Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM110895 r/I~ 'c; .",,>'. '/.' ~r ~., ~ '_:\ _ _(,,z- : ..' ,', i---::f $ tid,,:'''' --'>--"-,,~,\__~I>,"> /",,-~ " ~" ,,?~, ", ['.' , X.,"-' ~/:r -::' L-" .'~: :-,:\::~ ,f~",':.4"':,,':',','\<),, ~ ' ',' " "'-::,,',.' , :"':";!'!~""" ";tTll! ~,/'/J/' .rc'.(, "', ,,;"l.,"!','-'~"'.."''''~;,''' ,:.":",,,.!I!'.',I I';, ~.." ""." , ",I.'. b, ,,' . .. _;'0' ",- C". ' '11',1 '::-:;-I.-\t- .I~l ;~r ,.y :-""- -i.'~/- "'I ~'~"r'~:"c. '. ' lll, ,,~:..c '\" A- ~r;"> :~~~, l~, -- \ !~...... {,-,,-~'j":"-' ,,0::>__",- _>,~~.r1t.",I_.(~ ~.- ",=~,:,~~:,,:':""':;: Jefferson County Board of Equalization TELEPHONE: 385.9100 COURTHOUSE P.O. BOX 1220 PORT TOWNSEND, WASHINGTON 98368 JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF EQUALlZA nON MINUTES NOVEMBER 8, 1995 William S. Marlow Richard A. Broders James A. DeLeo Chairman Vice_Chairman Member Chairman William S. Marlow called the meeting to order at 9:35 a.m. in the presence of Vice- Chairman Richard A. Broders and Member James A. DeLeo. Member DeLeO was not present for the hearings held in the afternoon. HEARINGS BOE: 95-73-R PN: 935900013 Larry & Sandy Cooney 63 Robin Lane Port Ludlow, WA 98365 Mr. and Mrs, Cooney were not present. Assessor Jack Westerman represented the Assessor's office and was sworn in by Chairman Marlow, The appellant's property is located in Bridgehaven in Port Ludlow, The appellant's petition states that "1 purchased lot 13 at above market price. Lot 13 is less valuable than lots 18, 19 and 28, which are at or toward end of cui de sac (more sunny and quiet). Site improvements for ours were only $2,700, Modular construction does not appreciate like stick built homes (i,e, lot 28), Ours was of average condition." The current assessment is $104,325 ($30,000 for the land and $74,325 for the improvements). The appellants are requesting their property value be reduced to $98,000 ($26,000 for the land and $72,000 for the improvements), Mr, Westerman presented the Board with a color coded map which outlined comparable sales in that area, The appellant's property sold in December of 1992 for $24,500, The current land assessment for 1995 is only $24,000 plus $6,000 for site improvements, He explained how the lots in this area were valued and stated that he sent the appellants copies of all the information that was used in assessing their property, At the close of the hearing the Board concurred to conduct an inspection of the property and make a determination at a later date. .. ..: 100%1 Recycled Paper Page 2 BOARD OF EQUALIZA TlON MINUTES - NOVEMBER 8, 1995 PN: 934500010 BOE: 95-123-R Larry Matson 200 Blue Jay Lane port Ludlow, W A 98365 M<. M_ _ p'_. _= ,,,k W""- w" p,,,,,,, 0' b,h.' of'" A""'"'' ""'00. Ch"- M"low ""I.wd ", h""''''' pm= "d ",,0" """ in. Th, P''''''''' 000" ..p"" ;, I",",", i, Brid"ba"" in Port Ludlow M<. M.'o' .,,,d '" l""h"" ,hi. p=' which consists of twO lots, to used as the site for a septic system which would allow the d~lopm'" ofth' ,di""" 10' whi,h h, bad po"h",d ,,,Ii,, H' boil' , ,,,,,, "" 100 P""" 0""" ro' , ""i, ,,,I,," E~' "oogb ", ,"'''' 101' '" ,~'d'" " twO ",,,,,, p""I, ",," "" 00"""" whi,h ,.." ,ba' ", p""" "" w". b, "Id wp""",. Th' ""reo' ",,- i, $25,400 (,,",000 '001'" """ '"' $1,400 rodh' imp"","","'"). M' """" "",d ,ba1 ", ",,,g' 0'" 00" $4,200 to 1m" in 1990 "d i1 i, pmf'" '"' do" ,01 ba~ woW m po_. H' i, ",in\! th' Bmud to "do" ""' p"",rty ",Ioe '" $11,75 0 ($8,000 foo th, """ ,00 $3,750 fm th, improvements). Mr. Westerman presented comparable property sales in the area and explained that since the tWO 10" "" "d. ow p",,1 "mb. ,boy wo' ","000 " ow p='. 1" """d , bw' I"d ","0' of $22,500 '"' ""o"d i1 b, 60% doe '" ",Ii' pmbl,,"' Comp,,,bl'","" of ,",_boild,b< 101' in the area indicate that $9,000 per lot is a fair valuation. As for the value of the garage, it was valued using an average rate, Mr. Matson stated that the lots in the area which sold for over $5,000 already have water hookups and septic systems which are connected to a community drain field created by a neighboring developer. After hearing the testimony of both parties the Board concurred to conduct an inspection of the property and make a determination at a later date. BOE: 95-146-R PN: 934 200 008 Julianne Foster 470 North Beach Drive Port Ludlow, WA 98365 Ms. Foster was not present. Assessor Jack Westerman represented the Assessor's office and was sworn in by Chairman Marlow, The appellant's property is located in Bridgehaven in Port Ludlow, Ms Foster stated in her petition that she would not be able to sell her property for the assessed valuation, A beach cabin was built on the property and is 20 years old. She attached a letter to her petition describing the problems with the property, For the reasons stated therein, she feels the property value should be reduced from its current assessment of$I77,895 ($91,000 for the land and $86,895 for the improvements) to $149,505 ($80,000 for the land and $69,505 for the improvements), Mr. Westerman stated that market value for bare land in that area is $85,000. The appellant's property is assessed a base land value of$85,000 plus $6,000 for the site improvements. He p.-m,d oil th, ","" of ,",""'mol 10" i, Brid"ba- whi,h h"'" ","n'" "" th, p'"' ''''' years, He pointed out that the Board should pay particular attention to comparable #2 when conducting their property inspection. Of all the sales, it is the most comparable to the appellant'S property. BOARD OF EQUALIZATION MINUTES - NOVEMBER 8,1995 Page 3 Thomas & Laurie Harney 200 Eagleview Lane Port Ludlow, W A 98365 BOE: 95-159-R PN: 935 400 023 Mr. Harney was present. Assessor Jack Westerman 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, Harney stated they purchased the property in October 1994 for $185,000. When they moved into the house they found an appraisal that the previous owner paid to have done in July of 1994 which listed the property value at $143,000. He feels that they paid too much for the property and that the assessment should not be based on the purchase price. The house could certainly be built for less than what they paid. Additionally, there is the possibility of the view being blocked by future development. The current assessment is $179,030 ($41,000 for the land and $138,030 for the improvements). The appellants are requesting the value be reduced to $143,000 (A breakdown between land and improvements was not submitted), Mr. Westerman stated that the purchase date listed on the petition submitted by the appellant states October of 1995, when in actuality it should state October of 1994. The correction was noted. Mr. Westennan continued by stating that typically the sale of property is the best indicator of its value. There are not any other houses which are comparable to the appellant's house. He stated that he talked with the fee appraiser who did the appraisal found by the appellant. The fee appraiser stated that when the appraisal was done the trees had not been cut down in front of the house and they still blocked the view Based on the sale of this property he feels it is valued correctly. Mr. Harney stated that in looking at the photograph attached to the Assessor's 1990 assessment worksheet it is obvious that the trees had been cut and were not there in 1990, Therefore, the statement made by the fee appraiser is false. Mr, Westerman stated that the fee appraisal was done in 1994. The addendum to the appraisal states that there are trees that hamper the view. Since a copy of the appraisal was not provided to the Assessor's office or the Board prior to the hearing, Mr. Westerman objected to its submission at this time. 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 Otto 504 Milton Way St. Helens, OR 97051 BOE: 95-141-LO PN: 934500006 Mr. Otto was not present. Assessor Jack Westerman represented the Assessor's office and was sworn in by Chairman Marlow, The appellant's property is located in Bridgehaven in Port Ludlow. The appellant's petition states "1 believe the lot to be unbuildable, I see no reason the lot should appreciate 225% in one year." The current assessment of the property is $22,500, The appellant is requesting the assessment be reduced to $10,000. BOARD OF EQUALIZA nON MINUTES - NOVEMBER 8, 1995 Page 4 Mr. Westerman stated that he sent the appellant a copy of all the information used in assessing the property, The purchase of the property was not an "anns length transaction", since the appellant purchased it from his mother in 1993 for $1.00. No documented evidence has been submitted that proves the lot is unbuildable, If the appellant can provide the necessary documented evidence, the Assessor's office will reduce the value by 60%. Mr. Westerman 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. Anne Savage 271 Old Oak Bay Road Port Hadlock, W A 98339 BOE: 95-148-R " PN: 921182019 921 182 011 Ms. Savage 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 off of Old Oak Bay Road in Port Hadlock. There was some confusion as to why the property has two parcel numbers. Mr. Kingsley eXplained that the appellant's property is in the senior citizen exemption program and therefore is assigned two separate parcel numbers even though it is not legally separated, He will explain the program in more detail during his testimony, Ms, Savage stated that she feels the new assessment is ridiculous, All of her land including the driveway is wet year round because ditches drain directly onto her property. The drainage has caused severe erosion of her property and is uprooting a tree in her yard. It is also causing the land to slide under her house which in turn has caused her house to move closer to the bank. The house is now just 5 feet from the bank. She believes that all this erosion was caused by adjacent property owners that have cleared their property and not left any buffer of trees. Swamp grass is growing all over the place, Her garden has been completely polluted and poisoned making it impossible to grow crops offood, Ms, Savage then presented photos of the house as it sits on the land. The movement of the house, due to the erosion, has made the floor and roof concave, and caused severe cracks in the foundation and chimney. A neighbor built a fence 12 feet high that blocks the view she once had. The deck attached to her house is now dry rot. The floor of the house is just a subfloor with throw rugs laid down. There is no insulation in the ceiling, so in the winter the heat goes right through it. Additional stove piping had to be added due to the moving of the house, The house and one acre is assessed at $65,100 ($51,000 for the land and $14,100 for the improvements), The remaining property is assessed at $45,000. The appellant is requesting the Board reduce the value to $15,000 total, for both parcel numbers. Mr. Kingsley explained that under the senior citizen exemption program a taxpayer receives an exemption for only a house and one acre, based on their income and the value of the property. If more than one acre ofland is owned, the remainder is valued separately, For tracking purposes the house and one acre is assigned a parcel number and any remaining property is assigned a separate parcel number, During his assessment of the house he made an adjustment of(-35%) for economic obsolescence in order to take into account the problems that are inherent with the property as the appellant pointed out in her testimony. The house was not assessed as having floor coverings. The land value of both parcel numbers was given a 20% reduction due to wet topography and drainage problems, For exemption purposes, the total value of the property was split 50/50 between the two parcel numbers, Meaning half of the total value was applied to the BOARD OF EQUALIZA nON MINUTES - NOVEMBER 8, 1995 Page 5 house and one acre and half of the total value was applied to the remaining property. The appellant receives the exemption on the value applied to house and one acre. Mr. Kingsley recommends placing more value on the house and one acre so the appellant can receive more of an exemption. This would also result in a reduction in value for the remaining property which is not exempt. He feels that 80% of the total value should be applied to the house and one acre and 20% should be applied to the remaining property. Ms. Savage stated that there has been no remodeling of her house. Mr. Kingsley stated he is aware ofthat. Chairman Marlow asked if there was a septic system on the property and ifit has ever failed? Ms. Savage stated there has been a septic system on the property for years and she has never had a problem with it. Mr. Kingsley stated that if the appellant is correct in stating that the house is only 4 or 5 feet from the bank, then there could be a serious problem. He has visited this property several times and during his last inspection the house was not that close to the bank. Ms, Savage then presented photographs for the Board to review, After hearing the testimony of both parties the Board concurred to conduct an inspection ofthe property and make a determination at a later date. Bruce Meyer 12225 76th Avenue S. Seattle, W A 98178 BOE: 95-120-R PN: 935700023 Mr. Meyer was not present. Assessor Jack Westerman represented the Assessor's office and was sworn in by Chairman Marlow, The property is located in Bridgehaven in Port Ludlow. The appellant stated in his petition that "At a cost of approximately $50 per square foot, value would be $60,000. Housing values have only increased by 4,6% since 1990, This is a 1 bedroom, 1 3/4 bath, wood frame house with no garage or out buildings. There have been no changes in this property for over 3 years to justifY this substantial increase in value," He attached a letter to his petition stating further reasons why he feels his property is valued too high and sent a second letter, prior to the hearing, describing the view and square footage of the house. The current assessment is $178,515 ($68,500 for the land and $ I 10,015 for the improvements), The appellant is requesting the value be reduced to $102,230 ($42,230 for the land and $60,000 for the improvements), Mr, Westerman stated he sent the appellant a copy of all the information used to assess the property. The second letter was sent to the Board by the appellant as a result of the telephone conversation Mr. Westerman had with the appellant. Four years ago the house was valued as a one story house with an unfinished second floor. During the evaluation this year, the owner was not home so he was unable to go inside or talk with the owner, however, it appeared, from the outside, as though the house was finished, The appellant stated in his letter that the measurements on the assessor's worksheet are not accurate. Mr. Westerman stated that the measurements are difficult to determine from an exterior appraisal. Without being able to go into the house the measurements were determined as best as they could be. Comparable sales were BOARD OF EQUALIZATION MINUTES - NOVEMBER 8,1995 Page 6 then presented for the Board to review. Mr. Westerman presented two options for the Board to consider, in the event they decide to make a reduction, Option 1 changes the second floor measurements to 626 square feet, does not value the loft and values the house at 95% complete rather than 100%. Option 2 stipulates to the appellant's measurements of the second floor and loft and values the house at 95% complete rather than 100%. At the close of the hearing the Board concurred to conduct an inspection of the property and make a determination at a later date. Norman & Frances Warner 1982 Oak Bay Road Port Hadlock, W A 98339 BOE: 95-176-R PN: 921073005 Mr. and Mrs, Warner were present. Assessor Jack Westerman was present on behalf of the Assessor's office. Chairman Marlow eXplained the hearing process and swore them in. The property is located off of Oak Bay road in Port Hadlock. Mr. Warner stated that when he received his valuation notice he became concerned with the increase in value of his property since they had a bank appraisal done approximately one year ago that indicated a much lower valuation. The current assessment is $230,335 ($71,825 for the land and $158,510 for the improvements). The bank appraisal lists a valuation of$165,000, As a result of the two different valuations, Mr, Warner began to do a basic analysis of the two positions. When the bank appraised the property they stated that it was unique and would require a unique buyer if it was ever to be sold, The property consists of twelve acres and Mr. Warner believes that they are unable to subdivide it because they had to place covenants and restrictions on the property due to the condition of the well, Therefore, portions of it cannot be sold separately and a potential buyer would have to purchase the whole parceL Currently there are two mobile homes on the property. They live in one and the other is a temporary residence for Mr. Warner's father, for whom they are caretakers. The temporary residence can only remain on the property for as long as they are taking care of Mr. Warner's father. The property does not have a marine view and there are no County services such as water and sewer. Most of the property that has sold in the area has been purchased by developers who pay more than market value for land and then charge more for the homes they build. He went to a Realtor to get copies of comparable sales which are attached to the petition. Based on this information the appellants are requesting a reduction in value to $165,000. Mr. Westerman stated that the property was not valued as having a marine view. It was assessed for having a fair territorial view, On page two of the bank appraisal it indicates a value using the cost approach of$244,881. Using the market approach they reached a value of$165,000, These appraised values do not include any value for the second mobile home, On page four of the addendums to the appraisal it states that the subject is a good example of the appraisal problem of supportable value versus probable or possible value. The value assigned to the subject property is the most reasonable value supported by the data currently available as of March 1994. It is acknowledged that, exposed on the open market, the property might very well sell for more than the value justified by the current data pooL Mr. Westerman believes that the appraiser was trying to correlate the $244,881 cost approach value with the $165,000 market approach. The FIRREA addendum shows the sales history of the subject property. The site was purchased in February of 1989 for $38,500, The first mobile was installed in November of 1993 and cost $118,000 plus $20,000 for the foundation, $25,000 for the garage, $8,000 for clearing, $20,000 for well, septic and power, $1,200 for the driveway, and $1,500 for water holding tanks. The costs alone equal BOARD OF EQUALIZATION MINUTES - NOVEMBER 8,1995 Page 7 $232,200 and do not include the costs of the second mobile home, The Assessor's 1995 assessment includes the value of the second mobile home and is only $230,335. Sales of mobile homes in the area were presented, Even though they are not really comparable to the appellant's property, they were presented in order to show that sales have occurred. Mr. Westerman added that he has never seen a taxpayer put more money into their property than they are willing to sell it for. Mr. Warner agrees that he would not sell his property for $165,000. The point he is trying to make is that even though the financial institution may have used an appraiser from outside the area, the individual was a qualified appraiser. What the appraiser saw as a problem was that there were no comparable sales, As far as the bank and the Warner's are concerned, they put too much money into the property, The Assessor's valuation should be based on market value not the amount of money that was put into it. Mr. Westerman reminded the Board that the bank appraisal did not include the value of the second mobile home, Mr. Warner stated the reason for that is the Bank was looking as possibly financing the property and did not consider the temporary mobile home as part of the permanent fixtures. Mr. Westerman agreed and stated that it still has to be valued and taxed by the Assessor's office. Vice-Chairman Broders asked if the appellants entered into a special agreement with the County for a hardship exemption to get the second temporary residence. and if it is strictly for a relative or could it be rented to anyone? Mr. Warner answered that the covenants and restrictions state that the property cannot be sold without a complete reevaluation of the covenants against the property. It also states that the property cannot be used as a rental. It is strictly there for family use. Mr. Westerman stated that he believes the reason for the covenants is to allow the Warner's to have two residences with only one well, without having to go through the process of getting a community well system. The fact that there are covenants and restrictions on the property does not mean that the property could not be subdivided as Mr, Warner stated earlier in his testimony. After hearing the testimony of both parties the Board concurred to conduct an inspection ofthe property and make a determination at a later date, Taschia Dunlap 464 Cleveland Port Hadlock, W A 98339 BOE: 95-173-R PN: 921 063 014 Ms. Dunlap was present. Robert Kingsley was present on behalf of the Assessor's office, Chairman Marlow explained the hearing process and swore them in. The property under appeal is located in Port Hadlock. Ms, Dunlap stated that she understands that when services are needed the taxes are raised, however, she feels that the method used in valuing property is unfair. She feels that increases in valuation should be based on the cost ofliving increase. Valuation increases do not take into consideration the income of individuals, It is especially difficult for elderly people who are retired but still work by volunteering for the community. The work they do should be recognized by increasing property values based on cost ofliving increases. The method currently used is simply not fair. The current assessment is $317,170 ($223,580 for the BOARD OF EQUALIZATION MINUTES - NOVEMBER 8,1995 Page 8 land and $93,590 for the improvements). The appellant is requesting the value be reduced to $232,100 ($156,610 for the land and $75,490 for the improvements). Mr. Kingsley stated he is not sure how to respond, since the appellant is questioning the market value methodology. He agrees that the tax system needs to be reformed, but unfortunately he is directed to operate under the existing State law which states that property must be assessed at 100% of fair market value, He gave Ms. Dunlap a general statement explaining how property is valued. Ms. Dunlap stated that she feels the current method of assessing property is very arbitrary. Increases in value should be based on something standard. Chairman Marlow stated that the Board understands her concern, however, the purpose of the Board of Equalization is to insure that property throughout the County is valued fairly and equitably, The Board does not have any jurisdiction over the laws governing the methodology used for assessing property. The State Legislature makes the laws and would be the appropriate forum to address these concerns, 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 & Sharon Hall P.O. Box 722 Port Hadlock, W A 98339 BOE: 95-158-R PN: 921 063012 Mr. and Mrs. Hall were present. Robert Kingsley was present on behalf of the Assessor's office. Chairman Marlow explained the hearing process and swore them in, The property is located in Port Hadlock. Mr. Hall stated their house was completed in October of 1992. At that time it was assessed as new construction and valued at what it cost to build, which the appellants felt was fair, The current assessment is $368,350 ($136,820 for the land and $231,530 for the improvements). The appellants feel that fair market value is still the amount of the building costs. The property value increased by 18% in just three years, He stated the sales in the area have no bearing on the value of their property because their property is not for sale, It would be different if they were trying to sell their property because then they would have a chance to influence the market. They cannot influence the market if they are not in the market. Mrs. Hall added that their salaries have not gone up 18% to allow them to pay for the taxes, Such high increases are not fair and will force individuals out of their homes. This is going to have an economical impact on Jefferson County, Mr. Hall stated that the assessment methods used by the Assessor's office seem arbitrary. The appellants are requesting the value be reduced to $312,675 ($110,640 for the land and $202,035 for the improvements), Mr, Kingsley explained that State law requires the Assessor's office to assess all property at 100% of fair market value, Chairman Marlow explained that the purpose of the Board of Equalization is to insure that property throughout the County is valued fairly and equitably. The Board does not have any jurisdiction over the laws governing the tax structure, The State Legislature makes the laws and would be the appropriate forum to address these concerns.