Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout18-44-LO Peter Harrison & Shirley MetzJefferson County Board of Equalization Board Clerk's Record of Hearing Petition No: 18 -44 -LO Taxpayer's Name: Peter Harrison and Shirley Metz Mailing Address: PO Box 1171 City: Port Townsend State: WA Zip Code: 98368 Taxpayer's Parcel No: 921 063 016 Hearing Was Held On: June 5, 2019 Board Members Present: Dave Garing, Henry Krist Decision of Board: Value Sustained: Value Changed From Other: $162,950. To: $111,784 Recorded on Tape No: BOE 060519 Hearing Began at (time): 10:00 a.m. Chairpe nee) Ended at (time): 11:12 a.m. P' - -Mm Date To ask about the availability of this publication in an alternate format for the visually impaired, please call (360) 705-6715. Teletype (TTY) users, please call (360) 705-6718. For tax assistance, call (360) 534-1400. REV 60 0002e (w) (2/9/12) ORDER OF THE JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF EQUALIZATION Property Owner: Peter Harrison & Shirley Metz Parcel Number(s): 921 063 016 Assessment Year: 2018 Case Number: BOE 18 -44 -LO Date(s) of Hearing: 6/5/2019 Having considered the evidence presented by the parties in this appeal, the board hereby F Sustains FK] Overrules the determination of the Assessor. Assessor's Determination Land FlImprovements 1-1 Timber/Minerals F]Personal Property Total BOE Determination: $162,950 0 Land Improvements Timber/Minerals Personal Property %162.950 This decision is based on our finding that: Datgd this day of August, 2019. Dave (See Attached NOTICE Total Executive Assistant $111,784 S 111.784 his order can be appealed to the State Board of Tax Appeals by filing a notice of appeal with them at P.O. Box 40915, lympia, WA 98504-0915, or at their website at bta.state.wa.us/appeal/forms.htm within thirty days of the date of ailing of this order. The appeal forms are available from either your County Assessor or the State Board of Tax Appeals. To ask about the availability of this publication in an alternate format for the visually impaired call 1-800-647-7706. Teletype (TTY) users use the Washington Relay Service by calling 711. Distribution: * Assessor * Petitioner * BOE File FORM REV 64 0058 (5/25/2017) ORDER OF THE JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF EQUALIZATION Peter Harrison and Shirley Metz Appeal No.: BOE 18 -44 -LO Parcel No.: 921 063 016 Issue: Under appeal is the unimproved value of 150' of waterfront located on Oak Bay in Port Hadlock. The appellants' petition estimates the value of the property to be $125,000. The Assessor's valuation of the property as of January 1, 2018 is $162,950. The subject represents one of nine adjoining property appeals that the petitioners presented to the Board in concert. They assert the fair market value of their property has been negatively impacted by the illegal, non -conforming use of a neighborhood property. Appellant's Argument and Evidence: The Appellants presented testimony outlining an appraisal prepared by a certified residential appraiser, their Detrimental Conditions Impact Summary, maps, photographs, and comparable property sales. The appellants testified the market value of their property has been severely damaged by an adjacent illegal and unlicensed 24 hour towing and wrecking yard. They assert "Jefferson County has failed to assert or apply their own Codes of Practice" as a neighbor dumped abandoned vehicles, derelict boats, and hazardous waste on his own and adjoining properties. The operator of the wrecking yard has also been renting seven RVs as living accommodations with sewage flushed directly onto the ground creating a potential environmental health hazard that appears to be running off onto neighboring properties. They also testified they have lost rental income, lost sleep due to the 24 hour operation of the towing business, lost landscape plantings as a result of abandoned cars deposited on their property, and lost peace of mind due to harassment and assault by the offending property owner. They provided an extensive list of expenditures showing that as of May 2, 2019 they have spent $82,787 in legal fees and repairs in an attempt to mitigate the impact of these illegal activities. The appellants employed a residential appraiser to determine how a neighborhood wrecking yard can negatively affect neighboring property values. No recent vacant land sales near a wrecking yard or similar business were found in Jefferson County but three properties located near recycling facilities were identified in Clallam and Island County. Their sales prices were paired with similarly sized properties not near recycling facilities in these counties. Parcel (a) described a 28% negative impact on sales price. Parcel (b) described a 34% negative impact on sales price. Parcel (c) described a 30% negative impact on sales price. A fourth parcel (d) compared a property in a neighborhood of "substandard improvements" with a similarly sized parcel not located near these conditions with a reported impact of 33% on the sales price. The appraiser calculated a mean impact of -31.5%, and an average impact of -31.25%. The appraiser recommended the application of a negative 31.4% as an adjustment for arriving at a fair market valuation. The appellants also found it notable that the offending property had been valued by the Assessor at $67,335 as of January 1, 2019 but sold in March, 2019 for only $24,281 (representing a 64% reduction in value) with a clause that if it is not cleaned up the sales price will be reduced to $10,000. Assessor's Argument and Evidence: The Assessor's representative acknowledged the subject does warrant a negative adjustment. He presented three sales he identified as comparable to the subject, a tax parcel map showing the location of the comparable sales, a copy of the appraisal worksheet for the subject with photographs, and the appraisal worksheets for the comparable sales. Comparable sales were all improved waterfront parcels with acreage, and they ranged in price from $229,900 to $925,000. He did make a site visit to the subject property but did not hear any noise while he was there so he testified that he could not put a dollar figure on something he did not observe, however he did acknowledge the validity of more than 30 photographs (supplied by the appellants) of the neighborhood wrecking yard. When asked for his recommendation, he suggested 10% for property directly affected and 5% for property indirectly affected. His definition for these terms was vague but he indicated that contiguity, proximity, and property access using a route past the junkyard were significant factors. Summary and Conclusions: The Assessor's representative was asked, but was hesitant to provide a recommendation as to a specific valuation for this parcel. When pressed by the Board he said the number that was "going around in our head" was a 5% to 10% reduction but presented no evidence to support the rationale for these particular reductions. The residential appraiser employed by the appellants used a methodical approach to valuing property detrimentally impacted by proximity to a wrecking yard and included documentary evidence to support her conclusions. The Board has determined that a negative 31.4% adjustment should be applied to the Assessor's original determination of true and fair market value. Decision: After consideration of all testimony and evidence, the Board of Equalization overrules the Assessor's valuation and finds that a preponderance of evidence supports a true and fair market value of $111,784.