Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM102708ok William S. Marlow Richard A. Broders Dave Garing winiam S. Mariow MINUTES October 27, 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 930 a.m. in the presence of Vice - Chairman Richard A. Broders and Member Dave Garing. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Vice - Chairman Broders moved to approve the minutes of August 18 and 19, 2008 as presented. Member Garing seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote HEARINGS Terence & Rochelle O'Brien BOE: 08 -14 -R PN: 990 600 129 180 Baldwin Lane Port Ludlow, WA 98365 Terence O'Brien was 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 180 Baldwin Lane, Port Ludlow. Currently, the property is assessed at $333,980 ($110,000 for the land and $223,980 for the improvements). The appellants estimate the value is $303,000 ($110,000 for the land and $193,000 for the improvements). Mr. O'Brien stated that his appeal is based on sales of property in 2008 that sold for less than the 2007 valuation. He feels that his current assessment is approximately 10% higher than what it should be, based on comparable property sales which he listed on his petition form. He noted that on his petition form he mistakenly wrote that his property has 1 3/4 baths when it actually has 2 3/4 baths. The Assessor's records incorrectly show the property has 3 bedrooms when it actually has only 2 bedrooms. Phone (360)385 -9100 Fax (360)385 -9382 jeffboccCcojefferson.wa.us Board of Equalization Minutes - October 27, 2008 Page: 2 Ms. Gossell presented a map outlining the appellants' property and three comparable property sales that were used in the assessment process. She noted that the appellants' property has a small water view yet it is being valued as a non -view lot at a base rate of $100,000. The house on the property was built in 1978 and consists of 1,945 square feet with a 598 square foot garage. Comparable property 41 is a newer house built in 2005. It is slightly larger in size with 2,002 square feet and a 420 square foot garage. This property sold in October 2005 for $425,000. The house on comparable property 42 was built in 1991 and is 1,763 square feet in size with a 616 square foot garage. This property sold in November 2005 for $325,000. Comparable property 43 is a house that was built in 1992. It is 1,372 square feet in size with a base consisting of 884 square feet and a 420 square foot garage. It sold in August 2005 for $370,000. All of these sale amounts are higher than the appellants' assessed value. Based on square footage, the appellants' property is being valued the least. She noted that the number of bedrooms and bathrooms do not have an affect on the value, however, she will make sure that the information in the Assessor's records gets corrected. The assessment date is January 1, 2007. Based on comparable property sales, the value is fair. Mr. O'Brien stated that his property that was built in 1978 is being compared to much newer properties. He appreciates that it is being value less per square foot, however, he doesn't feel that much consideration was given for the problems that are typical with a house of that age. Another concern he has is that he understood from Assessor Jack Westerman that sales that occurred in 2008 could be considered and now he is being told that they cannot be considered.. Chairman Marlow explained that the Board must determine the value as of the assessment date of January 1, 2007. Ms. Gossell noted that the Assessor's office does take into account the age of a house. The appellants' property is being valued with 14 years effective age. She explained that effective age is not equivalent to chronological age. Effective age is used to value the condition of property or the percent "good ". Giving the property 14 years effective age, works out to be a physical depreciation factor of 12 %, or an 88% good factor. Comparable property 41 is being valued using a factor of 100% good and comparable properties #2 and #3 are valued using a 96% good factor. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Marlow closed the hearing. The Board will make a determination at a later date. Board of Equalization Minutes - October 27, 2008 Page: 3 Robert Chuck & Judy Hawks BOE: 08 -44 -R PN: 965 500 001 20 -1 Seaview Court Port Townsend, WA 98368 Robert Chuck was present. Appraiser Maryn Gossell represented the Assessor's office. After explaining the hearing process Chairman Marlow swore in both parties. Under appeal is a condominium unit located in Kala Point at 20 -1 Seaview Court, Port Townsend. Currently, the property is assessed at $328,545 ($105,000 for the land and $223,545 for the improvements). The appellants estimate the value is $260,000 ($60,000 for the land and $200,000 for the improvements). Mr. Chuck explained that his two -story condominium is one of 10 units in a small condominium development that includes five buildings (2 units per building). Four of the buildings are situated on the waterfront and have spectacular views. The building in which his unit is located is behind those buildings. In the previous assessment his land was valued at 1/4 of the amount of the four properties in front of him. With this most recent assessment his land is now valued at %2 of the amount of the other properties. He doesn't understand why that changed. The comparable property sales presented by the Assessor' office are not at all comparable to his property. The only true comparable property in the entire Kala Point complex is the adjacent unit located in the same building as his unit. The adjacent unit sold for $210,000. It was put on the market again in 2007 at a high price and never sold. The Real Estate agent said it should have been listed for $285,000. Mr. Chuck feels that value is too high. He noted that his two -story condo has 20 steps up to the living area which is not desirable in what is primarily a retirement community and affects the market value tremendously. The comparable property sales used by the Assessor's office were single -story units. Some of the waterfront condominiums increased in value by 50% and two of them increased in value by 161 %. His land value increased by 200 %. He understands that the percentage of increase is not supposed to be considered, so, he's not looking at it on an individual basis, he is just saying that perhaps there is a flaw in the assessment process. The assessment is not scientific. It is an opinion based on criteria and standards. He just doesn't understand what criteria and standards were used to value his property. In closing, he stated that it is obvious that the Real Estate market has declined. He doesn't think there is much difference in the market from January 2008 up until now. Basically, he thinks his property is over assessed. Ms. Gossell supplied two maps to the appellant and the Board for reference. The first map outlines the appellant's property located in the Kala Heights development. The second map outlines two comparable property sales located in the "Bluffs" condominium development also in Kala Point. She stated that there were no sales that occurred within Kala Heights development within the last four year revaluation cycle so she had to look at comparable property sales that occurred farther away. Board of Equalization Minutes - October 27, 2008 Page: 4 She noted that the appellant's condominium was built in 1990 and is larger in size than both of the comparable properties which are condominiums that were built in 1981. The appellant's property is a one -story unit with a basement. The comparable properties are only one -story units. The appellant's property and the comparable properties are assessed using the same base land value of $105,000. None of the properties are being valued as view property, however, the land value of the two comparable properties are receiving an increase in value of 10% for site /view quality. The appellant's land is not being valued as high as the two comparable properties. She feels the quality of the view and site of the comparable properties is 10% better than the appellant's property. The appellant's property is also being valued less per square foot than the two comparable properties. Comparable property #1 sold in September 2005 for $285,000 and then sold again in March 2007 for $312,000. Comparable property #2 sold in September 2005 for $259,000 and then sold again in March 2007 for $302,000. Very similar to comparable property 41 in terms of dates and sale amounts. Ms. Gossell also presented a copy of a Real Estate Excise Tax Affidavit showing a parcel located at 83 Cedar View Drive which sold for $725,000 in September 2008. The previous assessment of this property was $363,060. During the most recent revaluation she increased the property value by 51% for anew current assessment of $546,625. This documentation is presented to show that the current assessed value is still 25% below market value. Ms. Gossell asked Mr. Chuck if she could present additional information to him and the Board regarding sales that occurred after July 11, 2008 when the Assessor's rolls were closed? Mr. Chuck objected to the information being submitted based on the requirement that any additional information must be provided to all parties prior to the hearing. Ms. Gossell stated that she disagrees that the Real Estate market is declining in Kala Point. She reviews and charts the sales on a daily basis and there is no indication of that happening. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Marlow closed the hearing. The Board will make a determination at a later date. Alan & Nicole Gardner BOE: 08 -45 -R PN: 965 000162 23 Fairbreeze Drive Port Townsend, WA 98368 Alan Gardner was 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 on a lot located in Kala Point at 23 Fairbreeze Drive, Port Townsend. Currently, the property is assessed at $333,035 ($90,750 for the land and $242,285 for the improvements). The appellants estimate the value is $282,869 ($77,080 for the land and $205,789 for the improvements). Board of Equalization Minutes - October 27, 2008 Page: 5 Mr. Gardner stated that his property value increased 41% which seems exceptionally high. Their property has no mountain or water view. The view from their house is of houses and trees. Their property appears to have one of the highest increases in values among the properties in the area. He does not feel the increase in value over four years is justified. Ms. Gossell presented a map outlining the appellant's property and three comparable property sales in the area. The appellant's house was built in 1995 and consists of 1,606 square feet with a 440 square foot garage. Comparable property #1 is larger with 1,801 square feet and a 529 square foot garage. It was also built in 1995 and sold in July 2006 for $380,000. Comparable property 92 sold in May 2008 for $375,000. It was built in 2004 and is 1,667 square feet in size with a 473 square foot garage. Comparable property #3 was built in 2002. It sold in April 2008 for $370,000 and consists of 1,957 square feet with a 583 square foot garage. She noted that prior to the appellant's owning the property- it sold in September 2004 for $265,000 and then was sold to the appellants in January 2005 for $279,000. That is a 5.3% increase in value over 5 months. More than a 1% increase per month. Thirty -six months later the 2008 assessment shows an increase in value over the appellant's purchase price of 19 %. That is an increase of .5% per month. Ms. Gossell charted all the residential sales that occurred in Kala Point since January 1, 2004. There were sale amounts from 40% to 80% over the assessed values. A copy of a Real Estate Excise Tax Affidavit was shown as evidence that the Assessor's valuation is below market value. She asked Mr. Gardner if she could submit additional information (report card) to him and the Board regarding sales that occurred after the Assessor's rolls were closed on July 11, 2008? Mr. Gardner stated that he would like to see the information first and have time to review it before it is submitted as evidence. Regardless of the percentages or whether everyone is paying the same rate, he feels the values are elevated and higher than they should be. He wishes everyone could get a raise by that amount annually. Are property values going to go up another 40% in four more years? Where is the end to it? He doesn't have an unlimited amount of income. Citizens are getting priced out of their homes. So while he appreciates the Assessor's "Report Card" on sales that occurred after July 11, 2008 which show that everyone is being treated fairly, he doesn't feel that consistent increases in valuation is fair across the board for the people who live and work here. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Marlow closed the hearing. The Board will make a determination at a later date. David Klein & Robert Senter BOE: 08 -152 -R PN: 964 700 039 30 Windship Drive Port Townsend, WA 98368 David Klein was present. Appraiser Maryn Gossell represented the Assessor's office. After explaining the hearing process, Chairman Marlow swore in all parties. Under appeal is a residence on a lot located in Kala Point at 30 Windship Drive, Port Townsend. Board of Equalization Minutes - October 27, 2008 Page: 6 Currently, the property is assessed at $359,720 ($120,000 for the land and $239,720 for the improvements). The appellants estimate the value is $305,000 ($75,000 for the land and $230,000 for the improvements). Mr. Senter stated that he is appealing because his property valuation increased by 43% over a period of four years. The land value has doubled from four years ago. Even though the house is located off of Windship Drive, it does not have a clear view of the water. There is development on all sides of the property. Construction of a condominium unit was recently completed directly behind their property with no buffer. In comparing neighboring property values he noticed that parcels which were twice the size of their property were not valued twice as much. His estimate of land value was based on that comparison. The house is one of the oldest homes in Kala Point having been built in 1979. It is a tri -plex that neighbors have nicknamed "The Brady Bunch" house. The house is dated and has not been upgraded or remodeled. At the time of purchase they did repaint the house and replace the roof. They continue to have problems with the driveway, but they are financially unable to address it at this time. Internally, they have replaced a lot of ceiling fixtures and brass hardware on the kitchen cabinets. The stairs down to the basement have no rails and do not meet current codes. This is a safety issue they have not yet addressed. The door between the house and garage also does not meet code as it is a hollow door. Some of the windows have moisture in them and need to be replaced. The house is 30 years old and is showing its age. Ms. Gossell presented a map outlining the appellants' property and three comparable property sales. The appellants' property assessment equates to a 10.5% increase in value per year over the last four years. Sales in Kala Point show an increase in property values ranging from 42% to 85% over the last four years. Property values in Kala Point as a whole, were increased 38 % to 40% for non -sale properties, while the properties which sold were valued very close to the sale price. The house is valued using a factor of 12 years effective age which equates to a depreciation factor of 10 %. It consists of 1,905 square feet with a 594 square foot garage. She noted that the appellants' lot and the lots on either side of their parcel are being valued using land code #1165 which is defined as an area of fair water views usually filtered by homes or trees and may have view of bay, shipping lane and possibility of some Cascade Mountain view. The base rate for the land is $100,000 with a 10% increase in value for site /view quality. The adjacent lots are being valued the same. Ms. Gossell presented comparable property sales based on their percentage of increase in value. Comparable property #1 is a bare land parcel that was previously assessed four years ago at $55,800. In September 2006 it sold for $144,500. That is a 159% increase in value. The current assessed value of that parcel is $137,500 which is 95% of the sales price. She noted that the property resold in October 2008 for $160,000 which is 86% of the current assessed value. This indicates that bare land is still increasing in value. Comparable property #2 is an improved parcel with a 1977 house that was remodeled in 2001. It is valued using a factor of 7 years effective age which equates to a depreciation factor of 5 years. In 2004 it was assessed at $218,270. It sold in January 2006 for $270,000. That is an increase in value of 24% over 2 years. Currently, it is assessed at $296,040. Board of Eaualization Minutes - October 27, 2008 Comparable property #3 is also an improved parcel with a 1996 house. A factor of 4 years effective age is being applied which equates to a 2 year depreciation factor. It was assessed four years ago at $209,250. It sold in June 2006 for $325,000 indicating a 55% increase in value over 2 '/2 years (22% per year). The current assessed value of this property is $313,080. She also presented an exhibit of a house sale in Kala Point which is not comparable to the appellants' property, but, does show an increase in market value. The property was assessed in 2004 for $363,060. It was reassessed in January 2008 for $546,625 which is a 51% increase from the previous assessment. In September 2008 the property sold for $725,000. Even with a 51% increase in value the current assessment is still 25% below market value. Without objection from the appellant, Ms. Gossell presented additional information (report card) to the appellant and the Board regarding sales that occurred after July 11, 2008 when the Assessor's rolls were closed. This information shows the sale prices, the assessed values and the ratio between the two amounts. The assessed value is below all the sale prices for the properties which sold after July 11, 2008. Copies of four additional Real Estate Excise Tax Affidavits were presented that will be added to the "report card ". Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Marlow closed the hearing. The Board will make a determination at a later date. Due to a previous commitment, Chairman Marlow was absent for a portion of the following hearing. William & Linda James BOE: 08 -110 -R PN: 902 133 009 5935 Old Gardiner Road Port Townsend, WA 98368 William James was present. Appraiser John Pray represented the Assessor's office. In the absence of Chairman Marlow, Vice - Chairman Broders explained the hearing process and swore in both parties. Under appeal is residential waterfront property consisting of approximately 2.77 acres located at 5935 Old Gardiner Road, Port Townsend. The current assessed value of the property is $640,420 ($297,800 for the land and $342,620 for the improvements). The appellant estimates the value is $492,620 ($150,000 for the land and $342,620 for the improvements). Mr. James stated that he paid $137,000 for this property in 2003. Since that time property values have increased, however, in the last couple of years the Real Estate market has declined. He had difficulty finding comparable property sales. A piece of property located to the north recently sold, but, it has a completely different waterfront. There is deep water in front of that parcel, where in front of his property the water is very shallow and filled with silt. He presented photographs of the beach during low tide. Board of Equalization Minutes - October 27, 2008 Page: 8 Another concern he has is that since the time they purchased the property, a commercial gravel pit was approved for a nearby property. He feels the gravel pit has devalued their property due to the noise that it creates with trucks and rock crushing. It has not been operating for a couple of years, but, the permit to operate is still in place and operations could resume anytime. His neighborhood does not consist of high -end homes. It consists of mainly summer cabins and cottages, as well as a number of manufactured homes. In reviewing the Assessor's information he stated that his property is valued using a rate of $2,750 per front feet of waterfront. The comparable properties used by the Assessor are valued at $2,000 per front foot. He doesn't understand why his property is valued at a higher rate. Mr. Pray explained that the appellant's property consists of 250 feet of waterfront and is being valued as low -bank waterfront at $2,750 per front foot. It is receiving a reduction in value of 30% for depth and a reduction in value of 40% for topography. The value of the excess tide lands is reduced by 9% and the value of the excess front footage is reduced by 38 %. He presented the following comparable property sales in support of the assessed valuation: Comparable Property #1 Parcel No.: 901 182 008 (improved land) Location: 147 Orcas Drive Date of Sale: March 2006 Sale Price: $562,250 Property Description: 85 feet of high -bank waterfront Comparable Property 92 Parcel No.: 901 182 014 (improved land) Location: 4955 Old Gardiner Road Date of Sale: July 2005 Sale Price: $469,500 Property Description: 60 feet of high -bank waterfront Comparable Property #3 Parcel No.: 902 133 004 (bare land) Location: 5981 Old Gardiner Road (adjacent to appellant's property) Date of Sale: August 2005 Sale Price: $185,000 Property Description: 130 feet of low -bank waterfront Comparable Property #3 Parcel No.: 901 182 007 (bare land) Location: Off of Old Gardiner Road (No designated address) Date of Sale: May 2006 Sale Price: $200,000 Property Description: 120 feet of high -bank waterfront Board of Equalization Minutes - October 27, 2008 Page: 9 Noted on the map is another bare land sale that occurred in September 2005 for $160,000. It consists of 120 feet of high -bank waterfront and is located adjacent to comparable property #4. Comparing this parcel to comparable property #4 shows an increase in value of 25% between September 2005 to May 2006. Mr. Pray pointed out that the bare land parcel adjacent to the appellant's property sold for $185,000 and it has less front footage than the appellant's property. He feels the value of the appellant's property is higher than the appellant's estimate of $150,000. Mr. Pray asked Mr. James what the cost was to improve the land after he purchased it for $137,000? Mr. James explained that he is not appealing the improvement value. They did very little to improve the land. They did not have to put in a road because he had an easement across the property next door which he previously owned and sold. The property is connected to a private water system for which they paid a tap fee of $5,000 to $6,000. Installation of the septic system cost approximately $11,000. Hearing no further testimony, Vice - Chairman Broders closed the hearing. The Board will make a determination at a later date. Lydia Rosen, Rosen Trust BOE: 08 -32 -R PN: 940 500 065 2420 - 2" Avenue Seattle, WA 98121 Lydia Rosen was not present. Appraiser Charley Hough represented the Assessor's office and was sworn in by Chairman Marlow. Under appeal is a residential lot with a 1967 single -wide mobile home located in Cape George Village at 50 Fir Place, Port Townsend. Currently, the assessed value is $146,820 ($110,000 for the land and $36,820 for the improvements). The appellant estimates the value is $66,905 ($55,000 for the land and $11,905 for the improvements). On the petition form the appellant wrote the following reason for appealing her property valuation: "Because only 1 like kind property has sold in 3 years for $95,000. It was on the market over 1 year. Others have expired, not sold; 2 lots sold - all on market nearly I year. I could not rent it for more than current value or sell it within a reasonable time." The following three comparable property sales were listed on the petition: Parcel No.: 940 500 029 Location: 90 Spruce Drive Date of Sale: 03/18/08 Sale Price: $95,000 Parcel No. 940 800 051 Location: 52 Pine Drive Date of Sale: 09/17/07 Sale Price: $83,000 Board of Equalization Minutes - October 27, 2008 Page: 10 Parcel No. 940 800 063 Location: 61 Alder Drive Date of Sale: Not listed Sale Price: $119,000 Also enclosed with her petition form is: 1) a recent comparative market analysis for neighboring properties in Cape George Village; 2) insurance verification that $12,000 is the maximum amount for which the mobile home can be insured; 3) the certificate of ownership for the mobile home and the Assessor's change of valuation notice for the property; 4) Schedule `B' (Form 1040) Supplemental Income and Loss for 2007; 5) Revenue Report/Deposit Slip Reconciliation for rent received; 6) lease agreements; 7) a survey map; 8) letters regarding a proposed boundary line adjustment to possibly remedy the fact that only 8' of her garage is located on her property; and 9) a property profile. Mr. Hough presented comparable property sales in support of the valuation. He noted that #3 is not a sale, but, was included to show that properties are being assessed equitably. In response to a public records request made by the appellant, he sent her copies of all the field sheets from the previous 2004 assessment. The appellant brought up the issue that a portion of her garage is located on her neighbors property. A survey was done and confirmed that fact, but, it has been there a long time and it is being used. Discussion ensued regarding comparable property sales. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Marlow closed the hearing. The Board will make a determination at a later date. James & Jane Hill BOE: 08 -33 -R PN: 938 701 106 231 S. Palmer Drive Port Townsend, WA 98368 James Hill was present. Appraiser Charley Hough was present on behalf of the Assessor's office. After explaining the hearing process Chairman Marlow swore in both parties. Under appeal is a residential lot with a one - bedroom house located in Cape George Colony at 231 S. Palmer Drive, Port Townsend. The property is currently assessed at $375,465 ($160,000 for the land and $215,465 for the improvements). The appellant estimates the value is $315,465 ($100,000 for the land and $215,465 for the improvements). Mr. Hill stated that he is not contesting the value of the house. He only disputes the land value. In looking for comparable land sales he could only find sales of properties that had septic systems which allowed for the construction of houses with two or more bedrooms. His one - bedroom house is older and has a septic system that is only permitted for a one - bedroom house. There may be alternative septic systems that would allow him to remodel his existing home to increase the number of bedrooms, but, the feasibility and costs would be prohibitive. He stated that his property has a water /mountain view, but, due to the one - bedroom limitation it would not be saleable at the current assessed value. Board of Equalization Minutes - October 27, 2008 Page: 11 Mr. Hough presented the following comparable property sales in support of the assessment: Comparable Property #1 Parcel No.: 938 701 113 (bare land) Location: No assigned address Date of Sale: October 2006 Sale Price: $180,000 Assessment: $175,000 Comparable Property #2 Parcel No.: 938 701 019 (sold as a bare lot) Location: 161 Quinault Loop Date of Sale: April 2007 Sale Price: $140,000 Assessment: $145,000 (land value) Comparable Property #3 Parcel No.: 938 701 014 (bare land) Location: No assigned address Date of Sale: May 2007 Sale Price: $148,000 Assessment: $140,000 Comparable Property #4 Parcel No.: 938 100 433 (bare land) Location: No assigned address Date of Sale: December 2005 Sale Price: $180,000 Assessment: $175,000 Comparable Property #5 Parcel No.: 938 100 435 (bare land) Location: 340 Palmer Drive Date of Sale: April 2006 Sale Price: $180,000 Assessment: $175,000 Comparable Property #6 Parcel No.: 938 100 411 (bare land) Location: No assigned address Date of Sale: July 2005 and December 2006 Sale Price: $150,000 and $180,000 Assessment: $185,000 Board of Equalization Minutes - October 27, 2008 Page: 12 Mr. Hill stated that only one of the comparable properties presented is septic permitted. His property is only permitted for a one - bedroom house. He doesn't think that a one - bedroom house has been built in Cape George within the last 15 years. Some lots in Cape George don't perk at all and will not support a septic system. Those lots have very little value, but, may have some investment value for the future. He has been unable to find a lot that is permitted for a one - bedroom house that is worth $160,000. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Marlow closed the hearing. The Board will make a determination at a later date. Anita E. Hoyt Bajoraitis BOE: 08 -49 -LO PN: 977100 212 518 SW 298" Street 08 -50 -LO 977100 213 Federal Way, WA 98023 -3554 Anita E. Hoyt Bajoraitis was not present. Appraiser Charley Hough represented the Assessor's office and was sworn in by Chairman Marlow. Under appeal are two (2) bare lots (lots 414 and #15) located in Ocean Grove Estates Block 2, Port Townsend. Following is the current assessment and the appellant's estimate of value for the parcels under appeal: Parcel No. Current Assessed Value Appellant's Estimate of Value 977 100 212 $75,000 (bare land) $75,000 977 100 213 $154,000 (bare land) $75,000 On the petition forms the appellant wrote the following reason for appealing her property valuation: "Parcel 977- 100 -212 and parcel 977- 100 -213 should be treated as single building lot: parcel -213 has a septic system already installed for a residence designated for parcel -212. Separately the two parcels are not suitable for a building." Mrs. Bajoraitis anticipated her absence from the hearing today and submitted an e -mail to the Clerk of the Board with the following comment for the Board to consider: "1. Comparable no. 1 lists the replacement value of the building at $230,947. The total square footage of the building is listed as 2,767 sq. feet. The replacement cost of the building comes out at approximately $80.00 per sq. foot., which appears to be unrealistically low. In any event, either the building is appraised too low or the land is appraised too high. If the land is appraised too high, then the estimated value of our parcels should be reduced accordingly. 2. Comparable nos. 2 and 3 vary considerably from the "Subject Property" in their contours. Both of these parcels are either level or slightly sloping to the west and almost free of trees making most of the property suitable for building. By comparison almost half of the "Subject Property" (977 100 212 & 977 100 213) consists of a steep bank which considerably reduces the size of the lot suitable for building. For these reasons the appraised value of the subject property should be considerably lower than proposed." Board of Equalization Minutes - October 27, 2008 Page: 13 Mr. Hough presented maps outlining the subject property and the comparable property sales. He presented the field sheets showing the valuations of the subject property and the comparable properties. The following comparable property sales were used in support of the valuation: Comparable Property #1 Parcel No.: 977 100 205 Location: 5320 Cape George Road Date of Sale: October 2005 Sale Price: $410,000 Assessment: $449,780 ($235,000 land/$214,780 improvements) Comparable Property #2 Parcel No.: 947 300 025 Location: No assigned address Date of Sale: November 2006 Sale Price: $235,000 Assessment: $220,000 (bare land) Comparable Property #3 Parcel No.: 947 300 026 Location: No assigned address Date of Sale: September 2007 Sale Price: $235,000 Assessment: $220,000 (bare land) Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Marlow closed the hearing. The Board will make a determination at a later date. Vice - Chairman Broders moved to adjourn the meeting until 1:30 p.m. Wednesday, October 29, 2008. Member Garing seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Meeting adjourned. Attest: wc� Aentr��rk rm Ldg o e Boar JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF EQUALIZATION William .Marlow Ch 'rman Richard A. Broders, Vice - Chairman Dave G ' g, MerklSer