HomeMy WebLinkAboutM111808ok
William S. Marlow
Richard A. Broders
Dave Garing
1820 Jefferson Street
P.O. Box 1220
Port Townsend, WA 98368
William S. Marlow
MINUTES
November 18, 2008
Richard A. Broders
Dave Garing
Chairman
Vice - Chairman
Member
Chairman William S. Marlow called the meeting to order at 1:00 p.m. in the presence of Vice -
Chairman Richard A. Broders and Member Dave Garing.
HEARINGS
Jack L. A. Finney BOE: 08 -62 -R PN: 001064 006
P.O. Box 315
Port Townsend, WA 98368
Jack L. A. Finney's wife Rebecca Finney was present. Senior Appraiser Bob Shold represented
the Assessor's office. After explaining the hearing process Chairman Marlow swore in both
parties. Under appeal is the land and improvement value of property located at 3290 Hastings
Avenue W., Port Townsend.
Currently, the property is assessed at $465,345 ($180,490 for the land and $284,855 for the
improvements). The appellant's estimate of value is $375,000 ($250,000 for the land and
$125,000 for the improvements).
Mrs. Finney stated that their house consists of 1 bedroom, 1 bath and a loft. Compared to other
properties listed for sale in the area, the assessment is too high. Information on those Real Estate
listings was previously submitted to the Board.
Mr. Shold stated that he is present on behalf of Dennis Pownall, the appraiser who assessed this
property and could not be here today. Mr. Pownall prepared a packet of information for this
hearing which was provided to the appellant and the Board. Mr. Shold stated that he will try to
answer any questions the Board may have about the information.
He explained that the assessment date is January 1, 2008. Sales that occur after that date are
beyond the control of the Assessor.
Phone (360)385 -9100 Fax (360)385 -9382 jeffbocc@co jefferson.wa.us
Board of Equalization Minutes - November 18, 2008 Page: 2
Mrs. Finney acknowledged that the Real Estate listings are after the assessment date, but, she
noted that they are also reduced in price.
Mr. Shold agreed and stated that the prices are being reduced almost 1 year after the assessment
date.
Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Marlow closed the hearing. The Board will make a
determination at a later date.
John C. & Elizabeth M. Koller BOE: 08 -82 -R PN: 965 300 055
20 Bluffs Lane
Port Townsend, WA 98368
John Koller was present. Appraiser Maryn Gossell represented the Assessor's office. After
explaining the hearing process Chairman Marlow swore in both parties. Under appeal is the land
and improvement value of property located in Kala Point at 25 Bluffs Lane, Port Townsend.
Currently, the property is assessed at $414,290 ($105,000 for the land and $309,290 for the
improvements). The appellants estimate the value is $375,000 (a breakdown between land and
improvements was not provided).
Mr. Kuller stated that he disputes the methodology used to value his property. He understands
that all the parcels located in the "The Bluffs" condominium development are categorized as
view property. His property does not have a view. View implies increased value and he disputes
his value to the extent that it is affected by that categorization. He noted that one of the
comparable property sales presented by the Assessor's office is located off of Cedar View Drive
and clearly has a view. That is comparing apples to oranges.
With the permission of the Assessor's representative, Mr. Koller presented a panoramic
photograph showing that the view from their property is a view of the house across the street.
The Bluffs condominium development was the last to be built in Kala Point and is the least
desirable propery, due to its location on a busy street corner and the fact that there is no view.
Ms. Gossell stated that the appellants purchased the property for $450,000 in May 2008. The
property is supposed to be valued at 100% of fair market value. The current assessment is
$414,290 which is 92% of fair market value, based on the purchase price.
The property located off of Cedar View Drive was presented as exhibit not as a comparable
property sale. It was presented to show that the assessment of $546,625 for that parcel is 75% of
its sale price of $725,000. This assessment is 25% below fair market value. Another exhibit
shows a land sale in Kala Point in the amount of $160,000. It is currently assessed at 137,500
which is 86% of the sale price. That is 14% below fair market value.
Board of Equalization Minutes - November 18, 2008 Page: 3
Ms. Gossell discussed information (report card) that was provided to the Board and sent to the
appellant prior to the hearing, This "report card" shows sales that occurred in the Kala Point
area after July 11, 2008 when the Assessor's rolls were closed. It lists the sale prices, the
assessed values and the ratio between the two amounts. The assessed values of all the properties
are below their sale prices. She must assess property at 100% of market value.
The appellant's property is the only single family residence located in the Bluffs development.
All the other structures are condominium units. She noted that the appellant's land is valued
using code 44163 which is defined as follows: "No/Limited water view /level, higher orientation
condo unit sites in the Bluffs in Kala Heights, building #1." The property is not being valued as
view property. In fact, at $105,000, it has the lowest value of all the lots in the Bluffs
development.
Mr. Kuller stated that his issue is with his property being categorized as having a limited view,
when there are other lots with much better views. He believes that categorization impacts his
value in some form or fashion.
Ms. Gossell replied that the view lots are being valued at a base rate of $210,000. That is twice
the value of the appellant's property, so the view is definitely being taken into consideration.
Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Marlow closed the hearing. A determination will be
made at a later date.
William & Wendi Metzer BOE: 08 -106 -R PN: 965 000 099
11 Dunraven Place
Port Townsend, WA 98368
William Metzer was present. Appraiser Maryn Gossell represented the Assessor's office. After
explaining the hearing process Chairman Marlow swore in both parties. Under appeal is the land
and improvement value of property located in Kala Point at 11 Dumaven Place, Port Townsend.
Currently, the property is assessed at $580,350 ($95,000 for the land and $485,350 for the
improvements). The appellants estimate the value is $514,222 ($46,980 for the land and
$467,242 for the improvements).
Mr. Metzer asked if he could present his testimony last? The Board agreed.
Ms. Gossell presented a map outlining the appellant's property and three comparable property
sales. The appellant's 1 -story house was built in 2004 and consists of 2,632 square feet with a
730 square foot garage. They purchased the property in July 2005 for $493.500.
Comparable property 91 is a vacant lot located down the street from the appellant's property. It
sold in January 2007 for $95,000 and is presented to support the land value of the appellant's
property which is being disputed. It is being valued using the base land rate of $85.000 which
was also used for the appellant's land value.
Board of Equalization Minutes - November 18, 2008 Page: 4
Comparable property #2 is an improved parcel. The house on this property was built in 1991 and
remodeled in 1995. It is smaller and approximately 15 years older than the appellant's house.
The same base land rate of $85,000 was used in the assessment. It sold in December 2007, three
weeks prior to the January 1, 2008 assessment date, for $600,000.
Comparable property #3 is also an improved parcel. Built in 2007, the house on this property is
newer, but, slightly smaller than the appellant's house. Again the base land rate of $85,000 was
used in the assessment. This property sold twice since the last revaluation period four years ago.
The land sold in September 2005 for $81,000. Then it sold again with a house for $543,000 in
March 2007.
The appellant's property value per square foot calculates to be $165.00. The value of
comparable property 92 is $170.00 per square foot and the value of comparable property #3 is
$166.00 per square foot.
She stated that the appellant noted on his petition form that with the decline in the housing
market, property values have not risen, but actually fallen. The sales data that the Assessor's
office has been tracking up to date, proves that statement is not correct. Property in Kala Point
has not declined in value. While there may not be as many sales occurring as in recent years, the
properties which are selling, have sold for more than their assessed values. The sales which have
occurred over the last four years show an increase in Kala Point property values anywhere from a
48% to 68% increase. She presented two sales exhibits as supporting data. They are not
presented as comparable properties, but rather as evidence that the market has not declined. One
is the sale of an improved property located off of Cedar View Drive. It was previously assessed
in 2004 for $363,060. Based on sales, it was reassessed in January 2008 for $546,625. An
assessment increase of 51 %. The property sold in September 2008 for $725,000. Now the
assessment is 75% of the sale price. That is 25% below the fair market value. The second
exhibit shows a vacant land sale in Kala Point which was previously assessed at $55,800. It sold
in September 2006 for $144,500. In January 2008 it was reassessed for $137,500. Then it sold
again in October 2008 for $160,000. Here again the sale price was more than the assessed value.
Now the assessed value is 14% below market value.
The assessment of the appellant's property increased 17.6 %. All evidence indicates the market
value of property in Kala Point has increased 48% to 68 % over four years.
In a letter attached to the appellant's petition he states: "... Our home's value showed a decline in
value since 2006 taxes were paid ($4,985), in 2007 taxes were $4,731 and in 2008 our taxes were
$4,286...." Ms. Gossell explained that the amount of taxes paid each year varies due to the
changing levy rates, not the property value. Property values in Jefferson County are only
changed once every four years. She discussed the tax receivable statement included in the
information she provided which shows the total assessed value and levy rates that change
annually. It is true the amount of the appellant's taxes have dropped, but, his property value has
stayed the same.
With regard to the comparable property sales presented by the appellant, she noted that the
assessed values of all of them are below the sale prices. Not one of those properties is being over
assessed.
Board of Equalization Minutes - November 18, 2008 Page: 5
Ms. Gossell discussed information (report card) that was provided to the Board and sent to the
appellant prior to the hearing, This "report card" shows sales that occurred in the Kala Point
area after July 11, 2008 when the Assessor's rolls were closed. It lists the sale prices, the
assessed values and the ratio between the two amounts. The assessed values of all the properties
are below their sale prices. Her job is to assess property at 100% of market value.
The appraisal submitted by the appellant as additional evidence is not a legitimate appraisal
because it was prepared by an appraiser from out of the area. The appraisal lists a value of
$530,000 ($460,000 for the improvements and $70,000 for the land) as of October 30, 2008. She
noted that the assessment date is January 1, 2008. The comparable properties listed in the
appraisal are not comparable. One is a listing and not an actual sale. Another is located on
acreage outside of Kala Point and it is noted on the appraisal that the heated shop with a
bathroom located on this property offsets the community amenities of properties located within
Kala Point. Ms. Gossell greatly disagrees with that opinion. Kala Point is a gated community
with a series of amenities such as walking trails, a beach and a clubhouse. She does not see how
a heated shop with a bathroom compares at all to those amenities. The land value is also not in
line with the market. There were some encouraging remarks made by the appraiser about the
property and surrounding area which indicate a continued buyer demand. He was also positive
about low interest rates stimulating continued market activity.
Ms. Gossell reported that since the last revaluation period there were 46 improved property sales
and 24 bare land sales within Kala Point. All these sale were charted on a map and used in the
assessment process. She researched the market, tracked percentage increases and conducted
physical inspections of all the properties. As of January 1, 2008 the value of this property is fair
and equitable.
Mr. Metzer stated that in an article in the newspaper the Assessor contradicts what Ms. Gossell is
saying. The Assessor stated that property values in Jefferson County have gone down. The last
time he checked, Kala Point was in the County. He believes that Ms. Gossell researched all the
sales in Kala Point, but, she only told him about three comparable property sales. He doesn't
know if Ms. Gossell has an appraisers license in the State of Washington, but, anyone that
prepares appraisals for property in Washington must be bonded and licensed by the State.
Therefore, using an appraiser from out of this area is irrelevant. The appraiser who appraised his
property is licensed in the State of Washington and has had it for quite sometime.
The difference between the County's assessment of $580,350 and the appraisal value of
$530,000 is $50,000. He realizes Ms. Gossell is looking at sales which occurred over the last
four years, but, the reality is that property values have decreased everywhere over the past 18
months.
Mr. Metzer read the following closing statement: We have just witnessed an historical election in
the Country. The vast majority of the people have let it be known by their vote that the status
quo that had lead us into a nationwide meltdown of our financial institutions and a record
foreclosure rate within the nations Real Estate market over the past 18 months has to be changed,
and changed now. Some of the problems we have been facing have been attributed to greedy
Board of Equalization Minutes - November 18, 2008 Page: 6
politicians and financial institutions artificially inflating property values and leaving homeowners
across the country without any resource other than to default on their loans and lose their homes.
Each day we hear more and more that home values are plummeting and now banks are being
very cautious about lending for those overvalued homes. I am aware that the County's only
source of revenue is from property tax collected from its residents. I am also aware that the
County is facing a budget shortfall. While, I can empathize with the County's problems, I can't
understand why the County cannot, or will not live within its means like the rest of the citizens
and actually balance a budget. We elect our governing officials to the judiciary responsibility to
the citizens, as well as instruct them to perform their sworn duties to uphold the laws and protect
the people they serve. I ask all of you here, if you are willing to contribute and continue the
status quo which got us in this mess in the first place by letting unlicensed personnel artificially
inflate property values just to meet their mandated numbers, or are you willing to consider the
opinion of a qualified licensed professional appraiser? The choice is yours.
After further discussion Ms. Gossell stated that she also is a licensed accredited appraiser in the
State of Washington as is required for her position with the County. She also undergoes
continuing education to maintain her license.
Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Marlow closed the hearing. A determination will be
made at a later date.
Donald L. & Elaine R. Shore BOE: 08 -107 -R PN: 965 900 003
38 Terrace Drive
Port Townsend, WA 98368
Donald L. Shore was present. Appraiser Maryn Gossell represented the Assessor's office. After
explaining the hearing process Chairman Marlow swore in both parties. Under appeal is the land
and improvement value of property located in Kala Point at 38 Terrace Drive, Port Townsend.
Currently, the property is assessed at $416,280 ($98,000 for the land and $318,280 for the
improvements). The appellants estimate the value is $307,500 ($60,000 for the land and
$247,500 for the improvements).
Mr. Shore stated he is mainly appealing the land value which increased from $56,000 to $98,000
without the Assessor inspecting the property. This 75% increase in value is not warranted
considering their view has diminished due to residential construction and tree growth. In 2000
the Assessor reduced their land value for loss of view. They have even less of a view now than
they had at that time. Photographs of the view obstructions were included with the appellant's
petition along with copies of the valuation change notices from 1997 to 2008. Additionally, the
Real Estate market has declined over the last two years and property is no longer selling for same
high prices you could get four years ago.
Board of Equalization Minutes - November 18, 2008 Page: 7
Ms. Gossell stated that the appellant noted on the petition form that he was contesting both the
land and improvement values so she prepared her case on that basis. She presented a map of
Kala Terrace outlining the appellant's property and three comparable property sales. She
explained that she did inspect the appellant's property prior to the assessment. The appellant's
two -story house was built in1996 and consists of 2,290 sq. feet with a 784 sq. foot garage. The
land value was previously receiving a reduction of -15% for location/view quality. During the
assessment she noticed the view loss and took that into consideration by increasing that
adjustment to -20% for loss of view. With that reduction the base land value of $110,000 went
down to $88,000. Adding in the site improvements for utilities gives you the total land value of
$98,000. The base rate is $70,000 for the least desirable lots in Kala Point which are located
among trees or have topography issues. The properties categorized as "no view /interior lots"
have a base rate of $85,000. The appellant's lot has a limited water view. The defined category
for his land value is "fair to average water views" with a base rate of $110,000. Adjustments are
made for individual lots.
She presented the following three comparable property sales:
Comparable Property #1
Parcel No.: 965 900 007 (improved property)
Location: 78 Terrace Drive
Date of Sale: March 2007
Sale Price: $408,000
Property Description: This property has a base land value of $80,000 with no adjustment.
Comparable Property #2
Parcel No.: 965 900 009 (improved property)
Location: 104 Terrace Drive
Date of Sale: March 2006
Sale Price: $485,000
Property Description: This property has abase land value of $110,000 with a -10% adjustment
for view /topography /location quality.
Comparable Property #3
Parcel No.: 965 900 020 (bare land)
Location: No address assigned
Date of Sale: October 2008
Sale Price: $160,000
Property Description: This property has a base land value of $110,000 with +25% adjustment for
site /view, quality.
Ms. Gossell discussed a property sale located off of Cedar View Drive. She presented that sale
as an exhibit and not as a comparable property sale. It shows that the assessment of $546,625 for
that parcel is 75% of its sale price of $725,000.
Board of Equalization Minutes - November 18, 2008 Page: 8
She discussed information (report card) that was provided to the Board and sent to the appellant
prior to the hearing, This "report card" shows sales that occurred in the Kala Point area after
July 11, 2008 when the Assessor's rolls were closed. It lists the sale prices, the assessed values
and the ratio between the two amounts. The assessed values of all the properties are below their
sale prices.
The appellant's property is being valued at $117 per square foot which is less than both
comparable properties #1 and Q.
Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Marlow closed the hearing. A determination will be
made at a later date.
Henri & Margaret Communal BOE: 08- 116 -LO PN: 966 100 006
32 bud de la liberation
94300 Vincennes, FRANCE
Henri and Margaret Communal were not present. Appraiser Maryn Gossell represented the
Assessor's office and was sworn in by Chairman Marlow. Under appeal is the land value of lots
5 and 6 located in Kala Point (the lagoon at Kala Point), Port Townsend.
Currently, the property is assessed at $225,000 (land only). The appellants estimate the value is
$148,500.
The appellants reasons for appealing their property were outlined in a letter attached to their
petition which states: "The new valuation changes the value from $148,500 to $225,000. We
believe this is strongly overvalued. Here are the reasons why:
1) The parcel is not waterfront. It has a potential view on the lagoon if many trees are removed.
However, cutting trees is such as issue in the area that we believe it will likely not be possible to
clear our view in the way the neighbors were able to clear their view years ago.
2) The parcel next to ours is not built. When it is built, it will take most of our view and we will
be left with a building in front of us. That's one of the reasons why we haven't built anything on
our lot: we need to wait till the neighbor builds and then see whether we can still have some
view.
3) The parcel is located on a steep slope that will make building on it more difficult and more
expensive. The neighbor's lot has a flat area that will allow for easy building. Our lot is 100%
in the slope. We estimate that this will add between $50,000 to $100,000 in engineering,
building and associated costs.
4) Most lots with a view or a partial view are assessed for around $100,000 in Kala Point.
5) The parcel is right next to the tennis courts.
6) There is another lot (parcel 965 900 020) with partial views and easy to build that is currently
listed for sale at $169,000 and finds no buyer.
Board of Equalization Minutes - November 18, 2008 Page: 9
For these reasons, we believe that the assessed value of our parcel should not be increased or
decreased depending on what we can do at that time with our parcel."
Ms. Gossell stated that the previous assessment in 2004 was $148,500 which is the exact amount
of the appellant's estimate. It is not realistic to think that property values have not increased over
the last four years based on the sales which have occurred within the Kala Point area. The
comparable property sales presented by the appellant are not at all similar to the appellant's
property and are located in different areas of Kala Point. The comparable property sales which
she has presented are in close proximity to the appellant's property.
She discussed a vacant land sale in Kala Point which both she and the appellant submitted as
evidence. This is the lot the appellant discusses in item 46. It sold after the appellant had filed
his petition. It sold in October 2008 for $160,000 which is 14% higher than the assessed value.
This property sold twice within the four year revaluation period. It had previously sold in
September 2006 for $144,500 showing that the market is increasing, not decreasing.
To address the appellants concerns discussed in their letter she explained the following:
With regard to item #1 she acknowledged that the property is not waterfront and explained that it
is receiving a -25% adjustment for location/view /topography quality.
Item 42: If and when a house is built on the adjacent parcel which blocks the appellant's view,
then the Assessor's office will take that into consideration and adjust the value during the
revaluation period.
Item 43: The topography issues are taken into account with the -25% adjustment.
Item 44: She reviewed a map which shows that lots with water views or partial water views have
land values that range from $210,000 to $275,000.
Item 45: The location of the property in proximity to the tennis courts is being taken into account
with the -25% adjustment.
Item #6: The lot mentioned sold for $160,000 in October 2008.
Ms. Gossell discussed a property sale located off of Cedar View Drive. She presented that sale
as an exhibit and not as a comparable property sale. It shows that the assessment of $546,625 for
that parcel is 75% of its sale price of $725,000.
Also included in the information she provided to the Board and the appellant is a "report card"
which shows sales that occurred in the Kala Point area after July 11, 2008 when the Assessor's
rolls were closed. It lists the sale prices, the assessed values and the ratio between the two
amounts. The assessed values of all the properties are below their sale prices.
Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Marlow closed the hearing. A determination will be
made at a later date.
Board of Equalization Minutes - November 18, 2008 Page: 10
Danae Larrance BOE: 08 -104 -R PN: 969 800 020
477 Ludlow Bay Road
Port Ludlow, WA 98365
Danae Larrance was present. Appraiser Maryn Gossell represented the Assessor's office. After
explaining the hearing process Chairman Marlow swore in both parties. Under appeal is the land
and improvement value of property located at 96 Twinsview Court, Port Ludlow.
Currently, the property is assessed at $427,755 ($130,000 for the land and $297,755 for the
improvements). The appellant estimates the value is $335,000 (a breakdown between land and
improvements was not provided).
Ms. Larrance explained that she purchased this property in August 2008 for $335,000. In
researching sales of property in the area she was only able to locate one that occurred in
September 2006. There have been no other sales in the area in the last two years. The Real
Estate market has been declining. The comparable properties used by the Assessor's office in the
valuation process are either waterfront or water view properties. They are not comparable to her
property which is more of a "starter home" on a fairly small lot with no water view. The property
was on the market for a year before she purchased it. She believes the purchase price reflects the
true market value of the property.
Ms. Gossell explained that the assessment date for this property is January 1, 2007. At that time
the value of $427,755 was supported by sales which occurred within the prior four year
revaluation period. Comparable property sales that occurred over the last two years after the
assessment date were not included in the information provided. Only those sales which occurred
prior to January 1, 2007 were included because they were used in the assessment process.
Also included in the information provided is the background on this property prior to the
appellant's ownership. It sold in October 2004 for $357,000. Then it sold again in June 2005 for
$394,000. That is an increase in the market value of 10.36% over 9 months which equates to a
little over 1% per month. There were 18 months between the June 2005 sale date and the
assessment date of January 1, 2007. Using the same percentage increase over that period of time
projects a value of $464,920 as of the assessment date. The property was assessed at $427,755.
When it sold in June 2005 for $394,000 the owner at the time paid $50,000 to upgrade the house.
In her opinion it does not appear to be a "starter home" considering the amount that was paid for
upgrades.
She reviewed the map outlining the appellant's property and five comparable property sales. In
the four years prior to the assessment date there was a lot of sales activity in Port Ludlow. One in
three sales were "double sales ", meaning they sold twice within the four year revaluation period.
The Real Estate market in Port Ludlow was exploding at that time. Properties were selling for
about 100% of the listed prices. Then later the market flattened out and sales were not occurring.
The 29% increase in the value of the appellant's property is in line with the percentages of
valuation increases for the five comparable property sales.
Board of Equalization Minutes - November 18, 2008 Page: 11
The appellant paid $335,000 for the property. It appears that the previous owners were desperate
to sell the property, so it is possible that this was a distressed sale. In looking at the history of the
market listing for this property she found that it was on the market for 507 days and was
originally listed at $560,000 which is a significantly higher price than the amount for which it
finally sold. The appellant paid cash for the property and got a good deal with the downturn in
the market. Ms. Gossell understands the appellant's position and that she has the opportunity to
request the Board reduce the value. However, if the value is reduced, it will cause an inequity
with other properties in the area that still have assessed values as of January 1, 2007. As of
January 1, 2007 this property was valued fairly and equitably based on sales.
Ms. Larrance added that she doesn't see where the previous owners put $50,000 into the
improvements. She agrees that the assessment was probably correct as of the assessment date of
January 1, 2007. However, since that time, the Real Estate market has declined. That is shown
by her purchase price of $335,000 and the fact that it was on the market for more than a year. It
was not a "short sale" or a "distressed sale ". The previous owners had another home, but, they
did not have to sell this property. They chose to move.
After further discussion Ms. Larrance stated that the property was probably worth about
$400,000 in January 2007.
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 1:00 p.m. Monday, November 19,
2008. Member Garing seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote.
Meeting adjourned.
Attest:
Erm Lundgren C er o e Board
JEFFERSON COUNTY
BOARD OF EQUALIZATION
William S� Marlow, C airman
Richard A. Broders, Vice - Chairman
3
Dave Gari =be