HomeMy WebLinkAboutM120908•
•
o�
William S. Marlow
Richard A. Broders
Dave Garing
William S. Marlow
MINUTES
December 9, 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 10:00 a.m. in the presence of Vice - Chairman
Richard A. Broders and Member Dave Gating.
ASSESSMENT CORRECTION
Vice - Chairman Broders moved to accept the following assessment correction. Member Gazing seconded
the motion which carried by a unanimous vote.
APPELLANT
Connie J. Pacot
Rae Ellen Syverson
W2756 Poplar Road
Fonddu Lac, WI 54935
APPEAL NO.
BOE 08- 143 -LO
HEARINGS
BOE: 08- 134 -LO
08- 135 -LO
PARCEL NO.
002 332 029
PN: 902 225 003
902 225 004
Rae Ellen Syverson was not present. Appraiser John Pray represented the Assessor's office and was
sworn in by Chairman Marlow. Under appeal are two bare land parcels located in Sky View Heights off
of W. Uncas Road, Port Townsend.
Currently, the property is assessed at $90,445 (land only). The appellant estimates the value is $62,500.
On the petition form the appellant wrote the following reason for appealing the valuation of her property:
"Property reassessed to value exceeding fair market value. Two other properties in the area have sold and
information is summarized on the attached page."
Phone (360)385 -9100 Fax (360)385 -9382 jeffbocc&o.jefferson.wa.us
Board of Equalization Minutes - December 9, 2008 Page: 2
The information summarized on the page attached to the appellant's petition is a follows:
Sky View Heights
Lot
Old Value
New Value
Improvements
Acreage
902 225 003
$49,310
$90,445
0
8.4938
902 225 004
$47,175
$87,690
0
7.9794
Neither of these lots has had the alder cut in 20 years. Neither lot has a well. Neither lot has a water view.
Both lots have 1 to 2 useable acres at the top of the property; the remainder of the acreage is on a very
steep slope down to a creek and is not suitable for building. There is no road to lot 94, only a path.
The Assessor has told me that the lots were reevaluated based on the sales of two other properties in Sky
View Heights. Neither of these lots is comparable to my two lots described above. A summary of the
information I received from the Assessor is shown below.
Sky View Heights Lot Acreage Last sold for:
#5 10.0811 $67,500 (August 2006)
#9
5.0316 $87,500
Comments
Level lot, no view, not
wooded, has water
Lot with best view of all the
lots, including water view, and
access off the main road. All
of the acreage is useable, water
status unknown
Mr. Pray stated the appellant's property consists of two lots (lot #3 and #4) located in Sky View Heights.
Lot #3 is approximately 8 %2 acres and lot #4 is approximately 8 acres in size. He presented the following
three comparable property sales in support of the assessed value:
Comparable Property #1
Parcel No.: 902 225 005 (bare land)
Location: No addressed assigned (Sky View Heights - Lot 45)
Date of Sale: August 2006
Sale Price: $67,500
Property Description: 10.08 acres
Comparable Property #2 - Double Sale (Sold twice during four -year revaluation period)
Parcel No.: 902 225 009 (bare land)
Location: 583 Misty Ridge Road
Date of Sale: June 2004
Sale Price: $46,500
2 "d Sale Date: June 2005
2 "d Sale Price: $87,500
Property Description: 5.03 acres
Board of Equalization Minutes - December 9, 2008 Page: 3
The appellant commented that this parcel has the best view of all the lots, and while it does have one of
the better views, the amount of usable land is questionable.
Comparable Property #3
Parcel No.: 902 233 002 (bare land)
Location: No address assigned (S23 T29 R2W NW SW (SE 7A SQ) Subj /Ease
Date of Sale: February 2004
Sale Price: $69,000
Property Description: 7 acres
He noted that the appellant purchased both of her lots for $80,000 ($40,000 each) in 1990. Now, eighteen
years later one is assessed at $87,000 and one assessed at $90,000. Comparable property #2 supports the
current assessed value.
Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Marlow closed the hearing. The Board will make a
determination at a later date.
William D. & Celeste I Lilley BOE: 08 -137 -R PN: 002 332 017
410 Old Gardiner Road
Sequim, WA 98382
William D. Lilley 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 410 Old Gardiner Road, Sequim.
Currently, the property is assessed at $132,070 ($107,200 for the land and $24,870 for the improvements).
The appellant estimates the value is $71,565 ($47,360 for the land and $24,205 for the improvements).
Mr. Lilley stated that their property increased in value from $71,500 to $132,070. When he contacted the
Assessor's office about it he was told that it was based on sales of other properties in the area. He went to
look at one of the comparable properties that sold and found that it has a shop building that probably has a
value of $50,000 to $60,000 and may be the reason for the sale amount of that property. His property has
a 12'x 60' mobile home. They have not made any improvements to their property over the last 8 to 10
years.
Another issue is the fact that Jefferson County permitted the triple expansion of the gravel pit which is
located directly north of their property. Every morning at 7:05 a.m. they wake up to the sound of large
diesel engines and screaming back -up horns from the trucks at the gravel pit. This noise continues all day
long. On the weekends the gravel pit has become a popular shooting range. Bordering their property to
the south is Highway 101 which is getting louder every year with more and more traffic. The noise factor
alone warrants a reduction in value.
Board of Equalization Minutes - December 9, 2008 Page: 4
The Real Estate market is going in the tank. He does not feel that the value of his property should be
based on one sale. There is lots of property on the market which is not selling. As a good example,
located down the street from his property are 16 acres with a water view and utilities at the drive way that
are listed for sale for $240,000. That equates to an average of $15,000 per acre. His property is assessed
at $21,440 per acre. He does not see the justice in this.
Mr. Pray stated that the value of the improvements was only increased by about $600. He noted that the
comparable property with the shop mentioned by the appellant, sold prior to the shop being constructed.
Following are three comparable land sales.
Comparable Property #1
Parcel No.: 002 332 015 (bare land)
Location: 27 Old Gardiner Road
Date of Sale: March 2008
Sale Price: $130,000
Property Description: 4.96 acres
Comparable Property #2
Parcel No.: 002 333 011 (bare land)
Location: 133 Raptor Way
Date of Sale: October 2005
Sale Price: $80,000
Property Description: 2.20 acres
Comparable Property 93
Parcel No.: 002 283 028 (bare land)
Location: No address assigned (S28 T30 R2W)
Date of Sale: November 2005
Sale Price: $105.000
Property Description: 5.10 acres
Mr. Lilley stated that the Assessor's records incorrectly show he owns 5.4 acres. He only owns 5 acres.
Mr. Pray explained that the amount of acreage is based on maps and surveys.
Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Marlow closed the hearing. The Board will make a
determination at a later date.
Kathleen Case BOE: 08 -139 -R PN: 902 241 004
961 Fairmount Road
Port Townsend, WA 98368
Kathleen Case was present. Appraiser John Pray represented the Assessor's office. Chairman Marlow
explained the hearing process and swore in both parties. Under appeal is the land value of improved
property located at 961 Fairmount Road, Port Townsend.
Board of Equalization Minutes - December 9, 2008 Page: 5
Currently, the property is assessed at $388,275 ($329,825 for the land and $58,450 for the improvements).
The appellant estimates the value is $317,025 ($258,575 for the land and $58,450 for the improvements).
Ms. Case explained that in late 2007 this parcel was divided into two separate parcels. A one acre portion
of this parcel ( #902 241 004) was separated from .86 of an acre which was assigned a separate parcel 4902
241027. At that time, she assumed the value of the .86 acre would be deducted from the value of the one
acre parcel. That did not happen.
Mr. Pray explained that Fairmount Road goes through the appellant's property dividing it in two. There is
one acre on one side of the road and .86 of an acre on the other side. The appellant chose to divide the
property due to the road segregation.
He presented the following two comparable property sales in support of the assessed value
Comparable Property #1
Parcel No.: 902 2410 10 (improved land)
Location: 741 Fairmount Road
Date of Sale: October 2004
Sale Price: $425,000
Property Description: 208 feet of waterfront
Comparable Property 42
Parcel No.: 902 241 009 (bare land)
Location: 805 Fairmount Road
Date of Sale: April 2005
Sale Price: $160,000
Property Description: 104 feet of waterfront
Ms. Case stated she doesn't understand why the value of the one acre parcel didn't decrease by the amount
of the value of the .86 parcel when it was removed.
Mr. Pray explained that when the property was divided it went from being one building site to two
building sites which increased the assessment by the addition of the site value. This is waterfront property
which is valued on a front foot basis, so separating the .86 of an acre from the primary waterfront parcel
did not affect or reduce the value of the primary waterfront parcel because not much value was attributed
to the .86 of an acre. However, as a separate building site, the .86 acre parcel has a much greater value.
By making two parcels she increased the value of both properties.
Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Marlow closed the hearing. The Board will make a
determination at a later date.
Board of Equalization Minutes - December 9, 2008 Page: 6
Michael Hinojos BOE: 08 -77 -R PN: 940 500 032
40 Spruce Drive
Port Townsend, WA 98368
Michael Hinojos was present. Appraiser Charley Hough 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 40 Spruce Drive, Port Townsend.
Currently, the property is assessed at $216,135 ($110,000 for land and $106,135 for the improvements).
The appellant estimates the value is $180,000 ($85,000 for the land and $95,000 for the improvements).
Mr. Hinojos asked the Assessor's representative why the property increased in value by $100,000 in the
middle of the revaluation cycle when reassessments are only supposed to be conducted once every four
years? Mr. Hough explained that the previous owner was issued a building permit in 2004 to remodel the
house.
Mr. Hinojos stated that he visited the building department yesterday and found that there was no permit
issued for a remodel. The only permit issued was to enclose a 110 square foot area between the garage
and the house. His house is 41 years old. If you were to walk through his house today you would see a 40
year old kitchen, a 40 year bathroom, and old cheap paneling on the wall which has been painted. There
has been no remodeling of the house. A new roof was put on the house, but, you can see marks on the
ceiling from where the old roof had leaked.
He noted that there are two vacant parcels located to the south of his property which are each assessed at
$50,000. His property is assessed at $110,000. He doesn't understand the discrepancy between the
values. There are other neighboring properties which are also assessed at $110,000, however, his house
was not positioned on his lot to take advantage of the best view possible, like the homes on the other lots
were.
In addition, his antiquated septic system has prevented any development or remodeling. He noted that his
neighbors have paid $26,000 to $33,000 for septic systems in order to build.
Mr. Hinojos presented the following comparable property sales in support of his appeal.
Comparable ProVerty "A"
Parcel No.: 940 500 034 (improved land)
Location: 261 Dennis Blvd.
Date of Sale: August 2008
Sale Price: $232,000
Comparable Property "B"
Parcel No.: 940 800 045 (improved land)
Location: 61 Pine Drive
Date of Sale: April 2008
Sale Price: $139,000
Board of Equalization Minutes - December 9, 2008 Page: 7
Comparable Property "C"
Parcel No.: 940 500 029 (improved land)
Location: 90 Spruce Drive
Date of Sale: March 2008
Sale Price: $95,000
Comparable Property "D"
Parcel No.: 940 500 028 (improved land)
Location: 110 Spruce Drive
Date of Sale: Listing Price - Not Yet Sold
Sale Price: $189,000
Mr. Hough talked with the appellant after the valuation notices were sent out. He visited the property and
verified that the 8'x 12' addition on the back side of the house is an enclosed porch. He adjusted the value
and made an adjustment to the quality of the house and sent a corrected notice. Mr. Hough discussed the
appellant's comparable sales and presented the following comparable sales in support of the assessment.
Comparable Property #1
Parcel No.: 940 500 060 (improved land)
Location: 100 Cedar Drive
Date of Sale: August 2006
Sale Price: $200,000
Comparable Property #2
Parcel No.:
940 800 016 (improved land)
Location:
100 Maple Drive
Date of Sale:
February 2006
Sale Price:
$350,000
Comparable Property #3
Parcel No.: 940 800 041 (improved land)
Location: 64 Pine Drive
Date of Sale: May 2005 & July 2008
Sale Price: $229,000 & $272,500
Comparable Property #4
Parcel No.:
940 800 005 (bare land)
Location:
141 Ridge Drive
Date of Sale:
July 2006
Sale Price:
$115,000
Comparable Property #5 - Double Sale (Sold twice during four -year revaluation period)
Parcel No.: 940 800 056 (bare land)
Location: No address assigned (Cape George Village Division 4, Lot 57)
Date of Sale: June 2004 & September 2007
Sale Price: $16,000 & $117,500
Board of Equalization Minutes - December 9, 2008 Page: 8
Comparable Property #6 - Triple Sale (Sold three times during four -year revaluation en riod)
Parcel No.: 940 800 063 (bare land)
Location: 61 Alder Drive
Date of Sale: September 2005 & November 2005 & March 2007
Sale Price: $55,000 & $83,600 & $119,000
Mr. Hinojos rebutted the Assessor's comparable property sales, noting that comparable property #6 is
adjacent to Cape George Road and located at one of the highest points in the subdivision with a
commanding view of the water and Olympic Mountains. It is at least 200' higher in elevation than his
property.
Discussion ensued regarding sales and the actual cost of the improvements made to the property which is
far less than the assessment of those improvements.
Mr. Hinojos noted that he was an appraiser in California for 37 years and served on the Board of
Equalization for five years.
Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Marlow closed the hearing. The Board agreed to conduct a
physical inspection of the property and make a determination at a later date.
William & Carol Decker Trust BOE: 08 -95 -LO PN: 977 100 203
177 Rainbow Drive 97777
Livingston, TX 77399 -1077
William and Carol Decker were not present. Appraiser Charley Hough represented the Assessor's office
and was sworn in by Chairman Marlow. Under appeal is the value of bare land located at 5334 Cape
George Road, Port Townsend.
Currently, the property is assessed at $225,000 (bare land). The appellant estimates the value is $150,000.
On the petition form the appellant wrote the following reason for appealing the valuation of the property:
"No comparable sales for the assessed amount. Similar /comparable parcels are on the market in the
$150,000 price range." Attached to the appellants' petition is a listing of lot sales between 2003 and 2007
that occurred in Ocean Grove Estates or Ocean Grove #2. Additionally, the following letter was
submitted prior to the hearing along with "Exhibits A through E" which are mentioned:
"Dear Board Members, We as owners of Parcel 977 100 203 formally protest the recent assessed value for
the following reasons:
In General:
1. The report contains errors in the report and in the calculation call into question the
credibility of the assessed valuation.
2. The comparable properties are invalid; contain inconsistent data, i.e. land codes, value
assigned to unimproved properties, etc.
3. The assessment fails to comply with State law concerning revaluation.
Board of Equalization Minutes - December 9, 2008 Page: 9
In reference to the above Subject we would like to submit the following information.
1. Exhibit A - A copy of the notification of assessment
2. Exhibit B - A copy of the data from Assessor's report received from the appraiser
3. Exhibit C - A copy of the Washington State DOR document, Annealing Your Property Tax
where your attention is called to page 3 describing comparable sales
4. Exhibit D - An example of a true comparable property.
5. Exhibit E - Examples of adjacent property calculation demonstrating the inconsistency of
the appraisals
We submit to you that Assessor's report, our Exhibit A, is incorrectly prepared and does not value parcel
977 100 203, two vacant lots in Ocean Grove, accurately for the following reasons:
..., Specifically:
Errors in the Report:
1. Exhibit 1B has reversed the positions of the subject property and comparable 41.
2. Exhibit 2, page 2 of the report, refers to parcel 4977 100 212 as the subject property, which
it is not. The report erroneously states that the Decker's also own lot 15 (977 100 215).
3. Exhibit 2 (Subject Property Work Sheets), the Assessor's field work sheet, of the report
contains two field work sheets for a total of three lots, one of which is not for the subject
property (see #2 above). The field worksheet for the subject property lists two different
land codes for two identical unimproved lots and values them differently. This is incorrect,
inconsistent and requires an immediate correction.
Listed Comparable Properties:
4. Exhibit 3 of the report, comparable #1, is not a comparable property. This comparable
contains building improvements consisting of a 2 bedroom, 2 bath home with an attached 2
car garage and an additional outbuilding (two car garage). The field data sheet lacks
information regarding the interior improvements.
5. Exhibit 5 of the report, identified in the table of contents as parcel 4747 300 005 but is in
fact a worksheet for #947 300 025, comparable #2.
6. Exhibit 5 lists parcel 947 300 005 as a comp which is incorrect. The correct parcel # is 947
300025.
7. Comparables 2 and 3 do not meet the first criteria listed in Exhibit B, that they be located
in the same subdivision or neighborhood pursuant to State law. The subject property is
located in neighborhood 5560 while comparables 2 and 3 are located in neighborhood 5375
and should be deleted without further discussion. Further, the land codes do not agree with
the subject property and the values are adjusted upward based on the view and their beach
access. This is inconsistent with the subject property. State law requires that "Assessors
value all taxable property at 100 percent of its true and fair market value in money ..."
8. No street address was given for comparables 2 and 3, making our research effort more
difficult. Further, the purchases of these two properties appear to be speculative in nature
and not truly market driven. Again, no other property in the area has sold for anywhere
near the price shown.
Board of Equalization Minutes - December 9, 2008 Page: 10
Appropriate Comparable Properties:
9. Please note that the most recent sale of a comparable unimproved land in the
neighborhood, Exhibit D, was in September 2006 for $135,000 (Parcel 4977 100 604).
That property has been on the market, again, since April 2004 and is still unsold. The
current listing price is $129,000 and the assessed value is $120,000. This clearly
demonstrates that no appreciation in value has occurred in the subject property
neighborhood. In fact, market values have gone down.
Adjacent Property Valuation:
10. Parcel #977 100 201, Exhibit E, the parcel immediately adjacent to the subject property,
declares the value of the improved lot as $90,000 and the unimproved lot at $40,000 for a
land total of $130,000. The value assigned to the unimproved subject property is
$225,000. How can this be correct?
Statutory Issues:
11. The Assessor has not provided any market basis for the valuation of the subject property as
required by the statutes and our research has not uncovered any as well.
We, along with our counsel, have not received any documentation that supports an increase to the prior
valuation. There is no valid market or sales comparisons provided. All documentation received has been
erroneous or incorrect and should not be considered. In a business environment this kind of submittal
would demand immediate supervisory review and reconciliation.
Our original intent was to build our retirement home on this parcel of land. Based on the actions of the
Assessor's office and the perceived attitude of the County government as a whole, we are reexamining our
options. We are greatly discouraged by the haphazard method employed by the appraiser and feel that the
political climate in the community is contrary to our needs and expectations. Balancing a budget on the
backs of the middle class has resulted in nothing less than the growing movement against those attitudes."
Also received from the appellant prior to the hearing was a fax that included a summary worksheet.
Mr. Hough presented materials in support of the assessed value which includes maps and the Assessor's
field sheets for the subject property and comparable property sales. Real Estate Excise Tax Affidavits for
the comparable property sales were also presented. He acknowledged that there are two pages labeled
"Exhibit 2" because he inadvertently included a field sheet from another appeal. He also mislabeled the
subject property and comparable property #1 on the map shown as "Exhibit 113" as the appellant has
pointed out. The map shown as "Exhibit 1" correctly identifies the subject property and comparable
property 41. He also presented a map and the field sheets of the parcels along Cape George Road referred
to by the appellant.
Board of Equalization Minutes - December 9, 2008 Page: 11
Following are the three comparable property sales that were included:
Comparable Property 91
Parcel No.: 977 100 205 (improved land)
Location: 5320 Cape George Road
Date of Sale: October 2005
Sale Price: $410,000
Comparable Property #2
Parcel No.: 947 300 025 (bare land)
Location: No address assigned (Discovery Bay Heights, Division 1, Lot 25 w/s to easement)
Date of Sale: November 2006
Sale Price: $235,000
Comparable Property 93
Parcel No.: 947 300 026 (bare land)
Location: No address assigned (Discovery Bay Heights, Division 1, Lot 26 w/d to easement)
Date of Sale: September 2007
Sale Price: $235,000
Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Marlow closed the hearing. The Board agreed to conduct a
physical inspection of the property and make a determination at a later date.
Rae Ellen Syverson
W2756 Poplar Road
Fonddu Lac, WI 54935
DETERMINATIONS
BOE: 08- 134 -LO PN: 902 225 003
08- 135 -LO 902 225 004
The Board considered the information submitted by both parties. The appellant indicated that two of the
sales presented by the Assessor's representative should not be considered as comparable to the subject
property and outlined some of the differences, particularly in terms of topography and view. No other
sales comparisons were offered by the appellant. The Assessor's representative presented 3 sales in the
area. He indicated that while they are not identical to the subject property, they are located in the same
area and are useful in establishing market value. The 3 comparable properties range in size from 5 to 10
acres and include a significant change in elevation. The Assessor's representative explained that
comparable property #2 has a better view than the subject property and is receiving a 20% increase in
value for view quality. The Board questioned the Assessor's representative regarding the disparity in the
topographical adjustment assigned to the subject property and comparable property #1. The Assessor's
representative testified this difference was appropriate. It is the determination of the Board that sufficient
evidence was not presented to overrule the Assessor's valuation of these parcels.
Board of Equalization Minutes - December 9, 2008 Page: 12
Vice - Chairman Broders moved to sustain the Assessor's valuation of $90,445 (land only) for parcel #902
225 003 and $87,690 (land only) for parcel #902 225 004. Member Garing seconded the motion which
carried by a unanimous vote. (See earlier in Minutes of this date)
William D. & Celeste I Lilley BOE: 08 -137 -R PN: 002 332 017
410 Old Gardiner Road
Sequim, WA 98382
The Board considered the information submitted by both parties. The appellant did not provide specific
documentation of recent comparable property sales, but did offer testimony indicating that 16 acres of
nearby view property was listed for $240,000 ($15,000 per acre). The appellant also believes that the
increase in value is too great with respect to the current economy; the negative impacts of a nearby gravel
pit; and the incorrect listing of the size of the property in the Assessor's records. The Assessor's
representative presented 3 comparable property sales within the general area, ranging in price from
$80,000 (2.2 acres) to $130,000 (4.9 acres). The subject property is currently assessed at $107,200 for 5.4
acres. The value was reduced by 10% for location. The appellant indicated the property had been
surveyed, and the Board requested a copy from either party. The Assessor's representative was able to
locate a recorded survey which showed the size of the subject property to be calculated at 5.4 acres. It is
the determination of the Board to sustain the Assessor's valuation of this property.
Member Garing moved to sustain the Assessor's valuation of $132 070 ($107,200 for the land and
$24,870 for the improvements). Vice- Chairman Broders seconded the motion which carried by a
unanimous vote. (See earlier in Minutes of this date)
Kathleen Case BOE: 08 -139 -R PN: 902 241 004
961 Fairmount Road
Port Townsend, WA 98368
The Board considered the information submitted by both parties. The appellant requested a reduction in
the land value of the subject property as a result of separating .86 acres from a non - waterfront portion of
this parcel. The Assessor's representative presented 2 comparable property sales supporting his valuation
of $2,000 per waterfront foot in the area and testified that waterfront property typically derives its market
value from its measure of waterfront feet rather than its upland depth. The land value of the subject
property was calculated on that basis. It is the determination of the Board to sustain the Assessor's
valuation of this property.
Vice - Chairman Broders moved to sustain the Assessor's valuation of $388,275 ($329,825 for the land and
$58,450 for the improvements). Member Garing seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote.
(See earlier in minutes of this date)
Board of Equalization Minutes - December 9, 2008 Page: 13
Vice - Chairman Broders moved to adjourn the meeting until 9:30 a.m. Wednesday, December 10, 2008.
Member Garing seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote.
ATTEST:
�ti
Erin undgren, Clerk 4ofthe Board,
JEFFERSON COUNTY
BOARD OF EQUALIZATION
William S, Marlo ,Chairman
Richard A. Broders, Vice - Chairman
Dave GaritZZ