HomeMy WebLinkAboutM081111�1
•
ok
EQU4t
O
Dave Garing
Henry Krist
Michael Smith
1820 Jefferson Street
P.O. Box 1220
Port Townsend, WA 98368
Dave Garing Henry Krist
MINUTES
August 11, 2011
Michael Smith
Chairman
Vice - Chairman
Member
Chairman Dave Gating called the meeting to order at 9:30 a.m. in the presence of Vice -
Chairman Henry Krist and Member Michael Smith. Per WAC 458 -14- 095(4) post
hearing deliberations of the Board of Equalization are not recorded. At the conclusion of
the deliberations the Board resumed the regular meeting at 12:05 p.m. and the following
action was taken.
DETERMINATIONS
Brian Roggenbuck BOE: 11 -01 -LO PN: 601 323 003
P.O. Box 878 11 -02 -LO 601 323 010
Darrington, WA 98241
The Board considered the information presented by the Appellant and the Assessor's
Representative for both appeals.
BOE: 11- 01 -LO: The subject property is 142 feet of steep waterfront on the Coyle
Peninsula totaling approximately 5 acres in size.
The Appellant testified at the hearing held on August 1, 2011 that he was appealing the
Assessor's valuation of $116,460 as of January 1, 2010. The Appellant asserts the true and
fair market value of the subject property to be $85,000. He presented a detailed Geo -tech
report and stated that the portion of properties within 400 feet of the shoreline is steep and
prone to landslides. He further stated that the properties were logged in 2009 and
estimated that the value of the timber was $100,000 when he purchased both properties
for $310,000 in late 2008.
The Assessor's representative presented a comparable property with some improved value
which is adjacent to the subject property. Although it is larger than each of the two
Phone (360)385 -9100 Fax (360)385 -9382 jeffboccCaxo.jefferson.wa.us
Board of Equalization Minutes - August 11, 2011 Page: 2
parcels the Appellant is appealing, it is similar to their combined size and topography and
sold on June 22, 2010 for $392,000.
It was determined that the Appellant did not present clear, cogent, and convincing
evidence necessary to overcome the presumptive correctness of the value established by
the Assessor.
Vice - Chairman Krist moved to sustain the Assessor's valuation of $116,460. Member
Smith seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. (See also minutes of
August 1, 2011)
BOE: 11- 02 -LO: The subject property is 218 feet of steep waterfront on the Coyle
Peninsula totaling approximately 8 acres in size.
The Appellant testified at the hearing held on August 1, 2011 that he was appealing the
Assessor's valuation of $157,970 as of January 1, 2010. The Appellant asserts the true and
fair market value of the subject property to be $105,000. He presented a detailed Geo -tech
report and stated that the portion of properties within 400 feet of the shoreline is steep and
prone to landslides. He further stated that the properties were logged in 2009 and
estimated that the value of the timber was $100,000 when he purchased both properties
for $310,000 in late 2008. He did not present any comparable sales but did refute the
Assessor's comparable sale on the basis that it was an improved property.
The Assessor's representative presented a comparable property with some improved value
which is adjacent to the subject property. Although it is larger than each of the two
parcels the Appellant is appealing, it is similar to their combined size and topography and
sold on June 22, 2010 for $392,000.
The Board has carefully considered the information presented by the Appellant and the
Assessor's representative. It was determined that the Appellant did not present clear,
cogent, and convincing evidence necessary to overcome the presumptive correctness of
the value established by the Assessor.
Member Smith moved to sustain the Assessor's valuation of $157,970. Vice - Chairman
Krist seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. (See also minutes of
August 1, 2011)
Board of Equalization Minutes - August 11, 2011 Page: 3
Alton B. Otis BOE: 11 -03 -R PN: 983 500 001
P.O. Box 1915 11 -04 -LO 983 500 002
Port Townsend, WA 98368
The Board considered the information presented by the Appellant and the Assessor's
Representative for both appeals.
BOE: 11 -03 -R: The subject property is a 4,770 sq. ft. home located on 3 acres in the
Woodland Hills area with water and mountain views. The Appellant provided an initial
estimate of the subject property's fair market value but revised that estimate during
testimony to $800,000. The Appellant submitted two fee appraisals. The first appraisal
was dated March 17, 2011 and indicated the property's value as of February 23, 2011 to
be $725,000. A second revised appraisal was dated July 7, 2011 listing the subject
property's value to be $800,000 as of January, 1, 2008.
The field appraiser submitted his notes, photograph, appraisal worksheet, and an excerpt
from the Review Appraisal Handbook but was not available to offer oral testimony during
the hearing. The Assessor's Representative in attendance was not the actual field
appraiser for the subject property and was not prepared to cite support for the Assessor's
value nor refute the Appellant's comparable sales.
While the Board of Equalization presumes the Assessor's valuation to be correct, the
Board finds that a balance of relevant testimony between both parties is extremely helpful
in more quickly developing a comprehensive understanding as to the merits of discrepant
opinions during the hearing.
The Appellant's appraisal cited five home sales as comparable to the subject property that
occurred during the assessment cycle. These properties ranged in price from $530,000 to
$850,000. Comparables 41, #2, and 43 were within the immediate neighborhood, ranged
in size from 1.7 to 4.56 acres, and sold for $530,000, $811,900, and $539,000
respectively. Comparables #4 and 45 were larger parcels located farther from the Port
Townsend area and sold for $671,000 and $850,000.
Comparable #1 is a 2,456 sq. ft. home with a $215.80 price /gross living area. Comparable
92 is a 3,383 sq. ft. home with a $239.99 price /gross living area. Comparable #3 is a
2,520 sq. ft. home with a $213.89 price /gross living area. Comparable #4 is located on 5
acres in Chimacum and includes a 2,634 sq. ft. home with a $254.75 price /gross living
area. Comparable #5 is a 5,742 sq. ft. home located in Quilcene with a price /gross living
area of $148.03 and it includes 21 acres.
The Appellant suggests the subject property's price (value estimate) /gross living area to
be $167.71 while the Assessor's documents indicate a price (value estimate) /gross living
Board of Equalization Minutes - August 11, 2011 Page: 4
area to be $188.49. The Assessor's values in this regard appear more consistent with
comparable sales located in the general area of the subject property.
It was also noted in an excerpt from the Review Appraisal Handbook that "the reviewer
should pay special attention to across the board adjustments, inconsistency in
adjustments, and lack of narrative support for adjustments exceeding guidelines (15% net,
25% gross, and 10% line item ". The Appellant's gross and net adjustments significantly
exceed these guidelines with minimal narrative support in comparables 41, #3, and #4
while comparable #5 is a much larger property located in a different community that sold
in January of 2005. This leaves comparable #2 indicating a much higher adjusted value
($971,000). While the Appellant's appraisal states that "comp #2 is not consistent with
the other sales ", it appears more consistent with the subject property in terms of smaller
net (19.7 %) and gross (21.4 %) adjustments than comparables #1, #3, and #4.
After careful consideration the Board finds that the Appellant did not present clear,
cogent, and convincing evidence necessary to overcome the presumptive correctness of
the value established by the Assessor.
Vice - Chairman Krist moved to sustain the Assessor's valuation of $285,125 ($88,000 for
the land and $197,125 for the improvements). Member Smith seconded the motion which
carried by a unanimous vote. (See also minutes of August 1, 2011)
BOE 11- 04 -LO: The subject property is a level 1.15 acre parcel with water, power, and
paved road access in the Woodland Hills area. The Appellant provided an initial estimate
of the subject property's fair market value but revised that estimate during testimony to
$75,000. The Appellant submitted two fee appraisals. The first appraisal was dated March
17, 2011 and indicated the property's value as of February 23, 2011 to be $67,500. A
second appraisal was dated July 7, 2011 listing the subject property's value to be $75,000
as of January 1, 2008.
The field appraiser submitted his notes, appraisal worksheet, and an excerpt from the
Review Appraisal Handbook but was not available to offer oral testimony during the
hearing. The Assessor's Representative in attendance was not the actual field appraiser
for the subject property and was not prepared to cite support for the Assessor's value nor
refute the Appellant's comparable sales.
While the Board of Equalization presumes the Assessor's valuation to be correct, the
Board finds that a balance of relevant testimony between both parties is extremely helpful
in more quickly developing a comprehensive understanding as to the merits of discrepant
opinions during the hearing.
Board of Equalization Minutes - August 11, 2011 Page: 5
The Appellant's appraisal cited five sales as comparable to the subject property that
occurred during the assessment cycle. These properties ranged in price from $70,000 to
$115,000. Comparables #1 & #2 were within the immediate neighborhood, are the same
size, and sold for $110,000 and $80,000 respectively. Comparable 43 is located in Port
Hadlock and sold for $70,000, comparable #4 is located in Center Valley and sold for
$80,000, and comparable 95 is located in Nordland and sold for $115,000. While the
precise impact of location with respect to the distance from town is not clear for
comparables #3, #4, and #5, the Appellant's appraisal notes that "the indicated unit value
(per square foot value) in comp #3 is believed to be lower due mostly to the location ".
It is significant that the Appellant's neighborhood comparable #I had a unit price per foot
value of $3.03 before negative adjustments for view and septic, resulting in a $2.20 unit
price per foot value after adjustments ($80,000 / 36,310 sq. ft. = $2.20). This same $2.20
unit price per foot value is also found in Appellant's comparable 42, another
neighborhood property.
The subject property is larger than comparable #1 (36,310 sq. ft.) or comparable 42
(36,310 sq. ft.) with an area of 50,094 sq. ft. It seems reasonable to believe that the unit
price per square foot would decrease as the size of a parcel increases, however the
Appellant's appraisal estimates the subject property to be worth $1.50 per sq. ft. resulting
in a total value of $75,000. It does not seem reasonable to conclude the subject property's
additional 13,784 sq. feet would result in a fair market value less than the actual sales
price of smaller parcels in the immediate neighborhood; comparable #2 ($80,000) or the
negatively adjusted value of comparable # 1.
The Assessor valued the subject property at $91,500 or $1.83 per square foot which
seems consistent with unit price per foot values in the immediate area.
After careful consideration the Board finds that the Appellant did not present clear,
cogent, and convincing evidence necessary to overcome the presumptive correctness of
the value established by the Assessor.
Vice - Chairman Krist moved to sustain the Assessor's valuation of $91,500. Member
Smith seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. (See also minutes of
August 1, 2011)
Board of Equalization Minutes - August 11, 2011 Page: 6
Bradley Seamans BOE: 11 -15 -R PN: 939 601 401
40 Quilcene Place
Port Townsend, WA 98368
The Board considered the information presented by the Appellant and the Assessor's
representative.
The Appellant contends that the property should be assessed at a value of $184,350. This
is based on Appellant's purchase of the property for $181,100 in January 2011 and the
fact that he has added improvements costing $3,250 since the purchase. He also cites 3
sales of comparable property to support his position. He did not testify at the hearing.
The Assessor valued the property as of the reassessment date, January 1, 2008, at
$221,815.
The Assessor testified that the first two comparable sales cited by Appellant are not
comparable in that those properties are located in Cape George Village, which is a
neighborhood consisting predominantly of mobile and manufactured homes whereas the
subject property is located in Cape George Colony, which is a neighborhood consisting
solely of on site built homes. Also, the Assessor noted that Appellant's comparable sales,
and the sale of the subject property on which Appellant primarily relies, took place in
2010 and 2011, whereas the relevant assessment date was January 1, 2008.
The Board finds that the Appellant did not present clear, cogent, and convincing evidence
necessary to overcome the presumptive correctness of the value established by the
Assessor.
Member Smith moved to sustain the Assessor's valuation of $222,815 ($160,000 for the
land and $62,815 for the improvements). Vice - Chairman Krist seconded the motion
which carried by a unanimous vote. (See also minutes of August 1, 2011)
Rodger & Jill Schmitt BOE: 11 -09 -R PN: 988 800 501
536 Lawrence Street
Port Townsend, WA 98368
The Board considered the information presented by the Appellants and the Assessor's
representative. Washington State law mandates that properties be valued to reflect local
market activity according to an approved revaluation cycle as of January 1 of the
assessment year (01/01/09).
Board of Equalization Minutes - August 11, 2011 Page: 7
The Appellants assert the true and fair market value of the subject property to be
$630,000 rather than the Assessor's valuation of $698,255. This is based on an appraisal
by Empire Builders Appraisals which valued the property at $630,000 as of August 12,
2010.
The Appellants purchased the subject property for $780,000 on April 16, 2008. They
testified that property values have dropped significantly in the area of the subject property
since they have purchased it. Since the Board is required to determine the fair market
value as of the reassessment date (in this case January 1, 2009), the relevant question is
how much values dropped from the date of purchase by Appellant to January 1, 2009,
which is a period of approximately 8 and '' /z months. The Assessor's valuation indicates a
drop of 10.5% in that period, or 1.24% per month. The appraisal submitted by the
Appellants indicate a drop of 19.2% from April 16, 2008 to August 12, 2010, a period of
approximately 28 months, which would suggest a slower rate of drop over that period of
.7% per month.
The Board finds that the Appellants did not present clear, cogent, and convincing
evidence necessary to overcome the presumptive correctness of the value established by
the Assessor.
Vice - Chairman Krist moved to sustain the Assessor's valuation of $698,255 ($242,875
for the land and $455,380 for the improvements). Member Smith seconded the motion
which carried by a unanimous vote. (See also minutes of August 4, 2011)
Shane & Sara Stevenson BOE: 11 -16 -R PN: 001 074 014
30 Lindsey Lane
Port Townsend, WA 98368
The Board considered the information presented by the Appellants and the Assessor's
representative.
The Appellants contend that the property should be assessed at a value of $315,000. This
is based on Appellant's purchase of the property for $315,000 in June 2011. They also
submitted a VA appraisal which estimated the value of the property as of April 8, 2011 at
$320,000.
The Assessor valued the property as of the reassessment date, January 1, 2008, at
$451,385.
Board of Equalization Minutes - August 11, 2011 Page: 8
The Board of Equalization noted that all of the evidence presented by the Appellants
pertained to the value of the property in 2011 when it was purchased by Appellants.
State law mandates that properties be valued for assessment purposes as of January 1 of
the reassessment year, which in this case is 2008. The law requires that the Board of
Equalization presume the Assessor's valuation to be correct unless the Appellant presents
clear, cogent and convincing evidence to the contrary. The Board of Equalization finds
that the Appellants did not present such evidence and therefore sustains the value
established by the Assessor.
Member Smith moved to sustain the Assessor's valuation of $451,385 ($161,760 for the
land and $289,625 for the improvements). Vice - Chairman Krist seconded the motion
which carried by a unanimous vote. (See also minutes of August 4, 2011)
Francis & Victoria Cavallero BOE: 11 -14 -R PN: 001 275 030
1165 Woodland Drive
Port Townsend, WA 98368
The Board considered the information presented by the Appellants and the Assessor's
representative.
The Appellants were present at the hearing held on August 4, 2011. They are appealing
the Assessor's valuation of January 1, 2008 on an equestrian property built in 2000 and
located in the Woodland Hills area. The house has a total area of approximately 6,500
square feet on a five acre lot. Other improvements include a horse arena, a horse barn and
a garage /storage area. The Assessor valued the land at $232,600 and the improvements at
$1,453,250 for a total of $1,685,850. The Appellants presented two appraisals. One dated
May 6, 2011 valued the land and improvements at $1,400,000 and the other dated January
1, 2008 valued the land and improvements at $1,475,000. Six comparable sales were
presented by the Appellants. They recognize the subject property includes some unique
features and comparable sales were limited for higher value properties. The Appellants
also based their appeal on deterioration of market value in the area in the last few years.
The field appraiser submitted his notes, photograph, appraisal worksheet, and an excerpt
from the Review Appraisal Handbook. It stated, "the reviewer should pay special
attention to across the board adjustments, inconsistency in adjustments, and lack of
narrative support for adjustments exceeding guidelines (15% net, 25% gross, and 10%
line item). The Appellant's gross and net adjustments significantly exceed these
guidelines with minimal narrative support. It was also noted that the Appellant's two
Board of Equalization Minutes - August 11, 2011 Page: 9
appraisals indicated that the subject had only declined $75,000 in value in the last 3 years
indicating an inconsistency with other market data.
The Board has carefully considered the information presented by the Appellants and the
Assessor's representative. It was determined that the Appellants did not present clear,
cogent, and convincing evidence necessary to overcome the presumptive correctness of
the value established by the Assessor.
Vice - Chairman Krist moved to sustain the Assessor's valuation of $1,685,850 ($232,600
for the land and $1,453,250 for the improvements). Member Smith seconded the motion
which carried by a unanimous vote. (See also minutes of August 4, 2011)
Member Smith moved to adjourn the meeting at 12:20 p.m. Vice - Chairman Krist
seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote.
ATTEST:
lie R. Locke, le Aofth oar d
JEFFERSON COUNTY
BOARD OF EQUALIZATION
Dave Garing, C�airmZ
Henry Krist, Vice -Char
icith, Member