Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM102495 Jefferson County Board of Equalization TELEPHONE: 385.9100 COURTHOUSE P.O. BOX 1220 PORT TOWNSEND, WASHINGTON 98368 14 --c. / -~, r"'r '. -----) =os- - - /', ,~d" ,", ~'. ~-} ~ ~ _?~<" -:~,---:~~. __~_~',;, '_A J2tj,;, /~~ ~'" ~-': f~!}- , j~\ '. ,.:"!fV." --~. : _' ~. ",j/'-'~>fI .f;r',~ .... .::' _~ 5i~1I '~.." " .. ~'..' &' ,;;-::-~; it,,_~ -~-~~--~7';;- -',:",,_,W 'I;;',' '._ _,:~" Jt'j, t" . _ ,:' <',~<~t r,l, ,.Ji~", ~''':'' - , 'M' <)~: _ Jfi'j!,-,~~"'. ,'-l:' <fr~r';>,.",<"", '. ,''Ill ' :~'" 'Ii """"":;,6.,,,]11 ,-Ljc~'y,',..", ~"'<';.)"_~ 1;.;'II"!I;. _0,'1 ;~~" c=e-"'--=_,~-.=----'=:;: JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF EQUALIZATION MINUTES OCTOBER 24,1995 William S. Marlow Richard A. Broders James A. DeLeo Chairman Vice-Chairman Member Chairman William S. Marlow called the meeting to order at 9:30 a.m. in the presence of Vice- Chairman Richard A. Broders and Member James A. DeLeo. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Vice-Chairman Broders moved to approve the minutes of September 7, 1995. Member DeLeo seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote, CERTIFICA TION OF THE 1995 ASSESSMENT ROLLS The Board reviewed the Assessor's Certificate of Assessment Rolls to the County Board of Equalization subscribed and sworn to before the County Auditor. The total County assessed value as of July 30, 1995 is $1,885,694,470. Vice-Chairman Broders moved to accept the Assessor's Certificate of Assessment Rolls for 1995. Member DeLeo seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. HEARING WAIVERS Chairman Marlow read into the record the petition withdrawal and assessment correction notices that were received from the following petitioners: Stephen Sanders Virginia Stookey Fred McLaughlin Ronald 1. Gregory Richard & June Tanksley Judith Walls BOE 95-43-R BOE 95-46-R BOE 95-47-R BOE 95-49-R BOE 95-59-R BOE 95-64-R .. ~J 100% Recycled Paper BOARD OF EQUALIZA nON MINUTES - OCTOBER 24, 1995 Page 2 HEARINGS Norman & Patricia Davis P.O. Box 1148 Port Hadlock, W A 98339 BOE: 95-39-R PN: 921063008 Mr. and Mrs. Davis were present. Robert Kingsley was present on behalf of the Assessor's office. Chairman Marlow eXplained the hearing process and swore them in. The Davis' property is located near Oak Bay. Mr. Davis reported that the land value has gone up 25% and the value of the improvements on the property was raised approximately 44%. They are only appealing the value of the improvements not the land. The construction of the house was completed in 1991, At that time the appraiser, Mr. Kingsley, valued the house after touring the interior. During the 1995 revaluation the Davis' were not home, so Mr. Kingsley had to value the house from the outside and by looking through windows, In speaking with Mr. Kingsley about the new assessment they were told that the quality of construction was originally valued in the average + category and is now valued in the good + category because the construction is better than what he had recorded during the first walk through. Mr. Davis feels Mr, Kingsley's opinion is subjective. What could he see through the windows the second time, that he couldn't see during the original tour? The Davis' realize that property is valued at 100% of fair market value. He questioned if Jefferson County is now at 100%? Mr. Kingsley agreed that he did upgrade the quality of the house, which is one of the reasons that the value went up. Some other reasons include the addition of a concrete driveway, the completion of the basement which had been unfinished at the time of the first inspection, and the quality of the garage was also upgraded from average to good, Mr. Kingsley believes that he under graded the house during the first inspection. He suggested the Board conduct an inspection of the property to determine the true value of the property. Mr. Davis stated the driveway has always been there and has not changed, and garage has always been there and as for the basement, they laid some carpet that they got on sale for $409.00. The law states that the valuation of the Assessor's office is assumed to be correct. If the valuation was assumed to be correct in 1991 and is assumed to be correct now, what happens four years from now if the value is changed from good + to excellent, is it still assumed to be correct? This could go on forever. The house is valued at $153,635. Mr, Davis stated that they do not have that much money into it and he could build it today for less, The Davis' are requesting it be reduced to $106,630. Vice-Chairman Broders asked what the value would be if the average + factor was used? Mr. Kingsley stated if the quality would have remained at average + the value would be $133,000. Mr. Kingsley added that the driveway may have always been there, but it had not been valued previously. There are other factors which raised the value other than changing the percent good factor. In regard to Mr. Davis' question about whether or not Jefferson County is at 100% market value, Mr. Kingsley stated that it is the intent of the Assessor's office to value at 100% of market value. Chairman Marlow stated that typically property values are not assessed at 100% of market value which is not something that is done deliberately, Since Jefferson County is on a four year revaluation cycle, each area may have different values, The area currently being valued is closer BOARD OF EQUALIZA nON MINUTES - OCTOBER 24, 1995 Page 3 to 100% than the other three areas of the County. The other three areas have older assessments and the values are scaled down depending on when they were valued. Last years revaluation area is probably around 95%, the year before last may be at 90% and so on, On a four year revaluation cycle it is difficult to be right at 100% of market value but it is the intent of the Assessor's office to be as close as possible to 100% of market value. 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. Robert & Maribeth Lambe 671 Pioneer Drive Port Ludlow, WA 98365 BOE: 95-40-R PN: 990 603 226 Mr. and Mrs, Lambe were not present. Jefferson County Assessor, Jack Westerman and Appraiser, Dennis Pownall were present and sworn in by Chairman Marlow, The appellants property is located in Port Ludlow, Mr. Westerman read the appellants statement on the appeal form stating why they believe the assessed valuation does not reflect true and fair value: "The property at 720 Pioneer Drive, sold almost one year ago and is two lots south oj our property. .. In preparing for this case, Mr. Pownall has tried to formulate answers which address that issue, Prior to Mr. Pownall giving testimony, Mr. Westerman stated that most of the appeals for this year are from the Port Ludlow North Bay area. He presented to the Board for their review a copy of a form listing all of the residential home and land sales which have occurred in Port Ludlow's North Bay area since 1993, A common statement among petitioners is that there doesn't seem to be a market. Mr. Westerman broke down the sales that occurred each year since 1993 and found that there have been more sales this year within six months of the appraisal dates, than there has been in past years, He has also added to this list the sales which have occurred since the rolls closed. Mr. Pownall presented comparable sales and a map of the area for the Board to review. He stated the appellants are comparing their house which was built in 1990, has a basement and a garage, to a house that was built in 1975, does not have a basement and has a smaller, unfinished garage. He explained how he valued the appellants property and stated he feels confident that it is valued correctly. Mr. Westerman suggested that the Board look at the age and quality of the properties in the area when conducting their inspection. At the close of the hearing the Board concurred to conduct an inspection of the property and make a determination at a later date. Trygve & Beverly Mydland 71 Martingale Place Port Ludlow, WA 98365 BOE: 95-41-R PN: 931900041 Mr. and Mrs. Mydland were present. Jeff Chapman was present on behalf of the Assessor's office. Chairman Marlow explained the hearing process and swore them in, The appellant's property is located in Port Ludlow. Mr. Mydland stated that they feel that their assessment is based on the valuation of property located in a different division ofBayview Village, which they feel is not comparable, The other properties have much better views, and some have bigger lots. BOARD OF EQUALIZA nON MINUTES - OCTOBER 24, 1995 Page 4 Property in their division is selling for much less than in other divisions and they feel that property in their division is more comparable to their property. Mr. Chapman explained that in valuing Bayview Village the Assessor's office first plotted out all the original sales. The resales indicate what the market value is, As the original sales become antiquated, more property owners are comparing their views to others to try to use that as a reason to lower their values. In Bayview Village there is very little clearance between buildings so each division of buildings and each lot has a different view making it difficult to value, based on view. The original sales show that the division of buildings where the appellants property is located, sold for more than properties located in the division that the appellants feel are comparable. The appellants purchased their property in October of 1991 for $242,500, and they are trying to compare it to property that sold in September of 1991 for $ I 75,000 and has since resold for $205,000. The appellant chose to pay more for the property located higher on the hill. The view orientation may be slightly different, but the market indicates that their division is more valuable. Mr. Chapman stated another issue that has been brought up is that values are going down in Bayview Village. There is no evidence to support that. Property was listed for sale at a much higher value than they eventually sold for, yet, the sale prices were still higher than the 1991 assessments. Based on the original sales and resales the property is correctly valued. Mrs, Mydland stated that one of the sales mentioned by Mr. Chapman, included all furnishings. Additionally, in 1991 the Mydland's were unaware of the prices of the various properties. The one they finally purchased was the only one available with the floor plan they liked. Many of the homes were not built yet. Mr. Mydland stated that they realize now that they probably paid too much, 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, Herbert Reinhardsen P.O. Box 65273 Port Ludlow, WA 98365 BOE: 95-44-R PN: 990600382 Mr. Reinhardsen was present. Dennis Pownall was present on behalf of the Assessor's office, Chairman Marlow explained the hearing process and swore them in. The appellant's property is located in Port Ludlow. Mr. Reinhardsen stated he and his neighbor to the north have identical property and have had the same value for the past 8 years. This year his neighbor's property value was raised $500,00, while his property value was raised $1,500. He doesn't understand why his has a greater value when the properties are identical except for the view. Mr. Reinhardsen has lost his view due to tree growth, which should mean his property is worth less than his neighbors, not more. He added that his house was built in 1970 and is not comparable in quality to the other property thought to be comparable and used by the Assessor's office in valuing his property. Mr. Pownall stated that Mr. Reinhardsen's lot is located in an area with transitional views. Some lots have better views than others and are valued accordingly. He presented comparable sales for the Board to review. BOARD OF EQUALIZA nON MINUTES - OCTOBER 24, 1995 Page 5 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, Carol Mockridge 603 NW 126th Place Seattle, W A 98177 BOE: 95-36-R PN: 701191016 Ms. Mockridge was not present. Will Butterfield represented the Assessor's office and was sworn in by Chairman Marlow. The appellant's property is located in Quilcene. Ms, Mockridge stated in her petition that her property value should be reduced because it is high bank waterfront, not low bank, and that the property is a mud flat. Mr. Butterfield stated that Ms. Mockridge purchased the property for $102,500 and the Assessor's valuation at that time was $100,670 based on $500 per front foot. Ms, Mockridge inquired about the valuation of neighboring properties and found that some of the other mud flat properties were valued at $400 per front foot. After some discussion with Ms. Mockridge, the Assessor's office adjusted her property value down to $400 per front foot due to the mud flat conditions, Mr. Butterfield presented comparable sales for the Board to review and stated that they indicate a higher value than the purchase price. The per front foot value was only lowered in order to be consistent. Ms, Mockridge feels an even further reduction in value should made. For future reference Mr. Butterfield presented to the Board, two definitions of market value as defined in the W,AC. rules and in the Appraisal Manual. At the close of the hearing the Board concurred to conduct an inspection of the property and make a determination at a later date, William & Anne Olson 11451 Kallgren Road Bainbridge Island, WA 98110 BOE: 95-42-LO PN: 021 321 058 Mr. Olson was present. Robert Kingsley was present on behalf of the Assessor's office, Chairman Marlow explained the hearing process and swore them in. The Olson's property is located on Marrowstone Island. Mr. Olson stated that the sales used by the Assessor's office in valuing their property are not comparable. No improvements have been made to the property since they put a road in about 15 years ago, There is no well or septic system. In spite of this, his property value has increased by 42%, He presented sales of property which he feels are more comparable than those used by the Assessor's office. In order to develop their property they would be required to get a geotech report due to extreme slopes, a survey, permits, etc. The Olson's understand the property value has increased. However, they feel a 42% increase in value is too much. Inflation was only 2-4% over the last three years, Mr. Kingsley stated that increases in property values are not based on inflation, They are based on market sales, The Assessor's office tried to reflect market value for 1995. He presented comparable sales located near the appellant's property. Property with weBs are more valuable than those without. Discussion ensued regarding the comparable properties. Mr, Olson presented the Board with a topography map for their records. 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. BOARD OF EQUALIZATION MINUTES - OCTOBER 24,1995 Page 6 O.c. & Jane Pingrey 1255114th NE Seattle, WA 98125 BOE: 95-45-LO PN: 969000019 Mr. and Mrs. Pingrey were not present. Dennis Pownall represented the Assessor's office and was sworn in by Chairman Marlow. The appellant's property is located in Port Ludlow. The appellant's petition form states they believe the assessed valuation is not fair market value because "This is a cabin and would need a great amount of money to be full time living. " Mr. Pownall stated he is unclear as to what the appellant is appealing. The value on their petition only lists the land, however, they mention a cabin in their comments. The appellants own half a lot and it was valued based on 50% of the value of a single lot. In reviewing the figures, an error was found in the appellants favor. The value should have actually been higher. The front foot rate of$I,700 was based on comparable sales which were presented to the Board for review, Another sale took place after the rolls closed for 1995 which indicated a market value of$1,865 front foot value. At the close of the hearing the Board concurred to conduct an inspection of the property and make a determination at a later date. Clara Mulholland 6208 Faust Avenue Lakewood, CA 90713 BOE: 95-38-R PN: 990400103 Ms. Mulholland was not present. Dennis Pownall represented the Assessor's office and was sworn in by Chairman Marlow. The appellant's property is located in Port Ludlow. Mr. Pownall stated that from the petition it appears as though the appellant is appealing both the land and improvement values, but she did not list any specific reasons as to why she feels the property value is not fair market value. The appellant provided very little information, making it difficult for the Assessor's office to address her concerns, Mr. Pownall then presented comparable sales in the area. At the close of the hearing the Board concurred to conduct an inspection of the property and make a determination at a later date, Meeting adjourned, Attest: , ?Zc>C '/{_ ;4c/?C{~Au( inn K Lundgren, Clerk of the lfoard JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF EQUALIZATION t~ ,Marl w, Chair ...--/'