Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM020916ok EQU&r� Dave Garing Henry Krist Mike Smith 1820 Jefferson Street P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 Dave Garing MINUTES February 9, 2016 Henry Krist Michael Smith Chairman Vice -Chairman Member Chairman Dave Garing called the meeting to order at 10:30 a.m. in the presence of Vice -Chairman Henry Krist. Member Michael Smith was absent. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Vice -Chairman Krist moved to approve the minutes of May 28, 2015 (2014 Board of Equalization Season). Chairman Garing seconded the motion. The motion carried. PETITION WITHDRAWALS Vice -Chairman Krist moved to accept the following petition withdrawals. Chairman Garing seconded the motion. The motion carried. NAME APPEAL NO. PARCEL NO. Vande Weghe Family Trust BOE 15-17-R 702 273 004 " BOE 15-18-R 702 273 012 " BOE 15-19-R 702 273 016 Steve Enge & Kathleen Pool BOE 15 -32 -LO 974 100 906 I so: �I_11:l Ie[ldy Juliet Parfrey BOE: 15-16-R PN: 801 041 007 925 W. Egg and I Road Chimacum, WA 98325 Juliet Parfrey was present. Richard Wilding was also present on behalf of the appellant. Appraiser Charley Hough represented the Assessor's Office. After explaining the hearing process, Chairman Garing swore in all parties. Under appeal is the land and improvement value of property located at 925 W. Egg and I Road, Chimacum. Phone (360)385-9100 Fax (360)385-9382 jeffbocc@co.jefferson.wa.us Board of Equalization Minutes — February 9, 2016 Page: 2 The property was assessed as of January 1, 2015 and is currently valued at $218,222 ($74,971 for the land and $143,251 for the improvements). The appellant estimates the value to be $204,971 ($74,971 for the land and $130,000 for the improvements). The appellant stated that upon purchasing the property there was an existing patio. The Assessor's field sheet indicates that the patio is valued at $1,133, consists of 192 square feet of concrete and was constructed in 2011. She measured the patio and found it is actually 166 square feet in size and existed prior to her purchasing the home in 2009. The field sheet also indicates that a detached garage was built in 2011, when in fact it was also an existing structure when she purchased the property. Records from the Jefferson County Department of Community Development website indicate that her neighbor's foundation is located on her parcel. She feels she is being assessed for a foundation that is not located on her property. She also stated that after filing her appeal form she received a telephone call from Appraiser Hough. She feels that was inappropriate. Mr. Wilding testified that the appellant's property is located off of an unimproved road. Discussion ensued regarding neighboring comparable properties #1 through #5 submitted by the appellant. The appellant's home consists of two bedrooms, one bathroom and has a post and pier foundation. The appellant stated that although her home is newer, the comparable properties have more bathrooms and in some cases more bedrooms. She does not understand why her property is assessed at a higher value. She is in the process of complying with the requirements of the building permit to obtain her certificate of occupancy. The comparable property sales provided by the Assessor are located on a County maintained road. Appraiser Hough stated that the year built does not affect the value of the patio or garage because those items were assessed at a flat rate. The field sheet will be corrected, however the change will not affect the value. He noted that it is policy to contact the appellant prior to the hearing to discuss how the property was assessed. In response to the appellant providing information showing the neighbor's foundation is located on her property, Appraiser Hough stated the Jefferson County Department of Community Development will need to correct that error. He assured the appellant that it is not a factor in the value of her property. Appraiser Hough provided the following documents for review: • Area map of the appellant's property • Field sheet for appellant's property • Excise Tax Affidavit showing the property was purchased by the appellant on August 31, 2009 for $199,000 Building Permit application for the appellant's home • Floor Plan and Revised Site Plan Building Permit Inspection Checklist with Correction List Sales Chart Listing Map, field sheet and Excise Tax Affidavits for the sale of comparable properties 1-6 Appraiser Hough stated he visited the appellant's property on August 15, 2012. At that time he valued the deck and patio and assessed the home as 100% complete. He discussed the following comparable property sales: Board of Equalization Minutes — February 9, 2016 Page: 3 Comparable Property #1 Parcel No.: 901 272 019 Location: 694 Naylor Creek Road, Chimacum Assessed Value: $64,530 Sale Date: May, 2015 Sale Price: $140,000 Comparable Property #2 Parcel No.: 996 900 002 Location: 154 Wild Plum Lane, Chimacum Assessed Value: $352,954 Sale Date: March, 2015 Sale Price: $390,000 Comparable Property #3 Parcel No.: 901 275 006 Location: 117 Windridge Road, Chimacum Assessed Value: $180,739 Sale Date: January, 2015 Sale Price: $235,000 Comparable Property #4 Parcel No.: 801 041 001 Location: 5090 West Valley Road, Chimacum Assessed Value: $120,213 Sale Date: July, 2014 Sale Price: $173,500 Comparable Property #5 Parcel No.: 901 272 012 Location: 105 Naylor Creek Road, Chimacum Assessed Value: $230,456 Sale Date: October, 2013 Sale Price: $257,500 Comparable Property #6 Parcel No.: 901 224 010 Location: S22 T29 R1 W Tax 13 W-S/EASE Assessed Value: $39,500 Sale Date: March, 2015 Sale Price: $55,000 The appellant questioned that if the year built is not a factor in the value, why did her assessed value increase $5,000 last year? Board of Equalization Minutes — February 9, 2016 Page: 4 Appraiser Hough explained that the increase in the appellant's assessed value was due to a market adjustment of 5% (improvement value) in 2015 and 20% (10% land and 10% improvement value) in 2014. Discussion continued regarding the assessed value of a neighboring property compared to the assessed value of the appellant's property. Appraiser Hough stated that County appraisers do not go into homes and are unable to tell if a home is 100% complete. The appellant estimates her home is 85% complete • The outside needs to be painted • No base trim is installed • The windows may need to be replaced She discussed the following condition of the home: After further review and discussion, Appraiser Hough discovered that the patio and detached garage were not valued at a flat rate as previously thought. He recommends the following adjustments be made: • 85% complete • Correct the square footage of the patio to 154 square feet (11 x 14) • Adjust effective age of the detached garage and patio to 1995 • Wood heat only (no electric) Appraiser Hough will provide a recommendation to the Board to assist with their determination. He will also send his recommendation to the appellant for her review. Chairman Garing asked that the appellant respond to the Clerk of the Board as to whether she agrees or does not agree with the Assessor's recommendation. The appellant responded that she will contact the Clerk of the Board with her decision. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Garing closed the hearing. The Board will make a determination at a later date. ADJOURNMENT Vice -Chairman Krist moved to adjourn the meeting at 11:55 a.m. Chairman Garing seconded the motion. The motion carried. ATTEST: E eslie R. Locke Clerk of the Board JEFFERSON COUNTY OARD F EQUALIZATION q Dave aring, Ch 'r an Henry Krist, Vice -Chairman (Excused Absence) Michael Smith, Member