Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM081601 1820 Jefferson Street P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 James A. DeLeo William S. Marlow Richard A. Broder. MINUTES AUGUST 16, 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 Carter Haven 5651 Bellevue Avenue La Jolla, CA 92037 BOE: 01-21-R PN: 936 902 405 Mr. Haven was not present. Appraiser Robert Shold represented the Assessor's office and was sworn in by Chairman Broders. The property under appeal consists of a residence located at 720 - 53,d Street, Port Townsend. The appellant stated on his petition that "House built in '94 & operated as a rental since that time. Despite the fact that no maintenance has been done since that time, the Assessor has condition as "VGD". Not true. The "effective age" is listed as 3 years. Not true. There is no garage, and no dedicated laundry room. Since there is no effective noise ordinance in Port Townsend, the neighborhood continues to suffer from barking dogs, dirt bikes ridden on adjacent property, and loud car stereos. My realtor continues to tell me that because of its unusual design it is impossible to ask rental value similar to adjacent properties. I submit that this property is overvalued at the current valuation." The current valuation is $122,785 ($33,000 for the land and $89,785 for the improvements). The appellant's estimate of value is $111,415 ($33,000 for the land and $78,415 for the improvements). Mr. Shold stated that he is present on behalf of Peter Schuck who was the appraiser that conducted the most recent revaluation of this property, and is unable to be here today. While Mr. Schuck prepared the information previously submitted to the Board for this hearing, Mr. Shold stated that he will answer any questions the Board may have. Chairman Broders stated the Board will review all the information submitted by both parties and conduct a physical inspection of the property. A determination will be made at a later date. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Broders closed the hearing. Phone (360)385-9100 / 1-800-831-2678 Fax (360)385-9382 jeffbocC@Co.jefferson.wa.us Board of Equalization Meeting. August 16, 200l Page 2 Larry & Shirley Browning 1633 Water Street - Apt. #10 Port Townsend, W A 98368 BOE: 01-38-R PN: 931 600 110 Mr. and Mrs. Browning were not present. Assessor Jack Westerman represented his office and was sworn in by Chairman Broders. The property under appeal consists of a top floor unit (#10) in the Bay Vista II Condominiums located on the waterfront at 1633 Water Street, Port Townsend. The appellants stated on their petition that "In three years of being for sale I have only had one offer of $325,000 only if I would do $12,000 in changes. I have only a frontal view with a solid front railing that blocks view if not standing. It is a nice unit that has great value, but, I think the valuation on my place is too high." The property is currently valued at $376,760 ($137,500 for the land and $239,260 for the improvements). The appellant's estimate the total value to be $340,000. A breakdown between land and improvements was not provided. Mr. Westerman stated that there are eleven units in Bay Vista II waterfront condominiums. The appellant's unit is the largest with approximately 1,800 square feet of living space and is one of three units located on the top (3rd) floor. Since it is in the middle of the other two units, it has a view only from the front, while the other two units have a front and side view. The unit to the right (unit #11) has 1,371 square feet of living space and the unit to the left (unit #9) has 1,202 square feet of living space. The units on the 2nd floor and ground level are smaller as there are four units on each floor. The building has an elevator creating easy access to the upper floors and also has a parking garage with numerous parking spaces. The condominium was built in 1993 and not many sales occurred at that time. Mr. Westerman presented the unit sales which occurred this year. Sales usually indicate that the upper floor units are worth more than lower floor units. However, with Bay Vista II condominiums, sales indicate that the units on the top floor and ground floor are more valuable than those located on the second floor. That may be due to the fact that the top floor units are larger than the other units, and individuals can drive right up to the ground floor units. The second floor units do not share those characteristics and also have a unit above and below them. He noted that the appellant's property is currently listed for sale at $389,000. The land for each top floor unit was given a base value of $125,000. Only the appellant's property was given a 10% increase because it has extra front footage. He believes that the appellant's extra front footage has more value than the two end units which have a front and side view. The two end units not only have less front footage, but, the configuration of the windows do not maximize the side views. It could be argued, however, that the view from the decks of the two end units is superior to the appellants. If the Board determines that an adjustment is necessary, he suggests making an adjustment to the land value to insure equity in the valuation method. After reviewing all the information submitted and hearing the testimony of the Assessor, Chairman Broders closed the hearing. The Board will conduct a physical inspection of the property and make a determination at a later date. Jack & Carolyn GUIDer 536 - 50th Street Port Townsend, W A 98368 BOE: 0l-22-LO 01-23-LO PN: 936900901 936 901 901 Mr. Guiher was present. Appraiser Robert Shold represented the Assessor's office. After explaining the hearing process Chairman Broders swore them in. The parcels under appeal consist of two blocks of eight lots each located off of Kuhn Street, Port Townsend. His residence is located on one of the parcels, however, he is only appealing the land value. Mr. Guiher stated that parcel #936 901 901 is located across the street from the sewage treatment plant. Previously the property valuation was reduced due to the odor from the sewer tank. Board of Equalization Meeting - August 16, 2001 Page 3 This continues to be a problem and he believes that the smell devalues his property and should be addressed by the Assessor's office with a reduction in value. Currently the property is assessed at $50,600. Mr. Guiher estimates the value to be $44,800. Parcel #936 900 901 has a big gully running through the center of all eight lots. He presented photographs of the gully and of standing water on his property caused by drainage. Because of the water drainage, City officials changed the zoning of his property from RIA to Rl. This zoning change was done without any notice to him. His house and garage is located on two of the lots. The value of the other six lots is questionable. Currently the property is assessed at $133,015 ($48,400 for the land and $84,615 for the improvements). Mr. Guiher did not provide an estimate of value for this parcel. Mr. Shold stated that he is present on behalf of Peter Schuck who was the appraiser who conducted the most recent revaluation of this property and prepared the information for this hearing. Mr. Shold reviewed the sales of comparable property prepared by Mr. Schuck and offered to answer any questions. Mr. Guiher noted that block 2 which the Assessor's office used as a comparable sale, is completely dry. He discussed other comparable properties and concluded by stating that due to the water drainage on his property, six of his lots are not buildable and do not reflect market value. 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. Mary Beach McDowell, Trust Mary McDowell, Trustee 1034 Franklin Street Port Townsend, W A 98368 BOE: 01-33-R PN: 989710603 Ms. McDowell was not 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 1034 Franklin Street, Port Townsend. The appellant stated on her petition that "The increase is more than 40%; I believe this to be unfair and unsupported by sales." Currently the property is assessed at $539,560 ($160,600 for the land and $378, 960 for the improvements). The appellant's estimate of value is $400,000. A break down between land and improvements was not provided. Mr. Kingsley stated that he is present of behalf of Peter Schuck, the appraiser who conducted the most recent revaluation of this parcel and is unable to be here today. He noted that the appellant did not provide any sales evidence that would support her estimate of value. The information Mr. Schuck prepared for this hearing did include sales of comparable property. Mr. Kingsley reviewed the sales information and explained how they compare to the appellant's property. As shown by the sales, property values in Port Townsend are significantly increasing. Appraisers are not simply increasing the values by an arbitrary percentage, the assessments are market driven. Member DeLeo noted that some of the comparable property sales presented are bed and breakfasts. Board of Equalization Meeting. August 16, 2001 Page 4 Vice-Chairman Marlow asked how the Assessor's office compares property which is strictly a residence to property used as a bed and breakfast? Mr. Kingsley stated that no distinction between the two uses is made in the valuation process. He noted that one of the comparable property sales that he presented was a bed and breakfast at the time of the sale, but is now going to be strictly a private residence. It sold for $650,000. Previously it was assessed at $371,815 and currently it is assessed at $637,665. Whether or not property is a private residence or a bed and breakfast appears to be irrelevant based on sales. 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. Stephen Malachowski P.O. Box 65162 Port Ludlow, W A 98365 BOE: 01-11-R PN: 968700116 Mr. Malachowski was present. Assessor Jack Westerman represented his office. After explaining the hearing process Chairman Broders swore them in. The property under appeal consists of a newly constructed residence located at 477 Ludlow Bay Road, Port Ludlow. Mr. Malachowski stated that he questions the value of the improvements placed on his property. The residence is under construction and currently is just a "shell". The interior of the home is largely unfinished. The improvement value went from 0 to $50,000. He asked if that value represents the structure as completed or uncompleted? When the property was assessed for new construction last fall it was valued at $235,000 ($185,000 for the land and $50,000 for the improvements). The appellant estimated the value to be $210,000 ($185,000 for the land and $25,000 for the improvements). Since that time the property has been re-assessed as new construction and is currently valued at $518,555 ($191,000 for the land and $327,555 for the improvements). Mr. Westerman stated that the improvements were valued at $50,000 last year. That value represented the value as a "shell" or uncompleted structure. A change of value notice was sent to Mr. Malachowski last year for the $50,000 new construction value, however, he missed the appeal deadline for the 2000 Board of Equalization session. The Clerk of the Board sent him a letter stating he could file an appeal for the 2001 session. Mr. Malachowski had not yet received his change of value notice for 2001, so he filed his appeal assuming he was appealing the 2000 new construction value of $50,000. Rather than cancel the hearing and force Mr. Malachowski to file a new petition with the new value, he was contacted about continuing his appeal for the 2001 new construction value and he agreed. Therefore, this hearing is actually for the 2001 new construction value of $327,555. Mr. Westerman reviewed the information he submitted in support of his assessment. The new assessment represents the value of the structure at 75% complete. From the outside it appears to be finished, but the interior is only sheet rocked and painted. There are no toilets, lavatory sinks, cabinetry, trim, or interior doors. He noted that this property in its unfinished condition has been listed for sale by Mr. Malachowski with Coldwell Banker for $875,000. Mr. Westerman believes the current assessment is closer to the actual fair market value of the property, but if Mr. Malachowski can sell it for the asking price, more power to him. Mr. Malachowski added that all of his questions have been answered at this time. Board of Equalization Meeting - August 16, 2001 Page 5 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. Loran Joe Schreiner 63 Blueberry Hill Road Port Ludlow, W A 98365 BOE: 01-18-R PN: 821334041 Mr. Schreiner was present. Appraiser Dennis Pownall 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 63 Blueberry Hill Road, near Teal Lake in Port Ludlow. Mr. Schreiner stated that he believes the land is not worth the amount for which he is currently being tax. His home has been for sale for 6 '/2 years and there has not even been an offer for the current assessed amount. The downstairs area of his home consists of approximately 890 square feet of living area and he believes he is being assessed for 1,100 square feet. Mr. Schreiner presented photographs for the Board to review in support of his appeal. There are circumstances beyond his control that exist on neighboring lots which devalue his property. A single wide mobile home is located on an adjacent parcel which blights the property entrance. There is noise from a nearby shooting range off of Andy Cooper Road. A private road easement runs through his property and is used for parking by the neighbors. People drive too fast on the road and he is concerned about someone getting hurt on his property. Regardless of the easement, he would still be liable. His property is encumbered and thereby, devalued. The current assessment is $186,225 ($24,000 for the land and $162,225 for the improvements). The appellant estimates the value to be $158,935 ($15,000 for the land and $143,935 for the improvements). Mr. Pownall stated that he is present on behalf of Peter Schuck who conducted the most recent assessment of this property. He stated that the house is definitely one of the best in that entire plat. The degree to which neighboring circumstances negatively impact the market value of the property is difficult to determine. He ran a query of sales in the immediate area and presented sales of comparable property which Mr. Schuck had submitted in preparation for this hearing. Mr. Pownall asked Mr. Schreiner how much the property listed for? Mr. Schreiner stated that the property was listed for sale at $209,000, but currently he is asking $239,000. Mr. Pownall explained that Mr. Schreiner is enrolled in the Senior Citizen and Disabled Person Exemption Program. As a result, his property value has been frozen at $164,935 ($21,000 for the land and $143,935 for the improvements), which was the value of the property in the year he qualified. This is the amount on which his property taxes are based. Even though the property valuation continues to be assessed based on market sales and is currently valued at $186,225, Mr. Schreiner will only pay taxes on the frozen value of $164,935. Mr. Pownall stated that the taxes would not be reduced unless the Board reduced the property value to an amount below the frozen value. He explained that the taxes may vary by a small amount each year depending on levies, however, the taxes will always be based on the frozen amount unless Mr. Schreiner's exemption status changes. Mr. Schreiner added that at one time someone broke into his home in the middle of the night and held a gun to his head. He doesn't want to live their anymore, but, he is unable to sell it. Mr. Pownall asked Mr. Schreiner if he would sell it for $185,000? Board of Equalization Meeting - August 16, 2001 Page 6 Mr. Schreiner answered that he hasn't even had an offer, but, he would certainly entertain it. The feed back from the Realtors is that potential buyers think it's a beautiful house, but, terrible area. Mter 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. Wilfred & Dolores Schmidt 62 Shine Road Port Ludlow, W A 98365 BOE: 01-34-R PN: 994400104 Mr. and Mrs. Schmidt were 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 62 Shine Road, Port Ludlow. Mrs. Schmidt stated that the house is not finished and in many places it is improperly finished. The house was built in 1997. It was put on the market for $239,000 and did not sell. The price was reduced to $219,000 and then to $209,000 and still it did not sell. The appellants purchased the home for $192,000 knowing that it would take a considerable amount of time and money to finish it properly. The listing agent estimated the finishing costs to be approximately $15,000 which does not include a remodeled kitchen. The kitchen cabinets are very low grade and poor installation has caused gaps. Flimsy screws were used on the cabinet doors and the backing is not very substantial. She is unable to store heavy items and she refuses to store any good dishes in them. There is a gap where the corner cupboards meet and contents can actually fall down onto the counter top. The counter tops are laid with h" thick granite tile which were improperly laid and are completely uneven. The only way to repair it is to remove it all and do it over again. Wood molding was used all around the stove which is not safe. The living room fire place is not finished and the tile around it is not grouted. Even if the fireplace was finished it could not be used because no junction box was installed to power the ignition and blower. There are wall switches for the fireplace, but, there is no electrical connection. Basically, it's a decorative piece of junk. She noted that the Building Department signed off on this work as finished, and it isn't finished. Other electrical work outside the house was not completed. Very minimal landscaping was done. The dryer vent hose is 16' long to reach outside and has five 90 degree turns resulting in efficiency loss. The water shut-off valve was not installed initially and had to be done later as part of a correction notice. The valve should have been located in the garage, but, instead it was put in the recreation room and it appears as though a hammer was used to put the hole in the sheet rock. The valve protrudes from the hole in the wall, so, she keeps a plant in front of it. The sliding glass door in the recreation room is cracked due to the lack of support underneath it. The deck is in need of additional posts and beams for support. The master bath tub with jets has problems too. When the previous owner had a plumbers report done it was discovered that there was no access to the pump. The tub had already been installed and tile laid all around it. A huge hole was cut into the tiled wall of the tub so there would be access to the pump. The feature tile could not be matched so the opening was covered with a large cabinet door which was caulked on. There are many other problems such as, the soffits are unfinished, large propane bottles were located outside just three feet from the recreation room door, decks and shakes are not sealed, furnace cooling fan does not work, and the garage door gasket is tom. In addition, keys to the front door and garage door, the garage door opener, the central vacuum hose and attachments, and the screens for three sliding doors are all missing. Mrs. Schmidt provided photos as evidence of all of the above testimony. These are all gross detractions from a quality finished house, which this was meant to be until the contractor-owner suffered financial problems. She stated that this house is categorized as "excellent" in the Assessor's records. If that is Board of Equalization Meeting - August 16, 2001 Page 7 the case, she will never live in a house that is categorized as "good" or "average". She discussed the value of their property and how it compares to similar properties in the area. The current assessment is $220,315 ($42,000 for the land and $178,315 for the improvements). The Schmidt's estimate of value is $185,000 ($37,000 for the land and $148,000 for the improvements). Mr. Kingsley stated that he is present on behalf of Peter Schuck who was the appraiser who conducted the most recent assessment of this property. In reviewing the information that Mr. Schuck prepared for this hearing it appears as though he offered to stipulate this appeal for a reduced amount of $191,225 which is less than the appellant's purchase price of $192,000. Mr. Schuck most likely felt that based on the purchase price, he could not offer to settle below that amount. He explained how the property was valued and stated that the land value is accurate based on its sale. 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. zst:. (~fcUll vJ) . ('::!vt.nj 4/l.(A G Mn K. Lundg!en, C(~JJ of the WOard A. William S. Marlow, Vice-Chairman %~"'€o,~=~