Loading...
1977-05-03 Regular MeetingMeeting was called to order by Presiding Officer James Peotter at 7:35 p.m. in the meeting room of the Borough Building. I CALL TO ORDER 2 fl 0 KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH BOARD OF EQUALIZATION - MAY 3, 1977 II ROLL CALL Present: Absent: James Peotter, Presiding Officer Mayor S. Wayne Kotula Dr. Michael Emmick Murl Estes Sandra Kavanaugh Frank Peterson Betty Wallin Also present were Ed Haney, Borough Assessor; Gladys Berestoff, Assistant Assessor and approximately 30 people in the audience. III APPEALS Case No. 1: Donald W. Peterson, Special Use Permit located in Zacher Bay. Mrs. Laurel Peterson stated in the petition for revision of assessed valuation for the year 1977, a 400 square foot uninsulated plywood structure sets on the Bear Refuge. Without selling the salmon permit and gear, it would be extremely hard to sell the cabin as the cabin cannot be used for recreational purposes. It can be used for set netting only from May 1 to September 1 of each year. Any other use is illegal. Thus, she feels the structure has little market value. Replacing the structure with a like structure would cost less than $3,100. There is a 20 -year old 8' x 8' trailer, 8' x 15' lean -to with no insulation and a 15' x 15' additicn to the lean -to. A replacement cost breakdown was submitted in the amount of $ $3,019.48. She stated that in 1976 the assessed valuation was $990. In 1977 the amount was $4,690. Statement from Mr. Haney was that he h =d given an assessed value of $1,000 to all set net sites. The $1,000 value is on the possessory or lease -hold interest allowed under the Municipal Cade 3.20.030 -B. Assessment also included a lump sum amount for the two buildings and trailer of $3,690. Mrs. Peterson felt the cabin was assessed much too high. Mr. Haney stated the cabin falls under the same category as a cabin in a forest preserve. The lease has a value. The property can- not be taxed, however, the use of the property can be taxed as it becomes their property for a short period of time. When asked if a decision must be made, Mr. Peotter stated it was not necessary for the BOE to render a decision at this time, but must make a decision in three (3) days from the time of adjournment according to the Code. The BOE Board would notify the party appealing by certified mail. Dr. Emmick moved to take the Peterson appeal under consider- ation. Seconded by Mr. Peterson. Carried with a unanimous roll call vote. Case No. 2: Paul H. Stover, Lot 2, USS 3104 Mr. Peotter read letter to Board of Equalization in full in which Mr. Stover stated the lot was purchased in 1954 on a Government sale for the sum of $500. In 1958 he offered the cabin with improvements for sale for $4,200, but because of not having public access, he could not sell it. He then 5 KIB BOARD OF EQUALIZATION, MAY 3, 1977 PAGE 2 moved there himself providing and maintaining his own access on a private basis. He stated numerous people trespass his property. Mr. Stover requested evaluation of his property, and others in the area, on the owners value rather than a sellers value. He asked the Board to sanction the fencing of his property which could cause a public access problem. Mr. Stover also stated he owned the top six (6) feet of Dark Lake along with the elevation of the lake by permit from the State Department of Natural Resources which is attached to his property. Mr. Haney stated there is no deduction for access as Mr. Stover has access and is able to drive his vehicles to his residence. He does have a negative influence and a deduction of 30% for its topography. Dr. Eminick moved to take the Stover appeal under advisement. Seconded by Mrs. Wallin. Carried with a unanimous roll call vote. Case No. 3: Mary Gallagher, Southeast Addition, Lots 8 and 9, Block 1 Mrs. Gallagher stated they were trying to rezone their property; said property was assessed quite high during this time that they were trying to rezone in order to be able to put a dwelling on the property. She said they were unable to do anything with the land; there have been oppositions, including the tax assessor, who they feel held them back from building on the property and would rather the value be left as is for the moment. The assessed valuation on Lot 9 for 1976 was $9240; for this year is $15,390. For Lot 8 the 1976 assessed valuation was $7,940 and this year it is $13,080 which is quite a jump when they have no dwelling on it. In regard to their property at Pasagshak, there has been no improvements which was pur- chased le r - . -r, sating each acre had been set $200 higher than it was purchased for. Mr. Haney stated that year be fore last they were assessed at the previous owners unsub- divided acreage. At that time, there was no way of getting a market value. It was reassessed for $2,500 per acre which was adjusted and correct ^d. Mr. Haney explained that Lot 8 with an area of 18,163 square feet is assessed at .900 per square foot which has a negative influence of 15% for drainage and minus 15% for irregular shape. He was certain that the Gallaghers would not sell Lot 8 for $13,080 (the total assessed value), or Lot 9 which has 21,382 square feet for the assessed value of $15,390. Were both lots drained on the lower end with fill in the soft areas, they would NI valued at $40,000 and $50,000. Mr. Peotter read for the audience Section 29.53.060 of the Alaska Statutes on full and true value. Dr. Enmick moved to take the Gallaher a al under advisement. i' °" Petit seconded. Ca w unan •us ro ca vo e. Case No. 4: Louis B. Lindsey, Lot 15, USE 3100, Spruce Cape Mr. Peotter read the statement submitted by Mr. Lindsey stating since the earthquake when the land sunk we have had erosion problems which require a bulldozer and other equip- ment and constant effort to protect the house from the sea which must certainly decrease the value. Even if that were not true, I don't think the land is worth $45,000. Mr. Lindsey said he did not believe he could sell his property for $45,600 with the erosion problem. He noted that other assessments had no change for the last three years who have ocean front property. The 1975 assessed valuation was in the amount of $14,520; in 1976, $20,540; in 1977, $45,650 and stated he WA not understand the jump which was over rar when a number KIB BOARD OF EQUALIZATION, MAY 3, 1977 page 3 of places have not changed. Mr. Haney stated in his comments to the Board that the Lindseys own a very nice home with a spectacular view of the ocean and islands. The house is assessed at $33,350 with insurance coverage at $55,000; that Mr. Lindsey's remarks refer only to land. Mr. Haney pointed out that land on the oceanside of Spruce Cape Road has all been assessed at .800 per square foot with additions and sub- tractions. This lot has a negative 10% because of the topo- graphy; it has a plus 10% because of view, pointing out that others on the ocean front have a negative for the amount of land lost to the ocean. Mr. Lindsey could receive over $79,000 for his property which contains 57,000 square feet. Dr. Emmick moved to take the Lindsey appeal under advisement. Seconded by Mr. Peterson. Carried 5 -1 with Mr. Estes casting a NO vote. At this point Mr. Peterson stated he was quite disturbed at the fantastic rate of land valuation, and asked if there was any comparable land assessments or valuations used to compare the increases that were going on in Kodiak. Mr. Haney said that in 1976 two lots sold at 8.120 acres each at $11,000 per acre with no water or sewer and very bad access in which case a jeep had to be used to get into the property; another lot sold with a small improvement just over 7,500 square feet for $43,350 an acre with water & sewer. Another lot with water only sold in 1973 at $20,000 per acre. As far as his department was concerned, land values were market value. Case No. 5: Okey L. Chandler, Lot 2C, USS 3099 Mr. Chandler stated on his petition that about 1/3 of his lot is a swamp with drainage ditch on it. The location of house is such that there is only room for but one house. The land is over evaluated. There is a land boom. A few lots have sold for an exorbitant amount. I don't think this is sufficient reason to raise land values to what they are in this area. The land boom will bust. I live in the va- cinity of sewer treatment plant. Mr. Chandler stated that he owned two lots before the tidal wave, now owns a dozen lots in East Addition. After the tidal wave he sold the lots for $13,000. Land values at Spruce Cape are being raised every year, and feels land values should be raised all over town at the same time. Mr. Haney read his memo to the Board stating Mr. Chandler's property was originally Lot 2, USS 3099 of 1.30 acres which was subdivided and sold lots 2A and 2B. He has 38,744 square feet remaining and at his present rate of subdivision will be able to sell two more lots and still retain the lot for his house. All of the sales of land in this end of Kodiak Island Borough have sold for more per square foot than Mr. Chandler expects his land to be assessed at. He also stated the sewage treatment plant has not affected sales in this area and no one has complained of the smell, as these plants are designed not to cause complaints. This land has water and sewer and a State maintained road system which would make it highly de- sireable if placed on the market. Dr. Emmick moved to take Mr. Chandler's appeal under advise- ment. Seconded by Mr. Peterson. Motion carried 5 -1 with Mr. Estes casting a NO vote. A five - minute recess was called. Meeting reconvened at 8:50 p.m. r) 2 O n RIB BOARD OF EQUALIZATION, MAY 3, 1977 PAGE 4 Case No. 6: Duane Peterson, Lot 7, USS 3099 Mr. Peterson disagreed with the amount that his land was assessed for because it is not worth that much. Without any great noticeable improvements and also with the sewer treatment plant going up only a couple of blocks away. He stated his property had not varied more than $2,000 to $4,000 each year, however, this year it was assessed at $31,710. Mr. Haney pointed out that the Deed stated he had a 50' in easement subject to right of way not exceeding 50' for roadway and utilities to be located along boundary of said land. Mr. Peterson's lot contains 39,639 square feet appraised at .80 per square foot. Asked if easements had ever been given a negative value in an area, Mr. Haney stated where it was in use or is taken away from the property owner. Mr. Estes pointed out that an easement is ownership, however, a platted right -of -way is public. Dr. Emmick moved to take the Peterson appeal under advise- ment. Seconded by Mr. Peterson. Carried 5 -1 with Mr. Estes casting a NO vote. Case No. 7: Victor J. Mullen, Lot 1, USS 3101 Mr. Mullen feels it is unjust for a one year period of time. Does not think everyone are being assessat at the same rate. Some assessments have doubled, some tripled. Mr. Mullen stated on his petition = too high evaluation on land in period of one year. Land is in original condition as when purchased. Also why are some acreage in same area of same square feet assessed less or more in valuation being next to each other. Mr. Haney pointed out that Mr. Mullen has 1.25 acres, level and partially landscaped and has City water. This land was very much under the market value in previous years. His property would be valued at assessed value of $55,000 or more, is covered under AS 29.53.060 as being near the Market Value. Mr. Peterson moved to take the re under advisement. Seconded by Mrs. Kavanaugh. Carried 5 -1 with Mr. Estes casting a NO vote. Case No. 8: M. E. and Anna Britta Flerchinger, Lot 19, Sublots 3 and 4, USS 3099 Mr. Flerchinger stated that the price has doubled in the last year. Property should be assessed at "fair" market value, not "inflated" market value. He stated people are going to be living in tar paper shacks or there would be all millionaires in town. As is now, he can just barely live on his lot as he has two sewers through his back yard. The Board was told he has contacted the Borough and State Sanitarian for six years almost monthly. Stated his children could not play in the back yard as it is a cesspool; that he had to put his own bridge in at his own expense over a cul- vert for right -of -way. This applicant did not follow the procedure according to State law and did not come to the Assessor's office to speak with the Assessor. Mr. Haney pointed out that he.owns 7,447 square feet each (lots 3 and 4) both have sewer and water, assessed at $5,960 each. Dr. Emmick moved to take appeal under advisement. Seconded by Mrs. Kavanaugh. Carried 5 -1 with Mr. Estes casting a NO vote. Case No. 9: DeWitt Fields, Lots 25B, USS 3099 and Lot 1, USS 3100 Petition statement: Property should not be inflated more than the cost of living in any one year. There has been a false economy created in Kodiak by all the oil publicity. Mr. Fields sold property two blocks from the High School for approximately $1.00 per square foot in 1976. When the City wanted to buy the property for the sewer plant, they COMMENTS: SIB BOARD OF EQUALIZATION, MAY 3, 1977 PAGE 5 offered $30,000 for it, but now the Borough claims that a smelley sewer plan enhances the property value. For the last 25 years when the City and the Borough (since 1950) wanted more tax money, they always went to the property owner, which will eventually kill our town. Mr. Fields suggested a committee be appointed by the Borough Assembly to make a study of equalization of various property owner$ in the area. A Property Owners Association should be orlahi' zed by ballot. His property on Lot 25B was assessed in 1976 for $6,230 and jumped to $12,360. Property on Spruce Cape Lot 1 which was purchased in 1955 for $50 (he has a U. S. Patent on it) is valued at $21,780 increased about $1,000 for eaoh year he owned it; feels we are living out of reality in Kodiak. Mr. Haney noted that Mr. Fields did not follow procedure in filing his petition. Mrs. Kavanaugh moved to take Case No. 9 under advisement. Mr. Peterson seconded. Carried with a unanimous roll call vote. T. T. Jackson commented that a Mr. Doran from the University of Oklahoma made a statement that "Law is horse sense. If it isn't horse cense, it isn't law ". Asked if the BOE was not willing to consider the hundreds and thousands of people who did not appeal or even know they were being taxed. Edward Jack stated he did not file an appeal as he thought everyone was being assessed at the same rates. He had been reac_.essed two years in a row; that there was in increase of 25% in 1976 and 100% in 1977. The meeting was recessed at 9:50 p.m. to reconvene at 7:30 p.m. on May 4, 1977 in the Mnstirg Room of the Borough Building.