HomeMy WebLinkAboutM102710O
o� EQUgZZ,
O
Dave Garing
Sally Shumaker
Henry Krist
1820 Jefferson Street
P.O. Box 1220
Port Townsend, WA 98368
Dave Gering Sally Shumaker
MINUTES
October 27, 2010
Henry Krist
Chairman
Vice- Chairman
Member
Chairman Dave Garing called the meeting to order at 9:30 a.m, in the presence of Member Henry
Krist. Vice - Chairman Sally Shumaker arrived shortly after the meeting began.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Member Krist moved to approve the minutes of August 9 and 17 and September 29, 2010.
Chairman Garing seconded the motion. The motion carried.
ASSESSOR'S CERTIFICATE OF NEW CONSTRUCTION VALUE
The Board reviewed the Assessor's Certificate of New Construction Value. Member Krist moved
to accept the Assessor's Certificate of New Construction Value for 2010 in the amount of
$34,625,415. Chairman Garing seconded the motion. The motion carried.
ASSESSMENT CORRECTION/PETITION WITHDRAWAL
Member Krist moved to accept the following assessment correction and petition withdrawal.
Chairman Garing seconded the motion. The motion carried.
NAME APPEAL NO. PARCEL NO.
Robert & Cheri Thurston BOE 10 -01 -R 990 500 019
Cynthia Pollard BOE 10 -35 -R 702 233 007
Vice - Chairman Shumaker arrived and participated in the following hearings.
Phone (360)385 -9100 Fax (360)385 -9382 jeffboccaa, o.jefferson.wa.us
Board of Equalization Minutes - October 27, 2010 Page: 2
HEARINGS
Robert & Diane Threlkeld BOE: 10 -29 -R PN: 936 904 103
5706 Kuhn Street
Port Townsend, WA 98368
Robert and Diane Threlkeld were not present. Appraiser Charley Hough represented the
Assessor's office and was sworn in by Chairman Garing. Under appeal is the land and
improvement value of property located at 5706 Kuhn Street, Port Townsend.
Currently, the property is assessed at $471,150 ($280,000 for the land and $191,150 for the
improvements). The appellants estimate the value is $370,000 ($185,000 for the land and
$185,000 for the improvements).
On the petition form the appellants wrote the following reason for appealing the valuation of
their property: "Recent assessment (attached) for purchase reflects fair value for the site, which
is $95,000 less."
Appraiser Hough discussed the average median of all sales and the subject property, which is still
currently below the median. He then reviewed the following comparable sales:
Comparable Propel
Parcel No.:
Location:
Assessment Date:
Assessment Price:
Sale Date:
Sale Price:
p #2 (Also Appellant's Comparable Property A)
936 904 301
609 58`h Street, Port Townsend
January, 2009
$308,335
December, 2009 (12 months after the assessment date)
$315,000
Comparable Property #3
Parcel No.:
936 904 304
Location:
California Addition, Block 43, Lot 7
Assessment Date:
January, 2009
Assessment Price:
$150,000
Sale Date:
June, 2008 (6 months prior to the assessment date)
Sale Price:
$170.000
Appellant's Comparable Property B
Parcel No.:
101 342 015
Location:
1831 49`h Street, Port Townsend
Assessment Date:
January, 2009
Assessment Price:
$350,115
Sale Date:
December, 2009 (12 months after the assessment date)
Sale Price:
$335,000
Board of Equalization Minutes - October 27, 2010 Page: 3
Appellant's Comparable Pronertv C
Parcel No.:
948 305 003
Location:
1212 Holcomb Street, Port Townsend
Assessment Date:
January, 2009
Assessment Price:
$411,470
Sale Date:
March, 2010 (14 months after the Appellant's assessment date)
Sale Price:
$415,000
Appraiser Hough informed the Board that the Appellant's property was purchased in May, 2010
(15 months after the assessment date) for $360,000. The independent appraisal was conducted in
April 2010, which was also after the appraisal date of January 1, 2009.
Appraiser Hough discussed the size of the Appellant's property compared to the other properties
used as comparable sales. He also informed the Board that the Appellant's comparable `C' is not
located in the area of the subject property.
Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Garing closed the hearing. The Board will make a
determination at a later date.
Wesley Falor & Toby Clauson BOE: 10 -34 -R PN: 602 242 010
211 WaWa Point Road
Brinnon, WA 98320
Wesley Falor and Toby Clauson were not present. Appraiser Charley Hough represented the
Assessor's office and was sworn in by Chairman Garing. Under appeal is the land and
improvement value of property located at 211 WaWa Point Road, Brinnon.
Currently, the property is assessed at $582,725 ($305,385 for the land and $277,340 for the
improvements). The appellants estimate the value is $515,000 (No Breakdown for the land and
the improvements was provided).
On the petition form the appellants wrote the following reason for appealing the valuation of
their property: "We refinanced in March and had a comprehensive appraisal done which showed
the value as $515,000."
Appraiser Hough informed the Board that the Appellants purchased the subject property in June
of 1999 for $425,000. He then reviewed the following comparable sales:
Comparable Property #1 (Consists of 3 Parcels
Parcel No.: 601 072 001; 601 072 009; and 601 072 010
Assessment Date: January, 2010
Assessment Price: $335,400; $164,200; and $372,215
Sale Date: January, 2010
Sale Price: $935.000
Board of Equalization Minutes - October 27, 2010 Page: 4
Comuarable Property #2
Parcel No.:
502 112 012
Assessment Date:
January, 2010
Assessment Price:
$325,015
Sale Date:
March, 2010
Sale Price:
$375,000
Comuarable Property #3
Parcel No.:
502 143 003
Assessment Date:
January, 2010
Assessment Price:
$191,785
Sale Date:
July, 2010
Sale Price:
$200,000
Comnarable Property 44
Parcel No.:
602 133 014
Assessment Date:
January, 2010
Assessment Price:
$381,635
Sale Date:
March, 2010
Sale Price:
$385,000
Comuarable Property 45
Parcel No.:
602 133 020
Assessment Date:
January, 2010
Assessment Price:
$417,995
Sale Date:
December, 2008
Sale Price:
$425,000
ADpellant's Comparable Property #1
Parcel No.:
821 334 007
Assessment Date:
January, 2007
Assessment Price:
$822,950
Sale Date:
September, 2009
Sale Price:
$608,278 (Bank Sale)
Apnellant's Comparable PrOperty #2
Parcel No.:
978 900 093
Assessment Date:
January, 2007
Assessment Price:
$539,130
Sale Date:
December, 2009
Sale Price:
$650,000
Board of Equalization Minutes - October 27, 2010 Page: 5
Appellant's Comparable Property #3 (Located in Kitsap County)
Parcel No.: 152501 -4- 022 -1007
Assessment Date: January, 2008
Assessment Price: $494,520
This Property is a mud flat, which Appraiser Hough doesn't feel is comparable.
Appellant's Comparable Property 94 (Located in Mason County)
Parcel No.: 319122100040
Assessment Price: $449,540
Lot Size: 0.86 Acres (Compared to Appellant's 2.71 Acres)
Appellant's Comparable Property #5 (Located in Mason County)
Parcel No.: 422015100013
Assessment Price: $455,110
Appellant's Comparable Pronertv #6
Parcel No.:
502 023 006
Assessment Date:
January, 2010
Assessment Price:
$339,105
Real Estate Listing:
$525,000
Appraiser Hough informed the Board that the Fee Appraiser said that, due to the lack of
waterfront sales, he used comparable sales outside the immediate vicinity. Appraiser Hough
doesn't feel that mud flats and waterfront or a Real Estate listing that hasn't sold are comparable.
There were sales that occurred in the area of the subject property and Appraiser Hough doesn't
understand why they weren't used by the Fee Appraiser.
The subject property has 253 feet of waterfront with 170 feet of tidelands. The Appellant's
comparable property sale 44 has 109 feet of high bank waterfront and the Appellant's
comparable property sale #5 has 179 feet of low bank waterfront.
Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Gating closed the hearing. The Board will make a
determination at a later date.
William Snyder BOE: 10 -32 -LO PN: 601 222 009
P.O. Box 372
Chimacum, WA 98325
William Snyder was present. Appraiser John Pray represented the Assessor's office. After
explaining the hearing process Chairman Garing swore in both parties. Under appeal is the land
value of property located off of Coyle Road, Quilcene.
Board of Equalization Minutes - October 27, 2010 Page: 6
Currently, the property is assessed at $77,915 land only. The Appellant estimates the value is
$54,795.
Mr. Snyder informed the Board that he purchased the property during the real estate boom and
paid way too much. He applied and received a permit to log this parcel, however the regulations
changed before he started logging. The Department of Natural Resources informed him that the
slope of the land was too steep and he was only able to log a portion of the parcel. Currently,
there is a moratorium placed on the property and he is unable to do anything with it for six (6)
years. Mr. Snyder also stated that it will cost him $2,000 just to have a meeting with the
Jefferson County Department of Community Development to discuss options to remove the
moratorium.
Appraiser Pray said that the Appellant purchased the property for $125,000 in October 2007 and
it is currently assessed at $77,915. He also researched the moratorium by contacting Michelle
Farfan, Associate Planner at Community Development. In an e -mail from Michelle Farfan,
Appraiser Pray was told that if an applicant fills out a forest practices act application and checks
`No' on question 24 that the land could not be converted to other uses, other than forestry use,
and a 6 year moratorium will be placed on the property. However, a section in the Jefferson
County Code allows a new owner of a parcel that has a 6 year moratorium placed on it to be
released in part as a Type II process (noticed but no hearing) or a full release as a Type III process
(hearing examiner involved).
Mr. Snyder responded that he was told that it was not a guarantee that the moratorium would be
lifted if an application was submitted by a new owner.
Chairman Gating said that the value of the subject property could be impacted by a moratorium
and asked if the property were to be sold could there be a contingency that the moratorium would
be lifted?
After talking to the Department of Community Development, Appraiser Pray was under the
impression that it is fairly easy to remove the moratorium if requested by a new owner.
When asked by Chairman Garing, Appraiser Pray responded that he didn't know what the
difference was between Type II (partial release) and Type III (full release) of the moratorium,
other than Type III involves a hearing examiner hearing.
Vice - Chairman Shumaker asked if the moratorium was taken into account when valuing the
subject property? Appraiser Pray responded that he was unaware of the moratorium when he
valued the property. When it was brought to his attention he researched the process to release the
moratorium and left the value the same.
Chairman Gazing asked why the property was given an increase of 25% for site quality?
Appraiser Pray replied that land is given a base rate and then adjusted up or down based on the
amount needed to reach fair market value.
Board of Equalization Minutes - October 27, 2010 Page: 7
Member Krist asked if Mr. Snyder is considered a new owner and can go through the process to
remove the moratorium? Appraiser Pray replied that the Appellant purchased the property in
October, 2007, filled out the Forest Practices Act application and checked `No' on question 24
which says that the land will not be converted to other uses other than forestry use and a six (6)
moratorium is placed on the parcel(s) that apply to the Forest Practices Act application.
Chairman Garing asked what the current assessed value of the property would be without the
moratorium and Appraiser Pray responded that it would remain the same at $77,915.
Chairman Garing then asked what the current assessed value would be if there was a moratorium
on the property? Appraiser Pray said that the value would probably be lower and could be
adjusted if that situation occurred.
When asked about the 134 front feet listed on the worksheet, Appraiser Pray informed the Board
each property owner has a 1 /50th interest in waterfront property located in the area.
Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Gazing closed the hearing. The Board will make a
determination at a later date.
Karl & Cheryl Meents BOE: 10 -33 -LO PN: 601 061 017
Meents Trust
5201 N. Argonne Lane, Apt. 8
Spokane, WA 99212
Karl and Cheryl Meents were present. Appraiser John Pray represented the Assessor's office.
After explaining the hearing process Chairman Gating swore in both parties. Under appeal is the
land value of property located off of Gustaysen Road, Quilcene.
Currently, the property is assessed at $150,000 land Only. The Appellants estimate the value is
$100,000.
Mr. Meents stated that due to SPAAD and Shoreline regulations he feels their property has
decreased instead of increased in value as determined by the Assessor's office. The Appellants
expressed concern regarding the 50% increase in the value of this unimproved high bank
waterfront adjoining Gustaysen Road at the end of the Bolton Peninsula. They presented two
partially cleared low bank waterfront view properties with tidelands located on the paved South
Point Road. These parcels sold in May and July of 2010 for $86,500 and $140,000. They
explained the subject property is high bank so it does not have beach access, and the view
potential has been impaired by setback requirements and governmental restrictions on cutting
vegetation.
Appraiser Pray provided two comparable sales in the immediate area, a copy of the appraisal
worksheet, and a map of the immediate vicinity with parcel notations.
Board of Equalization Minutes - October 27, 2010 Page: 8
Comparable Property #1
Lot Size: 1.21 Acres (100' waterfront)
Assessment Date: January, 2010
Assessment Price: $150,000
Sale Date: August, 2007
Sale Price: $235,000 ($2,350 per front foot)
Comparable Pronertv #2
Lot Size: 1.4 Acres (125' Waterfront)
Assessment Date: January, 2010
Assessment Price: $118,000
Sale Date: July, 2008
Sale Price: $170,000 ($1,360 per front foot)
Chairman Gating asked if the new shoreline setback regulations will decrease the value of property
in Jefferson County? Appraiser Pray responded that right now there is no evidence showing that
property values have been affected by the 150' building restriction setback from shorelines.
However, it may affect future assessments.
Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Gating closed the hearing. The Board will make a
determination at a later date.
Paul & Janice Coover BOE: 10 -36 -R PN: 701 344 049
55 Beach Drive
Quilcene, WA 98376
Paul and Janice Coover were present. Appraiser John Pray represented the Assessor's office. After
explaining the hearing process Chairman Gating swore in both parties. Under appeal is the land and
improvement value of property located at 55 Beach Drive, Quilcene.
Currently, the property is assessed at $702,970 ($153,220 for the land and $549,750 for the
improvements). The appellants estimate the value is $400,000 ($100,000 for the land and $300,000
for the improvements).
Mr. Coover informed the Board that they researched the "cost approach" method to determine their
estimate of value of $400,000. They submitted a spreadsheet that shows the assessment comparison
of their property to surrounding parcels. Their assessed value is almost twice the amount of
neighboring properties.
Vice - Chairman Shumaker stated that the value of the home and ADU (not including land) listed on
the 2008 building permit application was $652,000.
Mrs. Coover responded that the building contractor filled out the permit application and they were
unaware that he used that figure. They ended up firing him and hiring a new contractor.
Board of Equalization Minutes - October 27, 2010 Page: 9
Appraiser Pray discussed the value that was listed on the building permit application. Originally, he
had the improvements valued at $587,000 and later lowered them to $549,000 which is
approximately $100,000 less than the value indicated on the building permit application.
Comparable property sales were not available and Appraiser Pray had a difficult time placing a
value on the improvements. He then requested documentation from the Appellants that would show
the amount they paid in construction costs. That amount would be helpful in correctly assessing the
value.
The Appellant's informed Appraiser Pray and the Board that they have requested that information
from their contractor, but have not received it yet. They do have cancelled checks to show the
amount they paid to the contractor, but not with them at this time.
Per a request from Vice- Chairman Shumaker, the Appellant's provided four parcels from their
spreadsheet that are most comparable to their property. (601031005; 701 344 050; 701 344 046
and 701 344 033)
Chairman Garing informed the Appellants that the Board does not compare assessments, they need
comparable property sales.
After discussing cost per square foot, Chairman Garing suggested that this hearing be continued to a
future date and give both parties an opportunity to provide some additional evidence that might help
in determining the true and fair market value.
Appraiser Pray responded that he has no additional information to provide to the Board, however if
the Appellants would like to gather additional information, such as comparable property sales and
the total amount they paid to construct their home, he doesn't have an objection.
The Appellants agreed to continue the hearing to a later date, not yet determined.
Member Krist moved to adjourn the meeting Vice - Chairman Shumaker seconded the motion
which carried by a unanimous vote.
JEFFERSON COUNTY
ATT ST: ^ BOARD OF EQUALIZATION
&IieLocke , C /erhe Board Dave Garib'g, hairm n�
(Resigned Prior to Approval)
Sally Shumaker, Vice - Chairman
v .;;',
v -� - -1 -"
Henry Krist, Member