Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM081301 1820 Jefferson Street P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 James A. DeLeo William S. Marlow Richard A. Broders MINUTES AUGUST 13, 2001 Richard A. Broders William S. Marlow James A. DeLeo Chairman Vice-Chairman Member Chairman Richard A. Broders called the meeting to order at 9:30 a.m. in the presence of Vice-Chairman William S. Marlow and Member James A. DeLeo. HEARING William D. Kelly 2845 Discovery Road Port Townsend, W A 98368 BOE: 01-10-R PN: 997800703 Mr. Kelly was not present. Appraiser Dennis Pownall represented the Assessor's office and was sworn in by Chairman Broders. The property under appeal consists of a residence located off of Discovery Road, Port Townsend. The appellant stated on his petition that "1 have made no improvements on my home other than painting the porches. The building referred to as a carport is my wood storage and it is over 9 years old. Bought for $35." The current assessment of the property is $104,930 ($26,750 for the land and $78,180 for the improvements). The appellant's estimate of value is $94,500 ($27,000 for the land and $67,500 for the improvements). Mr. Pownall stated that no property sales occurred in the Swan Park plat where the appellant's property is located. Therefore, the value was based on sales which occurred just up the street from the appellant's property and in the area surrounding Swan Park plat. The petition form lists a purchase price of $83,000, however, Mr. Pownall noted that the appellant purchased the property ten years ago. Four years ago the property was assessed at $83,030. He discussed the comparable property sales and stated that while they are smaller than the appellant's property, he believes they support the current assessment of the appellant's property. After reviewing all the information submitted and hearing the testimony of the Assessor's representative, Chairman Broders closed the hearing. The Board will conduct a physical inspection of the property and make a determination at a later date. Phone (3601385-9100 / 1-800-831-2678 Fax (360)385-9382 jeffbocC@co.jefferson.wa.us Board of Equalization Minutes - August 13, 2001 Page: 2 APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES Vice-Chairman Marlow moved to approve the minutes of July 16, 2001 as presented. Member DeLeo seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. HEARING WAIVERS/ASSESSMENT CORRECTIONS Member DeLeo moved to accept the following assessment corrections and petition withdrawals. Vice- Chairman Marlow seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. APPELLANT Terence & Rochelle O'Brien Henry L. Brooks Lonnie & Gloria Phillips Doug & Misty Paulik Paul Schmidt " " Francis A. Norton APPEAL NO. BOE 01-04-LO BOE 01-05-R BOE 01-12-R BOE 01-16-LO BOE 0l-29-LO BOE 01-30-LO BOE 01-32-LO PARCEL NO. 990600 131 821 355 055 961 500 301 721162001 990 700 031 990 700 038 990600 141 ASSESSOR'S CERTIFICATE OF ASSESSMENT ROLLS The Board reviewed the Assessor's Cerrificate of Assessment Rolls to the County Board of Equalization. Member DeLeo moved to accept the Assessor's Certificate of Assessment Rolls for 2001. Vice-Chairman Marlow seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. HEARINGS. CONTINUED Charles E. Ruby, Trustee Helen E. Ruby 1986 Trust P.O. Box 805 Cardiff, CA 92007 BOE: 01-06-LO 01-07-LO PN: 001212010 001 212 011 Mr. Ruby was not present. Appraiser Robert Shold represented the Assessor's office and was sworn in by Chairman Broders. The property under appeal consists of two bare land parcels located off of Old Fort Townsend Road, Port Townsend. The appellant stated on his petition that "Property zoning changed from industrial to residential. Both lots 3 & 4 or tax lots 15 & 16 need to perk for only one bathroom, (see attached)." He attached a copy of a conditionally approved septic permit request dated August 7, 1979, a copy of a sewage disposal permit with map dated January 30, 1981, and a copy of his 200l property tax statement. The property is currently assessed at $115,500 for parcel number 001 212010 and $50,200 for parcel number 001212011. The appellant estimates the value of the parcels to be $50,000 and $25,000 respectively. Board of Equalization Minutes - August 13, 2001 Page: 3 Mr. Shold explained that the property was revalued in 2000 and the land value for these parcels was not changed from the 1996 value because the Assessor's Office did not have any evidence on which to base a change in valuation. The Glen Cove provisional UGA shows that the appellant's parcels are not included in the Glen Cove tightline boundary, but are included in the provisional UGA boundary. It is assumed that this property is currently zoned residential. In answer to a question posed by Chairman Broders regarding the significant difference in value of the two parcels which are relatively the same size, Mr. Shold stated one of the parcels fronts on highway 20. Past sales evidence indicates that property which fronts on highway 20 is more valuable than property that does not. The appellant's property is currently valued as having a commercial designation, even though it is assumed to be zoned residential. Assuming the property is zoned residential, Chairman Broders asked if the highway frontage adds any value? Mr. Shold stated that as a residential lot, the fact that it fronts on the highway does not add any value. After reviewing all the information submitted and hearing the testimony of the Assessor's representative, Chairman Broders closed the hearing. The Board will conduct a physical inspection of the property and make a determination at a later date. Paul & JiIlana Nelson P.O. Box 745 Port Townsend, W A 98368 BOE: 01-08-LO PN: 948601401 Mr. and Mrs. Nelson were not present. Appraiser Robert Shold represented the Assessor's office and was previously swom in by Chairman Broders. The property under appeal consists of 14 bare land commercial/industrial lots located off of Fredrick Street in the Glen Cove Industrial Park. The appellants stated on their petition that "We paid $35,000 and other land property in the same area has sold for $35,000." Currently the property is assessed at $67,030. The appellant's estimate of value is $35,000. Mr. Shold stated that this property was revalued in 2000. Again, property values in the Glen Cove area were not changed from the value set in 1996 based on the lack of sales evidence. The appellants purchased this property in July 2000 for $35,000. Since the time of revaluation, there have been three or four property sales, including the appellant's purchase, which were significantly less than their current assessed values. All of the properties which sold were in this area, but outside of the Glen Cove tightline boundary. If the Board accepts the sales evidence as supporting the value of the appellant's property, Mr. Shold suggests that other property values in the area be equalized to maintain consistency among similar properties. He estimated that 40 bare land parcels with valuations based on commercial designations may be affected by not being included in the Glen Cove tightline boundary. There are some properties outside of the tightline boundary which contain commercial buildings and those are considered "Grandfathered" commercial use. After reviewing all the information submitted and hearing the testimony of the Assessor's representative, Chairman Broders closed the hearing. The Board will conduct a physical inspection of the property and make a determination at a later date. Board of Equalization Minutes - August 13, 2001 Page: 4 Philip & Beverly Rich 2300 Sea view Drive Port Townsend, W A 98368 BOE: 01-40-R PN: 993 800 009 Mr. and Mrs. Rich were present. Appraiser Peter Schuck represented the Assessor's office. Chairman Broders explained the hearing process and swore them in. The property under appeal consists of a residence located in Seaview Estates at 2300 Seaview Drive, Port Townsend. Mr. Rich stated that there is a water drainage problem in his neighborhood which results in standing water on his property and neighboring properties. In 1996 the City of Port Townsend placed four catch basins at the entrance to Seaview Estates. A 12" culvert was installed to channel the water under Cook Avenue to the west and dump it onto the property where Seaview Estates is located. The water has nowhere to go except onto residential lots. In addition, the property located across Cook Avenue from Seaview Estates which contained ponds, was approved for development by the City of Port Townsend. When the property was developed, the contractor dug a ditch across Cook Avenue and another 12" culvert was installed to divert this excess water also onto the west side of Cook Avenue and again onto the residential properties located in Seaview Estates. Mr. Rich feels the City is liable for the damages sustained. The water is causing erosion to the bluff in dry and wet weather. He has talked with the City engineers and the Mayor about this ongoing problem. It was promised in 1996 that there was going to be a swell placed along Cook Avenue to mitigate the water problem. Several letters from the City were received promising it would be done. He attended several meetings requesting a remedy, yet, nothing has been done. The water is creating a problem and is devaluing their property. A few years ago while installing a sprinkler system he discovered a hole which appears to be bottomless. This hole, which he filled with gravel, was caused by water draining through his property. He stated that the water problem and lack of a drainage system affects the current value of their property and he is concerned about the value of his property in the future as well. Mrs. Rich discussed discrepancies with the assessment details and how their property is valued comparatively with other properties in the area. She stated that the Assessor's worksheet shows the basement as finished which it is not. Their basement is just a crawl space, nothing more. Their house consists of approximately 1200 sq. ft. of actual living space. No improvements have been made since 1970. It should not be compared to other properties which are newer and have been remodeled or improved. While their house looks good from the outside, it is very dated on the inside. The appellants are requesting the current assessed valuation be reduced from $235,755 ($133,000 for the land and $102,755 for the improvements) to $215,000 ($120,000 for the land and $95,000 for the improvements). Mr. Schuck stated that he can easily correct any discrepancy with regard to the basement. He explained that he valued the appellant's property in the quality category as "average +" with an effective age of 17 years for a physical depreciation of 17%. Two sales of comparable property were presented along with bare land sales supporting the high bank waterfront values. Mr. Schuck is aware of the water issue discussed by Mr. Rich, however, he does not know how much it affects his bank. He understands the Rich's concerns, but, there has been a sale in Seaview Estates notwithstanding the water issue. The water definitely affects the properties across the street from Mr. Rich when at times portions of those properties are under water. Mrs. Rich added that the property which sold was purchased on the condition that something would be done about the water problem. The City installed a drain which did not do anything to fix the problem. After reviewing all the information submitted and hearing the testimony of both parties, Chairman Broders closed the hearing. The Board will conduct a physical inspection of the property and make a determination at a later date. Board of Equalization Minutes - August 13, 2001 Page: 5 A. A. & Maxine Lafleur 540 Tyler Street Port Townsend, W A 98368 BOE: 01-26-R 01-27-R PN: 989710505 989710506 Mr. and Mrs. LaFleur were present. Appraiser Peter Schuck represented the Assessor's office. After explaining the hearing process Chairman Broders swore them in. The property under appeal consists of two residential lots located at 540 Tyler Street, Port Townsend. A house and carriage house is located on one parcel and a carport on the other. Mrs. LaFleur stated that they believe they paid too much for the property when they purchased it in 1995. They could not sell the property for the current assessed value as it is in need of quite a bit of repair. The appellants are requesting that the valuation of parcel number 989 710 505 be reduced from $48,120 to $45,500 and that the valuation of parcel number 989 710 506 be reduced from $297,290 ($71,600 for the land and $225,690 for the improvements) to $263,000 ($60,000 for the land and $203,000 for the improvements). Mr. LaFleur added that they looked for 2 Vz years before they purchased this house that they thought they could live in without having to make major repairs. They hired a home inspector who did not find the problems that they have had with the house. The electrical wiring is bad. There had been a chimney fire at some point in the past. The mortar was missing and the bricks were burned, so it had to be replaced. The sewer line also had to be replaced. There is dryrot in several places, and sanding and painting needs to be done. The electrical wiring in the carriage house also needs to be replaced. None of this was disclosed by the seller when they purchased the home. Basically, the house is in need of many repairs before it could be sold. Mr. Schuck stated that he offered to stipulate the appeal of parcel number 989 710 506 with the appellants for a lower assessment of $289,245, due to the condition of the accessory dwelling unit (ADD) (carriage house). After talking with Mr. Lafleur, he agreed to lower the quality of the carriage house from "average +" to "fair" or "fair +". The appellants did not feel that was enough of a reduction and wanted to proceed with their appeal. He explained that he used the same methodology to value the appellant's property, as was used throughout the uptown area. He discussed how he valued the property and presented sales of comparable properties in the area. After reviewing all the information submitted and hearing the testimony of both parties, Chairman Broders closed the hearing. The Board will conduct a physical inspection of the property and make a determination at a later date. William & Lorna McKinley 50-1 Harborview Drive Port Townsend, W A 98368 BOE: 01-03-R PN: 964900017 Mr. and Mrs. McKinley were present. Appraiser Robert Shold represented the Assessor's office. After explaining the hearing process Chairman Broders swore them in. The property under appeal consists of a condominium unit located in Kala Point, Port Townsend. Mr. McKinley stated that they believe the assessment is too high due to the fact that they purchased this property fully furnished. While the furnishings added extra value to the purchase price, furnishings are considered "personal" property and should not be assessed with the "real" property. In addition, their unit does not have a garage or carport and the square footage is fairly modest compared to other units in the building. With the exception of one other unit, their unit also has less storage than any other unit in the building. It was built in 1978 and is the oldest of the four Board of Equalization Minutes - August 13, 2001 Page: 6 original buildings in the complex. Four sales of comparable units were presented with their petition that are located in the immediate area. He discussed the sales and stated that the difference in price relates to the fact that their unit was furnished. They also feel that they over paid for the property even furnished. To their knowledge there is no other unit which has sold that is truly comparable in size to their unit. The current assessment is $144,600 ($45,000 for the land and $99,600 for the improvements). The appellants estimate the value to be $123,000 ($42,000 for the land and $81,000 for the improvements). Mr. Shold stated that he is present on behalf of Assessor Jack Westerman who originally assessed this property. He is not familiar with the appellant's property or the comparable property sales that were used in valuing the property. It does not appear that the appellants received a copy of the information prepared by Mr. Westerman and submitted to the Board in support of the assessment. Ms. McKinley confirmed that they did not receive the information. Mr. Shold gave the McKinley's a copy of the information and the Board allowed them time to review it. They disputed one of the sales as the property is larger than theirs. Being unfamiliar with the other sales and not knowing the size of the property Mr. McKinley stated that they can neither concur with nor dispute them. Chairman Broders asked the McKinley's what value was placed on the furnishings? Mr. McKinley stated that their position is that the difference in value between their purchase price and the comparable sales is attributable to the fumishings. Discussion ensued regarding the Board's physical inspection of the property. In a letter presented by Mr. Westerman he requested to join the Board on their physical inspection if they were going to be reviewing the interior of the appellant's condominium unit. The Board agreed that the issues brought up by the appellant pertain to the exterior aspects of the property (ie. size, views, etc.). Therefore, an inspection of the interior is not necessary. After reviewing all the information submitted and hearing the testimony of both parties, Chairman Broders closed the hearing. The Board will conduct a physical inspection of the property and make a determination at a later date. Charles Wesley DePew 82 Vista Port Townsend, W A 98368 BOE: 01-09-R PN: 963 700 016 Mr. DePew was present. Appraiser Robert Shold represented the Assessor's office. After explaining the hearing process Chairman Broders swore them in. The property under appeal consists of a residential lot and house located at 82 Vista, Port Townsend. Mr. DePew stated that he does not believe he can sell his property for the current assessed value. In fact, this afternoon he is listing his property with a Real Estate agency. His property does not have a view. There are junk cars on neighboring lots which he feels devalues his property. He went and looked at all the comparable properties presented by the Assessor's representative, however, none of those properties have a junk yard in their neighborhood. If anyone here wants to buy his property for the current assessment, he will sell it immediately. He explained that he is 62 years old, retired, and on a fixed Board of Equalization Minutes . August 13, 2001 Page: 7 income. If he went to back to work, the government would just take that away from him, so he doesn't have any alternative. The property is currently assessed at $173,545 ($43,000 for the land and $130,545 for the improvements). Mr. DePew feels the property should be valued at $152,185 ($31,000 for the land and $121,185 for the improvements). Mr. Shold stated that the issue is the degree to which the neighbor's property negatively impacts Mr. DePew's property. Many factors have an influence on value. This is a difficult impact to measure. Mr. Shold suggested the Board inspect the property and make any value adjustment they feel is necessary. Mr. DePew added that he is not saying his yard is perfect, but, he takes a lot of pride in it. He does not feel he should be taxed because he has a nice yard. He paid for all the items he put into his yard and he paid tax on all of those items when he purchased them. Now he has to pay tax because the landscaping on his lot looks nice. It's not right. It is still just a piece of dirt. What a person does with it is their own business, as long as you can keep it within the lot and make your neighbors happy. The same applies to houses. Vice-Chairman Marlow asked Mr DePew if he is going to list the property for sale for $173,000? Mr. DePew answered no. When he first thought about listing it, prior to receiving his change of value notice, he was going to list it for $139,000. At this time he does not know what amount he will ask for the property. A Real Estate Agent is coming this aftemoon to help him figure that out. He stated that he is not against paying taxes. He owned a fuel business for 33 years and paid very high taxes. He supports the schools and other things, but, at some point it has to level off. And even though he is selling the property, he wants to follow through with his appeal for the next owner. After reviewing all the information submitted and hearing the testimony of both parties, Chairman Broders closed the hearing. The Board will conduct a physical inspection of the property and make a determination at a later date. Meeting adjourned. A~st: L/i - ~ ~ I ' l~lil 'C~ L?LtLq.e~ In K. Lundgr n, Cle of the10ard JEFFERSON COUNTY "O;F Q IZ TION Richard A. Broders, Chairman j/~.~-~ -~-~ William S. Marlow, Vice-Chairman ~.~e~~er