Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM121008�1 • 1� William S. Marlow Richard A. Broders Dave Garing 1820 Jefferson Street P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 William S. Marlow MINUTES December 10, 2008 Richard A. Broders Dave Gariag 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 Garing. HEARINGS Richard J. & Heather N. Taracka BOE: 08 -96 -R PN: 001202 010 405 Blossom Lane Port Townsend, WA 98368 Heather Taracka 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 405 Blossom Lane, Port Townsend. Currently, the property is assessed at $490,325 ($218,200 for the land and $272,125 for the improvements). The appellant estimates the value is $445,325 ($193,200 for the land and $252,125 for the improvements). Mrs. Taracka stated that she objects to the comparable property sales presented by the Assessor's office and feels they should not be considered by the Board because they were not used as a basis for valuing her property. After she received the change of value notification she contacted the Assessor's office three different times to get copies of the information that used was used by them in valuing her property. Charley was not in the office so she spoke with the Assessor Jack Westerman who told her that the only comparable property sale used to value her property was the sale of her property for which she paid $485,000 in September 2005. He also told her that her property is unique and they could not find any other property to compare it to. She later spoke with Charley and he confirmed what the Assessor Jack Westerman had told her about her property being used as its own comparable property. After she filed an appeal with the Board of Equalization she received in the mail a packet from the Assessor's office which included two other comparable property sales. Besides the fact that they were not used as basis to value her property, one is the sale of a mobile home which is not at all comparable to her Phone (360)385 -9100 Fax (360)385 -9382 jeffbocc@co.jeffersoa.wa.us Board of Equalization Minutes - December 10, 2008 Page: 2 three -story /stick -built house. The second sale was of a home built in 1989. Her home was built in 1974. The only similarity is that the parcels are near to each other. These sales were not used by the Assessor in the assessment process for her property so she asks that they not be considered during this hearing. She added that she spoke with a representative with the State Department of Revenue who stated that one sale does not make a market. Furthermore, an appraisal based on the sale of one property would never be accepted by a Bank for financing purposes. The appellants purchased their property when the Real Estate market was high. It was listed for sale at $485,000 and they paid full asking price. That is not the case now. Properties are not selling for asking prices. Actual sale prices are now between 5% and 15% below asking prices. At the time they purchased the property they were not aware of the fact that the entire roof and inside ceiling needed to be replaced. The roof consists of cedar shake shingles that were originally installed in 1974 when the house was built. The longevity of cedar shake shingles is estimated to be 25 to 30 years. The age of these shingles is 34 years. She provided copies of estimates from Hope Roofing which show the cost to replace the roof with new cedar shakes will be approximately $25,000. The cost to replace the siding with new cedar shakes is estimated to be approximately $50,000. That is $75,000 worth of repairs /upgrades that need to be done just to the outside of the house. Almost nothing has been done to improve the house since the time it was built. She believes it is possible for someone to pay too much for property. Especially, when property is purchased during a high market and when there are needed repairs that were not known at the time of purchase. She also disagrees with the Assessor's estimate of depreciation for her property. The house is 34 years old, yet it is only being adjusted using an effective age of 17 years. The house needs $75,000 worth of repairs just to make it watertight. An effective age of 17 years is not adequate. Another factor to be considered is that her property is located adjacent to a grass aircraft landing strip. The air strip is actually an easement which runs through her property and several other parcels in the area which all have access to it. When she first asked both Mr. Westerman and Mr. Hough how they arrived at the value of her property she was told that they had originally computed a value which was less than her purchase price. Mr. Westerman told her that it is not possible for her property to be worth less than what she paid for it. So they took the land value and adjusted it, figuring the difference must be the value of the aircraft landing strip. This ensured that the value ended up being at least equal to the purchase price if not a little more. The Board can see that it is assessed approximately $5,000 more than the purchase price. In a letter to Mr. Westerman she asked for documentation on how they arrived at the value. Mr. Westerman informed her that he could not provide documentation because it was not in record form. She also asked if he could provide documentation on how the County values air strip property. In Mr. Westerman's reply he referenced the sale of the appellant's property and provided a copy of their Real Estate Excise Tax Affidavit. In summary, she stated that she objects to: 1) The effective age used for the age of the house; 2) Using the purchase price of her property as the only basis for valuation; and 3) Consideration of the comparable property sales presented by the Assessor's office. Board of Equalization Minutes - December 10, 2008 Page: 3 Mr. Hough explained that the two comparable property sales he presented were located in an area which was assessed by another appraiser, so he was unaware of them until after the appeal was filed. He explained that the appellant's land is valued at abase rate of $150,000 for one acre. A portion of that value ($25,000) is attributable to grass air strip. The remaining 9.7 acres are being valued at $6,000 per acre. There is also a site improvement assessment of $10,000 for utilities. He noted that the properties located in the other appraiser's area were assessed by that appraiser using a lower base rate of $125,000 for one acre and a higher rate of $15,000 for additional acreage. Mr. Hough disagrees because he believes most of the value is in the first acre and that the additional acreage adds little value to the entire parcel. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Marlow closed the hearing. The Board will make a determination at a later time. Allan Souligny & Roberta McCollum BOE: 08- 105 -LO PN: 940 500 063 P.O. Box 3064 Carson City, NV 89702 -3064 Allan Souligny and Roberta McCollum were not present. Appraiser Charley Hough represented the Assessor's office and was sworn in Chairman Marlow. Under appeal is the valuation of bare land known as lot 64 located in Division 3 of Cape George Village, Port Townsend. Currently, the property is assessed at $100,000 (bare land). The appellants estimate the value is $87,000. On the petition form the appellant wrote the following reason for appealing the valuation of the property: "We do not believe the Assessor has fully taken into consideration the negative impact of a huge structure recently completed on parcel no. 940 500 069, which has blocked a large portion of our water view at buildable level. Adjacent parcels are not similarly affected." Photographs were submitted with the petition form showing the view before and after the structure was built on the parcel in front of their property. Additionally, the appellants submitted a letter dated November 25, 2008 which states: "On August 24, 2008 we filed a Taxpayer Petition to the Jefferson County Board of Equalization for Review of Real Property Valuation Determination. Our hearing is scheduled for December 10'. On page 2 of our petition we indicated our intention to submit additional documentary evidence. Although we believe the petition and accompanying photographic evidence fully support our estimate of the true and fair market value of our property, we would also ask the Board to consider the following additional information. Declining economic markets are now affecting not only the nation, but also Jefferson County land values. Northwest Multiple Listing Service statistics as of October reveal sales of only two vacant land parcels in Cape George Village during 2008. Even though lots are currently listed for sale for as little as $84,500 in Cape George Village, no sales were reported in the third quarter and no sales are currently pending. Home sales also reflect the decline as reported in today's Leader. The median home sale price in 2007 was $325,000, compared to $299,475 this year - a 7.85 percent drop. Board of Equalization Minutes - December 10, 2008 Page: 4 Despite various government stimulus packages, economists are predicting a downturn that will continue to affect property valuations for existing homeowners, including retirees who previously were able to sell homes elsewhere and relocate to Cape George. Our Jefferson County Assessor, Mr. Jack Westerman III, was quoted in the Leader as seeing a declining Real Estate market for the first time in 34 years. We believe these economic realities provide additional support to our petition to reduce the Assessor's doubling of our market value. For the reason previously stated and supported in our petition of August 24, 2008, and in recognition of the additional factors presented above, our 2009 assessed value should be reduced from $100,000 to $87,000." Also submitted as additional evidence was a copy of an e -mail the appellants sent to Charley Hough on August 3, 2008 expressing their concern with the assessed value and explaining important factors to be considered. Mr. Hough stated that the "before" and "after" photographs presented by the appellants show that they have lost the view they once had due to the construction of a house on the lot located across the street from their property. The property still has a nice view, but, the appellants know what it looked like before the house was constructed. He doesn't feel it devalues the property, but, he suggested that the Board may want to conduct a physical inspection of the property to get their own opinion. Comparable property sale 41 is located adjacent to the appellants' property. It sold in May 2004 for $72,000 and sold again in May 2007 for $170,000. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Marlow closed the hearing. The Board will make a determination at a later time. Harry H. & Alice M. Takata, Trustees BOE: 08 -108 -R PN: 939 601435 112 Colman Drive Port Townsend, WA 98368 Harry H. Takata was present. Appraiser Charley Hough represented the Assessor's office. Chairman Marlow explained the hearing process and swore in both parties. Under appeal is the land and improvement value of property located in Cape George Colony at 112 Colman Drive, Port Townsend. Currently, the property is assessed at $616,700 ($260,000 for the land and $356,700 for the improvements). The appellant estimates the value is $375,855 ($130,000 for the land and $245,855 for the improvements). Mr. Takata stated that they purchased the property in 2000. At that time it was valued at $375,855. He feels the new value of $616,700 is excessive. Board of Equalization Minutes - December 10, 2008 Page: 5 Mr. Hough presented maps outlining the appellants' property and comparable property sales in support of the assessed value. The following five comparable property sales were presented. Comparable Property #1 Parcel No.: 939 601 431 (improved land) Location: 180 Colman Drive Date of Sale: January 2008 Sale Price: $574,000 Comparable Property #2 Parcel No.: 938 100 303 (improved land) Location: 130 Sunset Blvd. Date of Sale: October 2007 Sale Price: $693,500 Comparable Property 93 Parcel No.: 938 100 313 (improved land) Location: 340 Sunset Blvd. Date of Sale: April 2008 Sale Price: $600,000 Comparable Property #4 Parcel No.: 939 001 206 (land only) Location: No address assigned - Cape George Colony, Division 5, Block 12, Lot 6 Date of Sale: April 2006 Sale Price: $200,000 Comparable Property #5 Parcel No.: 938 100 319 (land only) Location: No address assigned - Cape George Colony, Division 2, Block 3, Lot 20 Date of Sale: May 2007 Sale Price: $326,000 Mr. Takata added that there have been some properties for sale recently, but, they have not sold. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Marlow closed the hearing. The Board will make a determination at a later time. Richard A. Malott P.O. Box 250 Nevada City, CA 95959 BOE: 08- 122 -LO PN: 001202 011 Real Estate Agent Richard Stelow was present on behalf of Richard A. Malott. Appraiser Charley Hough 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 off of Blossom Lane, Port Townsend. Board of Equalization Minutes - December 10, 2008 Page: 6 Currently, the property is assessed at $116,780 (bare land). The appellant estimates the value is $42,500. Mr. Stelow explained that this appeal is based on two main issues. The first being the declining market. Not only has the number of property sales decreased, but, the sale prices of property have also decreased since 2006. The second, and main issue with the valuation is the fact that the property is landlocked and does not have legal access. This restricts its marketability thereby impacting its market value. In order to get title insurance for the property, the title companies require a specific exclusion on the basis that there is no ingress or egress access for the property. He noted that other property owners along Blossom Lane share access. However, Blossom Lane has a stop sign at a certain point and then a road continues onto private property owned by the Blossom family. Mr. Malott's property is approximately 100 feet beyond the stop sign adjacent to the Blossom family's property. To resolve this issue would require negotiating an easement with the Blossom family or going to court to get an easement. Both options could be very expensive for the property owner. Mr. Hough stated he researched the records of this property and could not find any documentation showing that it is landlocked. He noted that County Code section 12.10.110 (7) states that part of the review criteria for road vacations is that a proposed vacation will not landlock any parcel of property. It is against the law to landlock a piece of property. Blossom Lane runs along side this property. The appellant has not provided any documentation showing there is no legal access to the property. He sees no reason for it not to be used. Mr. Stelow stated that today he spoke with a title company representative who informed him that the most recent title report issued states that the property is landlocked. Whether the law states that properties cannot be landlocked, the reality is different. There has to be a legal document showing access in order for there to be access. He added that another consideration is the distance from utilities and the cost to bring those to the property. They do not agree with the current valuation of $116,780. Even if the property had an easement for access and utilities, its value in today's market would only be approximately $85,000 because of the decrease in the Real Estate values. The cost to mitigate the access issue lowers the value even more. Discussion ensued regarding the location of the road in relation to the property. Vice- Chairman Broders asked Mr. Stelow if there is an estimate of what it would actually cost to acquire legal access? Mr. Stelow explained that the cost would be dependant on the parties involved. He has had experience with a similar situation where it cost approximately $60,000. However, that particular situation was very contentious. Typically, a person seeking an easement would have to pay market value for the land being acquired. He added that they recently contacted the Blossom family, which owns the adjacent property, to inquire about obtaining an access easement, and their immediate answer was "no ". Resolving this issue would result in costs for surveys, county fees, and compensation to the adjacent property owner for the acquired property. These costs could total anywhere from $5,000 to $60,000. Board of Equalization Minutes - December 10, 2008 Page: 7 Member Gazing asked if the adjacent property owner had put up a gate to prevent access? Mr. Stelow replied no, but explained that if Mr. Malott crossed the Blossom's property without their permission, he would be trespassing. With no objection from Mr. Hough, Mr. Stelow presented three comparable property sales that were not considered by the Assessor's office in the assessment process. Mr. Hough noted that the sales presented by Mr. Stelow were located in Chimacum. Mr. Hough presented the following comparable property sales that are located in the same general area as the appellant's property. Comparable Property #1 Parcel No.: 001 204 011 (bare land) Location: 143 Timberline Road Date of Sale: July 2006 Sale Price: $159,000 Comparable Property Parcel No.: 001 291 016 (bare land) Location: No address assigned - located near Snagstead Way Date of Sale: May 2006 Sale Price: $137,000 Comparable Property #3 Parcel No.: 001 294 009 (bare land) Location: No address assigned - located off of Engel Road Date of Sale: July 2007 Sale Price: $155,000 Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Marlow closed the hearing. The Board will make a determination at a later time. Thomas M. Hackett BOE: 08 -126 -R PN: 977100 108 5251 Cape George Road Port Townsend, WA 98368 Thomas M. Hackett was not present. Appraiser Charley Hough represented the Assessor's office and was sworn in by Chairman Marlow. Under appeal is the land and improvement value of bare land located at 5251 Cape George Road, Port Townsend. Currently, the property is assessed at $164,465 ($85,000 for the land and $79,465 for the improvements). The appellant estimates the value is $105,000 ($45,000 for the land and $60,000 for the improvements). On the petition form the appellant wrote the following reason for appealing the valuation of the property: "Information to follow." No additional information was submitted by the appellant to the Board for consideration. Board of Equalization Minutes - December 10, 2008 Page: 8 Mr. Hough presented materials in support of the assessed value which includes a map and the Assessor's field sheets for the subject property and two comparable property sales. Real Estate Excise Tax Affidavits for the comparable property sales were also presented, along with a third comparable property which is not a sale, but, was included to show continuity of the valuation methodology. Following are the two comparable property sales that were included: Comparable Property #1 Parcel No.: 977 100 714 & 977 100 721 (bare land) Location: No address assigned - Ocean Grove Estates #2, Block 7, Lot 1 & Lot 15 Date of Sale: September 2005 Sale Price: $75,000 Comparable Property 42 Parcel No.: 977 100 604 & 977 100 605 (bare land) Location: 5493 Cape George Road Date of Sale: September 2006 Sale Price: $135,000 Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Marlow closed the hearing. The Board will make a determination at a later time. Randall M. Durant BOE: 08- 140 -LO PN: 001204 013 1022 S. 31" Court Renton, WA 98055 Randall M. Durant 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 value of bare land located off of Timberline Road, Port Townsend. Currently, the property is assessed at $141,800 (bare land). The appellant estimates the value is $85,000. Mr. Durant stated that his property value increased approximately 260% since the time last time it was revalued four years ago. It went from $54,000 to $141,800. He purchased the property in 1978 after it had been partially logged in 1973. It has been kept in its natural state since that time. No improvements have been made to the property. There are no utilities, no septic system and it does not have a view. It is located at the end of Timberline Road in which he holds 1/8 interest in an easement for access. Adjacent to his property to the north is a 40 acre parcel that was clear cut and doesn't offer an appealing view. That property is currently for sale and has been on the market for approximately one year. Adversely affecting the property value is traffic noise from vehicles traveling on Highway 20. Noise from Fred Hill Materials gravel pit has also negatively impacted the property, although, he is not certain if they are still operating in that area. Board of Equalization Minutes - December 10, 2008 Page: 9 He doesn't feel the comparable property sales used by the Assessor's office in valuing his property are comparable. Comparable property sale 43 is adjacent to S. Discovery Road and has easy access and a well. Comparable property sale #2 located off of Timberline Road is developed with a home that was built in 1990. Comparable property sale 41 is also located off of Timberline Road, however, it has a well and power. In addition, with the economy being in a slump, sales have been flat and declining for the last year and a half, but, particularly in the last 6 months. He doesn't believe his property is worth $141,000 or that he could sell it for that amount. He doesn't want to sell it and is enjoying it as it is and he intends to keep it as it is. He hopes the Board will consider lowering the value to a realistic level. Mr. Hough presented materials in support of the assessed value which includes a map and the Assessor's field sheets for the subject property and three comparable property sales. Real Estate Excise Tax Affidavits for the comparable property sales were also presented. Following are the three comparable property sales that were included: Comparable Property #1 Parcel No.: 001 204 011 (bare land) Location: 143 Timberline Road Date of Sale: July 2006 Sale Price: $159,000 Comparable Property #2 Parcel No.: 001 204 008 (improved land) Location: 320 Timberline Road Date of Sale: January 2008 Sale Price: $450,000 Comparable Property #3 Parcel No.: 001 205 002 (bare land) Location: 1413 Discovery Road Date of Sale: December 2007 Sale Price: $150,000 Mr. Durant stated that those sales occurred when the economy was better. It is his understanding that there have not been many sales since that time. Mr. Hough noted that the assessment date is January 1, 2008. The Assessor's office is required by the State to value all property at 100% of its fair market value. One of these sales occurred at the end of 2007 and one occurred in January 2008. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Marlow closed the hearing. The Board will make a determination at a later time. Board of Equalization Minutes - December 10, 2008 Page: 10 After the hearings were concluded, the Board conducted a physical inspection of the following properties: APPELLANT Michael Hinojos William & Carol Decker Trust Michael Hinojos 40 Spruce Drive Port Townsend, WA 98368 APPEAL NO. BOE 08 -77 -R BOE 08 -95 -LO DETERMINATIONS BOE: 08 -77 -R PARCEL NO. 940 500 032 977 100 203 PN: 940 500 032 The Board carefully considered the information presented by the appellant and the Assessor's representative. The appellant asserts that recent sales in the neighborhood indicate a lower valuation than determined by the Assessor for both land and improvements. Other issues believed by the appellant to reduce the value of the property are: the subject property lies in a "hole" reducing the view quality to about 90 degrees; there can be no additional improvements until the existing septic system on the property is brought into compliance with current health regulations; and the additional assessed value for a remodel of the improvements is not justifiable. The appellant cited 2 mobile home sales, one vacant land sale, and one current listing. All the sales occurred between March 2008 and August 2008. Two of the properties offered by the appellant as comparable sales `A' and `D', were assigned the same 1145 land code that the Assessor had given the subject property. This code indicates similarity in lot quality and a valuation of $100,000. Comparable properties `B' and `C' were assigned land codes of 1173 and 1155, representing lot quality inferior to the subject property. This comparative use of 3 different land codes seemed to indicate an inconsistency with the Assessor's designation of land codes or inequalities with the appellant's choice of comparable property sales. The Assessor's representative cited 6 property sales in the neighborhood that occurred within the revaluation period and indicated they represented reasonable comparable sales. Three of the sales were single -story wood framed homes rather than the mobile home sales used by the appellant. These 2 bedroom homes ranged in price from $200,000 to $350,000. The appellant objected to the use of these homes as comparable and characterized them as having a better view or a ground level daylight basement. The Assessor's representative also cited 3 vacant lot sales which occurred within the revaluation period. These lots ranged in price from $115,000 to $119,000, all more than the subject property's valuation of $110,000. The appellant maintains that the view from these properties could be superior to the view from the subject property. All 6 of the Assessor's comparable properties were assigned the same 1145 land code as the subject property. The Board conducted a site visit to physically examine the subject property, as well as the comparable properties presented by both the appellant and the Assessor's representative. Upon reviewing all available information, the Board determined that sufficient evidence was not presented to overrule the Assessor's valuation of this property. Board of Equalization Minutes - December 10, 2008 Page: 11 Vice - Chairman Broders moved to sustain the Assessor's valuation of $216,135 ($110,000 for the land and $106,135 for the improvements). Member Garing seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. (See also Minutes of December 9, 2008) William & Carol Decker Trust BOE: 08 -95 -LO PN: 977 100 203 177 Rainbow Drive 47777 Livingston, TX 77399 -1077 The Board carefully considered the information presented by the appellant and the Assessor's representative. The appellant asserts that comparable sales do not support the Assessor's valuation of the subject property for $225,000. The appellant cited one comparable property sale (Exhibit D) comprised on two lots for $135,000 that occurred in September 2006. The appellant also presented the land valuation of an adjoining improved property (Exhibit E) that was assessed $95,000 lower than the subject property. Objections were raised to the use of the Assessor's comparable property 41 in that it was an improved property sales. The appellant also objects to the use of the Assessor's vacant land comparable properties #2 and #3 on the basis that they are not in close proximity to the subject property. The Assessor presented 3 comparable property sales: 1 improved property that adjoins the subject property to the northwest and 2 vacant land sales located off of South Discovery Road that each sold for $235,000 in November 2006 and September 2007. Upon questioning by the Board, the Assessor's representative testified that he believed comparable property # 1 to be the best indicator of market value with regard to the subject property. This improved property sold in October 2005 for $410,000. After deducting improvements in the amount of $214,780, the land value of the property as of January 1, 2008 was determined to be $235,000. Comparable property #1 was almost identical to the subject property in terms of parcel size, shape, location of road frontage, view quality, and length of frontage along the community green belt that also adjoins the salt water. The Assessor's representative explained that it is standard practice to assign a different land code to a second lot, when the two lots are in the same ownership. Its purpose is to provide a negative 50% adjustment to the second lot; in this case, the first lot being valued at $150,000 and the second lot being valued at $75,000. The Board conducted a site visit to examine the subject property, as well as the adjoining parcels (noted as Exhibit E by the appellant and comparable property #1 by the Assessor's representative). Upon reviewing all available information, the Board determined that sufficient evidence was not presented to overrule the Assessor's valuation of this property. Member Garing moved to sustain the Assessor's valuation of $225,000 (land only). Vice - Chairman Broders seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. (See also Minutes of December 9, 2008) Board of Equalization Minutes - December 10, 2008 Page: 12 Richard 3. & Heather N. Taracka BOE: 08 -96 -R PN: 001202 010 405 Blossom Lane Port Townsend, WA 98368 The Board carefully reviewed the information presented by both parties. It is the finding of the Board that the value of the land is fair and equitable, however, based on compelling testimony given by the appellant, the value of the improvements warrants a reduction of $20,000 due to problems with the roof. Vice - Chairman Broders moved to overrule the Assessor's valuation of the improvements only and reduce it from $272,125 to $252,125. The land value of $218,200 remains unchanged for a new total valuation of $470,325. Member Garing seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. (See earlier in Minutes of this date) Allan Souligny & Roberta McCollum BOE: 08- 105 -LO PN: 940 500 063 P.O. Box 3064 Carson City, NV 89702 -3064 The Board carefully reviewed the information presented by both parties and determined that the Assessor's valuation represents the fair market value of this parcel. Based on sales of comparable property, the house built recently in front of this lot was found not to block a significantly large portion of the water view to the extent that it warrants a reduction in value. Vice - Chairman Broders moved to sustain the Assessor's valuation of $100,000 (land only). Member Garing seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. (See earlier in Minutes of this date) Harry H. & Alice M. Takata, Trustees BOE: 08 -108 -R PN: 939 601 435 112 Colman Drive Port Townsend, WA 98368 The Board carefully reviewed the information presented by both parties. Based on sales of comparable property, the Assessor's valuation represents the fair market value of this parcel as of the assessment date of January 1, 2008. Member Garing moved to sustain the Assessor's valuation of $616,700 ($260,000 for the land and $356,700 for the improvements). Vice - Chairman Broders seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. (See earlier in Minutes of this date) Richard A. Malott BOE: 08- 122 -LO PN: 001202 011 P.O. Box 250 Nevada City, CA 95959 The Board carefully reviewed the information presented by both parties. Compelling testimony was given that this parcel has no legal access. Testimony was also given that parcels without legal access rarely sell, Board of Equalization Minutes - December 10, 2008 Page: 13 thus, true "comparable property sales" are lacking. The Board finds that a reasonable estimate for the "cost to cure" would be $30,000. Thus, the Board concurred to reduce the valuation by that amount. It is noted that "physical access" is not "legal access" and "trespassing" for access would not be acceptable to most, if not all, buyers. Vice - Chairman Broders moved to overrule the Assessor's valuation of $116,780 (land only) and reduce it from $116,780 to $86,780. Member Gazing seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. (See earlier in minutes of this date) Thomas M. Hackett BOE: 08 -126 -R PN: 977100 108 5251 Cape George Road Port Townsend, WA 98368 The Board carefully reviewed the information presented by both parties. Based on comparable property sales, the Assessor's valuation represents the fair market value of this parcel as of the assessment date of January 1, 2008. Member Garing moved to sustain the Assessor's valuation of $164,465 ($85,000 for the land and $79,465 for the improvements). Vice - Chairman Broders seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. (See earlier in minutes of this date) Randall M. Durant 1022 S. 31" Court Renton, WA 98055 BOE: 08- 140 -LO PN: 001204 013 The Board carefully reviewed the information presented by both parties. Based on comparable property sales, the Assessors valuation represents the fair market value of this parcel as of the assessment date of January 1, 2008. Vice - Chairman Broders moved to sustain the Assessor's valuation of $141,800 (land only). Member Gazing seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. (See earlier in minutes of this date) Vice - Chairman Broders moved to adjourn the meeting. Member Garing seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. ATTEST: En undgren­ o t Board JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF EQUALIZATION William . Marlow, hairman Richard A. Broders, Vice - Chairman Dave Garing m