The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutM081215ok Dave Garing Henry Krist Mike Smith 1820 Jefferson Street P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 Dave Garing Henry Krist Michael Smith MINUTES August 12, 2015 Chairman Vice -Chairman Member Chairman Dave Garing called the meeting to order at 10:00 a.m. in the presence of Vice -Chairman Henry Krist and Member Michael Smith. HEARINGS Gary & Patricia MacKenzie BOE: 14 -112 -LO PN: 990 100 008 29039 Indian Ridge Court Agoura Hills, CA 91301 Gary and Patricia MacKenzie were not present. Assessor Jeff Chapman represented the Assessor's Office and was sworn in by Chairman Garing. Under appeal is the value of a bare land parcel located at 103 Wells Ridge Court, Port Ludlow. The property was assessed as of January 1, 2014 at $171,925 and was included in the North Bay Area equalization. As a result of the equalization the current value is $105,800. The appellants estimate the value to be $149,500. On the petition form the appellants wrote the following reason for appealing the valuation of their parcel: "We feel the Assessor valued correctly, if not low. We strongly feel the BOE's reduction to be incorrect. " Assessor Chapman stated that the appellants' property is one of the properties located within the North Bay Area in Port Ludlow. Based on bare land sales, this area was equalized by the Board. The appellants do not agree that their property should be included in the equalization. The Assessor's Office visited the property and feel the appellants' property is valued correctly. The appellants provided one sale and two Real Estate listings of comparable properties. The three comparable properties provided by the appellants are considered waterfront and valued as such. The appellants' property is not located on the water and does not have a view. He stated that the appellants' Real Estate listing located at 8 Driftwood Court was also included in the recent equalization and is currently valued at $215,000. The appellants' comparable property sale sold for $217,000 which Phone (360)385-9100 Fax (360)385-9382 jeffhocc@co.jefferson.wa.us Board of Equalization Minutes — August 12, 2015 Page: 2 supports the North Bay Area equalization. He stated that values established by the Assessor set the market, they do not drive the market. The appellants purchased their property for $235,125 in 2006 when the current value was $70,000. Assessor Chapman discussed the following comparable properties listed for sale: Comparable Property Listing #1 Parcel No.: 990 100 009 Location: Port Ludlow No. 7, Lot 9, Port Ludlow Value: $105,800 Listing Date: August, 2014 Listing Price: $139,000 Comparable Property Listing #2 Parcel No.: 968 800 009 Location: 82 Ebb Tide Court, Port Ludlow Value: $90,000 Listing Date: April, 2011 Listing Price: $160,000 reduced to $113,000 Comparable Property Listing #3 Parcel No.: 968 800 01 1 Location: 91 Ebb Tide Court, Port Ludlow Value: $120,000 Listing Date: April, 2011 Listing Price: $240,000 reduced to $121,500 Comparable Property Listing #4 Parcel No.: 968 800 014 Location: 14 Ebb Tide Court, Port Ludlow Value: $170,000 Listing Date: April, 2013 Listing Price: $179,900 reduced to $115,000 Assessor Chapman stated the appellants' property is a nice lot located on a greenbelt which allows no one to build in front of them. Discussion ensued regarding ownership of the greenbelt area. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Garing closed the hearing. The Board will make a determination at a later date. Barbara Morey BOE: 14-111-E PN: 984 903 402 707 O Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 Barbara Morey was present. Assessor Technician Jami Trafton, Assessor Technician III Lead Board of Equalization Minutes — August 12, 2015 Page: 3 Sherrie Shold, and Assessor Jeff Chapman represented the Assessor's Office. After explaining the hearing process, Chairman Garing swore in all parties. Under appeal is the denial of a portion of the Senior Citizen/Disabled Person Exemption for property located at 707 O Street, Port Townsend. The appellant stated that 19% of her primary residence has been denied for the Senior Citizen/Disabled Person Exemption program. Her home consists of a family dwelling unit that she shares with four (4) individuals. She stated that her residence is not a boarding house. She believes it is a legally constituted household and therefore should be granted a 100% exemption in the Senior Citizen program. The appellant informed the Board that all of her housemates are disabled. If able, each housemate shares in the cost of the upkeep of the home. She defined, "Family Dwelling Unit" as a dwelling unit occupied by a single person, any number of related persons, (or) a group not exceeding a total of eight related and unrelated non -transient persons living as a single noncommercial housekeeping unit. She described her housemates as follows: • 18 year old special education student. He contributes no money to the household; • 75 year old who receives SSI (Social Security for disabled persons who do not qualify for standard Social Security Retirement); • 67 year old veteran who is legally blind; and • A young disabled man. The appellant stated that individually she and her housemates are unable to afford to live by themselves. IRS tax returns were submitted with her appeal form showing a negative or -0- income from her housemates. As further proof she is not generating income from sharing rooms in her home, she provided a letter from the Washington State Department of Social and Health Services Administrative Law Hearing dated July 8, 2013 which provides clarification that her `self- employment/rental income' counts as $0 in calculating income for all DSHS/COPES/Medicaid purposes. She agrees that she receives income (as noted on her IRS and DSHS forms submitted to the Assessor's Office), however she stated she does not make a profit. All income is used to support the household. The appellant also provided bank statements from two separate accounts. 1) Household account used to pay for garbage, water, electric, internet and incidentals; and 2) Personal account used to pay mortgage, vehicle payment and insurance. She then reviewed the definition of `shared living,' `Assisted Living' and `Boarding House.' Assessor Technician Trafton stated she administers the Senior Citizen/Disabled Person Exemption program. Based on the appellant's IRS tax returns (Schedule E and Schedule C) it was determined that only a portion of the home qualified for the Senior Citizen/Disabled Person Exemption. All correspondence between the appellant and the Assessor's Office has been forwarded to the Washington State Department of Revenue, Property Tax Division who agree with the partial denial of the exemption. She stated that there is an income from the house sharing. It does not matter if the appellant makes a profit or not. While the Assessor's Office admires the appellant's intentions of helping people, they have to follow the requirements set forth in the exemption program. The Senior Citizen/Disabled Person Exemption program can only benefit the homeowner. If 100% of the exemption was allowed, the tenants or housemates would also benefit. When asked how much of the home is occupied by the appellant, the appellant responded that she occupies the entire home. The home consists of 3 bedrooms, 2.5 bathrooms, kitchen, living room and a basement recreation room. There is no garage as indicated by the Assessor's Office. The home is Board of Equalization Minutes — August 12, 2015 Page: 4 occupied by everyone as a family unit. In reference to the appellant's IRS tax returns, Vice -Chairman Krist asked why the appellant went from filing a Schedule E form to a Schedule C form? The appellant responded that she uses a tax program for filing her tax return and based on the information she enters, the program generates the appropriate forms. Assessor Technician III Lead Shold stated that all income is counted when determining eligibility for the exemption program. She explained how they determined the percentage allowed for the appellant's exemption. She clarified that the appellant is receiving an 81 % exemption on the home and 100% exemption on the land. Assessor Technician Trafton reiterated that based on how the appellant declared income on her IRS tax returns, only a partial exemption is allowed. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Garing closed the hearing. The Board will make a determination at a later date. NOTICE OF ADJOURNMENT Vice -Chairman Krist moved to adjourn the meeting at 11:20 a.m. Member Smith seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. ATTE T: eslie R. Locke, Clerk of the Board JEFFERSON COUNTY OARD OF EQUALIZATION Dave Gar6i'g, �aiA;n Henry Krist, Vice -Chairman �1 Smith Member