The assessed value for most homes is down about 2% according to Tom Pitts in the Juneau Empire on March 4, 1998. She was therefore looking for a decrease or a status quo on her assessment from last year on the land. The proposed value the Assessor listed last year at $140,000 was adjusted because of the quarry operation, there is a $24,400 increase, which is up 17% if the quarry were no longer operating this year. The building assessment stayed the same. The quarry is still present and will be blasting and hauling rock until their permit runs out in 2001 or if the Feds take over. Then there will be site preparation and quality of life will continue to be affected. She asked for a two percent decrease or no increase in her adjusted land assessment from 1997 of $116,600 due to the continued operation of the Lena Rock quarry.
MOTION – by MacKinnon, to use last years adjusted BOE amount of $116,600 plus a 2% escalator making the value $118,900. The building is to remain the same. There is an impact on the value of the property with the activity in the area. There being no objection, it was so ordered.
11. Appeal No. 87 Parcel No. 8B3301010100
This property is a 20,342 sq. ft. lot with 141 feet of water front, located at 17017 Towers Road on Lena Loop. Mr. Gorham requests a reduction in land value based on the ongoing operation of the Lena Loop rock quarry. Staff recommended no change in value. The value placed on Mr. Gorham’s parcel is consistent with the values placed on the neighboring parcels and consistent with sales in the area.
Frank Gorham, 17017 Towers Road, appellant, dittoed the previous testimony.
MOTION – by MacKinnon, to set the value of the land at Mr. Gorham’s property, appeal 87, at last year’s BOE adjustment plus 2%, with no change in the value of the property, for the same reasons as given by Ms. Fujioka.
Mr. Horan stated for ease of balancing the rolls, he would round the amount to $129,700.
There being no objection to the motion, it was so ordered.
12. Appeal No. 154 Parcel No. 8B3301010070
Beedle, James R.
This property is a 24,074 sq. ft. lot with 90’ of water front located at 17005 Towers Road on Lena Loop. Mr. Beedle requests a reduction in land value based on a recently sold parcel in the area and the belief that the property used for comparison by the Assessor is substantially dissimilar. Mr. Beedle also argues for a reduction in value because the property is subjected to the impacts of the Lena Point rock quarry. Mr. Beedle also compares the view from his property to that of Mr. Groham’s. Staff recommends no change in value. The value placed on Mr. Beedle’s parcel is consistent with the values placed on the neighboring parcels and consistent with sales in the area.
Elaine Loopstra, 17005 Towers Road, married to Jim Beedle, testified in agreement with everything Ms. Fujioka said. She added that she and Ms. Fujioka have dissimilar lots from Frank Gorham. She referred to the pictures to show they have an obstructed view. She protests the Assessor’s comment in the analysis that says they can trim their trees and get a comparable view. She pointed out their house is 100 feet off the waterfront which means trimming branches 100 feet in the air. If every branch was cut off there would remain all the trees and the view would still be obstructed. The Gorham’s do not have an obstructed view. A lot around the corner has a similar or better view and it just sold for quite a bit less than it’s assessed value. The lot is No. 2 on the comparison list, is close to the water front, sits back a little bit and has a slightly obstructed view because there is a house in front of it. Still there is less obstruction than the Beedle’s have from the trees. The sales price was $30,000 below the assessed value in March. She stated that they cannot cut their trees. She had Dr. Doug Swanston, who is a world known land slide specialist, look at her slope and he said the trees are the only thing holding the house there. With the blasting that will continue from the quarry, she is not going to chance cutting the trees. Finally, they will still continue to be impacted by the quarry. There is a good chance that NOAA will be building there and that will require a lot of preparation. There is a gully down the middle of the site that will require a lot of rock removal to make it a suitable building site. She does not contest the building value but requested that the land value be reduced to that identical to Ms. Fujioka’s.
Mr. MacKinnon asked Mr. Horan if he would contrast her lot with Ms. Fujioka’s. Mr. Horan stated that he has not walked Ms. Fujioka’s lot but did walk the subject lot two summers ago. It is steep, you can get down to the beach, there are numerous trees but he thought for consistency, once on Tower’s Road, most of those lots are all steep and he assessed all of them at $160,000 all the way to the Eliason’s property.
Mr. MacKinnon noticed that the BOE was lacking consistency in reassessing Mr. Gorham’s lot two years ago. He thought it might have been due to his request.
MOTION – by MacKinnon, to set the value of the land on Beedle/Loopstra property, appeal 154, at the $118,900, same as Sarajean Fujioka for the reasons given in that appeal. There being no objection, it was so ordered.
13. Appeal No. 76 Parcel No. 4B2701080060
Packer, Louis and Ellen Varosi
This is a .45 acre lot with an incomplete 912 sq. ft. house located at 11540 Mendenhall Loop Road. Mr. Packer and Ms. Varosi request a reduction in value to $23,471.93, which was the purchase price in 1996. The lot was assessed at $50,000 for 1997, however, it was discounted 50% to $25,000 because of the needed site preparation and drainage problem. In 1997 the appellants had the lot cleared and filled with a driveway and site so the 50% reduction has been removed for 1998. There is no sales data to support a value less than $50,000 for a lot ready to build on. Staff recommended no change in the value.
Ellen Varosi, 16695 Lena Loop, provided a chronology of events. She stated the CBJ Assessor has been over assessing the value of the property since it was purchased in July 1996. The first page showed the purchase price of $23,000. The property was on the market for a one year period for $43,000. The asking price was lowered to $25,000 and then purchased for $23,000. Since the sale, property prices in the area have not risen. This property is at the bottom of two adjacent hills which makes it a drainage field. The property is dark and wet and is substandard. In 1997 the CBJ assessed value was$50,000 and she provided documentation to reduce the value to $25,000. She does not feel "cleared" is an accurate word for what occurred on the lot. They took down about five trees. They filled it and connected to city water and sewer. The costs were: excavation $3,665; Juneau Ready Mix $2,424 and to have the CBJ water installed they paid $2,177 for total improvements of $8,266. These are true and real costs. The total value of the amount of money spent on this property was $31,266 and she does not think it is worth that much more. They had a 1930’s cabin craned out to the property and they are currently remodeling it to comply with current code. She does not have the total costs for that at this time. She proposed that the property be reduced more closely to the purchase price plus costs of improvements.
Mr. Powell asked if it was an arms length purchase, meaning she did not know the owner. Ms. Varosi indicated yes. Mr. Powell clarified that she was contesting the value of the land and suggesting a total value of the property with the building at $31,266. Ms. Varosi indicated that she is only presenting the total value of the land and is not including the buildings, only improvements to the land.
Mr. MacKinnon asked Mr. Horan, when this particular piece of property was purchased in 1996, was the value lowered to reflect the purchase price. Mr. Horan indicated no, lots in that area were assessed at about $40,000 and that was the assessment in 1996. Mr. MacKinnon clarified it went from $35,000 in 1995, to 40,000 to $50,000 in 1997.
Mr. Powell said since it was an arms length deal, it seems the price is the fair market value. The recommendation from the Assessor’s office is the building for $35,100. Based upon the information before the Board, the purchase price which drives the fair market value, he made the following motion.
MOTION – by Powell, to change the land value to $31,300 and leave the building as recommended by staff.
Mayor Egan clarified with Ms. Varosi that she was only appealing the land portion of the assessment. The handout that was presented by Ms. Varosi indicated a different amount than the appeal.
Mr. MacKinnon clarified that the appellant is connected to city water and he asked if they also installed the sewer. Ms. Varosi indicated the amount of $2,000 was for water and sewer. She added that the excavation was the another $3,000.
Mr. Kibby asked Ms. Varosi if when she filled out the paperwork for the appeal, did she think the total worth of the property, with improvements was $35,000. She indicated no, she thought the total worth of the property was $31,266. She has not determined the value of the cabin that they craned on yet as they are not finished with that project.
Mr. MacKinnon asked Mr. Horan about previous situations where an arms length transaction basically sets value of the property. When it is assessed at one level, it changes hands at a lower level and the sale of the property determines the fair market value. Once the property is developed, it can affect that. He asked at what point, does a piece of property go from an undeveloped value to a price paid value per lot. Mr. Horan said that when it has a driveway and building pad.
Ms. Varosi commented that the property is at the bottom of Goat Hill and there is a lot of water and darkness. She does not think it will ever sell for the same amount as its neighbors.
There being no objection, the motion was so ordered for the reasons as outlined by Ms. Varosi.
14. Appeal 164 Parcel No. 2D040T380080
Strough, David and Paula Recchia
This property is a duplex built across lots 16 and 18 at 633 Fifth Street in Douglas. The appellants also own lot 20, which is vacant. Mr. Strough paid $195,000 for the property and wishes that to be the assessment. Mr. Strough paid the appraised value of $195,000. However, only lots 16 and 18 were considered in the appraisal. The appraisal did not include the vacant lot 20. The duplex property is assessed at $191,000 and the vacant lot at $45,000. The assessment was reduced from $273,400 to $236,000 after an interior inspection. Mr. Strough has made a purchase at below market value. Staff recommended a new assessed value of $236,000.
David Strough, deferred to his original position that the $195,000 does reflect the market value of this property. The property was on the MLS for nearly two years. It had originally been marketed for over $230,000 and was lowered at least once, perhaps twice, to reflect the selling price of $195,000. The three lots that make up the property, for the purposes of development, cannot include the extra lot at it does not lend itself to development. It serves as parking for the existing building and would be difficult to develop. He feels $195,000 reflects the market value.
Mr. Horan stated that the appraisal that was done in March of 1996 addressed only lots 16 and 18 which is where the duplex sits. It did not include the vacant lot. Mayor Egan clarified that the assessed value went down from $273,000 to $236,000. Mr. Horan said that when it was appealed, they went over and re-measured the property to make sure every thing was correct. They are proposing a reduction in the building value. The building value was at $168,400 originally. On April 7, the value of the building was lowered to $131,000. Mr. Horan added that there are two separate parcels: Lots 16 and 18 are at $60,000 for the land and the new reduced amount of $131,000 for the building making a total value of $191,000 plus the vacant lot which has a land value of $45,000 bringing the total assessed value to $236,000.
Ms. Hagevig asked Mr. Horan if he considered lot 20 to be buildable. She asked if it could be sold separately if it was subdivided. Mr. Horan indicated yes. She asked if there was sufficient space on the lot and Mr. Horan indicated that he believed so, it is a legal lot of record.
Mr. Garrett said it appears from previous years of assessments that this is the first year that lot 20 has been assessed separately. Mr. Horan indicated that was correct. Mr. Garrett asked what changed. Mr. Horan stated that after finding out that the duplex straddled lots 16 and 18, staff decided to give a separate parcel number to lot 20. In the past they had assumed that the duplex straddled all three lots. Mr. Garrett how could it be discovered in 1998 after being given away from the CBJ to the property owner 20 years ago. Mr. Horan indicated that in the files, a lot of times those lots carried together in the same ownership. This year they discovered that the duplex only straddles the two lots and there is a vacant lot that is not affected by the improvements, so it is being valued separately.
Mr. Strough indicated the parcel was marketed as a package and for the purposes of the sale, which was a FHA loan and because of the way the lots were marked, could not include the extra lot. Therefore, the seller signed a quit claim to that piece of the property to accommodate the sale.
Mr. Garrett clarified that the sale happened two months ago.
Mr. Kibby clarified that Mr. Strough bought all three lots and the duplex for $195,000. He asked if in his appeal he is asking it to be proportionate between the land and the building. Mr. Strough did not think that he was asking that particularly, and felt it was discretionary.
MOTION – by Kibby, to grant the appeal for $195,000. Fair market value has been demonstrated as the property was for sale for two years and just recently bought.
Mr. Kibby stated he is very familiar with the property and there is a great deal of drainage problems behind that area. The lot in question, lot 20, is blue clay. Ever time anyone has dug near the lot, half the hillside has slid down into the lot.
Mayor Egan clarified that Mr. Kibby’s motion included lots 16, 18 and 20 and the building.
There being no objection, it was so ordered.
15. Appeal No. 88 Parcel No. 6D0801030070
This is a subdividable lot located at 6345 N. Douglas Highway, improved with a Mobile Home. It appears that Mr. Lott wishes the land to be assessed at $75,000 and the Mobile Home at $2,200. Sales indicate that Mr. Lott bought below market value. This was expressed by Mr. Lott by letter on April 1, 1998. There has been no response to date. Staff recommended no change in the value.
MOTION – by Kibby, to grant the appeal and asked for a no vote.
Nays: Powell, Garrett, Hagevig, Kibby, Koelsch, MacKinnon, Muñoz, Perkins,
Motion fails for the reasons given by staff.
Mr. Garrett commended Mr. Horan and his staff for the easiest agenda at a BOE in the whole time he has been on the Assembly. A lot of that was due to the hard work that staff has put in, in advance of this meeting, in working things out with people.
Mayor Egan added that Mr. Garrett is speaking for the entire BOE when he said that the work staff does is really appreciated.
Mr. Powell asked how many parcels were on the roll. Mr. Horan stated there are a total of 12,498 parcels of real property.
Marian Miller, Clerk