Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM102093 \ Jefferson County Board of Equalization TELEPHONE: 385.9100 COURTHOUSE P.O. BOX 1220 PORT TOWNSEND, WASHINGTON 96368 ,ei.'/-}Sr:r'i';;;'f~ .~~ l1%*,I;, "'-', llt ' /!i::,c ~,~ ,,"\ .. .F ~,;\ r;1~~ " J ,,, .' I ,~,~ "7.'11' ...' ,",,,~ 7;" f' ,: ,$ , ,~ '".,,-' ',:<,~<,}" ~"rf; J. ,r' ,.h-.. ~,~.., iI"l ;'I)l" "'", , !~,.,' ~' ",,;'Y "''-.. ' ,,'" .'~'i, . .. """,,;ll, h".",J,,,.I.Jt. '~'~".;'~'..:~".' '. ,.,.,,\~.;,' .....1(1 ",.,('fI,l}; .~", . '~. "l~, ..;.,,~., '1I'lIl .' "I,.... I: ',':r/:',c," -"<' I"'. L, ,l/'c ' ',:',,"'l'?:'-, ~.I,.,~~.~. ~~i';;;?~ i!:~' ':C ,.' .- ': ,-~ ~-.,..' , , - ----, ",,-, ''''''='..- -- ,- - -~~ ~~'---'-~-"'<-~=- JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF EQUALIZATION MINUTES OCTOBER 20, 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 10:30 a.m. Vice-Chairman William S. Marlow was present. Member Richard A. Broders was not. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Vice-Chairman Bill Marlow moved to approve the minutes of September 29 & 30, 1993 as presented. Chairman James A. DeLeo seconded the motion. The motion carried. HEARINGS David Wren 409 Q. Street Port Townsend, W A 98368 DOE: 93-29-R 93-30-LO 93-31-LO PN: 984 904 702 984 904 704 984 904 707 David Wren was present. Robert Kingsley was present on behalf of the Assessor's office. Chairman James A. DeLeo explained the hearing process. Mr. Wren stated he does not take oaths or attest. The Board stated that was fine and proceeded to swear in Mr. Kingsley. Mr. Wren stated his property is stigmatized by the environmentally sensitive area zone and he feels that should have some bearing on his property value. He reported on portions of the City Code, Chapter 19.05 and the City Environmental Checklist that states property owners, perspective property owners and the general public should be informed about the potential hazards in environmentally sensitive areas. Terminology like this, publicly attached to the property, cannot increase it's value, it can only diminish it. Another example would be in City Code, Chapter 19.05.100 which states construction in geologically hazardous areas should be avoided when the potential risk to the public's health and safety cannot be reduced to a level comparable to the risk if the site was stable. He feels this wording diminishes the market value of the property. He added that next to his property there are 11 low income housing units. When these houses were built the City did not hold any public hearings. He feels he was denied protection and therefore his property value has diminished. .. '-.I 100% Recycled Paper . BOARD OF EQUALIZATION MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 20, 1993 Page 2 He denies that his property is comparable to others since the appraising methods do not have a scale of detriment. The Assessor's appraisal sheet notes that the property has "good mountain view". Mr. Wren stated he has poor mountain view and the mountain view that he does have should be mitigated by his view of the papermill, which most of the time obscures the mountain view with it's pollution. Mr. Kingsley clarified that "good mountain view" was a notation made on the 1989 appraisal sheet, and is not relevant to his 1993 assessment. His 1993 appraisal sheet notes that the property has "average territorial view". Mr. Wren went on to say that his property has no street access that would qualify as normal street access. There is a dirt road that is poorly maintained by the city. None of this information is reflected in the assessment. He feels his property value is being distorted. A final point made by Mr. Wren is that there is no relationship between his property and his neighbor's property. This is cOl1tiguous land with no difference except an artificial boundary and yet the assessment rates per square foot are all different. He doesn't feel his property should be assessed at a higher rate than his neighbor's just because it has a house on it. Mr. Kingsley stated that Mr. Wren did not present any convincing evidence. He presented arguments developed in an attempt to sway the Board's opinion. Arguments are not evidence. Without any sales data Mr. Kingsley does not see anything that supports what Mr. Wren has said. For example, Mr. Wren made a statement about the City stigmatizing his property. All property is stigmatized until you prove that it is buildable. All a person needs to do is apply for a building permit with City. The City will come out and look at the land and determine if the property is buildable. Mr. Kingsley reported on comparable sales in the area. He stated that the low income housing near the subject property is actually individual houses on their own separate lots. The rents listed for these low income houses is $650.00 per month. Houses renting for that much are not considered low income. Vice-Chairman Bill Marlow asked Mr. Wren if he has applied for any building permits? Mr. Wren stated he applied for the inspection of his property by the City to determine if it is buildable and was told that they could not conduct an inspection of the property until there was an actual building permit on file. Vice-Chairman Marlow asked is he had applied for a building permit? Mr. Wren stated no, he had not applied for a building permit. 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. Reiko Botts/Joanne Botts 1605 19th Street Port Townsend, W A 98368 BOE: 93-42-R PN: 948 315 801 Reiko and Joanne Botts were both present. Will Butterfield was present on behalf of the Assessor's office. Chairman James A. DeLeo explained the hearing process and swore them m. Joanne Botts explained the reason they are appealing their property value is that the BOARD OF EQUALIZATION MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 20, 1993 Page 3 neighborhood around the Botts' residence is deteriorating. There is only one other home on this road. There are approximately 40 low income apartment units in the surrounding area. With ouly one road in and out, access must be shared by the two homes and the apartment units. The home next door was put on the market for about a year. It was originally listed at $129,000 and then came down to $113,000. The property did not sell and was taken off the market. Ms. Botts stated that she had spoken with Forest Aldrich of Coldwell Banker and he advised that the market is flat at this time. The Botts' would not have a problem if the exterior of the apartment project was kept up and if there were additional roads to access the property. Furthermore, it appears as though there is a daycare facility operating in the apartment complex. There are a lot of children and parking is extending onto the street. She presented pictures of the apartment units as additional evidence for the fIle. Will Butterfield stated that the apartment units do have an impact on the Botts' property value. Prior to the hearing he offered a 5 % reduction for the economic obsolescence factor (forces outside of the property). The Bott~' rejected the Assessor's offer and proceeded with their hearing to try to get more of a reduction. Will Butterfield stated that a further reduction requires market evidence. There is not any information that justifies or defends a major reduction in value. In fact, the comparable sales show just the opposite. Two comparable sales occurred near a different group of subsidized apartment units which indicates that there is no major loss in property value. With this market evidence the Assessor is unable to give more than a 5 % reduction. 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. Lolita Lekha Langham 1633 Walnut Street Port Townsend, W A 98368 BOE: 93-28-R PN: 985 209 602 Ms. Langham was not present. Robert Kingsley was present on behalf of the Assessor's office and was sworn in by Chairman James A. DeLeo. Mr. Kingsley explained that this appeal is similar to David Wren's appeal in that they filed petitions for the same reasons. Ms. Langham sent a letter about the per square foot value. Mr. Kingsley met with both Mr. Wren and Ms. Langham to discuss their appeals. They left after 15 minutes and stated they would return the following day. They did not return. Mr. Kingsley stated they were not interested in hearing about how their property was valued and they did not have the time to explain the figures they came up with. This is why they are confused about how their property was valued. He added that it is hard to deal with people that ignore you or are not interested in what you have to say and who inteIject innuendo and erroneous comments at their leisure. Her not being at the hearing is a good example. She did not provide any evidence or write any comments on the petition form. It was difficult to get her to sign the form. Mr. Kingsley then presented the comparable sales. After reviewing the petition form and hearing the testimony of the Assessor the Board concurred to conduct an inspection of the property and make a determination at a later date. ~ BOARD OF EQUALIZATION MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 20, 1993 Page 4 Osgood Holdings Inc. Lloyd & Marlene Cahoon 714 Washington Street Port Townsend, W A 98368 BOE: 93-38-C PN: 989 705 503 Lloyd and Marlene Cahoon were present on behalf of Osgood Holdings Inc. Representing the Assessor's office was Robert Kingsley. Chairman James A. DeLeo explained the hearing process and swore them in. Mr. Cahoon stated they have two problems; 1) they lack the information to calculate the cost per square foot for improvements on property, 2) they feel there are several comparable buildings that were not included in the information they were sent. One building they feel is comparable is the Palace Hotel building on Water Street. The Assessor's office presented the Alaska Power building as a comparable. This building is valued only slightly higher than the subject property. The Alaska Power building has had extensive renovation recently and it is located on Water Street, the main street downtown. Their building is not on the main street and therefore does not have the exposure or the view of the other building. Ms. Cahoon added that both the Alaska Power building and the N.D. Hill building have done extensive renovating while their building is just being maintained. Mr. Cahoon stated they would have to spend a considerable amount of money on the building to get it to same marketability level of the other buildings. Mr. Kingsley stated that he is standing in for the Commercial Appraiser that assessed the property who is unable to attend the hearing. He went on to say that the appellant's estimate of value is $433,000 when the purchase price was $525,000 in 1990. It is unfair to use the current assessment of the N. D. Hill building since it is in a historical buildings exemption program. The buildings are valued by replacement costs. The property was listed at $1,400,000 for two years and has not sold. The petitioners feel that the listing price has nothing to do with the value unless the property sells for the listed price. The appellant~ agree that $525,000 is a better estimate of value. It is assessed at $613,000. After hearing the testimony of both parties the Board concurred to conduct an inspection of the property and make a determination at a later date. MEETING ADJOURNED ,t\~ '-!1. .~C/7d~ Erin K. Lundgren, C rk of are Board ------------