Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM082208• N William S. Marlow Richard A. Broders Dave Garing William S. Marlow MINUTES August 22, 2008 1820 Jefferson Street P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 Richard A. Broders Dave Garing Chairman Vice - Chairman Member Chairman William S. Marlow called the meeting to order at 9:30 a.m. in the presence of Vice - Chairman Richard A. Broders and Member Dave Garing. HEARINGS Kenneth & Joanna Parson BOE: 08 -28 -R PN: 990 100 004 74 Wells Ridge Court Port Ludlow, WA 98365 Mr. and Mrs. Parson were present. Appraiser Maryn Gossell represented the Assessor's office. After explaining the hearing process, Chairman Marlow swore in both parties. Under appeal is a residence situated on a lot located at 74 Wells Ridge Court, Port Ludlow. Mr. Parson requested clarification of the deck value which Ms. Gossell explained is attributed to the covered portion of the front porch and back deck. Mr. Parson stated that the value of their property at the time of purchase was $210,110. After this most recent assessment their property value increased to $421,705 ($150,000 for the land and $271,705 for the improvements). That is over a 100% increase. The property was assessed at the peak of the market. At that time the value was in line with the market, however, since then sales of homes have dropped dramatically. He feels the value was appropriate at the time of revaluation, but, it is not reflective of the current market. The appellants estimate the value is $385,000 ($150,000 for the land and $235,000 for the improvements). Ms. Gossell presented comparable property sales information and a map of the area outlining the location of the appellant's property in proximity to the sales. The appellant's home was built in 2000 and is 1,830 square feet in size with a 612 square foot garage. The property also has a large concrete driveway. She noted that the base land value is increased by 40% for the size of the lot. Phone (3601385 -9100 Fax (3601385 -9382 jefiboc'acojefferson.wa.us Board of Equalization Minutes - August 22, 2008 Page: 2 Comparable property 41 is located adjacent to the appellant's property at 84 Wells Ridge Court, Port Ludlow. The house on this parcel consists of 1,767 square feet with a 494 square foot garage. It sold in March 2006 for $315,900. The base land value is increased by 20% due to size and is currently valued at $354,695 ($130,000 for the land and $224,695 for the improvements). Comparable property #2 is located at 717 Rainier Lane, Port Ludlow. It sold two days before the assessment date of January 1, 2007 for $669,000. The house on this parcel is 2 years older than the appellant's house. While there is less square footage on the first floor of this home compared to the first floor of the appellant's home, this house also has 1,472 square foot basement which is 65% complete. The garage is similar in size to the appellant's garage. This property, also has a large concrete driveway with extensive foundation work due to the topography of this particular lot. The base land value is increased by 10% for size. This parcel has a view, but, it is being assessed at different rate than the appellant's land. Currently it is assessed at $650,390 ($230,000 for the land and $420,390 for the improvements). Comparable property #3 is located at 700 Rainier Lane, Port Ludlow. This house was built in 2005. It consist of 1,510 square feet with a 570 square foot finished basement. The garage is 528 square feet in size. The base rate value of the land is $100,000 with no adjustments. It sold in September 2005 for $475,000. It is currently valued at $475,165 ($110,000 for the and $365,165 for the improvements). Comparable property # 4 is located at 740 Rainier Lane, Port Ludlow. The two -story house on this property consists of 1,884 square feet on the first floor and 536 square feet on the second floor with a 575 square foot garage. The base land value is $100,000 with no adjustments. It sold in February 2006 for $461,000 and is currently assessed at $458,875 ($110,000 for the land and $348,875 for the improvements). This information supports the valuation of the appellant's property as of the assessment date of January 1, 2007. However, she presented "Exhibit 41" and read the following statement: "It is the Assessor's concern that there may be inequity between the Master Planned Resort (MPR) North Bay properties and similar properties outside of that area as of January 1, 2008. It likewise is the determination of the Assessor that the discrepancies lie solely in the improvement values. The Assessor has suggested that an appropriate adjustment to the improvements would be 85% of their present values. Exhibit #1 is the sales data that brackets 3 months either side of January 1, 2008." Mr. Parson added that the Assessor's comparable property #2 is not a comparable property and is not in the same range as his property. After Ms. Gossell clarified the Assessor's suggestion for Mr. Parson, Chairman Marlow explained that the Board will consider all the information provided and make a determination on whether the property was correctly valued as of the Assessment date of January 1, 2007. Member Garing asked both the appellant and the appraiser if they felt the property was valued correctly as of the assessment date? Both parties replied yes. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Marlow closed the hearing. The Board will make a determination at a later date. Board of Equalization Minutes - August 22, 2008 Page: 3 Ellen Grus & Scott Hawes BOE: 08 -12 -R PN: 801212 005 1030 Dabob Quilcene, WA 98376 Appraiser Charley Hough was sworn in by Chairman Marlow at the start of the hearing. Ms. Grus and Mr. Hawes arrived after the hearing began and were sworn in by Chairman Marlow upon their arrival. Under appeal is a residence situated on a lot located at 1030 Dabob, Quilcene. Currently, the property is assessed at $298,900 ($61,820 for the land and $237,080 for the improvements). The appellants feel the value should be the same as their previous assessment. Mr. Hough explained that this property was listed for sale on the open market in March 2006 for $339,500. After being on the market for 111 days the price was lowered to $325,000. In September 2006 after 160 days on the market, the price was lowered again to $315,000. The appellants purchased the property in April 2007 for $309,250. The property was assessed as of January 1, 2007 for $298,900. Documentation was also provided in support the current assessment. Ms. Grus stated that after reviewing the Assessor's information she is more confused than ever. There are no sales of comparable properties except for one which consists of more acreage. They realize that property is suppose to be assessed at 100% of fair market value, but, the amount they paid for the property is not necessarily its market value. A person could pay any amount for property. So, is the final agreed upon sale price, the amount on which a person will be taxed? She noted that their land is not level. When they purchased the property they felt they could handle the taxes based on the assessment at that time. They are now having to pay higher taxes than individuals with properties that have more acreage and newer houses. Mr. Hough explained that the assessment is determined by the value of the land and any improvements on the property (ie. house, garage, shed, deck, etc.). The term "improvements" refers to the structures built on the land. It does not mean you painted or made improvements to your house. One acre of the land is valued as a building site. The remaining acreage is valued at a lesser rate because it cannot be used as another building site. The appellants purchased the property after the assessment date for more than the current assessment. Market value is determined by the amount in which a willing buyer and a willing seller will exchange property. He acknowledged that the property was on the market for a while and that the selling price ended up being approximately 10% below the asking price. Mr. Hawes asked Mr. Hough if he would have assessed the property at $298,900 if the property had not sold? Mr. Hough explained that property in Jefferson County is assessed every four years, with the exception of new construction which is assessed each year. Prior to January 1, 2007 the previous assessment was $130,000. The appellants just happened to purchase the property the same year it was reassessed. In answer to the appellant's question, the property was assessed prior to the appellant's purchase. The value was increased before it sold. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Marlow closed the hearing. The Board will make a determination at a later date. Board of Equalization Minutes - August 22, 2008 Page: 4 Charles & Mary Baldwin BOE: 08 -15 -R PN: 990 100 002 42 Wells Ridge Court Port Ludlow, WA 98365 Charles Baldwin was present. Appraiser Maryn Gossell represented the Assessor's office. Chairman Marlow explained the hearing process and swore in both parties. Under appeal is a residence situated on a lot located at 42 Wells Ridge Court, Port Ludlow. Currently, the property is assessed at $432,195 ($145,000 for the land and $287,195 for the improvements). The appellants estimate the value is $377,675 ($90,480 for the land and $287,195 for the improvements). Mr. Baldwin corrected his answer to question #9 on the petition form regarding the cost of the remodel. He listed the entire value of the house in the amount of $271,000 instead of the cost of the remodel which was $17,900. He noted that they are only disputing the value of the land. Property values in Port Ludlow are declining. Hardly any property is selling. His "Exhibit #1 "lists sales of non -view properties that have occurred in the North Bay area since October 13, 2007. The exhibit compares the sale prices to assessed values. Exhibit #2 shows a comparison of lot values in the area and Exhibit #3 is a map with the current assessment of each parcel in the area. This information shows that the assessments are too high. When he first purchased his property it was assessed at $46,000. During the next assessment period it went down to $43,000 and now it has gone up to $145,000. That is a 235% increase in value. The comparable sales used by the Assessor's office are view lots. There is no view from his lot. There is also no relation between the size of the lots and their assessed values. A larger lot should have a larger increase. There are many inconsistencies among the property values in the area which make it inequitable. Ms. Gossell explained that the appellant is only appealing the land value so the information she provided includes only land sales. The map outlines the appellant's property and two comparable property sales. The appellant's land is valued at a base rate of $100,000 with an increase of 35% for its larger size. There is also a $10,000 assessment for utilities (ie. water, power, septic). The $10,000 assessment is standard for all property with a connection to all three utilities. Comparable property #1 is located at 103 Wells Ridge Court, Port Ludlow. It was a double sale which means that it has sold twice since the last revaluation period four years ago. This bare land parcel has no utilities or infrastructure. It sold in December 2004 for $100,000 and then sold again in October 2006 for $235,125. This property has a water view and is currently assessed at $230,000. It is valued using abase rate of $200,000, which is twice as much as the appellant's base rate, plus there is an increase in value of 15% due to its larger size. Comparable property 42 is located adjacent to the first comparable off of Wells Ridge Court. This water view property is also assessed using a base rate of $200,000 and is receiving an increase in value of 10% due to its larger size. It also sold twice. In December 2004 it sold for $100,000 and then sold again in June 2005 for $117,500. Ms. Gossell stated that this property is currently listed for sale for $359,000. The value was not based on this listing. It is presented for information only and not as evidence of market value. Board of Equalization Minutes - August 22, 2008 Page: 5 This property is located in South Port Ludlow. During the four -year revaluation cycle of January 1, 2003 through January 1, 2007 there were 332 sales of property within the Master Planned Resort (MPR) which includes both North and South Bay. Of the 332 sales, 105 were "double sales". This shows that property increased dramatically during those four years. Between January and July 2007 there were 13 sales of improved property showing an annual average increase in value of 17.4 %. She also received information from the Northwest Multiple List Service which shows that in the month of November 2007 the volume of sales were down 37 %, but, the median price of property was up 12% in Jefferson County. As of the assessment date of January 1, 2007 the assessment of this property is fair and equitable. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Marlow closed the hearing. The Board will make a determination at a later date. 721 174 012 $282,375 (bare land) Stephen Nielsen BOE: 08 -16 -LO PN: 721 174 012 8350 Merrimount Drive 08 -17 -LO 721 174 014 Mercer Island, WA 98040 08 -18 -R 721 174 030 08 -19 -LO 721 174 032 08 -20 -LO 721 174 033 Stephen Nielsen was present. Appraiser Charley Hough represented the Assessor's office. After explaining the hearing process, Chairman Marlow swore in both parties. Five parcels are under appeal located at 2211 Thomdyke Road, Port Ludlow. A residence is situated on one parcel while the other parcels are bare land. Following is the current assessment and the appellant's estimate of value for the parcels under appeal: Parcel No. Current Assessed Value 721 174 012 $282,375 (bare land) 721 174 014 $283,095 (bare land) 721 174 030 $357,180 (land $193,060 /imps. $164,120) 721 174 032 $177,150 (bare land) 721 174 033 $177,210 (bare land) Appellant's Estimate of Value $172,250 $172,250 $247,450 (land $87,450 /imps. $160,000) $87,450 $87,450 Mr. Nielsen stated that he is appealing only the value of the land. He presented a map outlining his property. The Assessor's comparable property #5 noted with an "X" on the map is identical in terms of topography to four of his parcels. Yet, the comparable property is assessed considerably less at $87,450. That amount equates to $1,325 per front foot. His property is assessed at $3,000 per front foot. His other lot on which the residence sits has different topography and a lower bluff. It is not low -bank, but, it is about 20 feet lower than the other four parcels. Mr. Nielsen discussed the Assessor's comparable properties and stated that he is just asking for equity. Mr. Hough discussed his exhibit #10 which is a spreadsheet showing the base rate of $3,000 per front foot used to value the property in this area. Also listed on the spreadsheet are any adjustments made for topography, excess front footage, excess tide lands and utilities. Board of Equalization Minutes - August 22, 2008 Page: 6 Mr. Nielsen asked for an explanation of the utility adjustment of -50% on comparable property #5? Mr. Hough explained that comparable property #5 was given a reduction in value of 50% because it does not have any utilities (ie. power, water, septic system). If the property is developed at some point in the future the adjustment will be removed. Mr. Nielsen stated that his four bare land parcels do not have utilities and yet they are not receiving any utility adjustments. For equity purposes, his parcels should be valued the same. Vice - Chairman Broders asked Mr. Hough why Mr. Nielsen's parcels do not have the same 50% reduction in value for the lack of utilities? Mr. Hough explained that the adjustments have been in place for a number of years and were carried over during each revaluation cycle. Typically, topography of property doesn't change, so once an appraiser establishes those adjustments, they remain the same. He only changed the base rate per front foot during this last revaluation cycle. The utility adjustment reflects the usability of the property and the fact that it is not developed. Vice - Chairman Broders asked Mr. Nielsen if there are any problems with the usability of his property? Mr. Nielsen replied that all the parcels are narrow, but in terms of usability, his lots look the same and are similar to comparable property #5. He invited the Board to come and inspect the property. Vice - Chairman Broders stated that no sales information was provided. Mr. Hough explained that there have been no sales in this area. The information he provided was to show the properties in the area are valued equitably. The Board concurred to conduct a physical inspection of the property. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Marlow closed the hearing. A determination will be made at a later date. Vice - Chairman Broders moved to adjourn the meeting until 9:00 a.m. Monday, September 8, 2008. Member Garing seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Meeting adjourned. Attest: Erin Lundgrenn C /erk oft Boa JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF EQUALIZATION William. to Ch irman Richard A. B*ber� Vice - Chairman hDave Gating