Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM092993 Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, Washington 98368 Phone (206) 385-9100 . 1.800-831.2678 JEFFERSON COUNTY COURTHOUSE NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE PORT TOWNSEND, WASHINGTON ROBERT H. HINTON, DISTRICT 1 GLEN HUNTINGFORD, DISTRICT 2 RICHARD E. WOJT, DISTRICT 3 JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF EQUALIZATION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 29, 1993 James A. DeLeo William S. Marlow Richard A. Broders Lars Watson Chairman Vice-Chairman Member Alternate Chairman James A. DeLeo called the meeting to order at 9:30 A.M. Marlow and Richard A. Broders were present. Members William S. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Vice Chairman Bill Marlow moved to approve the minutes of September 9, 1993 as presented. Member Dick Broders seconded the motion which carried by unanimous vote. HEARINGS John & Emma Kircher 2010 Jefferson Sureet Port Townsend, W A 98368 DOE: 93-36-LO 93-37-LO PN: 969 907 701 969911 601 Albert Hughes was present as John and Emma Kircher's agent. Emma Kircher was present to observe. Bob Shold represented the Assessor's office. Chairman James A. DeLeo explained the hearing process and swore them in. Mr. Hughes stated the appeal is based on two arguments. First, the recent sales in the neighboring area sold for less than the valuation of the Kircher's property. The neighboring lots are plumbed, have utilities and are on streets with access. The Kircher's property is pasture land and is located on a hillside with little to no access. There are no utilities serving the lots except for sewer. The only lot with full utilities is the lot where the Kircher's home is located. He added that there is a Motel, deli and bowling alley located below the lots. While these businesses benefit the community they are somewhat undesirable to live near. For example there is litter, vandalism, fights, fIres, noise, smells, pollution, lights from cars coming and going throughout the night, and rodents around the deli which come up onto the hillside. The comparable lots are easily accessible and easily marketable, while the Kircher's property has been on the market for several years and has not sold. Also important to consider, is that only the upper lots have a view and the lower lots which are the primary portion of the property, do not. .. \..1 100% Recycled Paper BOARD OF EQUALIZATION MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 29, 1993 Page 2 The second reason is based on the Washington State Constitution, Article 7, Section 2, which requires the equality and uniformity in assessing landowners for all property in the State of Washington. Mr. Hughes stated that the assessed values for many lots in the neighborhood have less than doubled since 1989 while the Kircher's property has almost tripled. Bob Shold reported on comparable sales and stated that there were only two bare lot sales that took place and the others were lots with houses. The Assessor's office placed a value of $35,000 on a non-view lot and $25,000 on the auxiliary lots. Lots in block 116 were valued at $25,000 with adjustments made for views. He stated this base value was used for all the lots in the uptown area which shows uniformity is assessing property. The documents show that the commercial influence, access and view potential was addressed. After hearing the testimony of both parties the Board concurred that they would conduct an inspection of the property and make a determination at a later date. Richard K. Call 1910 Walnut Street Port Townsend , W A 98368 DOE: 93-22-R PN: 985 210 101 Richard Call was present. Robert Kingsley was present on behalf of the Assessor's office. Chairman James A. DeLeo explained the hearing process and swore them in. Mr. Call stated that circumstances have changed since his property was assessed. It seems the City of Port Townsend is encouraging low-cost housing and rental units near Mr. Call's property. A developer has purchased property next to Mr. Call's and has gotten permits to build 10w- cost housing. At the time the Assessor valued the property, four had already been built a block and a half away. Since that time the developer has purchased more property and plans to construct six more houses, two of which are already completed. He stated that some time in the future the developer plans to build four more. He feels this low-cost housing devalues his property. A ten percent adjustment would be acceptable to Mr. Call. Robert Kingsley stated Mr. Call advised him of the change in circumstances and at that time Mr. Kingsley did not have any market evidence available to calculate a figure for making an adjustment to Mr. Call's property value. Lacking the decisive information, he suggested Mr. Call fIle an appeal with the Board of Equalization so they can determine if the value needs to be adjusted or not. Vice-Chairman Bill Marlow asked if he is correct in understanding that this situation did not exist on the date the property was assessed. Mr. Call answered that is correct. Vice- Chairman Bill Marlow stated he questions whether the Board of Equalization can make an adJustment for something that happened after January 1st of the assessment year. On January I st the property was worth the assessment value since the situation did not exist at that time. The Board concurred that they would speak to the Prosecuting Attorney to fmd out if this appeal can be considered. Mr. Call may need file an appeal for next year in order to receive an adjustment for the changes occurring this year. After hearing the testimony of both parties the Board concurred that they would make a determination at a later date and notify Mr. Call if an inspection of the property is necessary or if he will need to ftle an appeal for 1994. BOARD OF EQUALIZATION MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 29, 1993 Page 3 Edward D. Broadsword P.O. Box 656 Camas, WA 98607 BOE: 93-23-R PN: 001 023 016 Edward D. Broadsword was not present. Robert Kingsley was present on behalf of the Assessor's office. After being sworn in Mr. Kingsley reported on three comparable sales in the area. If the Board determines the value needs to be reduced he recommends reducing the total value from $64,560 to $61,150. After reviewing the petition submitted by Mr. Broadsword and hearing the testimony of Mr. Kingsley the Board concurred that they would conduct an inspection of the property and make a determination at a later date. Frank & Edith Ferguson P.O. Box 435 Pine Valley, CA 91962 BOE: 93-24-LO PN: 948 303 701 Frank and Edith Ferguson were not present. Jeff Chapman was present on behalf of the Assessor's office. After being sworn in Mr. Chapman reported that the Ferguson's own and have a house on lots 2, 3, and 4 in block 37 of Eisenbeis Addition. They recently purchased lot 1 adjacent to the lots they own. It is lot I that the Ferguson's are appealing. The lots in Eisenbeis Addition are 29' wide. There are some two lot sites but it takes three lots to make a building site. When the Ferguson's purchased the fourth lot the Assessor's office did not consolidate it with the other parcel so the Ferguson's receive two separate tax statements. However, at the time of the assessment the property was valued as a four lot building site. The Ferguson's feel it should be valued as a three lot building site with one lot that is not worth anything because nothing can be done with it. The Assessor's office agrees that on its own under a separate ownership lot I has very little value since it is too smail to build on. However, the contributory value to the Ferguson's who now own four lots, is much greater. The highest and best use of lot 1 is as part of the adjacent ownership. A lower value could be given to lot 1 but then a higher value would be placed on lots 2, 3, & 4. Mr. Chapman feels the overall site value is fair. After reviewing the petition submitted by the Ferguson's and hearing the testimony of Mr. Chapman the Board concurred to conduct an inspection of the property and make a determination at a later date. Edward & Iris Lloyd 446 Santa Cecelia St. Solana Beach, CA 92015 BOE: 93-25-LO PN: 001 104 005 Representing Mr. and Mrs. Lloyd was Attorney Lloyd B. Ericsson. Bob Shoid was present on behalf of the Assessor's office. Chairman James A. DeLeo explained the hearing process and swore them in. Mr. Ericsson stated that the Lloyd's inherited this property and there has been a substantial increase in value. The Lloyd's case is based on an appraisal and an addendum listing comparable sales done by Ralph Erickson. The Assessor valued the BOARD OF EQUALIZATION MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 29, 1993 Page 4 property at $120,000 while the appraisal shows the value being $97,500. The appraisal states the property value, as a building site, is $65,000. The additional $32,500 is the excess land value and there is a question if this property can even be subdivided since it is landlocked. At this time there is no road access to the property and it is unknown what the cost to cure the problem will be. Using Ralph Erickson's appraisal value of $97,500, Mr. Lloyd suggests an adjustment of $30,000 be made to cover the costs of engineering, design, construction, and the expense of acquiring an easement. One of the adjoining property owners has indicated they would be willing to grant access to the Lloyd's, however, it would take a lot of engineering and would have to meet the requirements of the City which would take an indeterminate period of time to negotiate. Vice-Chairman Bill Marlow asked what date was on the appraisal done by Ralph Erickson? Mr. Ericsson stated it was August 7, 1990. Mr. Shold submitted comparable sales and stated that the appraisal done by Ralph Erickson is three years old and it is doubtful that Mr Erickson would guarantee it over a three year period. Based on sales that have occurred since then Mr. Erickson would certainly draw a different conclusion. He stated three of the five comparable sales listed on the addendum submitted by the Lloyd's have since resold. While these sales may have accurately reflected the market at the time the appraisal was done they do not accurately reflect the current market. The Assessor's office did not make any adjustment for the lack of access since at the time of acquisition there was reference to a court case that stated access was provided through tax 7 to tax 9. Even though there is no physical access, there is a hypothetical easement in place. The Assessor is unable to make an adjustment for access when it is not known what the City will require or how much it will cost. After hearing the testimony of both parties the Board concurred that they would conduct an inspection of the property and make a determination at a later date. Both Mr. Ericsson and the Lloyd's will be sent all correspondence. MEETING ADJOURNED -A . '4 ~ ~ IK41 ,l"..-A- Erin K. Lundgren, Clerk%f the Board JEFFERSON COUNTY OARD OF EQUALJZATION ~ .f\imes A. DeLeo, Chairman /