Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM082200 1820 Jefferson Street PO Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 MINUTES AUGUST 22, 2000 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 Floyd & Sabine Murray 330 Elwha Bluffs Road Port Angeles, WA 98362 BOE: 00-37-R PN: 801 054 002 Mr. and Mrs. Murray 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 approximately 20.05 acres of designated forest land located at 3744 Eaglemount Road, Port Townsend. Mr. Murray stated that they built a storage shed on this property about 7 years ago. Within the last five years the storage shed has been broken into twice and valuables have been stolen. They feel that constructing the storage shed was a mistake and now the Assessor's office is punishing them for this mistake by valuing the I acre site that the storage shed is located on at $10,000 (The remaining 19.05 acres designated as forest land is valued at $2,380). He presented and discussed comparable property sales. Based on new County regulations they are unable to divide their property, so why should the Assessor be allowed to divide it by valuing acreage separately? The current assessment is $33,185 ($12,380 for the land and $20,805 for the improvements). The Murray's estimate the value to be $23,000 ($3,000 for the land and $20,000 for the improvements). Mr. Kingsley stated that he agrees with the appellant and the property sales he presented are comparable. He explained that the issue with this parcel is that the appellants requested their 20 acre parcel be classified as forest land. After receiving that designation they built a storage shed on the property. By law the Assessor's office must value one (I) acre separately as a building site. The current fair market value of a building site in that area is $10,000. Mr. Murray stated that he agrees that if they had one (I) acre with a building which they were able to sell, they probably could get $10,000 for it, but, they cannot sell the just the one (I) acre building site. It is part of the 20.05 acre parcel which cannot be divided. They would have to sell the whole 20.05 acre parcel. If they cannot sell one (1) acre for $10,000 than it is not worth $10,000. He asked Mr. Kingsley to explain the shape <)f'the- Qtl~ (1) ~<:r~ bejug 'Z~hletj ~t $1 ())()()O? Phone (360)385-9100/ 1-800-831-2678 Fax (360)385-9382 jeffi)ocC@co.jefferson.wa.us BOARD OF EQUALIZATION MINUTES - AUGUST 22, 2000 Page 2 Mr. Kingsley explained that it is a hypothetical acre that consists of 45,360 square feet. Since it is a hypothetical acre, there are no specific dimensions. Mr. Murray asked ifhe could determine the dimensions of the one (1) acre? Mr. Kingsley replied he does not think so. Mr. Murray asked why not? Who determines the size and shape? Chairman Marlow explained that when a building is constructed on property with a forest land classification, the Assessor's office is required by law to place a value on the building site. The valuation method required by State law is to take one (I) acre out of the forest land classification and assess it as a building site at 100% of fair market value, even though it is just a hypothetical acre which cannot be sold separate from the remaining classified forest land acreage. The actual configuration of the acre is irrelevant, because it's the value of the building site which they are assessing. The Board must determine if the valuation of that acre is fair and equitable. Mr. Murray stated that it is not, because he is unable to use it or sell it like an individual withjust one (I) acre could do. Chairman Marlow stated that the Board understands his point, however, the Assessor's office is bound by law to use certain methods in valuing property. Whether or not the assessment is reflective of market value will be reviewed by the Board. Mr. Murray stated that fair market value is the amount the property will sell for. The property cannot be sold, so the value does not reflect fair market value. He added that if constructing a building on one acre increases its value to $10,000 than he will construct 19 more buildings. In his opinion it is a bad law. Hearing no further testimony Chairman Marlow closed the hearing. The Board will review all the information submitted, conduct a physical inspection of the property and make a determination at a later date. Joseph Pollack RR2, Box 71 Peniel Road Tryon, NC 28782 BOE: 00-55-R 00-56-LO 00-57-LO 00-58-LO 00-59-LO 00-60- LO 00-61-LO 00-62-LO 00-63- R PN: 921 094011 959 000 002 959 000 003 959 000 004 959 000 005 959 000 007 959 000 008 959 000 009 959 000 013 Real Estate Agent Dale Christine Barron represented Mr. Pollack. Appraisers Robert Kingsley and Peter Schuck were present on behalf of the Assessor's office. After explaining the hearing process Chairman Marlow swore them in. BOARD OF EQUALIZATION MINUTES - AUGUST 22, 2000 Page 3 Parcel #921 094011: This property consists of a residence on approximately 1.56 acres located at 310 Disney Road, Nordland, on Marrowstone Island. Ms. Barron stated that Mr. Pollack has had this property on the market for 4 years and has not received an offer. It has been listed at several prices, all at the owners choosing, noted Ms. Barron. The owner feels that offers will be considerably less than the asking price, so he does not want to list the property at a lower figure. The property was purchased in 1994 for $250,000. Engineering work was done to the blutlwhich was partially funded by a grant. No improvements have been made to the property other than normal maintenance and the addition of a deck which was part of the bluff stability plan. She presented and discussed sales of comparable properties, some of which also have potential bluff problems. The current assessment is $476,865 ($130,500 for the land and $346,365 for the improvements). The appellant estimates the value to be $305,365 ($130,365 for the land and $175,000 for the improvements). Mr. Kingsley stated that after receiving the appeal he made an appointment with Ms. Barron to visit the property. He ah'fees that the amount of depreciation placed on the improvements needs to be reviewed due to the dated condition. If he had it to do over again he would depreciate it more. He noted that the listing price is also taken into consideration when valuing property. The listing price is usually considered the upper range of value, while the first offer is considered the lower range. Market value is somewhere in between. It is currently listed at $495,000, however, in December 1998 the listing price was $599,000. The property was valued as of January I, 1999. As for the problems associated with the bank, he is not sure how much of an adjustment should be made. Hearing no further testimony Chairman Marlow closed the hearing. The Board will consider all the information provided, conduct a physical inspection of the property and make a determination at a later date. The following parcels are known as Heron Pond Ranch and are located off of Discovery Road, Port Townsend. Parcel # 959 000 013: This parcel consists of approximately 9.29 acres with a barn. Ms. Barron stated that Mr. Pollack's concern is that the acreage listed on the Assessor's worksheet states the property is 10 acres. Mr. Pollack is also concerned that he did not receive the developer's discount for this parcel. There is no residence on the property. The only building on the property is an agricultural barn. Costs to build the barn were presented with the petition. Ms. Barron noted that a portion of the property is a wet land. The current assessment is $180,380 ($105,505 for the land and $74,875 for the improvements). Ms. Barron stated that $80,000 with a developer's discount of 50% is Mr. Pollack's estimate of value. Mr. Schuck stated that the property did not receive the developer's discount because it has been developed. There is a barn, studio type tack room, and a septic system on the property. Ms. Barron stated that the buildings are not permitted for living and all the lots have septic systems/drain fields installed. Mr. Schuck stated that since there is a building on the property, it no longer qualifies for the developer's discount. The developer's discount is removed when property is developed or at the time of sale. The property is currently listed for sale at $299,000. At the time Mr. Schuck inspected the property he rated the improvements "average-plus" to "good-minus" quality. It is doubtful that there has been a mapping error, but, he will check the acreage to make sure. A large portion of the property is in the open space program for which the appellant received a discount. The improvement value received a 50% reduction since the BOARD OF EQUALIZATION MINUTES - AUGUST 22, 2000 Page 4 improvements are only partially complete. He stated that the worksheet shows the acreage as 9.29 not 10, as the appellant thought. The current assessment is $180,380 and the appellant has the property listed for sale at $299,000. Ms. Barron stated that the property has been on the market for five years with no offer. She also noted that the improvements currently on the property have used up most of the building envelope, leaving a very tiny area available for the construction of a house. This has been an extreme problem in the sale of the property. Discussion ensued regarding comparable sales in the area, and the method used to value acreage. Parcel # 959 000 007, 959 000 OOS, 959 000 009: Ms. Barron stated that parcels 959 000 008 and 959 000 009 do not have wells/septic systems installed. All the parcels are similar in size and range in values from $69,000 to $79,000. With the 50% developer's discount the value is approximately $30,000. She discussed sales of adjacent lots. The appellant feels these should be valued at half of their current assessment. Parcel #'s 959 000 002, 959 000 003, 959 000 004, 959 000 005: Ms. Barron stated that these parcels are all similar to adjacent parcel #959 000 001 which sold in January 2000 for $95,000. Another adjacent parcel #959000006 which sold for $75,000 was not discounted as stated by Mr. Schuck. That parcel was listed at $79,000. The method of valuing a building site on one acre at $75,000 seems a bit high. Mr. Schuck stated that the Assessor's office has attempted to use a valuation method which treats all parcels equally. He valued the parcels equitably based on sales in the area. Mr. Schuck reviewed the current assessments at the request of Chairman Marlow. Hearing no further testimony Chairman Marlow closed the hearing. The Board will consider all the information provided, conduct a physical inspection of the property and make a determination at a later date. Richard & Alice Moser 63 Sea Breeze Lane Port Ludlow, WA 98365 BOE: 00-43-R PN: 998 700 025 Mr. Moser was present. Assessor Jack Westerman was also present. After explaining the hearing process Chairman Marlow swore them in. The property under appeal consists of a residence located at 63 Sea Breeze Lane, (Teal Lake Village) Port Ludlow. Mr. Moser stated it is his opinion that the current assessment is exacerbated. He presented sales of property which have occurred in the area, many with homes that are the same type as his home. Using the sales he calculated an average amount on which to base his estimate of value. Additionally, his home was constructed with Louisiana Pacific (LP) siding which is known for deteriorating prematurely. The siding on his home needs to be replaced at a cost between $10,000 - $15,000. The current assessment is $259,195 ($92,250 for the land and $166,945 for the improvements). He estimates the value to be $236,343 ($75,000 for the land and $161,343 for the improvements). Values should be based on resales not new sales. Until his property is sold, the true value is unknown. Mr. Westerman stated that valuing property based solely on sale averages, does not take into account different property views and varying characteristics of individual properties. The Assessor's office follows standard appraisal practices when valuing property. He added that the best comparable sale is lot 20 which has the BOARD OF EQUALIZATION MINUTES - AUGUST 22, 2000 Page 5 same type of home as Mr. Moser and is located on the same street as Mr. Moser's property. Lot 20 sold in July 1999 for $238,000. The major difference in value between the two properties is in the land value. Mr. Moser's view is superior to lot 20 and Mr. Moser has added a new wood deck and installed a hot tub. Mr. Westerman stated that the Board is welcome to review the Assessor's book of sales to aid them in determining fair market value for this property. Mr. Moser stated that there have been sales of other lots in other areas of Port Ludlow that have at least equal or better views than his lot and have sold for less than the valuation of his lot. Mr. Westerman stated that those lots are not located in Teal Lake Village and are not comparable to Mr. Moser's property. Different areas have different market values. The Board is welcome to look at all the sales in the different areas of Port Ludlow, however, he suggests that for the purpose of determining fair market value ofMr. Moser's property, the Board should look at sales of property in Teal Lake Village where Mr. Moser's property is located along with other similar properties with similar houses that are similar in age. Hearing no further testimony Chairman Marlow closed the hearing. The Board will consider all the information provided, conduct a physical inspection of the property and make a determination at a later date. Meeting adjourned. ~: '~{1U /0 '" L~iJ,a, "f~ JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF EQUALIZATION ;.:--------~ ~low,Cha~ Richard A Bro~-Chairman ~\1:~~,