Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM092596 Jefferson County Board of Equalization TELEPHONE: 385.9100 COURTHOUSE P.O. BOX 1220 PORT TOWNSEND, WASHINGTON 98368 " ,'" ,,~. r'/ . ~ "S. ' /. ~,;:(" I. .,,'>:'~- ~ l-~,~sj~8'"'"-t,--"~:_, "' ~, 1-#3"',1 "..-. -_', "f ,r;7"~""",, ,c/f.y.c " ;",' J4/A~- &;,J~ ?-;W?~. I~ ~- .,_ ' i,._ ,,-:1 l'";,:~',m;~~,::,,J, Nllt;:,' ,.,'j, . ,. ~"~, . .../7.".,. .j':' .~ ,<.~SW',<"...),/ ~r,' 'L'"~, J' ." 'ii lie, '--,_ ~'r'--_ ,{~<,: _;!.~-, -' ,,~:,:rW{1 r",.".l"""",....J,<, f~'" *~',' 'i,'fI., ','.,.''-I'.,r. ..,.t~.-'t""",~",- "',':" ,I ~.,,;,.','l' '~,", 'Ill . " . .~;,;,; \'{ . '.;.~',,, :.,,' ,', ; ~ i;;.' ',', '~', '~'?'< ~,I~1li.ii<~! :2.1', j;~"';'i. ~2JjJ~~~7:~~.e-;::~~_-:-:.-~_-==/~!io--- _ JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF EQUALIZATION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 25, 1996 William S. Marlow Richard A. Broden 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 August 12, 13, and 14, and September 6, 1996. Member DeLeo seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. HEARING WAIVERS/ASSESSMENT CORRECTIONS Chairman Marlow read the assessment corrections received from the following appellants into the record. APPELLANT Carolyn Maronder Antony & Kristen Reid Michael Kuhn Drexel & Kristen Agner Steven & Natalie Ballou APPEAL NO. BOE 96-21-R BOE 96-37-R BOE 96-39-R BOE 96-42-R BOE 96-48-R PARCEL NO. 969 400 008 939601 445 965 000 094 938400538 938400511 The Board accepted the assessment corrections agreed to by both the Assessor's office and the appellant. n \oJ 100% Recycled Paper BOARD OF EQUALIZATION MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 25, 1996 Page 2 HEARINGS William C. Robinson 4802 Slayden Road NE Tacoma, W A 98422 BOE: 96-49-R PN: 901193007 William Robinson was not present. Robert Shold represented the Assessor's office and was sworn in by Chairman Marlow. The property under appeal is located off of Highway 20 in the Eaglemount area, Port Townsend. The appellant wrote on his petition that "Private appraisals prepared for seWpurchase reasons takes into account the motives of the seller/buyer and is usually greater than fair market value if the property was sold under pressure to satisfy encumbrances." An estimate of value was not provided. Mr. Shold stated that the appellant did not provide the additional information as noted on the petition, making it difficult to address his concerns. The property value was based on its sale price. There is no substantiating evidence to warrant a reduction in value. After reviewing all the information provided and hearing the testimony ofMr. Shold, the Board concurred to conduct an inspection of the property and make a determination at a later date. Paul & Carol Holt 6062 Highway 20 #52 Port Townsend, W A 98368 BOE: 96-35-R PN: 3037079 Paul and Carol Holt were not present. Dennis Pownall represented the Assessor's office and was sworn in by Chairman Marlow. The property under appeal is a mobile home located in Olympic Mobile Village. The appellants stated on their petition that "Since this home is a mobile home, I feel it should be assessed at the fair market for a mobile home. The Assessor did not do any comparative assessments on mobile homes moved out of the park. This cost alone is 1,500 to 3,000 dollars. You are assuming that this mobile will be sold in this park. Mobile homes depreciate they do not appreciate." They are requesting that the Board reduce the current assessment from $20,680 to $12,000. Mr. Pownall advised the Board that the appellant's petition incorrectly shows the purchase price of the property as $10,700 in 1991. According to records in the Assessor's office, there was an assumable contract for the purchase of the property for $15,885 in 1989. He added that the appellants are only partially correct in stating that mobile homes depreciate not appreciate. Mobile homes in storage depreciate, however, time and time again sales have shown that mobile appreciate if they are located on property and set up with utilities. He presented comparable sales which he believes back up his testimony and support the valuation of the property. After reviewing all the information submitted and hearing the testimony of Mr. Pownall, the Board concurred to conduct an inspection of the property and make a determination at a later date. BOARD OF EQUALIZATION MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 25, 1996 Page 3 Michael & Ona Lea Bromley 1030 E. Manhatton Drive Tempe, AZ 85282-5564 BOE: 96-38-LO PN: 953 101 701 Chairman Marlow excused himself from hearing or making any determination regarding this appeal, due to a conflict of interest. Michael & Ona Lea Bromley were not present. Robert Kingsley represented the Assessor's office and was sworn in by Vice-Chairman Broders. The property under appeal is located off of Stevens Avenue, Port Townsend. Mr. Kingsley read the appellant's reason for appealing their property value as written on the petition. It states: "Since there are no records of comparable properties being sold in the area, there cannot be a basis for an increase related to market value. This property is vacant and unimproved; it's market value cannot be compared to market values of improved properties, complete with buildings and utilities. This is the 2nd large assessment increase in as many years. There needs to be a basis for assessments levied. I do not see a basis. The assessed valuation of this property will have doubled with this valuation. All in last 5 years. Assessed valuation in 1991 was $6,000; 1994 it was $10,000 (67% increase) and now another 20%?" They are requesting a reduction in the assessed value from $12,000 to $10,000. Mr. Kingsley presented the comparable sales used to value the property. Based on these sales, he believes the property is correctly valued. Vice-Chairman Broders and Member DeLeo will conduct an inspection of the property and make a determination at a later date. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERA TIONIHEARING James & Gloria Ramey 2010 Rosewood Port Townsend, W A 98368 BOE: 96-12-LO 96-13-C PN: 001343022 957 606 901 James Ramey was present. Jeff Chapman represented the Assessor's office. Chairman Marlow explained the hearing process and swore them in. Mr. Ramey began by presenting testimony on parcel number 957606901, the property located at 2140 Sims Way, Port Townsend (penny Saver Deli Mart). In 1995, Mr. Ramey hired AGI. Technologies to drill six wells on the property to test for contaminated soil and water. The underground water level is approximately 60 inches. According to the assessment results from AG.I. there is "free product" underground. He eXplained that "free product" is the petroleum product which actually floats on top of the water underground. Of the six wells drilled only one produced "free product". 190 gallons of "free product" was pumped out of that well. After this was done, "free product" was found in two of the other wells. It is unknown how much "free product" or contamination is underground, making it impossible to know how much it will cost to clean it up. He has been unable to get a quote for the cost to cure the problem, but has been told it could range in cost from $80,000 to $600,000. Mr. Ramey says that one of the reasons they have been unable to get a quote to clean up the contamination is the history of this property. Years ago in the 1920's and 1930's there was BOARD OF EQUALIZATION MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 25, 1996 Page 4 a bulk plant located on this same property. Later it was turned into a service station. He was told by a long time County resident, who worked at the service station when it was owned by Chevron, that they used to dump approximately 50 gallons of oil on the property each week. The "free product" being pumped out of the wells is not only gas. There is oil mixed in with it. Mr. Ramey stated that they are going to continue to pump out the "free product" because that is the least expensive way to get it out. Getting the "free product" out is a start, however, that doesn't cleanse the soil. Chairman Marlow asked how the soil can be cleaned if there is water at five feet? Typically, in situations such as this, the soil is dry. Mr. Ramey replied that according to environmental State law, it is not a requirement to clean up anything under the water level. This does not make sense, Mr. Ramey continued, because then the contamination in the soil will just percolate back into the water. This problem may take years to monitor and clean up at an unknown, but definitely substantial expense. It is for this reason that Mr. Ramey feels his property value is too high. He does not believe that he could sell his property for the assessed valuation and is requesting the Board reduce the property value from $390,200 ($224,000 for the land and $166,200 for the improvements) to $210,000 ($44,000 for the land and $166,000 for the improvements). Mr. Chapman stated that the property is currently valued at 100% of fair market value. In other words, as if a buyer would not have to deal with the issues brought up by Mr. Ramey. He agrees that the current assessment is too high, due to the problems with the property. However, without knowing the cost to cure the problem it is difficult to determine the actual value of the property. Mr. Chapman asked if the State Department of Ecology is requiring Mr. Ramey to clean up the contamination? Mr. Ramey replied that the State Department of Ecology has not required anything at this point, however, A.G.!. is required by law to send a copy of the assessment report to the Department of Ecology. He stated that contaminated soil is not as big a concern to the Department of Ecology as is "free product". This is because "free product" will stray, where contaminated soil stays in one place. Mr. Ramey added that a bank or lending institution would not finance an individual to purchase the property because of the liability. Mr. Chapman stated that since this hearing is actually a reopening of the 1993 hearing or Motion for Reconsideration, if the Board decides to lower the valuation, it needs to be clear whether the Board is just lowering the 1996 value or lowering the three prior years as well. Chairman Marlow stated they will research the issue and advise accordingly. Mr. Ramey stated that these problems with the property surfaced when they were considering getting back into the gas business and were looking into reinstalling gas pumps on the property. He believes that the problem would have had to of been addressed eventually. As it happened, it was just sooner than later. Mr. Ramey hopes to have the "free product" cleaned up before the Department of Ecology gets around to evaluating the property. After hearing the testimony of both parties regarding this appeal, the Board concurred to review all the information submitted and make a determination at a later date. BOARD OF EQUALIZATION MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 25, 1996 Page 5 The other parcel under appeal is located between Rhody Drive-Airport Cutoff Road and Four Corners Road. Mr. Ramey stated that when he purchased the property it was his understanding that the parcel could potentially become commercial property. He was in the process of redesignating the property when the Growth Management Act was passed and his work came to a halt. The property will not be zoned as commercial in the near future, although at some point it will have to be. This property is not good for any other use than commercial, because of the configuration and location. He is requesting the Board reduce the current assessment from $56,835 to $35,000. Mr. Chapman stated that at the time Mr. Ramey purchased the property it was not zoned commercial. The property has never been zoned commercial. Mr. Chapman asked if at the time of the purchase, Mr. Ramey was encouraged by the Planning Department that he could get a conditional use permit? Mr. Ramey answered no, it was his understanding that the property would be rezoned as commercial. Based on that information, he paid $60,000 for the property. Mr. Ramey admits that he paid too much for the property as it is currently zoned. Mr. Chapman discussed the past sales of this particular parcel. He stated that this parcel was valued based on past sales and Mr. Ramey's purchase price of $60,000 in 1994. He agrees that this parcel is overvalued based on the current zoning and recommends the Board reduce the property value to $35,000 as proposed by Mr. Ramey. After hearing the testimony of both parties, the Board concurred to make a determination at a later date. (See also minutes of August 12, 1996 and September 26, 1996) Larry Cohn 9833 46th Ave. NE Olympia, W A 98516 BOE: 96-51-LO PN: 002331034 Larry Cohn was not present. Robert Kingsley represented the Assessor's office and was sworn in by Chairman Marlow. The property under appeal is located at 1475 Gardiner Beach Road, Gardiner. The appellant explained his reasons for appealing his property value in a letter attached to his petition. It states: "The comparisons used to determine the value of my property, all have a panoramic view of Discovery Bay. My view is small compared to the adjoining properties. A five acre tract directly across Gardiner Beach road was listed in the $52,000 area, and sold presumably for that price. With that comparison my lot would be worth $26,000. The sold five acre lot also has a panoramic view of Discovery Bay. I feel the land value of my property should have a base of$29,000 and add $3,000 for water and septic. Power is available, but is 350 feet from my property, which would cost me around $4,000 to put in. (puget Power charges $10.50 per foot and I would have to dig the ditches and cover it.) Therefore I feel my property value should be reduced to $28,000. $29,000 + $3,000 - $4,000 = $28,000." The current assessment is $38,000. Mr. Kingsley stated that the views are comparable and that the five acre lot which the appellant refers to in his letter, is actually an 11 acre parcel which is being divided and is pending sale. He presented photographs of the view from the appellant's property and of views from the comparable properties used in the assessment. Discussion ensued regarding comparable BOARD OF EQUALIZATION MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 25, 1996 Page 6 properties. After reviewing the information and hearing the testimony of the Assessor's representative, the Board concurred to conduct an inspection of the property and make a determination at a later date. Timothy G. Tapping 3716 NE 130th Street Seattle, WA 98125 BOE: 96-45-LO PN: 001193007 Timothy Tapping was not present. Bob Shold represented the Assessor's office and was sworn in by Chairman Marlow. The property under appeal is located at 20 Bellevue Drive, off of Cape George Road in Port Townsend. The appellant states on his petition that "Most of the 5 acres is in a ravine and unusable, does not perk, and has no septic permit. I am filing this petition hurriedly to make the deadline and will provide additional information." The current assessment is $77,000. The appellant did not provide his estimate of value. Mr. ShoJd presented several comparable sales which he feels substantiate the current assessment. He was hoping the appellant would have provided the additional information as stated in the petition, so that he would be able to address his concerns. Many of the properties which sold also have ravines and portions of property which are unusable. After reviewing the information and hearing the testimony of the assessor's representative, the Board concurred to conduct an inspection of the property and make a determination at later date. Oskars Petersons P.O. Box 1143 Port Townsend, W A 98368 BOE: 96-46-R PN: 961 800907 Oskars Petersons was present. Robert Kingsley represented the Assessor's office. Chairman Marlow explained the hearing process and swore them in. The property under appeal is located at 400 - 7th Avenue, Port Hadlock. Mr. Petersons stated that he is enrolled in the Senior Citizen Exemption program. Under this program property owners receive an exemption for a house and one acre, based on their income and the value of the property. A law passed last year enabled the Assessor's office to freeze assessments of property belonging to individuals who are enrolled in the Senior Citizen Exemption program. Mr. Petersons stated that at the time he qualified for the exemption the assessment of his property was frozen at $52,995 ($34,995 for the land and $48,790 for the improvements). This year his property value increased to $66,790 ($18,000 for the land and $48,790 for the improvements). He is being assessed an additional $13,795 for new construction and the only change to the property was the construction of a porch connected to an existing building which only cost approximately $2,000. How can the value of the property be increased when it is supposed to be frozen at a specific amount? In reviewing the Assessor's worksheet he noticed that it states there is a view of the creek and the bay, which is not true. In BOARD OF EQUALIZA nON MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 25, 1996 Page 7 speaking with a representative of the Assessor's office he was told that the garage had been wrongly appraised as a carport. Mr. Petersons does not know how it could have been mistaken as a carport. Additionally, there have been no comparable sales in the general area. He is requesting the Board reduce the current assessment to $50,000 ($18,000 for the land and $32,000 for the improvements). Mr. Kingsley stated that assessments of property in the Senior Citizen Exemption program are frozen, however, it excludes property considered as new construction. The value of Mr. Petersons' property increased for various reasons. Apparently unknown to Mr. Petersons, when his property was revalued in 1995 it was considered new construction and was only assessed at 80% complete. During the review of new construction this year, it was noticed that Mr. Petersons property was actually complete and should have been assessed at 100% complete at the time of the revaluation in 1995. Therefore, this year the property was revalued accordingly. Since, the property was considered new construction the value could not be frozen until it was 100% complete. Now that the property is 100% complete it will be frozen at the current assessment of $66,790. Mr. Kingsley explained the other factors which contributed to the increase of the property value. During the revaluation in 1995 the garage was mistakenly valued as a carport, and a shed and the wood porch was inadvertently not included in the assessment. This was all corrected when the property (considered new construction) was revalued this year, resulting in an increase in value. The view of the creek and bay brought up by Mr. Petersons in his testimony was indeed noted on the worksheet, however an adjustment was not made for this and therefore, did not affect the value. Mr. Petersons stated that he does not feel that he should be punished for the Assessor's mistakes. Mr. Kingsley stated that it could be looked at another way. Rather than looking at it as being punished, consider it as paying less taxes than would have been paid if the property had been assessed correctly. After hearing the testimony of both parties the Board concurred to review the information further, conduct an inspection of the property and make a determination at a later date. Meeting adjourned. Attest: rt{~l ~ "1f'~l2/'- Erin K. Lundgren, Clerk of the Board JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF EQUALIZATION o ~1i~- Richard A. Broders, Vice-Chairman ~~~b~