Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM052417ok EQU&� �a Dave Garing Michael Smith Henry Krist 1820 Jefferson Street P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 Dave Garing MINUTES May 24, 2017 Henry Krist Michael Smith Chairman Vice -Chairman Member Chairman Dave Garing called the meeting to order at 10:00 a.m. in the presence of Vice -Chairman Michael Smith and Member Henry Krist. ASSESSMENT CORRECTIONS Vice -Chairman Smith moved to accept the following assessment corrections. Member Krist seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. NAME APPEAL NO. PARCEL NO. Pope Resources BOE 16 -37 -LO 721 051 001 " BOE 16-38-R 801 361 001 " BOE 16 -39 -LO 821 312 001 " BOE 16 -40 -LO 821 322 001 " BOE 16 -41 -LO 821 322 002 Lexington Investments, LLC. BOE 16 -48 -LO 989 704 203 Jonathan Garrison & Stephanie Pare BOE 16 -49 -LO 950 700 105 HEARINGS Ebel Family Living Trust BOE: 16-33-R PN: 978 900 102 Matthew & Maria Ebel, Trustees 480 Jefferson Avenue Port Ludlow, WA 98365 Matthew and Maria Ebel were present. Appraiser John Pray represented the Assessor's Office. These proceedings are a continuation of the March 29, 2017 hearing. Chairman Garing reaffirmed the oath of truthfulness to both parties. Under appeal is the improvement value of property located at 480 Jefferson Avenue, Port Ludlow. Phone (360)385-9100 Fax (360)385-9382 jeffbocc@co.jefferson.wa.us Board of Equalization Minutes — May 24, 2017 Page: 2 The property was assessed as of January 1, 2016 and is currently valued at $382,575 ($154,500 for the land and $228,075 for the improvements). The appellants estimate the value to be $305,000 ($154,500 for the land and $150,500 for the improvements). Prior to today's hearing, the appellants provided additional information outlined as follows: • Removal of existing asbestos including removing and reinstalling bathroom and kitchen cabinets; removing and disposing of asbestos; and installation of new vinyl flooring. Estimated Cost = $16,357. • Replacement of Existing Metal Roof. Estimated Cost = approximately $37,571. • Value of New Shop. • Two Comparable Property Sales that sold in 2016. The appellants stated that had they been aware of the existence of asbestos they would have requested the seller reduce the asking price or would have walked away from the sale. Discussion ensued regarding the replacement of the existing metal roof. The estimate includes the removal of three layers of shingles costing approximately $37,571. The cost would increase if there is additional layers to remove. They feel the current value of the detached shop is too high. The appellants discussed two comparable property sales that sold in 2016 and are similar in size and age. Appraiser Pray stated that the appellants' shop is valued at 50% complete at $17,000. He noted that the appellants are not appealing the land value. He discussed the reductions the appellants are currently receiving for the improvements. Discussion ensued regarding the appellants' comparable property sales. Appraiser Pray stated he could not find a Real Estate listing on the sale that occurred at 301 Pioneer. The appellants replied that the sale of comparable property at 301 Pioneer Lane consisted of the owner selling to a tenant that was renting the home. Discussion ensued regarding the criteria the Assessor's Office uses to determine the quality of a home. Appraiser Pray stated that he was unaware of the condition of the kitchen and the existence of asbestos in the home which may warrant a reduction in value. He feels $305,000, as requested by the appellants, is too low. Based on the condition of the home, he recommends a reduction of $50,000 to the improvement value. The appellants clarified that they are appealing the entire value, not just the improvement value. While they would accept a $50,000 reduction to the improvement value, they still feel $335,000 value is too high. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Garing closed the hearing. The Board will make a determination at a later time. Board of Equalization Minutes — May 24, 2017 Page: 3 Timothy Bangle BOE: 16-26-R PN: 990 600 125 Mari Bangle 120 Baldwin Lane Port Ludlow, WA 98365 Timothy Bangle was not present. Appraiser John Pray represented the Assessor's Office. Chairman Garing reaffirmed the oath of truthfulness. These proceedings are a continuation of the March 30, 2017 hearing. Under appeal is the improvement value of property located at 120 Baldwin Lane, Port Ludlow. The property was assessed as of January 1, 2016 and is currently valued at $307,741 ($65,000 for the land and $242,741 for the improvements). The appellants estimate the value to be $252,248 ($65,000 for the land and $187,248 for the improvements). Appraiser Pray stated that he recently visited the appellant's property. During the site visit, the appellant showed him areas of the siding and the deck were rotten, damage from carpenter ants, and water damage. Due to the condition of the home, both parties agreed that a reduction of $20,000 was warranted and once the repairs have been made the adjustment will be removed. The Assessor's representative provided a signed assessment correction form indicating both parties are in agreement. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Garing closed the hearing. The Board will make a determination at a later time. Carol Houchen & Richard LaRue BOE: 16-24-R PN: 502 164 039 24 Duckabush Road Brinnon, WA 98320 Carol Houchen and Richard LaRue were not present. The Assessor's representative was not present. These proceedings are a continuation of the January 31, 2017 hearing. Under appeal is the land and improvement value of property located at 24 Duckabush Road, Brinnon. The property was assessed as of January 1, 2016 and is currently valued at $319,866 ($57,040 for the land and $262,826 for the improvements). The appellants estimate the value to be $258,195 ($57,040 for the land and $201,155 for the improvements). Prior to today's hearing, the appellants submitted an email stating that they do not have further information or testimony to provide to the Board. Based on that email, Chairman Garing closed the hearing. The Board will make a determination at a later time. Board of Equalization Minutes — May 24, 2017 Page: 4 Kenneth & Karen Long BOE: 16-36-R PN: 101 333 005 100 Lands End Lane Port Townsend, WA 98368 Kenneth and Karen Long were 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 and improvement value of property located at 100 Lands End Lane, Port Townsend. The property was assessed as of January 1, 2016 and is currently valued at $793,023 ($419,364 for the land and $373,659 for the improvements). The appellants estimate the value to be $724,517 ($368,652 for the land and $355,865 for the improvements). The appellants read from a written statement (see attached) outlining their reasons for appealing the value. They do not feel their property is waterfront and were unable to find the definition of waterfront. They testified that a land slide occurred on their property, however no adjustment has been made. Chairman Garing asked the appellants to provide more information on the comparable property sale listed on their petition form. The appellants responded that the comparable property sale listed on their petition is not comparable to their land or improvements. They listed it because it was the only sale that occurred in the neighborhood. Appraiser Pray stated that the appellants' property is considered high bank waterfront and does not have beach access. He clarified that the three comparable property sales are also valued at high bank waterfront and do not have beach access. He discussed the qualities of the comparable property sales as compared to the appellants' property. Appraiser Pray reviewed the following comparable property sales: Comparable Property #1 Parcel No.: 101 333 007 Location: 40 Land's End Lane, Port Townsend Assessed Value: $725,928 Sale Date: December, 2014 Sale Price: $925,000 Comparable Property #2 Parcel No.: 101 324 018 Location: 24 Juan De Fuca Road, Port Townsend Assessed Value: $495,960 Sale Date: March, 2015 Sale Price: $540,000 Board of Equalization Minutes — May 24, 2017 Page: 5 Comparable Property #3 Parcel No.: 993 800 012 Location: 2364 Seaview Drive, Port Townsend Assessed Value: Sale Date: Sale Price: $555,879 September, 2015 $720,000 A 35% economic adjustment was put on these properties during the recession. In 2016, land values in this area increased 5%, but also noted that waterfront properties in this neighborhood increased from $1,750 per front foot to $1,900 per front foot. Comparable Property sale #3 is located in a different neighborhood. Based on the sale of comparable properties, Chairman Garing asked if the current values in this area should increase? Appraiser Pray replied that values in this area will increase in 2017. The appellants said that they researched the definition of `Waterfront' used in determining the land value, but was unable to find one. They discussed the value of their neighbor's property compared to their property. Discussion ensued regarding a 30 foot buffer required on each side of their property. This requirement was made part of the Deed of Trust and limits them from using 60 feet of their land (30 feet on each side). Due to the fact that their property is located in the middle, the properties on either side only have a 30 foot buffer. They feel that the setback impacts their value and a reduction is warranted. Appraiser Pray discussed the reduction for depth that both the appellants and the neighboring properties are currently receiving. The discussion continued regarding the definition of waterfront property and how the value is determined for those types of properties. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Garing closed the hearing. The Board will make a determination at a later time. ADJOURNMENT Member Krist moved to adjourn the meeting at 12:01 p.m. Vice -Chairman Smith seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Y ST/e,64Zf R. Loc the Board JEFFERSON COUNTY ARD OF UALIZATION ��� i Dave Gann C firman W�ae Sit ,, V Henry Krist, Member 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Kenneth R. Long 100 Lands End Lane Port Townsend, WA 98368 360-385-0858 Ken@Landsendlane.com BOARD OF EQUALIZATION JEFFERSON COUNTY, WASHINGTON RE: BOE APPEAL NO. 16-39-R PARCEL NO. 101 333-005 APPELLANT'S Kenneth R. Long and Karen D. Long Reasons for appeal There are multiple reasons to lower the proposed assessed value for taxes payable in 2017 to those we prove are more likely to be true. 1. Refer to our petition signed November 4, 2016. Our estimate of value for 2017 is no more made up than the assessor's estimates. The assessor's estimates are based on formulae whose determination is not public nor explained and do not take into account differences in properties. 2. The assessor applied an across the board 5 % factor to all improvements. There is no attempt to justify the differences between properties and their changes from the last assessment. For example, assume an identical house to ours but with a new roof. We should not be assessed the same improvements amount when our roof is 17 years old. That is not equal nor is it fair! 3. The assessor also applied the arbitrary 5 % increase to all land values. What sense does that make? Yes, it is easier for the assessor but it is not fair to treat each individual property as if they are all the same. Realtors do not. 4. The assessor didn't stop with the 5% applied across the board to all land. An additional and separate rate increase of 8.58% was applied as the "waterfront rate". Those two resulted in our land property values going up over 13%. Wow! Now that is getting two bites of the apple! 5. Now what is the so called "waterfront"? Is there a statutory definition? Our property is on a high bluff of 260 feet. The beach is estimated to be over 130 feet horizontally and 260 feet [PLEADING TITLE] - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 down. Hardly waterfront. Totally inaccessible in any practicable sense_ We cannot put in a stairway down to the beach even if it made financial sense. Ours is not waterfront and should not be assessed as such. 6. Even assuming ours is "waterfront". The arbitrary waterfront adjustment does not take into account the differences in "waterfront" property. Ours is indented from others near us by landsides which reduces our view and hence value. 7. The assessor argues that it's 3 comparables are comparable. They are not. The first, on 40 Lands End Lane is more acreage and does not adequately take into account for the extra large second building which has a guest room and bath. Plus a better view and impressive landscaping. Moreover it has a closed parklet on its East side — no neighbors! While close to us it has features we do not have. 8. The second one, 24 Juan De Fuca Rd. has much more acreage,4.74 versus 2.76, but only 749 sq. ft. in improvements. I assume it has beach access. Hardly comparable even without considering its location or view. 9. The third alleged comparable at 2364 Seaview Dr. is only .26 acres. Hardly comparable. One must assume the value is in the improvements and actual waterfront beach access. We have no practical waterfront beach access unless you think walking a mile on the beach from North Beach qualifies. 10. While our property is unlike any of the assessor's 3 "comparable" ours has suffered a landside since the last assessment and no acreage adjustment was made for that. A visual inspection would have determined that_ 11. Ours has an offsite septic field which means it faces an expensive charge when forced to go tc city septic. This is a negative to our property's value. It also means larger maintaince expenses currently. A reduction in market value should occur.. 12. The assessor may argue that the market value is just what it might sell for without regard to the separate values it places on land and the improvements. Yet it adds a separate waterfront charge rather than consider market values. In our case it increases our combined assessment 9.45%. not just the 5% most others got. [PLEADING TITLE] - 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 VM 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The above is all factual and can be verified by a visual inspection or from the records that exist. It shows the assessor's comparables are not really comparable. It shows by fair, clear, cogent and convincing evidence as required that our estimates of value are closer to what true and fair market value is for our property. It is requested that you find our estimate of values for land and improvements fair and true value of our property. Dated this 24 of May 2017. [PLEADING TITLE] - 3 Kenneth R. Long, Appellant'