Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM1201080� William S. Marlow Richard A. Broders Dave Garing William S. Marlow MINUTES December 1, 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. Member Dave Garing arrived after the meeting began. ASSESSMENT CORRECTION /PETITION WITHDRAWAL Vice - Chairman Broders moved to accept the following assessment correction and petition withdrawal. Chairman Marlow seconded the motion. The motion carried. APPELLANT APPEAL NO. PARCEL NO. Steven V. Ross BOE 08 -124 -R 948 400 007 Harold Peacock & Dawn Wrest BOE 08- 141 -LO 901 081 036 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. Winston & Virginia LaJambe BOE 08- 171 -LO 991 900 017 Chairman Marlow seconded the motion. The motion carried. Phone (360)385 -9100 Fax (360)385 -9382 jeffbocc@co.jefferson.wa.us Board of Equalization Minutes - December 1, 2008 Page: 2 HEARINGS Mark Getzendaner BOE: 08 -114 -R PN: 902 133 007 5825 Old Gardiner Road Port Townsend, WA 98368 Mark Getzendaner was present. Appraiser John Pray 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 5825 Old Gardiner Road, Port Townsend. Currently, the property is assessed at $463,335 ($249,760 for the land and $213,575 for the improvements). The appellant estimates the value is $351,500 ($165,000 for the land and $186,500 for the improvements). Mr. Getzendaner stated his land value increased from $110,000 to $249,760 over a four year period. When he first received the valuation change notice he called individuals in the mortgage and Real Estate business to try to learn more about the assessment process and determining the fair market value of the property. He was told that comparable sales were used to determine the value of property. He was also told that properties which sold more than 180 days prior to the appraisal date, are not valid comparable property sales. However, when he received the information from the Assessor's office that was used to value his property he notice that it included sales of comparable properties which sold two or more years ago when the Real Estate market was at its peak. Property values have declined dramatically since then and as evidenced in articles in the "Wall Street Journal ", the "U.S. News & World Report", and on television. Conventional wisdom says that the market value of his property is somewhere between 20% to 30% less than it would have been two years ago. His main point is that there are no valid comparable sales in the area. In the "Attachment A" presented with his petition Mr. Getzendaner noted additional issues. The comparable properties used by the Assessor are all connected to a community water system, while his property shares a two -parry well. There is an operating gravel pit located directly across Highway 101 from his property. The gravel pit makes a lot of dust and noise which also detracts from the value of the property. He also understands that there may be restrictions on his property as outlined in the new Shoreline Management Program which prohibits the reconstruction of his damaged houses that are located within 200 feet of the shoreline. It doesn't seem fair to be taxed on the replacement value for your house if you are unable to replace your house in the event that it is damaged or destroyed. In the attachment Mr. Getzendaner discusses the issue with silt deposits from Snow Creek that have built up over the past several years in front of his property to the point that during low and minus tides there is only an unusable mud flat that is unsightly and smelly. The noise from traffic along Highway 101, and the proximity to neighboring manufactured home rental units which are depreciating and have little or no yard maintenance, also detract from the market value of his property. Board of Equalization Minutes - December 1, 2008 Page: 3 Mr. Pray stated the appellant's property consists of 120' of waterfront. The house was built in 2000 and is 1,365 square feet in size with a 1,365 square foot basement and 576 square foot attached garage. He presented the following comparable property sales in support of the assessed value: 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 waterfront. House built in 2005 consisting of 1,417 square feet. Comparable Property 42 Parcel No.: 901 182 014 (improved land) Location: 42 Orcas View Drive (4955 Old Gardiner Road) Date of Sale: July 2005 Sale Price: $469,500 Property Description: 60 feet of waterfront. House built in 1990 consisting of 1,664 square feet with a 704 square foot basement and 576 square foot garage. Comparable Property #3 Parcel No.: 901 182 007 (bare land) Location: 62 Orcas View Drive Date of Sale: May 2006 Sale Price: $200,000 Property Description: 120 feet of waterfront Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Marlow closed the hearing. The Board will make a determination at a later date. Denise & Larry Williamson BOE: 08- 123 -LO PN: 902 231 006 615 Whidby Street Port Angeles, WA 98362 Denise and Larry Williamson were present. Appraiser John Pray represented the Assessor's office. After explaining the hearing process Chairman Marlow swore in both parties. Under appeal is the value of bare land located at 282084 Highway 101, Port Townsend. Currently, the property is assessed at $149,250 (bare land). The appellants estimate the value is $110,000. Mrs. Williamson stated that their property is designated as unimproved land. After researching the values of several other comparable properties with the same designation, she found that her property is taxed at a higher value. She noted that the adjacent properties are designated forest land while her property is designated vacant land. The County records also identify several other properties as "In Holding Forest ", Board of Equalization Minutes - December 1, 2008 Page: 4 and yet she is paying tax on her sale price. Her parcel is similar to other parcels which are also zoned rural residential 1:20 except she has a different tax designation. She doesn't understand the reason for this discrepancy. She reviewed the sales of other parcels where the taxes are less than $50.00 per year. Another point she wants to make is that the Real Estate market has been declining over the last years. In speaking with a local Realtor she was told that 2006 was the peak of the market. They purchased the property in June 2006. All of the properties sales in the last two years have sold for much less than their listing price. She questioned why the decreasing trend in the market is not being considered? Mr. Pray provided the a copy of the Real Estate Excise Tax Affidavit showing the appellant's purchased the property for $150,000 in May 2006. The sale of this property is the best evidence of its value. He explained that the assessment date is January 1, 2008. He realizes there have not been many sales since that time, but, the value is determined based on sales which occurred in the four years prior to that date. He also explained that the properties discussed by the appellant which have a drastic difference in the amount of taxes, are most likely enrolled in a State exemption program which greatly reduces the taxes. Some of the other sales which mentioned by the appellant were properties located in an area which was assessed as of January 1, 2006. The values of those parcels were based on sales that occurred between 2002 and 2006. Mrs. Williamson stated that one of the comparable properties she presented sold in 2005 for $125,000 and yet it is valued as unimproved land at $120,000 with the taxable value at $1,580 which results of $28.00 paid in taxes. In comparison, the Williamson's are paying $850.00 in taxes which will soon be increasing 33% based on this latest assessment. Mr. Pray stated that the property is most likely in one of the State exemption program which is why the taxes are so low. Mrs. Williamson asked how individuals can get their property into one of the State exemption programs? Mr. Pray stated that staff in the Assessor's office administer those programs and can assist anyone who owns property which qualifies for enrollment. There is also information about the programs on the internet that can be researched. Mrs. Williamson asked why the current tax assessments are not following the decreasing Real Estate market trend in the Country? Mr. Pray stated that up until the assessment date of January 1, 2008, property sales were still going strong. It wasn't until after the property was assessed that the market began to drop. Chairman Marlow explained that by law the Board must determine the valuation as of January 1, 2008. Property in Jefferson County is only assessed once every four years. Mr. Pray added that the property value will remain the same during those four years between the revaluation periods, regardless of whether the Real Estate market goes up or down. Board of Equalization Minutes - December 1, 2008 Page: 5 Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Marlow closed the hearing. The Board will make a determination at a later date. Curtis & Bonnie Knudsen BOE: 08- 127 -LO PN: 948 400 009 2623 Galloway Street SE Olympia, WA 98501 Curtis and Bonnie Knudsen were not present. Appraiser John Pray represented the Assessor's office and was sworn in by Chairman Marlow. Under appeal is the value of bare land located at 294 View Ridge Drive, Sequim. Currently, the property is assessed at $262,360 (bare land). The appellant estimates the value is $180,000. The appellants wrote on their petition form the following reason for appealing their assessment: " Property (lot #6) has been sold for $125,000 in the same development in July. (Same acreage /view). We have had a market evaluation done and it is significantly lower in price. Lot #6 took 505 days to sell. Land is not selling at the same price as it was last year and 3 years ago when the lots were sold." Mr. Pray stated that the property under appeal is lot 99 in the Eagle Crest development. He presented the following three comparable property sales in support of the assessed value: Comparable Property #1 Parcel No.: 948 400 010 (improved land) Location: 303 View Ridge Drive Date of Sale: August 2005 Sale Price: $680,000 Comparable Property 42 Parcel No.: 948 400 012 (bare land) Location: 313 View Ridge Drive Date of Sale: February 2006 Sale Price: $305,000 Comparable Property #3 Parcel No.: 948 400 011 (bare land) Location: 302 View Ridge Drive Date of Sale: December 2005 Sale Price: $307,000 Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Marlow closed the hearing. The Board will make a determination at a later date. Board of Equalization Minutes - December 1, 2008 Page: 6 George A. Koch P.O. Box 879 Chimacum, WA 98325 BOE: 08 -100 -R PN: 901 193 007 George Koch was present. Appraiser John Pray 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 11501 Highway 20, Port Townsend. Currently, the property is assessed at $231,590 ($113,210 for land and $118,380 for the improvements). The appellant estimates the value is $139,125 ($40,000 for the land and $99,125 for the improvements). Mr. Koch stated he does not understand how the value of his property has increased 34 %. He researched comparable property sales in the area and found one in close proximity to his property. The comparable property sold for $375,000 and consists of 40 acres which is unimproved and located at the top of a hill with a full view of the water. Photographs of the property were also included in the information. After calculating an adjustment for view value and determining the cost for utility improvements, he deducted those amounts from the sale price of the property to arrive at a value per acre of $5,700. Using that per acre value would render a land value of approximately $40,000. He located another property which sold, but, did not use it as a comparable since it is classified as forest land. Additionally, the Real Estate market has declined nationally. He presented the May 2008 S & P /Case- Shiller Composite Home Price Index showing an annual decline of about 16 %. To determine peak to trough a reduction of an additional 16% would give an overall average reduction of 32 %. Accordingly, a decrease in peak 2004 -2005 values of 32% is expected. His property was previously assessed in 2004, therefore, he could assert that the value of that previous assessment is now 32% less. It is unfair to assess the property based on sales that occurred at the peak of the market and then force property owners to have to pay taxes on those extraordinary high values for the next four years. Mr. Pray stated the appellant's property is 7.26 acres in size. The house on the property was built in 1976. An effective age factor of 16% which equates to a physical depreciation factor of 13 years is being used to value the house. He provided the following two comparable property sales in support of the assessed value. Comparable Property #1 Parcel No.: 902 243 023 (improved land) Location: 190 Moa Hill Road Date of Sale: July 2007 Sale Price: $240,000 Property Description: 1.11 acres. House built in 1972 consisting of 1,192 square feet with a 624 square foot garage that was converted to a studio. The house is being valued using an effective age factor of 19% which equates to a physical depreciation factor of 17 %. Board of Equalization Minutes - December 1, 2008 Page: 7 Comparable Property #2 Parcel No.: 901 302 004 (bare land) Location: No assigned address Date of Sale: March 2008 Sale Price: $62,000 Property Description: 5.4 acres Comparable 42 is more similar to the appellant's property in terms of size and view. In reviewing the information presented by the appellant on the S &P /Case - Shiller Composite Home Price Index he noted that it states the indices have a base value of 100 in January 2000, therefore, a current index value of 150 translates to a 50% appreciation rate since January 2000 for a typical home located within the subject market. If you look at the level for August 2008, Seattle is at 175.24. Based on this data the market shows a 75% increase between January 2000 and August 2008. The appellants purchased the property in May 1998 for $164,000. Based on the current assessment of $231,590 the value has increased 41.2% over 9' /z years. He acknowledged that there is no view from the appellant's property and the access is precarious. Based on those factors he recommends a reduction of 10 % -15% for access and an additional 10% for site quality. Discussion ensued regarding the different land codes used to value similar acreage in the area. In response to a question posed from Member Garing, Mr. Pray stated that the properties in the area are similar and should be valued using the same land codes. The appellant's property was valued using a base land rate of $50,000. Comparable property #2 was valued using a base land rate of $30,000 because he was trying to consider the higher development costs in the value. Looking back he should have valued the land the same and made individual adjustments for development costs. 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 9:30 a.m. Tuesday, December 2, 2008. Member Garing seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. ATTE T: Erin Lundgren, Clerk of e and JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF EQUALIZATION William (S.�Marlow, Chairm �d.+/�8L PW>� Richard Broders, Vice - Chairman Dave Garin4., M ber