Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM102595 Jefferson County Board of Equalization TELEPHONE: 385.9100 COURTHOUSE P.O. BOX 1220 PORT TOWNSEND, WASHINGTON 98368 i' ~/':{,,'~-;;;.---. ''':' r:J( '~-;'-' iL-~-;~s(--j'+ --'~: - ,~, t~'1 , '_'"""C_" :llr ' I~'~\ If- ."-;10#_ ,~. ',; _ _:'-P;>'?i', 'a'","',.,'.", :,.".A.:J" ,'i ,.",.,. ,I :I,':',;'Y'~,. ." I'l"" ....._~.. dfi " . . ,", ~t:llW"/ '. " "1. .;:1'1";' "h. ...... "., m: i /l,;r,,~, ~." 'iA,'" '"""",,,,,1 11.,1. ",':," .~!""..!\ r,\:-, _, ' '.",0''' ~., , ' " ~!1 ''If;. ",I :P. . "{" . ," ',Ii ,,f hr~;!i'L,' 'ell].., ,'.~ I' """,,~..-."I ,. ~ f, ~)\;,/!!-", ~_,.~~,r;;;J",,'~""'r c.!:2ff'" ,"'~" ~ ',~.:'~' _;,c>:::: JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF EQUALIZATION MINUTES OCTOBER 25, 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. HEARING WAIVERS Chairman Marlow read into the record the petition withdrawal and assessment correction notices that were received from the following petitioners: Jack R. Wyatt Robert Hymel George Lucas Gail Crawford BOE 95-55-LO BOE 95-62-LO BOE 95-89-LO BOE 95-162-R HEARINGS Louis E. Scott P.O. Box 65079 Port Ludlow, WA 98365 BOE: 95-50-R PN: 990900 on Mr. Scott was present. Representing the Assessor's office was Assessor, J ack Westerman and Appraiser, Dennis Pownall. Chairman Marlow eXplained the hearing process and swore them in. The appellant's property is located in Port Ludlow, Mr. Scott stated he knows his home is very nice but he feels the Assessor's office has made a mistake in the valuation of his property, He read to the Board a six page exhibit he had prepared which outlines all of his concerns. The assessment of the land is based on the Assessor's opinion that his lot is 50% better than any other waterfront lot in that area. Additionally, the Assessor's office added 10% for beach access which the property doesn't have. The hor6o~!Wl~Bc'Wltf<i'l4\l!lr prohibits beach access. There are stairs BOARD OF EQUALIZATION MINUTES - OCTOBER 25,1995 Page 2 going down the 70 foot bank, however, they do not go all the way to the beach. He feels the 50% figure is arbitrary and subjective and that there is no basis to support this assessed value, The only waterfront lots that have sold for over $150,000 are those with tideland rights which the appellant does not have. As another point of reference, he stated that three years ago he purchased an acre oflow bank waterfront property in Port Ludlow adjacent to the North Bay Condominiums for $250,000. He subdivided the property into three separate lots with tideland rights, and they are only assessed at $100,000 each. Mr. Scott's property under appeal is high bank waterfront property and is assessed at $814,835 ($230,000 for the land and $584,835 for the improvements). He is requesting the total value be reduced to $570,000, ($150,000 for the land and $420,000 for the improvements). Part of the Assessor's rationale for valuing his property is that it is for sale for $895,000. This is true, and he would like very much to sell it for that amount. However, an asking price does not constitute fair market value. No home in Port Ludlow has ever sold for more than $600,000, This raises the question as to how elastic the market is in Port Ludlow. A number of properties are listed for sale over $600,000, but they are not selling. Mr. Scott presented sales that occurred in his neighborhood, which he feels are more comparable to his property than those used by the Assessor's office. The sale prices range from $400,000 to $560,000, The property which sold for $560,000 consisted of two lots and had a guest house, He doesn't believe that any of those homes are as nice as his, and, according to the market in his neighborhood, there is no evidence to support a value over $500,000. Mr. Scott then reviewed the value of his property using the cost approach less depreciation. In conclusion he stated that any value over $600,000 for his property is unrealistic and cannot be supported. Mr. Westerman stated that the appellant's house is the premier house in Port Ludlow, It is also the only lot that has a reserve protection area on both sides of it, which means no development can occur on the land adjacent to his. Because of this, Mr. Scott enjoys more privacy than any other lot owner in Port Ludlow. There is only one lot comparable to Mr. Scott's, and it only has a reserve area on one side, The land value of the comparable lot has been adjusted from $140,000 up to $195,000. So there are other lot values in Port Ludlow, due to their locations, that were adjusted over the $140,000 base value, Mr. Westerman doesn't know whether or not the appellant's land is worth $230,000. That is something the Board will need to determine, The 10% increase for beach access should be removed, however, if there is no beach access, As discussed with Mr. Scott previously, this house is unique. It is the largest and from the Assessor's standpoint, the finest house in Port Ludlow, making it difficult to use a market approach in valuing the property because there is no other house comparable to it. Mr. Westerman stated that if the Board uses the cost approach in valuing the property, he will provide them with a copy of the Marshall Swift Residential Manual which contains local multipliers and is used by appraisers throughout the United States. The comparative cost multiplier uses the historic cost to calculate the replacement cost on any given date. Once the replacement cost is determined, then it can be depreciated. The historic cost alone cannot be depreciated, as Mr. Scott stated in his example. It must first be brought up to current costs. Using the cost approach, Mr. Westerman calculated that the improvement value would be $563,000 as opposed to the current assessment of$584,835. BOARD OF EQUALIZATION MINUTES - OCTOBER 25, 1995 Page 3 Mr. Westerman reported that the appraiser, Dennis Pownall, suggested adjusting the improvement value down to $537,000. Mr. Westerman believes that fair market value is somewhere between $537,000 and $563,000. The Assessor's office agrees that the asking price of $895,000 does not constitute market value and that the current assessed value may not be market value. However, he does believe that the total value ofthe property is worth more than $600,000, In closing Mr. Westerman stated that Fair market value is probably closer to $750,000. Mr, Scott replied that the Assessor's comment about there being no building adjacent to his is false. There is a small home which was built on the lot next door with only a small buffer between them for utilities. Mr, Scott feels that the neighbor's home, shed and stairs to the beach detract from his property. He added that the lot the Assessor's office believes is comparable to his is not comparable at all. In fact, he believes it is larger and superior to his, He also disagrees with the depreciation schedule used by the Assessor's office in determining the value using the cost approach method. Mr. Westerman stated that when the Board conducts their inspection of the property they will see the difference between Mr. Scott's property which has a buffer and those homes that do not. According to the market, the slight difference in lot size has not shown an incredible difference in value. Also, the depreciation schedule used is appropriate. Mr. Pownall added that Mr. Scott stated in his petition that the appraiser said the assessed value was based on the sale price. For the record he wanted to say that his comments were taken out of context, The sale price was mentioned, however, valuations are never solely based on sale prices. They are based on square footage, age, and quality as well as many other factors, Chairman Marlow asked Mr. Scott ifhe objected to the Board accepting the information from the Marshall Swift Residential Manual provided by the Assessor's office. He stated he did not object to the Board having the information but he wanted some time to review and comment in writing on it. The Board agreed, 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. James & Ruth Rutter 20 Clipper Lane Port Ludlow, WA 98365 BOE: 95-51-R PN: 990700024 Mr. and Mrs. Rutter were 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. The property is assessed at $134,550 ($26,000 for the land and $108,550 for the improvements). The appellants are requesting the value be reduced to $116,000 ($16,000 for the land and $100,000 for the improvements). Mr. Rutter stated that the Assessor's office did not consider the fact that the roof had to be replaced which cost $5,300,70 plus another $300 to have the pieces of the old roof hauled away, He stated other lots in his neighborhood are for sale for $18,000 and are comparable to his lot. He added that since they first moved there, the taxes have gone up 300%, with nothing to show for it, such as police protection, etc. BOARD OF EQUALIZA nON MINUTES - OCTOBER 25, 1995 Page 4 Mr. Pownall presented two raw land sales near the appellant's property, He explained that all the lots in the neighborhood are assessed at a base value of $20,000, Lots with site improvements such as power, water and septic are assessed an additional $6,000. After reviewing more comparable sales, Mr. Pownall stated he believes the appellant's property is valued correctly, 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. Jacobsen Land Partnership Karl Jacobsen P.O. Box 162 Port Townsend, W A 98368 BOE: 95-48-LO PN: Various Parcels Mr. Jacobsen was present. Robert Kingsley 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 Irondale, Mr. Jacobsen stated his property cannot be developed due to county regulations. Three offers to purchase the property have fallen through and he has been unable to sell it. Because of all the regulations he feels his property is less valuable now than it was 4 or 5 years ago, In addition, Mr, Jacobsen stated that the comparable sales used by the Assessor's office in valuing some of his property were lots that have not been logged. When Mr. Jacobsen purchased his property it had been logged. He believes the sales used by the Assessor's office are more valuable because of the timber on them and for this reason, are not comparable to his. Mr. Kingsley stated the appellant's property was difficult to value due to the lack of sales in the immediate area, Since the property is divided into individual lots the Assessor's office must value each of them separately. He presented comparable sales and eXplained the method used in valuing the property. 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, John & Margarett Lemieux P.O. Box 65053 Port Ludlow, W A 98365 BOE: 95-57-R PN: 969400024 Mr. and Mrs. Lemieux were 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, Lemieux said most of his concerns were stated in a letter he sent to the Board with his petition. He came up with a value by comparing his lot to the lot next door. The Lemieux's purchased their lot for $105,000 and it is currently assessed at $167,500. The lot next door was originally purchased for $165,000, it subsequently resold for $185,000 and is currently assessed at $196,000, Mr. Lemieux questioned why their lot went up $60,000 when the neighbor's lot only went up $31,000, The Lemieux's property is assessed at $438,395 ($167,500 for the land and $270,895 for the improvements). They are requesting it be reduced to $385,000 ($120,000 for the land, and $265,000 for the improvements). He stated that after receiving the original change of value notice from the Assessor's office they received a corrected change of value notice indicating a reduction in value of $1 7,000 for the improvements, BOARD OF EQUALIZA nON MINUTES - OCTOBER 25, 1995 Page 5 In light of the corrected value they are now only appealing the land value. He recognizes that the lots in their area have gone up in value, but he feels the percentage increase on their lot is much higher than all the other lots in the area. The Lemieux's do not believe that they could sell their property for the amount it is assessed at. Mr. Pownall stated the Assessor's office has spent more time working on a method of valuation that is equitable, accurate and fair, in Port Ludlow Division 1, than any other area in Port Ludlow, Every lot owner in Port Ludlow Division I received a corrected change of value notice because, initially the lots were valued strictly using sales, The Assessor's office tried to address everyone's issues and reduced all the lots by 5% for economic obsolescence. Mr. Pownall presented the Board with a map and comparable sales in the area, He stated that this property was very difficult to value and the Board will need to determine if it is fair. The appellants added that their lot is much smaller than the other lots in the area and they do not have a water view as some of the other lots do. Chairman Marlow stated that in looking at the map there seems to be quite a variation between lot sizes. He asked Mr. Pownall how the appellant's lot compares to the larger lots in the area in regard to valuation. Mr. Pownall stated an adjustment was made from $185,000 down to $157,250 for lot size and view, 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, Roland & Helga Hofmann P.O. Box 2853 Seattle, WA 98111 BOE: 95-56-LO PN: 990 600 399 Mrs. Hofinann was present. Dennis Pownall was present on behalf of the Assessor's office. Chairman Marlow explained the hearing process and swore them in, The property under appeal is a vacant lot located in Port Ludlow. Ms, Hofinann stated that after she received the change of value notice she went to see a real estate agent to veritY ifthe property could be sold for the assessed value of$25,000, The real estate agent told Ms. Hofinann she would need to inspect the lot to see the view and other determining factors of value before she could give her an answer. Mrs. Hofinann and the real estate agent drove together to view the property, After inspecting the property, the real estate agent told Ms. Hofmann that they could not sell their property for the assessed value, and that they could put it up for sale for $17,000, but they would probably have to come down to about $15,000. Mrs. Hofmann stated that they had it for sale in 1988 for $17,500 and it did not selL They put it on the market again in 1990 for $15,000 and again it did not sell. She feels that today she would not be able to sell it for the assessed value and is requesting that the value be reduced to $17,000, Additionally, the real estate agent provided Mrs. Hofinann with a printout of the sales which occurred in 1993 through 1995. The figures show that property values have severely dropped in value since 1993, Mr. Pownall presented comparable sales which have occurred in the area and stated that they indicate the assessed value of the appellant's property is correct. After reading Mrs. Hofmann's letter regarding the real estate agent's opinion, Mr. Pownall called the real estate agent who told him that she offered to sell the appellant's property for $30,000 to $33,000 and was told by the BOARD OF EQUALIZA nON MINUTES - OCTOBER 25, 1995 Page 6 Hofinann's that they would not accept that for it. The real estate agent claims she never mentioned a value of$ I 5,000 to $17,000 as Mrs. Hofmann stated, Mrs. Hofinann stated she is shocked. She never discussed selling her property with the real estate agent and the statements she made to Mr. Pownall are totally untrue, Maybe the real estate agent has confused her with someone else. Mr. Pownall presented a map charting all sales which have occurred in the area over the past few years. He stated that property values have increased, not decreased, since 1993. After further discussion the Chairman closed the hearing. The Board concurred to conduct an inspection of the property and make a determination at a later date, Thomas Madsen 811 Caroline Port Angeles, W A 98362 BOE: 95-58-LO PN: 821073004 Mr. and Mrs. Madsen were present. Bob Shold 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 Beaver Valley. Mr. Madsen stated he purchased this property in 1981 and it consists of approximately 20 acres. Only 5 acres are usable since the other 15 are swamp land. There is a little shack located on the property which has no cement foundation and looks as though it was built from scraps. He rented it out for a while, but found that renters left it in such bad shape it was not economically feasible for him to continue. It was his original intention to retire there, but now there is a pond that covers about 15 acres ofthe property making it almost impossible to install a septic system for future development. He tried to sell the property 5 years ago for $80,000 but was told by a Realtor that it was not worth that. The land value is currently assessed at 102,265. He feels the previous assessed land value of$51,875 is more in line with today's market and is requesting the Board reduce the value to that amount or even lower. Bob Shold presented comparable sales in the area. He stated that during his assessment he observed some wet areas. While he did not traverse all 20 acres, he did view it from all (North, South, East & West) sides of it. With what he saw, he valued it accordingly, 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. George & Sherrel Melchior P.O. Box 1494 Mariposa, CA 95338 BOE: 95-54-LO PN; 990603101 Mr. and Mrs. Melchior 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, Their appeal is based on the following: they have no water pressure and must pump their own water; their property comers on Swansonville Road, which is heavily traveled; their view is of the R.V. and boat storage yard; and all the other lots comparable in size are connected to Port Ludlow water and sewer and do not have these same problems. The appellants stated in their petition that BOARD OF EQUALIZATION MINUTES - OCTOBER 25,1995 Page 7 they are unable to find any North Bay, non-view lot that has ever sold for $28,500, which is the current assessed value of their land. The appellants are requesting a reduction to $18,000. Mr. Pownall presented comparable sales in the area, He already made an adjustment for the issues brought up by the appellant, so he feels they have been addressed, He believes the property is correctly valued. Discussion ensued regarding how the property was assessed. 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: JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF EQUALIZATION :0~ ~lIiaf~ ~'f arl"OW' Chran ,_' ~(! i-fB-jL~ Richard A. roaers, Vice-Chairman r~~( 'II. ~t.jz.d~e-v Erin K. Lundiren~cferk oftWBoard James A. DeLeo, Member