Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM090897 1820 Jefferson Street POBox 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 William S. Marlow, District 2 Richard A. Broders. District 3 ERSON COUNTY BOARD OF EQUALIZATION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 8, 1997 Richard A. Broders William S. Marlow James A. DeLeo Chairman Vice-Chairman Member Vice-Chairman William S. Marlow called the meeting to order at 9:30 a.m. in the presence of Member James A. DeLeo. Chairman Broders arrived after the first hearing. ASSESSMENT CORRECTION The Board concurred to accept the assessment correction for the following valuation appeal: APPELLANT Ronald Byers APPEAL NO. BOE 97-20-LO PARCEL NO. 821 353 005 HEARINGS Christopher Schnase P.O. Box 319 Port Townsend, W A 98368 BOE: 97-29-LO PN: 951901006 Appraiser Peter Schuck represented the Assessor's office and was sworn in by Vice-Chairman Marlow. Mr. Schnase arrived late and was sworn in after the hearing began. The property under appeal consists of 10 lots located off of Cook Avenue in Port Townsend. Mr. Schuck stated that the appellant purchased the property for $7,500 in 1995, however, comparable property in the area is currently selling for $2,000 per acre. Based on these sales he believes the property value is fair. Mr. Schnase stated that the true and fair market value of the property is the purchase price in 19950f$7,500. He feels $2,000 per lot is too high considering the property is undeveloped and does not have utilities such as power or water. He has no intention of developing the property which currently contains an orchard and a garden. After reviewing all the information submitted and hearing the testimony of both parties, the Board concurred to conduct a physical inspection of the property and make a determination at a later date. Phonp (.':\fiO\:1Rfi-Ql 00 f l-ROO-R.':\ 1-?fi7R ",,.,, l.':\fiO\:1Rfi-Q:1R? ;pffho"N1il<-o,;pffPTSOn,W,.,l1s BOARD OF EQUALIZATION MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 8,1997 Page 2 Joseph O'Connor 10165 NW Carolina Lane Bremerton, W A 98312 BOE: 97-45-R PN: 931 402803 Mr. 0' Connor was not present. Appraiser Robert Kingsley represented the Assessor's office and was sworn in by Chairman Broders. The property under appeal consists of two lots with a house and is located at 325 Willow Street in Port Townsend. The appellant owns a third lot, adjacent to this parcel, which is not being appealed at this time. The appellant wrote on his petition that "I own adjacent 50' x 100' lot currently appraised at $16,000 (new value). All three of these lots are the exact same size, yet appraised at different values. I feel all three are appraised too high and request that they all have the same value. Lot one has the best view, yet, is the lowest in value." He is requesting the current value of parcel number 931402803 be reduced from $77,555 ($38,000 for the land and $39,555 for the improvements) to $70,000 ($30,000 for the land and $40,000 for the improvements). Mr. Kingsley noted that the appellant stated on the petition form that he purchased the property for approximately $70,000. However, according to a Real Estate Excise Tax Affidavit the appellant actually purchased the property for $100,000. Mr. Kingsley presented the valuation worksheets which show that all of the lots owned by the appellant are valued the same ($16,000 for the land), contrary to what was written on the petition form. All three lots owned by the appellant total in valuation of $93,555, which Mr. Kingsley believes is accurate due to the purchase price. After reviewing all the information submitted and hearing the testimony of the Assessor's representative, the Board concurred to conduct a physical inspection of the property and make a determination at a later date. Albert Foster 117 East Louisa Street #251 Port Townsend, W A 98368 BOE: 97-43-R 97-44-R PN: 965 700 009 933 200 028 Mr. Foster was not present. Appraiser Robert Kingsley represented the Assessor's office and was previously sworn in by Chairman Broders. The parcels under appeal make up a 50' x 90' lot with an old 1,400 square foot house, located at 1234 Garfield Street in Port Townsend. In a letter to the Board it states "... Just after I bought this house in January 1991 for $125,000, the assessed value and the taxes on the property literally doubled. At the time I felt this was a very large single increase in property tax. Over the past year I have tried hard to sell this house, listing it for many months with ERAlJ. 1. Scott Realty and in all that time I have received only a single offer of$117,000, well below the $135,000 I have spent to purchase and improve the property. Therefore, my perspective is that the property has actually declined significantly in value since I purchased it in 1991 despite my improvements. I strongly believe this latest upward assessed valuation of the land and improvements making up my property is wrong and unfair and that if anything, my property's assessed value should be revised downward reflecting the drop in market value I have witnessed since my purchase in 1991. This property is now worth less than when it was last assessed in 1991 and valuation and taxes should, by all rights, be lowered." The appellant did not provide an estimate of value. Mr. Kingsley noted that the appellant actually purchased the property in December of 1991 rather than January of 1991. The current assessment of the two parcels total $112,300 ($1,800 for the land value of parcel number 965700009 and $110,500 [$36,100 for the land and $74,400 for the improvements] of parcel number 933200028). At the time this property was appraised he felt that the purchase price of $125,000 was too high and did not reflect market value. Mr. Kingsley also pointed out that the property is not overvalued if the appellant turned down an offer of $117,000, which is several thousand dollars over the current assessed value. BOARD OF EQUALIZATION MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 8,1997 Page 3 After reviewing all the information submitted and hearing the testimony of the Assessor's representative, the Board concurred to conduct a physical inspection of the property and make a determination at a later date. HarperlMcCarron Partnership BOE: 97-41-C 1206 Water Street Port Townsend, W A 98368 PN: 989703701 James McCarron/J.e. Rowe/ BOE: 97-42-C William K. Bloemker/Anne Richardson 1136 Water Street Port Townsend, W A 98368 PN: 989 703 802 James McCarron was present. Appraiser Bob Shold represented the Assessor's office. Chairman Broders explained the hearing process and swore them in. Parcel number 989 703 802 consists of two lots with a medical clinic located at 1136 Water Street, downtown Port Townsend. Mr. McCarron submitted and read the following written comments. "I am the managing partner of Port Townsend Medical Clinic. The Clinic leases space to doctors and other entities on a month to month basis. The building is old and expensive to heat and cool. Several remodels have been done in an attempt to make the building more attractive for patients and doctors. Its location downtown with parking limitations for patients and traffic hassles for doctors who have to rush to the hospital, make it a losing battle. As a medical clinic, its days are numbered. It is an office building broken into many small spaces and not easily adaptable to the usual downtown tourism related business. I offered it to the City for city offices but they have no interest. I asked Shirley Rudolph (who could sell ice to the Eskimos) if she could sell it for $800,000. Based on current income she felt she could not get more than $700,000 and she has not even pursued the listing. I have lived and paid taxes in Jefferson County for 22 years. This is only my second time to appeal an appraised value. I own 21 parcels in addition to the two I am appealing. Those 21 have an assessment for 1997 of$2,653,630 and command taxes of$34,359. I trust Jack Westerman and usually can accept his values, usually asking myself if] would sell a given piece of property for its appraised value. When the Assessor comes up with a value that is significantly higher than that for which I would sell it, I feel I have to appeal. 1 cannot accept the most recent Water Street property appraisals. I understand Jack's predicament. Property values have increased but there have not been significant numbers of raw land sales. Often when a property is sold the sale price may include inventory, good will, etc. It is hard to separate out the different values, $2,500 per front foot of property on the bluff side of Water Street is not fair or equitable. On commercial properties the usual rule of thumb is that the land value is approximately 20% of the total sale unless specified otherwise. The only recent land sale in the downtown area must be given significant weight in any appraisal. We are dealing with commercial buildings here and should appraise them as such. They have no historical value. They have no appeal to the worshipers of mildew. There is no intangible value. The value of a commercial building, with rare exceptions, is proportional to its ability to produce income." He submitted tax returns for 1994, 1995 and 1996 which show that the average annual income for the medical clinic was $46,293. Certainly, no one would pay $918,495 for such an investment. On the market, these are the figures on which value will be judged. There is a parcel located downtown which recently sold for $150,000. This parcel underwent major cleanup. It is buildable and has 256 front feet with an unobstructed water view. Mr. McCarron stated that you would have to playa lot with figures to conclude a value of$2,500 per front foot of Water Street. He is requesting the current assessment of parcel number 989703 802 be reduced from $918,495 ($283,000 for the land and $635,495 for the improvements) to $825,495 ($190,000 for the land and $635,495 for the improvements). BOARD OF EQUALIZATION MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 8,1997 Page 4 Mr. McCarron continued with testimony on parcel number 989 703 701. He presented and read the following written comments. "My appeal on this parcel takes the same facts and logic applied to parcel #989 703 802, with the following additions. A + I 0% adjustment has been made because of depth with lots 2 and 4. No account is taken of the fact that these lots are zoned RII and cannot be used for C II I purposes. Also because of required setbacks from the bluff behind, and the C 111 property in front, these lots are virtually without value. There is not one site worth $12,000, and they do not increase the value of the front lots by 10%. I submit photos by N.T.I. to show the steepness of the bluff here. The property additionally has underground storage tanks since its days operating as a Shell gas station. This history and the unknowns regarding possible contamination and need for cleanup, is the stuff that nightmares are made of. These facts very significantly reduce the value of the property to any prospective purchaser. It is impossible to sell these kinds of properties without expensive Phase 2 soil evaluations, removal of tanks, etc. These considerations are in addition to the consideration that the basic front foot appraisal is far in excess of fair market value." He is requesting the Board reduce the current assessment of parcel number 989 703701 from $513,255 ($314,500 for the land and $198,755 for the improvements) to $407,755 ($209,000 for the land and $198,755 for the improvements). Mr. Shold presented and discussed a listing of eleven sales which have recently occurred in the downtown area of Port Townsend. In reviewing the sales, the Assessor's office noted that the assessments were approximately 25% under market value. It was concluded that the increase in value is applicable to the land based on the fact that the difference between the sale amount and assessed value was greater for water front properties than non-waterfront properties with similar buildings. This makes sense as these owners have the ability to utilize both Water Street and the water front. The properties on the bluff side of Water Street are valued at $2,500 to reflect market value. He added that a 45 front foot parcel of bare land down town along the bluff side of Water Street sold last Friday for $95,000. Mr. Shold stated that he understands the appellant's concern with the medical clinic, however, he feels that the problems and limitations are with the building not the land. The property which was once the Shell gas station, has a far more questionable land value than the other parcel. The Assessor's office is unable to make an adjustment for the potential contamination unless documented evidence is provided which proves that the property is contaminated. Mr. Shold agrees that the + 10% adjustment for added depth is not a legitimate adjustment due to the topography. He added that there are no specific comparable properties to either of these parcels considering the amount of land and types of buildings on them. The Board determined in a previous, but similar case dealing with contaminated property, that an adjustment of $100,000 be given to reflect the cost to clean up the property. Mr. McCarron commented on the sales listing, stating that most of the downtown sales included not only the land and a building, but also an ongoing business or some other type of good will. He asked if the Assessor's office takes into account the value of the going concern or intangible value? The medical clinic does not have those types of features or hidden values. Mr. Shold stated that he believes there are intangible values in any sale. The Assessor's office, as a rule, does not measure or value intangibles. The sales listing includes some buildings which have intangible values and others which do not, such as the Elk's building which sold and changed uses. Nifty Fifty's Soda Fountain is another example of property which may not have had an intangible value at the time of the sale. Mr. McCarron asked if the properties on the waterfront side of Water Street were also assessed at $2,500 per front foot? Mr. Shold stated that he does not have the valuation sheets for those parcels with him at the hearing, but he believes the waterfront parcels were assessed at a higher rate of either $3,000 or $3,500 per front foot. BOARD OF EQUALIZATION MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 8,1997 Page 5 Mr. McCarron added that having a 100 front foot parcel can be more of a disadvantage than having a 50 front foot parcel, in regard to the City of Port Townsend's parking requirements for building. A 3,000 square foot building requires 10 parking spaces. According to the new zoning code, parking space does not have to be provided if a development only requires 10 parking spaces. If a development requires 12 parking spaces, 10 are discounted and 2 must be provided. Any future expansion of the medical clinic will be prohibited due to the underlying parking requirement and how little parking is provided there now. Discussion ensued regarding the potential contamination of the property which was previously a gas station. After reviewing all the information submitted and hearing the testimony of both parties, the Board concurred to conduct a physical inspection of the property and make a determination at a later date. Dee Tour du Monde 1707 Water Street #1 Port Townsend, W A 98368 BOE: 97-47-R 97-48-R 97-49-R 97-50-R PN: 965702708 984 903 503 931 600 001 995200 104 Ms. Tour du Monde was present. Appraiser Robert Kingsley represented the Assessor's office. Chairman Broders explained the hearing process and swore them in. Ms. Tour du Monde stated that she would like to withdraw appeal number 97-49-R as she has recently sold this parcel. She continued by stating that the property recorded under parcel number 965 702 708 consists of an undersized lot with a very dilapidated old Victorian house located at 1619 Lincoln Street in Port Townsend. There are no properties in the area which are comparable. When Mr. Kingsley revalued the property he noticed that some moldings had been improved and he assumed that the inside of the house had been rehabilitated. Subsequently he removed the "obsolescence factor" which resulted in a 277% increase in value. No improvements have been made to the property and she feels that the current valuation of$61,235 should be reduced to $22,160. She requested the Board visit her property to see what they think it is worth. Robert Kingsley stated that he agrees with what was stated by the appellant and explained that he removed the "obsolescence factor" of 35%. The Board will conduct an inspection of this parcel and make a determination at a later date. Ms. Tour du Monde stated that the property recorded under parcel number 984 903 503 consists of a lot and a rambler style house located at 1410 Willow Street in Port Townsend. She feels the value is too high due to the poor condition of the property. It is used as a rental and is run down from the abuse it has taken over the years. The inside and outside of the house was repainted recently, however, no other improvements have been made. The house is out of date and neglected. It still contains the old appliances and single pane windows (two of which are broken) from when it was built in 1970. Additionally, she noted some errors in the Assessor's records, which if corrected, would reduce the valuation to a degree. Ms. Tour du Monde presented and discussed sales of comparable property in the area and invited the Board to visit her property and the comparable properties to view for themselves. She believes the fair market value of her property is $68,000 and declining each year. Robert Kingsley presented six sales of comparable property which he used to value the appellant's property. He suggested that the Board also look at these properties. The Board will conduct an inspection of this parcel and make a determination at a later date. BOARD OF EQUALIZATION MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 8,1997 Page 6 Ms. Tour du Monde stated that she feels the valuation of the property recorded under parcel number 995 200 104 is too high for a number of reasons. She presented information on two recent sales of comparable property in the area and she noted that there are errors in the details on the Assessor's worksheet. She feels most strongly about the unfair land value. Her property consists of two lots with the house sitting on the corner lot. She purchased the two lots on two separate contracts. However, when she received her first tax statement the two parcels were combined into one. She immediately called the Assessor's office to make them aware that she owned two separate lots. Staff explained to her that they were aware that she owned two separate parcels and that this was done to simplify their work, and would not affect the status of her property. She wanted to make sure that the lots were kept separate in case she ever wanted to sell the undeveloped lot. However, recently she learned from the City and the Assessor's office that now her two lots cannot be separated or sold as separate lots, despite her attempt to keep them separate. She feels that this lot was taken away from her and due the steepness of the lot, is now worthless. It should not be valued the same as the lot which contains her house. She feels the current assessment is very unfair and is requesting the Board reduce it from $211,675 ($106,500 for the land and $105,175 for the improvements) to $150,000. Mr. Kingsley presented sales of comparable property in the area which support his valuation. He believes the value is fair. After further discussion the Board concurred to conduct an inspection of this parcel and make a determination at a later date. Meeting adjourned. A~st: ()L~ Yj- ~/ Nh/)d4/,--, ErIn K. Lundgren,~-re~~4:ioard JEFFERSON COUNTY BJ1AEBL Richard A. Broders, Chairman r 1/'- "YJlliam S. Marlow, Vice-Chairman \\ ~/ , ')4-:<'/-/I/.8;;r;J James A. DeLeo, Member ( .'