Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM080499 1820 Jefferson Street PO Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 James. A, DeLeo, District 1 William S. Marlow, District 2 Richard A. Broders, District 3 JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF EQUALIZA nON MINUTES AUGUST 4, 1999 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 Dennis & Kay Pownall 283658 Hwy. 101 Port Townsend, W A 98368 BOE: 99-18-LO PN: 902 264 013 Mr. and Mrs. Pownall were present. Appraiser Robert Kingsley represented the Assessor's office. Chairman Marlow swore them in. The property under appeal consists of three (3) residential bare land lots located at 283658 Highway 101 in Port Townsend. Mr. Pownall presented a map outlining the parcel he is appealing. He stated that the previous owner approached him at least three (3) times over the last year about purchasing the property. Initially, he was not interested in purchasing the property and did not have the money to do so. When he was finally interested in the property, he purchased it for $7,500 ($2,500 per lot). The property is currently assessed at $10,500 ($3,500 per lot). The lots cannot be developed as they are swampy and wet. He believes the purchase price reflects fair market value. Mr. Kingsley questioned whether or not the property was placed on the open market prior to the appellants' purchase. Since the previous owner approached the appellants about purchasing the property so many times, it may have been that he was under duress to sell the property, which would mean that the purchase was not an "arms length transaction". Mr. Kingsley discussed the purchase price and the current assessment of the adjacent property also owned by the appellants, stating that the combined assessment of the adjacent property and the property under appeal are valued less than the combined total of the two purchases. Phone (3601385-9100 ! 1-800-831-2678 Fax (360)385-9382 jeffbocC@co.jefferson.wa.us BOARD OF EQUALIZATION MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 4, 1999 Page 2 Mr. Pownall replied that whether or not the property needed to be placed on the open market to be considered an "arms length transaction", is a matter of interpretation. The previous owner also approached other neighbors in the area who were not interested in purchasing the property. If the previous owner had wanted to put the property on the open market he would have done so. The lots cannot be developed and are basically useless except as a buffer to a neighbor. An outside buyer would not be interested in this property. In addition, he does not feel that the value of the adjacent property he also owns, has any bearing on the assessed value of the three (3) lots he recently purchased. The combined value of all his property is not the issue. The issue is the value of the three (3) lots which he is appealing. 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. Henry, T.L. & B.L. Sukert 2152 Sims Way Port Townsend, W A 98368 BOE: 99-19-LO 99-20-LO PN: 994200041 994 200 044 Henry Sukert and B.1. Sukert were present. Appraiser Robert Shold represented the Assessor's office. After explaining the hearing process Chairman Marlow swore them in. The property under appeal consists of two residential bare land lots, each approximately 1 acre in size, located along Rhody Drive in Port Hadlock. Henry Sukert stated that they purchased both parcels seven (7) years ago for $80,000. At the time of the purchase the property was zoned commercial. The property has since been down zoned to residential (category R-5) which they believe significantly reduces the value. There is no water available and the property is adjacent to a busy highway (Rhody Drive) which is not appropriate for a residence. The property is worthless with a residential zoning and the appellants are certain that nobody would want to live there. The only reason they are keeping it is to honor the contract they entered into with the seller. B.1. Sukert stated that he has the same feelings. The property is currently assessed at $43,290 for parcel number 994 200 041 and $41,400 for parcel number 994 200 044. In his view, both parcels together are not worth more than $20,000. Mr. Shold stated that the date of the official down zoning is the determining factor. He believes the down zoning occurred in August of 1998 with the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan by the Board of County Commissioners. Mr. Shold stated that he is not the appraiser who valued the property originally, however, if the property is now zoned as residential it should be valued as such. He recommends the property be revalued to reflect the change in zoning. Chairman Marlow asked if the appellants had been denied access to the city water line which runs by the property? B.1. Sukert replied that they were informed that the city was no longer issuing water taps off of that water line to properties located outside of the service area. Henry Sukert added that properties located on the west side of Rhody Drive cannot get water taps. B.1. Sukert stated that there was water available when they purchased the property, however, the commitment letter was only valid for 90 days. The appellants do not have a written denial from the city regarding access to the water line. BOARD OF EQUALIZATION MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 4, 1999 Page 3 Discussion ensued regarding the commercial use of the property. Mr. Shold agrees that the location ofthe property makes it less desirable. The lack of available water is also an important factor with regard to the value. Since this appeal is for taxes payable in the year 2000, Henry Sukert asked for consideration of a refund for taxes paid in 1999? He feels a refund is justified because the down zoning of his property occurred in August of 1998, which was after the July 1, 1998 deadline for appealing 1999 values. Since the down zoning occurred after the deadline, they were unable to appeal the 1999 property value. Chairman Marlow stated that the Board will review the statutes to see if they address zoning issues. 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. Tamarlee & Paul Alleva, Ben Bhatnagar 120 Pine Drive Port Townsend, W A 98368 BOE: 99-2t-R PN: 940 800 038 Mr. and Mrs. Alleva were present. Assessor Jack Westerman represented the Assessor's office. After explaining the hearing process Chairman Marlow swore them in. The property under appeal is a residential lot containing a single wide mobile home with an addition located at 120 Pine Drive, Cape George Village, Port Townsend. Mrs. Alleva stated that they sent the Board a letter dated June 20, 1999 stating their reasons for petitioning. They believe that the value of their property should be increased because of improvements they made to the property since their purchase in May 1996. She stated that there are errors in her letter with regard to figures, and corrected them as follows: 1) The cost to replace the older mobile home with a newer one was $6,000 not $3,000; 2) The addition is 8' x 12' not 8' x 10'; 3) The cost of the addition was $4,059.17 not $4,200. Mrs. Alleva stated that she has receipts for all the expenses mentioned in the letter and that there were additional expenses that were not included in the letter. In addition to replacing the mobile home, the appellants have also done a great deal oflandscaping, improved the driveway, installed a septic system, and placed an extra storage shed on the property. The old mobile home which was valued at $7,700 was replaced by a newer one valued at $11,295. After reviewing all the improvements made to the property, the appellants stated they are unclear why their property value has decreased rather than increased. Prior to the addition being completed and the extra storage shed placed on the property, the appellants were told by two (2) different Realtors that the property could be put on the market for $65,000 - $70,000. The appellants are requesting the current assessed valuation be increased from $38,880 ($29,000 for the land and $9,880 for the improvements) to $69,000 ($39,000 for the land and $30,000 for the improvements). Assessor Jack Westerman stated that the appellants purchased the property in July 1996 for $45,000. The property was valued in 1996 for $43,575. In 1997 the property was revalued for $38,880. At that time the improvement value was lowered because the newer mobile home was in a mobile home court and had not yet been sited on their property. Mobile homes which are located on property and set up with utilities are more valuable than when they are located in mobile home courts or being stored and not in use. In between the valuation cycle the appellants placed the mobile home on their property and connected utilities. While the mobile home increased in value, by law the Assessor's office staff is unable to adjust the valuation between BOARD OF EQUALIZATION MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 4, 1999 Page 4 cycles. The next time the property will be revalued is in the year 2000 for taxes payable in 2001. Mr. Westerman stated that the only time that his office can assess property between the four (4) year revaluation cycle is when a building permit has been issued, and even then they can only value new construction. He noted that his office does not have any record of a building permit being issued. The appellant's stated that they have all the required building permits. Mr. Westerman stated that the only permit his office has on file is for the mobile home relocation. It could be that the Permit Center did not forward copies of the building permit to the Assessor's office. Discussion ensued regarding cost versus value of septic systems. At the close of the hearing the Board concurred to conduct an inspection of the property and make a determination at a later date. Donald & Shirley Gorence 80-1 Upper Bluffs Drive Port Townsend, W A 98368 BOE: 99-22-R PN: 965 300 039 Mr. Gorence was present. Assessor Jack Westerman represented the Assessor's office. After explaining the hearing process Chairman Marlow swore them in. The property under appeal consists of a townhouse/condominium unit located at 80-1 Upper Bluffs Drive (Kala Point) in Port Townsend. Mr. Gorence presented a layout of Kala Bluff condominiums and a recent sales listing from Windermere Realty. He stated that he purchased the condominium in January of 1992 for $198,500 and he remodeled the unit to include a bonus room which cost $10,000. Two (2) years after he had purchased the unit, the condo association experienced difficulty in selling other units they had built and subsequently discounted the unsold units by 20- 25%. Because of the downturn in the market, the association put on hold all future developments which were in the master plan. His unit is currently on the market for $235,000 with Windermere Realty, however, they have told him to only expect about $218,000 which is what he believes is the value of the property. The property is currently assessed at $230,950 ($50,000 for the land and $180,950 for the improvements). He presented photographs which show how the view has deteriorated due to tree growth and that his unit is completely surrounded by visitor and guest parking. Mr. Westerman stated that the appellant's property was valued as of January 1, 1996. The most comparable sale at that time was the sale of the abutting unit which sold for $245,000 in April of 1996. The property will be revalued this year based on recent sales, however, as of the previous assessment date, the property value is fair and equitable based on the sales which occurred at that time. Mr. Westerman does not feel this unit is unique, so if the Board determines that an adjustment in value is necessary for this unit, they should consider adjusting aU the units in the area. He noted that if trees have grown up and blocked views, he wiU take that into consideration when the property is revalued. At the close of the hearing the Board concurred to conduct an inspection of the property and make a determination at a later date. BOARD OF EQUALIZATION MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 4,1999 Page 5 Philip Fleckman & Star Leonard Fleckman 5041 Ivanhoe PI. NE Seattle, W A 98105 ROE: 99-23-R PN: 701344015 Mr. and Mrs. Fleckman were present. Representing the Assessor's office was Appraiser Peter Schuck. Chairman Marlow explained the hearing process and swore them in. The property under appeal is approximately 3.26 acres including a cabin located at 490 Beach Drive, Dabob Cove, in Quilcene. Mr. Fleckman stated that he is not only here to appeal the assessment of his property, but he is also here to represent the interests of the Dabob Cove Community Council as the President. He explained that the Dabob Cove Community Council is a group of private land owners which was organized under a set of covenants in the ] 970's. There are approximately 34 five acre plats included in the community, two of which have been subdivided. There is an L.l.D., a community water system, a community road, and a community beach as outlined in the covenants. Dabob Cove is on the east side of Dabob Bay on the Toandos Peninsula at the junction of Coyle Road and Thorndyke Road. It begins at the top of a hill and continues down to the bay. The land is this area is unstable and has caused problems with two (2) major roads, Rhododendron Drive which runs along the ridge and Beach Drive which winds down through the community. In 1997 Beach Drive was closed for approximately six (6) months due to a big land slide which had occurred. The road was repaired in the summer of 1997, however, all the rain over the last year has caused major problems along the road in several areas. There were basically four land slides along this road. Mr. Fleckman stated that the entire area has been analyzed by a geotechnical engineer and he presented a copy of that report and a map of the area indicating where the slides occurred. Based on the engineering study they have estimates of what it will cost to repair the road in three of the slide areas. Access to their property is limited due to the road damage. He noted that the community well has not been damaged. The most recent land slide which occurred, completely destroyed a waterfront parcel. The home on that parcel and another home in the area were red-tagged by the County as they were not to be occupied. With the damage to the road, the beach is inaccessible except on foot, and even that is rough. The entire community has been severely impacted due to the land slides, although, some property owners have been more impacted than others. Mr. Fleckman stated that they have been told by the geotechnical engineer that because of the land slide damage which has occurred, they now have a three season cabin and under no circumstances should they stay there in the winter. The appellants have decided that they are going to move their cabin to a safer place on their property in an attempt to prevent it from being damaged in the event of another land slide. The property is currently valued at $205,120 ($132,250 for the land and $72,870 for the improvements). The appellants estimate the value to be $93,000 ($30,000 for the land and $63,000 for the improvements). Mr. Schuck stated that he has visited the area twice. He has talked with property owners in the area and the land is still sliding. Some property has been more severely impacted than others, warranting various degrees of value adjustments. He recommends that the entire area be equalized to reflect the damage resulting from the land slides. He also recommends that there be some mechanism in place to allow the Assessor's staff to remove the adjustments between the four (4) year cycle, if the market does not presume the stigma that currently exists. He noted that this area was revalued in 1998 and after the first slide, there was land located off of Beach Drive that sold for more than the assessed value at the time. Chairman Marlow stated that the Assessor's staff has the authority to review the value at each four (4) year cycle, but not in between the cycle. BOARD OF EQUALIZATION MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 4, 1999 Page 6 Mr. Fleckman also presented of copy of the geotechnical report prepared specifically for his 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 & Leslie Hoge 775233'" Avenue NW Seattle, W A 98117 BOE: 99-25-LO PN: 701 344 020 Mrs. Hoge was present. Representing the Assessor's office was Appraiser Peter Schuck. After explaining the hearing process Chairman Marlow swore them in. The property under appeal consists of 6.25 acres located at 475 Beach Drive, Dabob Cove, in Quilcene. She stated that there have been four (4) different slides in the Dabob Cove area and her property is located below two (2) of the slides. They were told by a soils engineer who analyzed the area that they should not drive to their property except in the summer months (July/August) when it is dry. She felt the initial property assessment was fair, but, because of the damage which has occurred, it now obviously has a different value. In addition, there is no access to the beach and it is unknown what may happen to the well. The appellants had recently started constructing a residence on the property which is not yet completed. Ms. Hoge stated that their property survived the land slides with only a little sloughing of the driveway. She presented two (2) engineer reports for review by the Board. The current assessment of the land is $77,500. The appellants estimate the land value to be $50,000. As Mr. Schuck recommended during the previous hearing, he feels the entire area should be reviewed and values equalized based on the amount of damages sustained by each parcel. 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. Kenneth & Kim Bechtold P.O. Box 1756 Forks, W A 98331 BOE: 99-26-LO 99-27-LO PN: 802 243 002 802 243 003 Mr. and Mrs. Bechtold were not present. Appraiser Robert Shold represented the Assessor's office and was sworn in by Chairman Marlow. The property under appeal consists of two (2) parcels located near Lake Leland along Highway 101, Port Townsend. One parcel is approximately 30 acres and the other is approximately 32 acres in size. The appellants stated on their petition that the reasons they are appealing their property value is the "taxes were $1,167.38 in 1991 and now are $2,179.04. There have been no improvements and our purchase price or market price has not doubled in that time, so I don't think our taxes should. We had lot 1 & 2 on the market for over 6 months at $200,000. No purchasers. Jefferson County geologist told one interested buyer there isn't water available on the property for a well. Other parcels in area did not get purchase price close to our assessed value and some had power or other improvements, plus views of saltwater." The property is currently assessed at $195,465 for parcel #802 243 002 and $89,225 for parcel #802 243 003. An estimate of value was not provided by the appellants. BOARD OF EQUALIZATION MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 4, 1999 Page 7 Bob Shold stated that property listings provided by the appellants with their petition are not comparable to the appellants' property as those properties are not located on or near the lake. There have not been any sales of properties with the same amount oflake frontage as the appellants' property. The appellants stated on their petition that they listed both parcels on the market for $200,000, however, they did not provide any documentation as supporting evidence. If in fact both parcels were listed for sale for $200,000, than the combined assessments of approximately $284,000 may be high. At the close of the hearing the Board concurred to conduct an inspection of the property and make a determination at a later date. Ron & Diane Desjardins 78 Beach Drive Quilcene, W A 98376 BOE: 99-24-R PN: 701 344 009 Mr. and Mrs. Desjardins were 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 approximately 1 acre located at 78 Beach Drive, Dabob Cove, in Quilcene. Mrs. Desjardins stated that they believe their property has experienced a loss in value due to the destruction of property caused by land slides in the Dabob Cove area. They built their home two (2) years ago and while their property was not physically damaged by the slides, it is impacted by having no beach access due to the condition of the road. Mr. Desjardins added that the properties which are for sale in the area are not selling at this time. He stated that if he was looking to purchase some property and knew about the land slide problems, he would not even think about buying property in this area. The property is currently assessed at $148,570 ($31,250 for the land and $117,320 for the improvements). An estimate of value was not provided by the appellants. Peter Schuck stated that prior to the Board's decision, the appellants will be receiving an increase in valuation because the improvements had only been valued at 80% complete for new construction, and now that the home is 100% complete it will be revalued to reflect that. He explained that he is recommending to the Board that all the property values in the area be equalized to reflect the degree of impact of the land slides. 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. Warner Balch & Ronald Balch 533 E. 5th Port Angeles, W A 98362 BOE: 99-32-LO 99-33-LO PN: 948303301 948 303 303 Warner Balch & Ronald Balch were both present. Appraiser Robert Shold represented the Assessor's office. After eXplaining the hearing process, Chairman Marlow swore them in. The property under appeal consists of two (2) parcels zoned light industrial, located near the Port of Port Townsend Marina in Port Townsend. Warner Balch stated that when they filed their petition they provided a copy of an appraisal and a wetlands delineation which the Port of Port Townsend had done in 1993 when they were interested in purchasing the property. The appraisal indicates a value of$120,000 due to wetlands on the property. The Port of Port BOARD OF EQUALIZATION MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 4,1999 Page 8 Townsend offered that amount to the appellants who declined the offer believing at the time that the property was worth more. As time went on, the wetlands on the property increased in size which lessened the Port's interest in the property. If another appraisal were to be prepared it would most likely indicate an even lower value, and another wetland delineation would indicate greater wetland boundaries. The standing water on the property is caused by stormwater runoff from Sims Way; development of the Port's property and other neighboring property; and natural drainage from the bluff behind the property. It does not appear that the situation will get better over time. The appellants are requesting the value of$104,000 for parcel #948 303 301 be reduced to $49,285.80 and the value of$141,000 for parcel #948 303 303 be reduced to $64,071.54. They arrived at their estimate of value by multiplying the Assessor's square footage value by the amount of usable square feet on the property. Robert Shold stated that the property was last appraised in 1997. The Assessor's office had used $4.00 per square foot to arrive at the land value. What needs to be determined is how much of the land is usable. He noted that the appraisal is six (6) years old and the current value may be different from what it was then. There has only been one sale of similar property since the date of the appraisal. That sale occurred in 1994 and indicated a market value of approximately $4.90 per square foot. Warner Balch stated that the usable portion of the land is decreasing annually. He asked how often appeals can be made to the Board of Equalization for review? Chairman Marlow answered that individuals can appeal annually as long as there is new evidence available or there has been a significant change to the property. Warner Balch added that the amount of usable property he came up with to calculate his estimate of value was taken from the 1993 appraisal, as that was the only document available. Due to the age of the appraisal and the fact that the Port is using a portion of the their property as an easement for a road, he believes the amount of usable property is considerably less than he estimated on the petition. 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. Meeting adjourned. Att~: . ~ C'~UC 'f)'e.'Llld L/ Erin K. Lundgren, Clerk 0 the B:~ JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF EQUALIZATION L.- ~kJ:L Richard A. Broders, Vice-Chairman \l,A?'J<1 a iJ2e_J, VA DeLeo, Me~