Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM091900 1820 Jefferson Street PO Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 MINUTES SEPTEMBER 19,2000 William S. Marlow Richard A. Broders James A. DeLeo Chairman Vice-Chairman Member Vice-Chairman Richard A Broders called the meeting to order at 10:00 a.m. in the presence of Member James A. DeLeo. Chairman William S. Marlow was not present. HEARINGS Steven R. Johnson 95 Timberline Road Port Townsend, WA 98368 BOE: 00-76-LO PN: 001 203 020 Mr. Johnson was present. Appraiser Peter Schuck represented the Assessor's office. After explaining the hearing process Vice-Chairman Broders swore them in. The property under appeal consists of approximately 2 acres located at 95 Timberline Road, Port Townsend. Mr. Johnson stated that he is concerned that his property "taxes" will double since his property "value" has doubled. The property is undeveloped and no improvements have been made. He purchased a relic of the battleship "Nebraska" which he is storing on the property until he can restore it. He hopes to build on the property someday, however, he is an artist (painter and photographer) and does not have much money as he lives very simple on $5,000 per year. It doesn't make sense that the value has increased when there hasn't been any improvements to the property. The property is currently assessed at $27,020. Mr. Johnson estimates the value to be $19,520. Mr. Schuck presented and discussed three (3) sales of comparable property in the immediate area. He explained how he valued the property and stated that the value was based on the comparable sales presented. Mr. Johnson explained the personal hardship an increase in taxes will cause. He presented photographs of the battleship "Nebraska" relic, as well as photographs taken by him which he sold to be used on various book covers. He invited the Board to attend a "gallery walk" to view his work at a local art gallery. Vice-Chairman Broders explained that the Board's primary responsibility is to review the Assessor's valuation to insure that it is fair and equitable. Hearing no further testimony Vice-Chairman Broders 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. Phone (360)385-9100 / 1-800-831-2678 Fax (360)385-9382 jeffbocC@co.jefferson.wa.us BOARD OF EQUALIZATION MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 19, 2000 Page 2 Milos Falta P.O. Box 1911 Valdez, AK 99686 BOE: 00-95-LO PN: 001 064 004 Mr. Falta was not present. Appraiser Dennis Pownall represented the Assessor's office and was sworn in by Vice-Chairman Broders. The property under appeal consists of approximately 20 acres located off of Hastings Avenue, Port Townsend. The appellant stated on his petition that "Land is used to grow forest product and as such should quality for assessment based upon current use. Attached is timber harvest permit." The appellant also sent a supplement letter stating "... This letter is to support my request for revaluation of newly appraised value of my property. About two weeks ago I asked the County Assessor's office to provide me with a list of comparable properties, so I could present my case accurately. I have not obtained such a list yet. I got only inadequate verbal information over the phone. It considered 15 acres should be most comparable to my property. It sold in 1994 for $120,000, then in 1999 for $132,500. Roughly a 10% increase over 5-6 years. This property was logged, probably building site cleared, which may mean significant improvement. In the past I received several 'Valuation change notices' with higher appraised values. So I do not believe that the Assessor's office neglect their duties to properly assess above mentioned property' In the 18 years I have owned this property, there were no improvements made whatsoever, only forest is growing and as such, land could qualify for 'Designated Timberland'. It is hard for me to believe that in this last short time, value of this property would increase almost 50%. There are more facts which negatively affect the value of my property. In the process of gathering information for this appeal I learned that zoning for this land changed from 4/5 acres to 2/1 0 acres. Also, this property probably will be one of the last to be served by city water, if that ever happens. Every property is different, comparing seemingly similar property is closest, but hardly an accurate way to establish value. I believe, until property is sold, we never can know how much a potential buyer is willing to pay..." The current assessment is $146,715. The appellant's estimate of value is $80,000. Mr. Pownall stated that the property is not in the forest management program so it cannot be valued as designated forest land. As stated in the appellant's letter, only one (I) parcel was used as comparable in valuing this property, but, it was property that sold twice which is strong evidence. He explained how he valued the property and stated that he believes the value is fair and equitable. There is a small acreage calculation error which will be corrected. This correction will reduce his valuation from $146,715 to $141,090. The appellant's estimate of value is still below that amount. Hearing no further testimony Vice-Chairman Broders 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. PETITION WITHDRAWALS Member Deleo moved to accept the following petition withdrawals. Vice-Chairman Broders seconded the motion. The motion carried. APPELLANT APPEAL NO. PARCEL NO. Albert Cairns BOE 00-12-LO 972 901601 " " BOE 00-13-LO 972 901 501 Pope Resources BOE 00-73-LO 821 164001 " " BOE 00-74-C 968 600 002 " " BOE 00-75-LO 990 100 019 BOARD OF EQUALIZATION MINUTES - SEPTEMBER t 9,2000 Page 3 APPROVAL OF MINUTES Member DeLeo moved to approve the minutes of August 15 and 17, 2000 as presented. Vice-Chairman Broders seconded the motion. The motion carried. HEARINGS - Continued Richard A. Malott, Trustee P.O. Box 250 Nevada City, CA 95959 BOE: 00-53-LO PN: 001 202011 Charmaine Seather was present on behalf of Richard A. Malott, Trustee. Appraiser Peter Schuck represented the Assessor's office. After explaining the hearing process Vice-Chairman Broders swore them in. The property under appeal consists of approximately 6.88 acres and is located off of Blossom Lane, Port Townsend. Ms. Seather stated that Mr. Malott was amazed that there was such a large increase in the property value when there is no legal access to the property. She explained that there is a private road adjacent to the property which the neighbor built. Mr. Malott hired an attorney who contacted the neighbors to inquire about getting an easement for utilities and access to the property. The neighbors are not willing to provide an easement, however, Ms. Seather said she was told by the Assessor's office staff that the neighbors cannot legally prevent access to the property. She stated that an easement can be obtained, it is just going to take time and money. Relief is being sought since the property is inaccessible in its present condition. The current assessment of the property is $54,120. The appellant estimates the value to be $33,090. Mr. Schuck stated that no property in the State of Washington can be landlocked. It would be a straight forward process to get an easement since there is already an improved road and utilities adjacent to the property. Mr. Schuck believes that the current lack of access does not have a major impact on the value of the property. He presented numerous sales in the area which he used to determine market value. Hearing no further testimony Vice-Chairman Broders 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. Sharie De May P.O. Box 563 Chimacum, W A 98325 BOE: 00-70-LO 00-71-LO PN: 602344015 602 344 023 Ms. De May was not present. Appraiser Robert Kingsley represented the Assessor's office and was sworn in by Vice-Chairman Broders. The property under appeal consists of two (2) parcels located along the Dosewallips River in Brinnon. One is approximately 22.5 acres and the other is 7.5 acres in size. The appellant stated on her petition that "A 10.19 acre parcel next to mine, (#602-344-014 S34 T26 R2W W1I2 Wl/2 NW SE), was sold on 11/6/97 for $5,500. The previous owner was Danny M. Thompson. This sale price ret1ects an average per acre value of$539.74. My large tract valued by assessor at $32,785 comes to an average of$I,457 per acre. The small tract valued by assessor at $20,655 comes to an average of$2,754 per acre. The two tracts together, $53,440 averages $1,781 per acre on 30 acres. Each one of these is considerably BOARD OF EQUALIZATION MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 19, 2000 Page 4 more per acre than the subject parcel next door sold for. I realize the smaller piece is valued more highly than the larger parcel, because: I) It is smaller and can sell at a higher per acre price; 2) It has a building site on it at the end of the access road; 3) It has less ground subject to erosion by the river; and 4) It has a nice little creek by the building site. The 10.19 acre piece had somewhat less usable percentage than mine because the part on the south side of the river had only steep access and there was more potentially muddy ground there also, due to layers of clay near the surface that causes near saturation of much of that ground. There is also more of this piece on the south side ofthe river, and thus deprival of access through State owned land. A large % of this piece, possibly 20 - 25% is in the river. With regard to both parcels in question, government regulation of river front property has increasingly limited the allowable uses of the property, and the fact that much ofthe property lies in or near a flood plain practically limits the use potential of the properties. In recent times, the river has washed away even more of the land near the river. Government regulations further prevent me from performing flood and erosion control on my properties. A recent lawsuit by a group of land owners on the south side ofthe river against the government failed to secure access that previously existed for owners on the south side of the river. The government over the years acquired more land on the south side of the river and curtailed usage of the existing access road there. The landowners had attempted to prevent the government from locking out land owners who had rights to usage of this access road. This recent legal setback for all land owners on the south side ofthe river depending on access to their properties from this road have, therefore, lost property value. Whether they can ever prevail on appeal or not, (if they appeal), they will at the very least have to spend considerable money to prevail. In any event, this depresses the property value of about 8 acres of my land lying on the south side of the river. In addition to what has already been pointed out, Bonneville Power has just decimated some more of my trees by way of widening their corridor through my property. This has left my property less attractive, (to say the least), thus further reducing its value. Don't forget there is probably about 5 acres in the river I am being taxed for, but because of numerous government regulations, can hardly be said to be truly my property" Also attached to Ms. De May's appeal is a letter from Attorney Harry Holloway III to the Washington State Department of Social and Health Services regarding the difficulty Ms. De May has had with selling her property. Ms. De May believes the current assessment of $32,785 for parcel number 602 344015 should be reduced to $20,250 and that the current assessment of$20,655 for parcel number 602344 023 should be reduced to $9,000. Mr. Kingsley stated that this property was revalued in 1998 and at that time there were a number of sales which occurred in the immediate area. He disputes the sale presented by the appellant as comparable, since it was a quit claim deed from the IRS and is not considered a bonafide sale or fair market transaction. He added that the properties presented as comparable sales are all located on the south side of the Dosewallips River and to the best of his knowledge there is no access to them. The appellant's brother, Dan Thompson, arrived at this time to testify on her behalf. Vice-Chairman Broders explained the hearing process and swore him in. Mr. Thompson reviewed the written testimony present by Ms. De Mayas referenced above. He added that both parcels were marketed together and the asking price was ultimately reduced downward to $20,000 for both parcels with no offer. Mr. Kingsley reviewed the comparable property sales he previously presented. Mr. Thompson questioned the topography on the properties presented as comparable. He also commented on the location of the comparable properties and stated that not all of them are subject to the devaluing affects of the Bonneville Power easement or the erosion caused by the river.