Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM102099 1820 Jefferson Street PO Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 William S, Marlow, District 2 Richard A, Broders, District 3 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. HEARINGS Julia A. Rouse 1607 Sheridan Avenue Port Townsend, W A 98368 BOE: 99-05-R PN: 948310603 Ms. Rouse was present. Appraiser Dennis Pownall represented the Assessor's office. After explaining the hearing process Chairman Marlow swore them in. The property under appeal is a residence on two (2) lots located at 1607 Sheridan Avenue in Port Townsend. Ms. Rouse presented an appraisal prepared in November 1998 indicating the property value is $202,000. The current assessment is $212,430 ($36,000 for the land and $176,430 for the improvements). She feels the assessment should reflect the appraisal value. Mr. Pownall presented a memorandum to the Board and read it as follows: "The summary appraisal submitted by the appellant shows a refinance value 5% less than the assessed value, which was determined two years prior. This office contends that the difference in value is not significant enough to make a mid-cycle adjustment. This is especia\1y true when considering that the fee appraisal was not designed to identify the property's true and fair market value, but rather to determine whether or not the loan company's interest would be covered for the refinance. With consideration for the above, and in the interest of maintaining equity throughout the affected neighborhood, I recommend that an adjustment not be made. A point to ponder: If the appraisal had shown that the value increased by 5% in the past two years, would an upward adjustment be made out of cycle?" The appraisal may represent the value of the property as of November 1998, however, the issue is that the appraisal was prepared two (2) years after the revaluation date and it only represents a 5% difference. Any appraisal that falls within 5% high or low is considered good. It does not seem appropriate to change the value in mid-cycle, but rather look at it again during the next revaluation. Ms. Rouse asked for clarification of the term "mid-cycle"? Phone (360)385-9100! 1-800-831-2678 Fax (360)385-9382 jeffbocC@co.jetTerson.wa.us BOARD OF EQUALIZATION MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 20,1999 Page 2 Mr. Pownall explained that Jefferson County is on a four (4) year revaluation cycle which means that property is only assessed every four (4) years. The appellant's property was assessed as of January 1, 1997. Ms. Rouse stated that she would have appealed earlier, but, she did not feel that she had any data on which to base her appeal until she had the appraisal done. Discussion ensued regarding the remodeling of the house. After reviewing all the information submitted and 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 Hopkins P.O. Box 725 Quilcene, W A 98376 BOE: 99-09-R 99-10-LO PN: 701 213 005 701 205 015 Mr. Hopkins was present. Appraiser Peter Schuck represented the Assessor's office. After explaining the hearing process Chairman Marlow swore them in. The property under appeal consists of a residence and approximately 13 acres located at 596 Broad Spit Road in Quilcene. Mr. Hopkins stated that he purchased the property in November of 1998 for $311,735 and he feels the current assessment should reflect his purchase pnce. Mr. Schuck interrupted stating that the excise tax affidavit for the sale of the property indicates that the appellant paid $475,000. Mr. Hopkins stated that is incorrect. While the excise tax affidavit lists $475,000 as the purchase price, the actual purchase agreement includes interest over ten (10) years. It is a pre-payment penalty loan. He is unable to prepay this loan to avoid paying interest payments. The purchase price was $311,735 and the interest calculated was $163,265. Mr. Schuck stated that if the appellant can provide documentation of the sale agreement proving the purchase price was $311,735, he will stipulate to that value. The excise tax affidavit is the only document he has. Mr. Hopkins stated he will provide copies of any needed documents. Discussion ensued regarding how the waterfront was valued. Mr. Hopkins compared how his property was valued to how neighboring properties were valued. He disputes the percentage of waterfront that Mr. Schuck valued as no-bank. Another negative impact to the property value, stated Mr. Hopkins, is the proximity of Taylor United, a commercial shellfish hatchery. He believes that the continuing expansion of this commercial business devalues the residential properties in the area. They are affected by the noise of the water pumps and lights which are on all night long. At night it is lit up as bright as the Trident Submarine Base, and there are tractor trailers loading and unloading oysters shells on the beach year round. He stated he is not trying to change the way Taylor United does business, he just feels it has a negative impact on adjoining properties. Mr. Hopkins proposes that the 100' of waterfront property be valued as low bank. He presented photographs and a map and explained the easement problems he has had with the property. BOARD OF EQUALIZATION MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 20,1999 Page 3 Mr. Schuck again stated that based on the purchase agreement, he would not have a problem with stipulating to the purchase price as long as it included all four (4) lots. Member DeLeo stated that the excise tax affidavit lists $475,000 as the purchase price and does not indicate that a portion of that amount is interest. Mr. Hopkins presented documentation that shows the interest is included in the $475,000. Mr. Schuck stated that he does not dispute the documentation, however, this is the first time he has ever seen an excise tax affidavit for a purchase price that included finance charges. Mr. Hopkins explained that the purpose of including the finance charges was so he could not prepay this loan. The seller wanted to guarantee income and at the time of the purchase he was unable to get a bank loan and had to work out a deal directly with the seller and did not mind paying 12% interest. Vice-Chairman Broders stated that he also has never seen an excise tax affidavit for a purchase price that included interest. However, if that is what occurred, then the appellant paid excise tax on interest that is not legally required to be paid. Mr. Hopkins stated that he doesn't really know what excise tax is, besides the Real Estate contract. Mr. Schuck explained that he paid tax based on the $475,000 listed on the excise tax affidavit, rather than on the actual purchase price of$311,735. Mr. Hopkins questioned whether he could get a refund for those taxes? Mr. Schuck stated he would have to try to explain the situation to the Jefferson County Treasurer. Discussion ensued regarding the appellant's estimate of value. After reviewing all the information submitted and hearing the testimony of both parties, the Board concurred to conduct an inspection of the property and make a determination at a later date. Richard & Audrey Heaton, Trustees Heaton Family Trust 911 Thorndyke Road Port Ludlow, W A 98365 BOE: 99-42-R PN: 935100005 Mr. and Mrs. Heaton were present. Appraiser Peter Schuck represented the Assessor's office. After explaining the hearing process Chairman Marlow swore them in. The property under appeal is land located at 911 Thorndyke Road, Port Ludlow. Mr. Heaton stated that when they received the revaluation notice from the Assessor's office they were surprised that the value had increased by $10,000 considering there had been land slides in the area. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) sent the appellants a letter stating that if they ever sold the property they were required to disclose the fact that the property is located within 225' of the land slide area. Mr. Heaton does not see how the property value has been enhanced. They do not intend to sell their property, however, many homes in the area are for sale and nothing is selling. The appellants feel the value has decreased due to the stigma ofthe land slides and they are requesting the current valuation be reduced BOARD OF EQUALIZATION MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 20,1999 Page 4 from $194,770 ($66,000 for the land and $128,770 for the improvements) to $178,770 ($50,000 for the land and $128,770 for the improvements). Mr. Schuck stated that the valuation of the property is based on three (3) sales of comparable property in the area. One of the sales occurred after the first land slide, however, there have been no sales since the land slides which occurred in February of 1999. He noted that the property was assessed as of January 1, 1999. Mrs. Heaton noted that the land slides occurred after the assessment date. Discussion ensued regarding sales in the area and the land slides which have occurred. At the close of the hearing the Board concurred to conduct an inspectiQn of the property and make a determination at a later date. T. Howard & Eleanor Peters 571 N. Bay Way Port Ludlow, WA 98365 BOE: 99-43-R PN: 921292045 Mr. and Mrs. Peters were present. Appraiser Robert Kingsley represented the Assessor's office. After explaining the hearing process Chairman Marlow swore them in. The property under appeal consists of a residence located at 571 N. Bay Way in Port Ludlow. Mrs. Peters stated that she felt the revaluation was a tremendous increase from the previous valuation. After some research, she found that the description of the house in the Assessor's office records did not match the description of the actual house. The Assessor's office records describe it as a 1 story stucco house. The house is actually 2 stories with cedar siding. Mrs. Peters believes they were assessing the wrong house. The property is currently assessed at $184,185 ($28,500 for the land and $155,685 for the improvements). The appellants do not contest the land value. They contend that no improvements have been made. An estimated improvement value was not provided. Mr. Kingsley stated that he has the description of the house and it is the appellant's house. It is a I story house with a basement. The exterior is noted as stucco/siding which is a standard description in the Assessor's office, and the legal description matches the situs address. He further explained that the value given to the house is titled "Improvements" on the revaluation card. It does mean that additional improvements have been made to the property. He stated that the assessed value reflects fair market value based on the appellant's purchase of the property. The appellants purchased this property and two (2) other adjacent parcels in March of 1999 for $205,000. At the close of the hearing the Board concurred to conduct an inspection of the property and make a determination at a later date. Evelyn S. Wibe, Trustee BOE: 99-45-LO Mabel Sallee Estate & Hubert Sallee Testamentary Trust P.O. Box 68 Bisbee, ND 58317 PN: 721092001 Ms. Wibe and Fred Antrobus, Associate Broker for Windermere Real Estate were present. Appraiser Peter Schuck represented the Assessor's office. After explaining the hearing process Chairman Marlow swore them BOARD OF EQUALIZATION MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 20, 1999 Page 5 in. The property under appeal consists of approximately 79 acres located adjacent to Thorndyke Road in Port Ludlow. Ms. Wibe stated that she presented her petition which outlines her reasons for appealing the property value. When she received her revaluation notice she was shocked at the new value, since the property has been on the market and there have been no offers. When she spoke to a representative from the Assessor's office she was told that the valuation of the property was based on the amount she was asking for the property. She feels that is unusual since there is no guarantee that the property will sell for the asking price. Having sold other property in the same area for considerably less than the asking price, indicates that the valuation of the parcel she is appealing is very high. The value increased 400%. Additionally, she is not the sole owner of the property. She has 50% interest and Shrine Hospital received her brother's 50% share of the estate when he passed away. Because of this joint ownership she feels obligated to sell it for as much as possible. Chairman Marlow asked if the Shrine Hospital is willing to sell the property? Ms. Wibe answered yes. They would like to have the money. She stated that initially the property was zoned 1 house per acre and then re-zoned 1 house per 5 acres, and now it is zoned 1 house per 80 acres. This was done without her being informed of the zoning change. She lives out of the area, so if it was in the newspaper she would have no way of knowing about it. She would like to see it zoned so that it could be sold and developed. Her parents purchased the property in 1948 and the family has paid taxes on it since that time. The best use of the property is for residential purposes. The property would provide a lot of home sites for people who would in turn pay taxes. Ms. Wibe is requesting the property value be reduced from $439,995 to $109,750. Mr. Antrobus stated that Ms. Wibe's concern is that the County has devalued the property by re-zoning it from 1 house per 1 acre, to 1 house per 5 acres, and finally to 1 house per 80 acres. Then the County raised the taxes. In 1998 the property was categorized as open space. Mr. Schuck stated that the property is currently receiving a 50% reduction in value because it is categorized as open space/open space. According to the A&sessor's records the property is approximately 2,640 feet of waterfront, ranging from medium to high bank which is valued at $750 per foot. The first 100 front feet is considered primary and was valued at $750 per foot. Then a 50% reduction was given for the property being in open space/open space. The remaining 2,540 front feet was also valued at $750 per foot. A reduction of 60% was given to that portion for excess front footage, and then another 50% reduction was given for open space/open space. There is approximately 1,760' of tidelands which were valued at $20 per foot, and using the tables, a 39% reduction was given for excess tidelands. The tidelands cannot be categorized as open space/open space. With the property being in the open space/open space program the value is $439,995. lfthe property was taken out ofthe open space/open space program, fair market value would be $860,000. The property was on the market for $1,450,000 and that was taken into consideration when he valued the property. Mr. Schuck presented a map of the property and explained that the mud flat was valued as tidelands. He also noted that a road divides a portion of the uplands, so a road segregation may be possible which would enable the uplands to be sold separately. Sales used to value the property were presented. Mr. Schuck stated that while the appellant's asking price of $1 ,450,000 was considered during the revaluation of the property, the value was not solely based on that and the current fair market value assessment of $860,000 is $500,000 under the appellant's asking price. Ms. Wibe stated that she is having difficulty trying to sell the property. She asked if the County would be interested in buying it? Mr. Schuck answered that she may want to talk with the Jefferson Land Trust about that. BOARD OF EQUALIZATION MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 20, 1999 Page 6 Mr. Antrobus asked if the current assessment reflects the value of the timber on the property? Chairman Marlow answered no. The Assessor's office does not value timber on land. Discussion ensued regarding waterfront property sales with timber versus waterfront property sales without timber. Chairman Marlow excused himself from the meeting due to another commitment. After reviewing the information and hearing the testimony of both parties, the Board concurred to conduct an inspection of the property and make a determination at a later date. DETERMINA nONS Carla Renz 164 Cole Avenue Port Townsend, W A 98368 BOE: 99-12-E PN: 941 500 022 The Board reviewed all the information submitted by both parties. Based on recent information received by the Assessor's office from Ms. Renz proving the IRA had been rolled over into another account, the Assessor's office recommends granting the exemption for 1999 real property taxes. Member DeLeo moved to grant the exemption as recommended by the Assessor's office. Vice-Chairman Broders seconded the motion. The motion carried. (See also minutes of August 5, 1999) James & Lorraine Ray P.O. Box 116 Poulsbo, WA 98370-0116 BOE: 99-04-R PN: 995400002 Vice-Chairman Broders stated that the Board previously made a determination to overrule the Assessor on the value of this parcel. However, it needs to be clarified that it was the Board's intention to reduce only the land value by 50% for the inability to have a septic system. The improvement value was not changed. Member DeLeo moved to reduce the value from $31,185 ($30,685 for the land and $500 for the improvements) to $15,843 ($15,343 for the land and $500 for the improvements). Vice-Chairman Broders seconded the motion. The motion carried. (See also minutes of August 3, and September 29,1999) Meeting adjourned. Attest: . 15. ti. . .Lf .. ~A--- ~1t. Lund en~~k ~oard JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF EQUALIZATION 1. . &:1J1!tf~ Ricrard A. Broders, Vice-Chairman ,I {J &e'~ ~€teo, ~ber ; V'