Loading...
1977-05-03 Regular Meeting1 1 2 r. ) 4 5 n KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH BOARD OF EQUALIZATION - MAY 3, 1977 I CALL TO ORDER Meeting was called to order by Presiding Officer James Peotter at 7:35 p.m. in the meeting room of the Borough Building. II ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Tl 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 abreakdown additicn thenamountA pp cost ofe$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 had given an assessed value of $1,000 to all sites. value is lease-hold inter interest allowedunderthe nMunicipaleCodey or 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. Mt. 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. with a unanimous roll r.11 Case No. 2: Paul H. Stover, Lot 2, USS 3104 which reotter read letter to Board of Equalization in full in Government 8 r stated saleforthe sum of$500. purchased In1958 he offered a the cabin with improvements for sale for $4,200, but because of not having public access, he could not sell it. He then 0 1 a q 4 5 r. RIB 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 301 for its topography. Dr. Emmick 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 sed valuation on Lot 9 for 1976 was $9240; for this year is $15,390. For Lot 8 the 1976 d 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 la : r er, stating each acre had been set $200 higher than it was purchased for. Mr. Haney stated that year be- fore last they were assesced at the previous owner s 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 corrected. 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 151 for drainage and minus 158 for irregular shape. He was certain that the Gallagher, would not sell Lot 8 for $13,080 (the total ed value), or Lot 9 which has 21,382 square fait for the assessed value of $15,390. Were both lots drained on the lower end with fill in the soft areas, they would be valued at $40,000 and $50,000. Mr. Psotter read for the audience Section 29.53.060 of the Alaska Statutes on full and true value. Dr. Esmick moved to take the Gallagher appeal under advisement. Mt. Peterson seconded. Carried with unanimous roll call vote. Case No. 4: Louis 8. Lindsey, Lot 15, USS 3100, Spruce Cape eo ear 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- meat and constant effort to protect the house from the sea which must certainly decrease the value. Sven 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. Be noted that other assessments had no change for the last three years who have ocean front property. The 1975 ed valuation was in the amount of $14,520; in 1976, $20,5401 in 1977, $45,650 and stated he did not understand the jump which was over inns Jr, . « _ .. - .- cr,ilsrly when • number 1 0 fl 1 2 r 4 5 S BIB BOARD or 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 sed 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 sod at .800 per square foot with additions and sub- tractions This lot has a negative l0% 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. Remick moved to take the Lindsey under advisement. Seconded by Mr. Peterson. Carried -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 foot for $43,350 an acre with water a 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 Bast Addition. After the tidal wave he sold the lots for $13,000. Land values at Spruce Cape are being raised awry year, and feels land values should be raised all over town at the same time. Mr. Haney read his memo to this -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 has sold for more per square foot than Mr. Chandler expects his land to be d 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- Biteable if placed on the market. Dr. Emick 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. _ 1 0 0 1 2 , n 4 3 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 yaar, 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. Mt. Peterson's lot contains 39,639 square feet appraised at .800 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. Mt. Estes pointed out that an easement is ownership, however, a platted right -of -way is public. Dr. Emmick moved to take the Peterson a al under advise- ment. Secon ed v Mr. Peterson casting a NO vote. Carried 5 -1 with Mr. Estes Case No. 7: Victor J. Mullen, Lot 1, USS 3101 Mu len Does not think leveryone aresbeing assessataatpthheosame 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 Mt. 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. S . P moved to take the re • est under advisement. Sect do a Mrs. Ravanau Carr e vote w Mr. Estes Case No. 8: M. E. and Anna Britta Flerchinger, Lot 19, S ots 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 in As is now, heocan j us would be live on his lot as he has two sewers through his 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 4) that e both havesewerandd 7,447 (lots and Dr. Emmick moved to take a•• al under advisement. Seconded s. 'ayanaue vote - rr e w Estes cast ng a Case No. 9: DeWitt Fields Lots 25° USE iVYY and Lot 1, Petition statement: Property 'should not be inflated more tha the cost of livi economy created by year. has oilepublicity.a t en Mt. 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