Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM102908• C EQU44r� O. William S. Marlow Richard A. Broders Dave Garing William S. Marlow MINUTES October 29, 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 1:30 p.m. in the presence of Vice - Chairman Richard A. Broders and Member Dave Garing. REQUEST TO RECONVENE FOR 2008 A "Request for Reconvening" was received by the Board of Equalization for the 2008 season. It was submitted on the basis that the taxpayer has met the specific requirement outlined in WAC 458 -14 -127 RECONVENED BOARDS- AUTHORITY (1)(c) which states that Boards of Equalization may reconvene on their own authority to hear requests or appeals concerning the current assessment year when the request or appeal is filed with the Board by April 30 of the tax year immediately following the Board's regularly convened session and when a bona fide purchaser or contract buyer of record has acquired an interest in real property subsequent to the first day of July and on or before December 31 of the assessment year and the sale price was less than ninety percent of the assessed value. The Clerk of the Board confirmed with the Assessor's office that the appellant has met this requirement. Vice - Chairman Broders moved to reconvene the 2008 Board of Equalization for the following taxpayer appeal that was timely filed. APPELLANT APPEAL NO. PARCEL NO. Joseph & Judith Wolfe BOE 08- 153 -LO 001 063 020 Member Garing seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Phone (360)385 -9100 Fax (360)385 -9382 jeffbocc@co.jefferson.wa.us Board of Equalization Minutes - October 29, 2008 Page: 2 HEARINGS Glenn & Charlotte Davis BOE: 08 -81 -R PN: 902 133 006 18807 - 37" NE Lake Forest Park, WA 98155 Glenn and Charlotte Davis were present. Appraiser John Pray represented the Assessor's office. After explaining the hearing process Chairman Marlow swore in both parties. Under appeal is a manufactured home and a waterfront lot located at 5821 Old Gardiner Road, Port Townsend. Currently, the property is assessed at $317,225 ($207,960 for the land and $109,265 for the improvements). The appellant's estimate of value is $179,000 ($89,000 for the land and $90,000 for the improvements). Mrs. Davis stated they are disputing two main issues with regard to their assessment. The first is with regard to the real property comparable sales used to determine the value; and the second deals with the current state of decline in property values across the country. The Assessor's comparable property 91 is not a fair comparison for the following reasons: 1) It was purchased over 2 years ago at the height of the Real Estate market; 2) It is a stick home which appreciates in value (the appellants have a manufactured home which is depreciating); and 3) It is not negatively affected by the dust and noise pollution created by the open gravel pit which devalues the appellant's property due to its location directly across the highway. The Assessor's comparable properties 42 and #3 were also purchased more than 2 years ago at the height of the Real Estate market. They are both waterfront lots with deep water in front of each parcel which would allow for the installation of mooring buoys and the construction of docks. The water in front of their property is very shallow and filled with mud. It has extreme mudflats at low tide due to the silt deposits built up from Snow Creek that drains into the head of the bay. This has become worse over the years and is unsightly and smelly at low tide. Basically, when the tide is out, it is not waterfront property, it is mudflats. The other two parcels do not have this issue. With respect to the current state of decline in property values, she read a letter from a Real Estate agent who has been in the Real Estate business for several years. The letter reads: "Thank you for contacting me with regard to your home located at 5821 Old Gardiner Road in Port Townsend, Washington. Your question about the decrease in value and continuing increase in your tax assessment is legitimate, and is one that has posed to me by many of my clients. In my 24 years as a Realtor I have experienced both increases in property value and corrections in property value, but, never a decline in property values like what has occurred in the past year. As a Real Estate professional involved in the valuation of properties I have found that using comparable sales that have been recorded in the past 12 months is challenging because of the Board of Equalization Minutes - October 29, 2008 Page: 3 sharp decrease in property values that has occurred during those 12 months. In light of this, comparable sales more than ayear old would prove to be useless in determining value. It is my understanding that your home is a manufactured home, not stick built onsite, and has had no additional improvements. Depreciation should be factored in, based on the actual age of 9 years for your manufactured home, and the land compared with similar properties whose values have been recorded in the past 12 months. In closing, it is a difficult time for homeowners to watch as the value of their properties decline, and it would be a relief for any homeowner for their taxes to be in line with the decrease in their property value." Mrs. Davis stated that the most current assessment of their property is almost two and half times the amount it was previously assessed four years ago. They have not made any improvements to their property over that period of time, so, they do not understand why there has been such a large increase in the value. Especially, considering the negative impacts to their property which she has already discussed. The Assessor's information further states that they are being taxed on the replacement value of the home, rather than the current value of the home with 9 years depreciation. That does not make sense to them. Periodically, this property is used as a vacation rental to supplement their income. They have seen a drastic decline in business over the last few months and they anticipate it will not improve in the near future, based on the projections of the economic state in the country. With this loss of income, a raise in property taxes could force them to have to sell the property during the worst housing market decline seen in decades. They feel strongly that the assessment is unfair and they would hate to see their family vacation home lost due to these reasons. The appellant's property is 98 feet of waterfront with a manufactured home built in 1999 which consists of 1,522 sq. feet. Mr. Pray presented the following comparable property sales: Comparable Property #1 Parcel No.: 902 133 004 (bare land) Location: 5981 Old Gardiner Road Date of Sale: August 2005 Sale Price: $185,000 Property Description: 130 feet of waterfront Comparable Property #2 Parcel No.: 901 182 007 (bare land) Location: No address assigned Date of Sale: May 2006 Sale Price: $200,000 Property Description: 120 feet of waterfront Board of Equalization Minutes - October 29, 2008 Page: 4 Comparable Property #3 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 low -bank waterfront; a 1990 stick built home; 1,664 sq. feet on the main floor and 704 sq. ft. in the basement. Based on the sales in the area he calculated a waterfront rate of $2,000 per front foot. Mrs. Davis clarified that she had mixed up the comparable properties and that comparable property #3 was the one with the stick built home, not comparable property 41. Mr. Pray asked the appellants if the property had been remodeled since the time of purchase, and if so, how much it cost? Mrs. Davis stated that they installed the manufactured home after they purchased the property. Mr. Davis stated that there was a cabin on the property that they had demolished prior to the placement of the manufactured home. The utilities were already there. The cost of the manufactured home was approximately $105,000. Vice - Chairman Broders asked Mr. Pray if the sales that occurred in 2005 and 2006 are reflective of the value of the property as of the assessment date? Mr. Pray replied that there are a limited number of sales in this area, however, vacant land sales throughout the County indicate that property values increased through most of 2007. He believes the Assessor's office was being conservative in valuing the property. Discussion ensued regarding the comparable property sales and waterfront rates. Mr. Pray explained how depreciation is applied to the value. A 6% effective age factor is being applied to the appellant's property value. The effective age is not equivalent to the actual age of the property as the condition of individual properties varies. Mr. Davis stated that their home is nine (9) years old and should be depreciated by that number of years. They should not be penalized because they keep their property in good condition. Member Gazing asked Mr. Pray if the differentiation between the value of manufactured homes and stick -built homes is taken into account during the assessment process? Mr. Pray replied yes. Member Garing asked how Mr. Pray calculated the replacement value for the home? Mr. Pray stated that the Assessor's office uses a computer system in which the appraisers input multipliers from the "Marshall Swift Cost Manual for Appraisers ". The factors applied for quality also affect the value. After entering of the multipliers and factors, the computer generates a value. Mr. Davis stated the value is still subjective as it is determined by what multipliers or factors the appraiser enters based on his opinion. Mr. Pray agreed. Board of Equalization Minutes - October 29, 2008 Page: 5 Mrs. Davis asked if the value were to be calculated today, would it take into consideration the current economy and the fact that the bottom has dropped in the housing market? Mr. Pray explained that the assessment date is as of January 1, 2008. Property in Jefferson County is only revalued once every four (4) years. The Assessor's staff does not revalue property between the four year cycle even though property may increase or decrease in value during that time. This property will not be reassessed again until the year 2012. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Marlow closed the hearing. The Board will make a determination at a later date. Heidi A. Charland & Nye E. Nelson BOE: 08 -86 -R PN: 948 400 010 303 View Ridge Drive Sequim, WA 98382 Heidi C. Charland and Nye E. Nelson were both present. Appraiser John Pray represented the Assessor's office. After explaining the hearing process Chairman Marlow swore in both parties. Under appeal is a house and lot located at 303 View Ridge Drive, Sequim. Currently, the property is assessed at $678,615 ($270,200 for the land and $408,415 for the improvements). The appellants estimate the value is $550,000 ($150,000 for the land and $400,000 for the improvements). Ms. Charland stated the current assessed value of their property is very close to the amount they paid for the property in June 2005. The Real Estate market has since decreased and property in the area is not currently selling for the same price. She noted that a vacant lot located two lots from their property sold in June of this year for $121,000. That lot is the same size as their property and has the same view. There have not been a lot of home sales in the area, but, she did find one that sold in May of this year for $543,100 after being on the market for almost two years. It is located on the other side of Highway 101 and is approximately '/2 a mile from their property. The lot is slightly smaller than their lot, but, it has a larger house. They don't have a problem paying taxes, but, they don't want to pay taxes on a value which is not reflective of the current market. Chairman Marlow stated that the assessment date of the property is January 1, 2008. Mr. Pray presented the sale of the appellant's property as his only comparable property sale. The appellants purchased the property in August 2005 for $680,000. Rather than using a comparable property sale to determine the value of the appellant's property, he used the actual sale of the appellant's property, because it is the best indicator of its market value. Mr. Nelson stated that the property is not currently worth $680,000 which is why they are appealing the value. The information they provided on recent sales proves that and supports a reduction in value. Board of Equalization Minutes - October 29, 2008 Page: 6 Ms. Charland added that if the property was valued in 2005 for that amount they would not have contested it. But, now, common sense tells you it does not have the same value. Mr. Pray added that the Assessor's office has been tracking all the sales which have occurred in Jefferson County and there has actually been an increase in property values. Mr. Nelson stated that is not the case in their neighborhood and they provided sales in the area as evidence of that fact. Mr. Pray explained that within the last four years there were three sales in the upper area of the appellant's subdivision. Two were sales of vacant land which each sold for over $300,000 and the third was the sale of the appellant's property for $680,000. Those three sales verify that the value of land in the area is over $300,000. The property which sold for $121,000, presented earlier by the appellants, sits much lower than the appellant's property and does not have the same view as they have from their property. The Real Estate sales information on this property, presented by the appellants, states that it has perk test pits from 1993. So, it does not have a septic system and power and phone lines are at the road. Mr. Nelson agreed that those lots each sold for over $300,000, however, they sold over two years ago. Those lots would not sell for that amount in the current market. The lot which sold for $121,000 is located directly below their house and does have the same view as they have. Mr. Pray encouraged the Board to conduct a physical inspection of the appellant's property and the comparable properties which sold, so that the members can make their own view comparisons. The Board agreed to conduct a physical inspection of the appellant's property and other properties in the area. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Marlow closed the hearing. A determination will be made at a later date. Rawleigh & Aria Ellsworth BOE: 08 -101 -R PN: 948 400 008 P.O. Box 3964 Sequim, WA 98382 Rawleigh and Arla Ellsworth were present. Appraiser John Pray represented the Assessor's office. After explaining the hearing process Chairman Marlow swore in both parties. The property under appeal is located at 193 View Ridge Drive, Sequim. Currently, the property is assessed at $485,310 ($147,360 for the land and $337,950 for the improvements). The appellants estimate the value is $463,950 ($126,000 for the land and $337,950 for the improvements). Board of Equalization Minutes - October 29, 2008 Page: 7 Mrs. Ellsworth stated that they are appealing the land value only. She spoke with a Realtor who informed her that property values have decreased. On the petition form she listed four comparable property sales. The first comparable property (parcel 4948 400 006) sold for $121,000 after being on the market for 505 days which is well over a year. Mr. Ellsworth added that it was initially listed for $175,000. Mrs. Ellsworth continued by stating that it finally sold in June 2008. According to what she has read on the internet and heard on the news, property values have fallen since that time. The second comparable property (parcel 4001333 042) listed under (b) on the form is a 2.5 acre parcel which sold for $95,000. It is larger than their parcel and has access to a boat launch and private beach, yet it is valued less than their property. The third comparable property (parcel 4002 331 027) listed under (c) on the form consists of 2.52 acres and sold for $146,000. This parcel is also larger than their parcel and has a waterview. It is located on a dead -end street so it is very quiet. The appellant's property has a waterview also, however, it is located on a hill above Highway 101 which is very noisy due to the passing trucks and traffic. This parcel also has a private beach and boat launch and is valued less than their property. The last comparable property (parcel 4001 301 030) listed under (d) on the form is 4.82 acres and sold for $210,000. This parcel is over twice the size of their property. It has a water view, a walking trail to the waterfront and access to a private beach and boat launch. If you divided that parcel in half, each half would be valued at $105,000. One half would still be larger than their property and yet it is valued less than their property. The value of their land went up from $85,800 to $147,360 which is a difference of $61,560 and a 71.75% increase. Mrs. Ellsworth believes that is excessive. She read the following statement from an article in a Kitsap County newspaper: "...In Mason County the median price of a home fell 18.8% and in Jefferson County it dropped 14.1 %..." From an article in the Seattle Times she read: "Home Sale Prices Decline Across Washington: The median home price sales in Washington during the 4`h quarter was $293,900, down 2.5% from the final quarter of 2006..." It also talks about how sales were down in King and Pierce Counties. She realizes we don't live in those counties, but, it is talking about the prices in the State in general. In the News Tribune an article states: "The sharpest national home price drop ever met a strong tumble in Puget Sound home prices. The standard in force home price index for July showed a 8.2% drop in home prices from last year and a I% tumble from the previous month..." Both Mr. and Mrs. Ellsworth stated that home prices are definitely down. Mrs. Ellsworth stated that the comparable properties the Assessor used to value their property are not comparable. They are located higher up on the hill and have much better views. They were also purchased two years ago at the height of the market by people from California. The market has since declined. Mr. Pray began by stating that the comparable properties he presented support a land value of $300,000. The appellant's land value is $147,360. Board of Equalization Minutes - October 29, 2008 Page: 8 The comparable property presented by the appellant which sold for $121,000 is a bare land parcel with perk test pits from 1993. It does not have a septic system and power and phone lines are at the road. This parcel also sits lower than the appellant's property and has a view which is inferior to the appellant's view. He noted that the Board decided during a previous hearing to conduct a physical inspection of property in this area, so the Board may want to visit the appellant's property as well. He noted that the appellants stated on the petition that the property was remodeled or improved since it was purchased, but, did not provide the cost. He asked the appellants if they could provide a total cost? Mrs. Ellsworth stated she can't remember and added that they are not appealing the improvement value which is why they left it blank. Discussion ensued regarding how the Assessor's office calculated the land value. Chairman Marlow noticed that a 10% reduction factor for site quality was listed on the Assessor's worksheet, but, it was not applied to any value. Mr. Pray explained that the property value is no longer receiving that reduction. He inadvertently left the notation on the worksheet during the last assessment, so he will correct it in the future. The Board agreed to conduct a physical inspection of the appellant's property and other properties in the area. Member Gating asked Mr. Pray whether or not he thinks the comparable property sales presented by the appellant's are comparable? Mr. Pray stated that he believes his comparable property sales are more comparable because they are located in the same neighborhood. The comparable properties presented by the appellants are inferior to their property. Mr. and Mrs. Ellsworth disagree. They believe their comparable properties are more private and desirable in a lot of ways. 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 1:30 p.m. Monday, November 3, 2008. Member Garing seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Meeting adjourned JEFFERSON COUNTY Attest: BOARD OF EQUALIZATION fn_L`uA�g /en*e'r-�k of t e Boar William( S�. Marlow, Chairman t Richard A. Broders, Vice - Chairman Dave G2 Memb