Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM081401 1820 Jefferson Street P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 James A. DeLeo William S. Marlow Richard A. Broders MINUTES AUGUST 14, 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. Member James A. DeLeo arrived shortly after the meeting began. HEARINGS Edward & Eileen Barcott 807 Harrison Port Townsend, W A 98368 BOE: 01-13-R PN: 965702507 Mr. Barcott was present. Appraiser Robert Kingsley represented the Assessor's office. After explaining the hearing process Chairman Broders swore them in. The property under appeal consists of a residence located at 807 Harrison Street, Port Townsend. Mr. Barcott stated that there is a problem with the tax system. In a Court of Law a citizen is presumed innocent until proven guilty. When it comes to taxes, a citizen is guilty. The burden of proof is upon the taxpayer to prove that the Assessor is incorrect. This is contrary to everything we have been taught in this country. According to RCW 84.40.030.1, the bureaucracy that runs the tax system is in control. They are a law unto themselves it appears. Approximately 15 years ago his property was being assessed as having a view. At that time he went to the Assessor's office to dispute the view and the assessment was removed. Had he not challenged the assessment he would still be paying for view property. He stated that he is here not just for himself, but, for the citizens that don't fight the system and are resigned that death and taxes are inevitable. In 1971 the Barcott's purchased the house which was built in 1887 for $18,000. They thought that was a lot of money at the time. The house was referred to as an "old junker" or "fixer up'er". Over the years they have made improvements such as painting, new carpeting, insullation and wiring. These improvements were small affordable jobs that occurred one at a time and over a period of time. The property values have now skyrocketed. Far exceeding inflation. In 1988 their taxes were $619.92. In 1994 they increased to $1,521.14. They increased again in 1999 to $1,616.10. Now for 2002 they have been informed that the value of their land has increased from $56,000 to $88,000 and the value of their house has increased from $73,000 to $85,140. This is a total increase of $43,825. All because of the sale prices of property nearby. How can an old house which is approximately 114 years old and is falling apart, increase in value? The front porch and deck had to be replaced a few years ago. The house has a 30 year old cedar roof that is near the end of its life and needs to be replaced. The wooden foundation has been treated, but, still contains insects. Two of the windows leak and need to be replaced at a cost of $3,000. The siding and gutters are no good. He realizes that property values are based on improvements and sales in the area, but, it is unfair. Why should the wealth of new neighbors penalize old residents. All of the houses which recently sold were all over priced. It doesn't Phone (360)385-9100 / 1-800-831~2678 Fax (360)385-9382 jeffbocc@co.jefferson.wa.us Board of Equalization Minutes - August 14, 2001 Page: 2 make sense. There are newer and larger homes elsewhere in the community that are assessed for less than their property. He does not agree that junk historical old houses are more valuable. Does money always win? People of means pay above the going rate and make vast improvements. Where is the equity? Proposition 13 in California worked. The Legislature has been inept for over a decade. Mr. Barcott stated that he doesn't usually support initiatives, however, it appears it is the only way to deal with the issue of property tax. Elected officials have proved ineffective. Mr. Barcott believes in community and he believes in taxes. He just wants some equity. Many of the for sale signs around town are on property owned by individuals who do not want to sell, but, are being forced to because they cannot afford the high taxes. He is asking for help and he knows the Board is limited in what they can do. Mr. Kingsley stated that he really doesn't have anything to add. There's no point in reviewing the comparable property sales which he presented, since, according to the appellant they all sold for far more than they were worth. He will answer any questions the appellant or the Board may have. Mr. Barcott asked how much freedom the Assessor's office has in valuing property? Mr. Kingsley answered that an appraisal is just an opinion of value so there is a fair amount of latitude. The Assessor's office makes every effort to value property at 100% of its market value as is required by law. Obviously most properties are undervalued, since most of the sale amounts are over the assessed values. Mr. Barcott stated that elderly individuals on fixed incomes are in trouble, and there are several people in that category. Vice-Chairman Marlow explained that changing the system is a legislative issue. The Board's function is to insure that the property is assessed equitably. Mr. Barcott stated that he understands. Mr. Kingsley stated that if Mr. Barcott can provide evidence that proves the property value is substantially incorrect the Board would gladly change the value. Mr. Barcott asked how to prove the value? The value is based on what somebody is willing to pay and he is not willing to sell. Yet, he is still assessed at what the Assessor's office thinks it would sell for. Someone would have to be stupid to buy his house for the current assessed value. The Assessor's argument is not logical. Chairman Broders asked Mr. Kingsley to address Mr. Barcott's comments about the defects with the house? Mr. Kingsley replied that the house was depreciated by 24% which takes into account maintenance problems. He explained that if the windows are fixed for $3,000, the Assessor's office will not increase the assessment by that amount. Mr. Barcott stated that he can understand the land value increasing, but how can an old house increase in value? Mr. Kingsley stated that old houses continue to sell higher and a value has to be assigned to the land and the other component which is the improvements/house. For example, if a piece of land is worth $50,000 and the property sells for $150,000 the assumption is that the house contributed $100,000 to the overall sale price. He added that he owns a 1974 Volkswagon Beetle that cost $2,000 new. Today that car would sell for $5,000. It's old and leaks oil, but, it's worth more now than when it was brand new. Board of Equalization Minutes - August 14, 2001 Page: 3 The current assessment of the property is $173,140 ($88,000 for the land and $85,140 for the improvements). The appellant's estimate of value is $127,000 ($56,000 for the land and $71,000 for the improvements). 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. Dave & Jessie Dover 537 Jackson Port Townsend, WA 98368 BOE: 0l-28-R PN: 989710002 Mr. and Mrs. Dover were not present. Appraiser Peter Schuck represented the Assessor's office and was sworn in by Chairman Broders. The property under appeal consists of a residence located at 537 Jackson Street, Port Townsend. The appellants stated on their petition that "a) Assessor does not account for boat yard next to property (noise & pollution); b) Point Hudson trailers being moved across the street; c) Non view lots!!!" The property is currently assessed at $504,535 ($267,875 for the land and $236,660 for the improvements). The appellant's estimate the value to be $357,960 ($166,335 for the land and $191,625 for the improvements). Mr. Schuck stated that the appellant's property consists of approximately five (5) lots and part of a vacated street on the bank with a water view located by Point Hudson. At one time it was a power plant and then was renovated into a residence with approximately 3,000 square feet of living area. There is also a swimming pool on the property. He explained that the property was valued using a rate of $2,100 per front foot. Due to topography and the proximity of a commercial enterprise, the value of the first 55 front feet of land was reduce by 15%. The second 55 front feet was given a 40% reduction due to excess frontage and for having a long driveway. Mr. Schuck noted that the appellants had the City of Port Townsend certify that the property could be divided into four (4) legal parcels. He then presented and discussed sales of comparable properties that were used in valuing 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. Patricia A. Mulroney 5330 Hendricks Port Townsend, W A 98368 BOE: 01-17-R PN: 972 901 901 Ms. Mulroney was 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 a residence located at 5330 Hendricks Street, Port Townsend. Ms. Mulroney stated that since her divorce she has not been able to maintain her property as she once had. Seven years ago she purchased a hot water heater from a company which is now in litigation because of a faulty part. She was told that she has to replace all the pipes in her house as a result of the faulty part. Her house also contains the recalled Cadet heaters and Hope Roofing quoted her a price of $15,000 for a new roof. She feels that her house is depreciating in value. Currently the property is assessed at $246,130 ($66,800 for the land and $179,330 for the improvements). The appellant estimates the Board of Equalization Minutes - August 14, 2001 Page: 4 value to be $207,540 ($62,800 for the land and $144,740 for the improvements). Ms. Mulroney added that she has lived in several small towns and has seen over and over again how growth can force normal people on fixed incomes to have to sell their homes and move because they cannot afford to live in their small town any more. She stated that there must be another way to generate tax money to prevent that from happening here. Mr. Schuck stated that Ms. Mulroney's house has approximately 2,200 square feet of living area with a studio located on approximately 10 Y2lots. He presented and discussed sales of comparable property. 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. The Food Co-op 414 Kearney Street Port Townsend, W A 98368 BOE: 01-20-LO PN: 969 907 608 Sally Lovell, Finance Team Leader and Judy Briar Kolp, Senior Team Leader were present on behalf of the Food Co-op. 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 parking lot adjacent to the Food Co- op located off of Kearney Street, Port Townsend. Ms. Kolp stated that the Food Co-op leases the land and building from Bill Sperry. Mr. Sperry had also owned the adjacent parcel and had plans to put a business on the lot which had once been the location of Tuttles. The Food Co-op purchased the adjacent property from Mr. Sperry to be maintained as a parking lot to benefit their business. The lot contains eight parking spaces. They do not consider it a buildable piece of property as they plan to use it as a parking lot and feel it should be taxed differently. Currently the property is assessed at $165,000. The appellants estimate the value to be $56,000. Mr. Shold stated that the appellants purchased this property on May 4, 2001 for $180,000. The sale price of property is the best indicator of its market value. The current assessment is $165,000. There are no deed restrictions on the property regarding the use. The property can be built on and developed, so, its use as a parking lot could be changed. He added that there are two separate ownerships. While the Food Co-op owns this piece of property, they are leasing the land and building where their business is located from another property owner. They do not own both parcels. It cannot be valued differently for all these reasons. Vice-Chairman Marlow asked how the appellants estimated the value to be $56,000 or $7,000 per parking space? Ms. Kolp answered that $56,000 is what they wished they had paid for the property. Obviously, they had to secure that piece of property to prevent another business from impacting their business. They feel their estimate of value is fair based on the current use and square footage of the property. She agreed that there is no restricted use of the property, however, if it was to be developed, much work would need to be done to adjacent property in order to meet parking requirements. 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 14,2001 Page; 5 Bank of America c/o Arthur Andersen, LLP P.O. Box 192202 SaD Francisco, CA 94119 BOE: 0l-25-C PN; 989 704 203 Representatives were not present on behalf of Bank of America. Appraiser Robert Shold represented the Assessor's office and was sworn in by Chairman Broders. The property under appeal consists of a parking lot adjacent to Bank of America located off of Water Street, downtown Port Townsend. The appellant's petition did not provide a reason for appealing the property value. Currently the property is assessed at $575,500 ($560,500 for the land and $15,000 for the improvements). The appellant estimates the value to be $287,750 ($280,250 for the land and $7,500 for the improvements). Mr. Shold presented and discussed sales of comparable property which were used in valuing the appellant's property. Member DeLeo asked what improvements are located on the property that are valued at $15,000. Mr. Shold replied that the improvement value of $15,000 is the value of the asphalt on the 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. Ernie & Tammy Pelham 2306 Hendricks Street Port Townsend, W A 98368 BOE: 01-31-R PN: 961200301 Mr. Pelham was 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 a residence located at 2306 Hendricks Street, Port Townsend. Mr. Pelham stated that his property value increased by $36,000 which he feels is extreme. The house is 11 years old and there are many maintenance projects that need to be completed. The house is in need of paint and the decks need to be replaced. There are holes in the kitchen vinyl and the carpet is worn out. In support of his appeal, Mr. Pelham presented a home video he made showing the problems with his property. The current assessment is $211,385 ($31,000 for the land and $180,385 for the improvements). The appellant estimates the value to be $200,000 ($25,000 for the land and $175,000 for the improvements). Mr. Schuck stated that he realizes a $36,000 increase in value seems very dramatic. He then presented and discussed comparable property sales which support the current assessment of the appellant's property. 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.