Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM081202 1820 Jefferson Street P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 James A. DeLeo William S. Marlow Richard A. Broden MINUTES AUGUST 12, 2002 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. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES Vice-Chairman Broders moved to approve the minutes of July 15, 2002 as presented. Member DeLeo seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. HEARING WAIVERS/ASSESSMENT CORRECTIONS Vice-Chairman Broders moved to accept the following assessment corrections and petition withdrawals. Member DeLeo seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. APPELLANT APPEAL NO. PARCEL NO. Stuart & Sachiko Poss BOE 02-11-R 701222002 Wesley Carlson BOB 02-24-R 992600001 D.L. LaPorte & J.W. Ruff BOB 02-25-LO 601 342 015 John Kapp BOB 02-26-R 701 344 050 Charles Lomas BOB 02-42-LO 701223004 Robert C. Lamborn BOE 02-43-R 701174 005 Doug Tufts BOB 02-49-LO 601 213 001 " " BOB 02-50-LO 601 213 002 " " BOE 02-51-LO 601213 003 " " BOB 02-52-LO 601 213 004 " " BOB 02-53-LO 601 213 005 Brian & Carol Barker BOB 02-55-R 701311 004 H. Brooks Hanford BOE 02-57-R 993 400 009 Phone (360)385-9100 Fax (360)385-9382 jeftbocC@Co.jefferaon.wa.ua Board of Equalization Minutes - August 12, 2002 Page: 2 HEARINGS Olympic Manganese Mining Gerald Richert, President W 2631 Skok Valley Road Shelton, W A 98584 BOE: 02.39-LO PN: 703 071 001 Mr. Richert was present. Appraiser Robert Kingsley represented the Assessor's office. Chairman Marlow explained the hearing process and swore them in. The property under appeal consists of approximately 216 acres of bare land known as the Tubal Cain Mine. Its current assessed value is $225,600. The appellant estimates the value to be $30,000. Mr. Kingsley stated that he is present on behalf of Robert Shold who is the Appraiser that valued this property. He explained that the 216 acres were valued using the following acreage method. A one (I) acre prime site was given a value of $20,000 and reduced by 50% for limited access due to topography, while the remaining 215 acres were valued as excess acreage at $2,000 per acre and were also reduced by 50% for limited access and topography. This property is unique and difficult to get to. No comparable sales were available when the property was assessed. Mr. Kingsley noted that the property is currently listed for sale on the open market for $2,500,000. The assessed value of $225,600 is less than 10% of the current asking price. Mr. Richert discussed the assessment laws which state that the Assessor's office must value property using one or more of the three accepted appraisal methods: Market or Sales Method; Cost Approach; and Income Capitalization Approach to income producing property. He doesn't believe the Appraiser used any of these legal methods in valuing his property. The Appraiser admitted that there are no comparable sales. Mr. Richert doesn't really want to sell the property, but, if he could sell it for $2,500,000, he would. Real Estate agents initially listed the property for sale at $3,500,000 and he stated that he will probably have to lower the price again. He asked the appraiser to explain the reasoning for valuing one acre as a "prime site" at $20,000? Mr. Kingsley stated that typically when valuing property, one acre is given a higher value as being a "prime site". Mr. Richert asked if one acre of his property is considered "prime" over the others. Mr. Kingsley replied yes. This is the method used to essentially value all property. Mr. Richert stated that growth management rules and regulations, stream setbacks, etc., prevent the development of this property. There is no site on the property which is buildable. Mr. Kingsley stated that the Assessor's office must value property at 100% of its fair market value. In many cases when a property is listed for sale, the asking price is a good indicator of the "upper range" value for the property. The first offer made would be considered the "lower range" of value. Usually the true value is somewhere in between. Again the current assessed value is significantly less than the appellant's asking price. He understands Mr. Richert listing the property at an extraordinarily high price, hoping someone might pay that amount for the property. The Assessor's office believes a listing price has bearing on the valuation of a property and should be considered. Board of Equalization Minutes - August 12, 2002 Page: 3 Mr. Richert contends that the Assessor's office does not have that privilege. The laws says that they are to value property based on the three approaches mentioned above and there are no comparable sales. He noted that it is very seldom that properties sell for the asking price. An appraisal of the property was done in 1975 which indicated a value of $69,000 at that time. Due to growth management the property is undesirable. Mr. Richert paid $75,000 for the property in 1975. There is no legal road access to the property as it must be accessed by crossing over land owned by the Forest Service. In fact, motorized vehicles are now prohibited. After reviewing all the information submitted and hearing the testimony of both parties, Chairman Marlow closed the hearing. The Board will conduct a physical inspection of the property and make a determination at a later date. Courtney & Heidi Lamm 5025 NE Lamms Lane Poulsbo, W A 98370 BOE: 02-10-LO PN: 701271 006 Mr. Lamm was present. Appraiser Peter Schuck represented the Assessor's office. After explaining the hearing process, Chairman Marlow swore them in. The property under appeal consists of approximately 2.8 acres of residential zoned bare land with a shed located at 284 Dabob View Road, Quilcene. Mr. Lamm stated that only one sale of comparable property has occurred within the last year. All the other comparable sales used by the Assessor in valuing their property occurred in 1998 and 1999. While he doesn't contest a tax increase in general, he does contest the amount their taxes have increased. Due to the recent economic climate and the downturn in sales, the amount of increase is excessive. Their property value should not be based on sales which occurred during better economic times. Currently the property is assessed at $110,830 ($107,150 for the land and $3,680 for the improvements). Mr. Lamm estimates the value to be $88,680 ($85,000 for the land and $3,680 for the improvements). Mr. Schuck explained that when this property was revalued there was no evidence of any land slides in the area. Since that time, land slides have occurred. The one comparable sale which occurred within the last year was used to show that property in the area is still selling even though it is located in a major slide area. Sales of waterfront property all along the Toandos and Bolton Peninsulas support higher assessed values. Property valuations in some areas have gone up 100% and are still undervalued based on market sales evidence. As far as a downturn in sales, all the property sales which have occurred since this area was revalued have been higher than the assessed values of the properties. Mr. Lamm suggested that the Board look at the comparable properties presented by the Assessor's representative. While he doesn't know what they look like, in some cases, a land slide may enhance a property rather than detract from it. Mr. Schuck agreed and stated that many individuals feel a land slide is a once in a lifetime occurrence and it does not scare them away from buying in the area. This is why the Assessor's staff no longer gives significant reductions in value for land slides. Sales support the current assessed values. Mr. Lamm discussed the unfair aspects of the current property tax system. Mr. Schuck explained that the Assessor's office must analyze market evidence. Board of Equalization Minutes - August 12, 2002 Page: 4 After reviewing all the information submitted and hearing the testimony of both parties, Chainnan Marlow closed the hearing. The Board will conduct a physical inspection of the property and make a detennination at a later date. Michael Naughton & Terri Murphy-Naughton BOE: 02.09-R 233 Blueberry Hill Drive Quilcene, W A 98376 PN: 601105 004 Mrs. Naughton was present. Appraiser Peter Schuck represented the Assessor's office. After explaining the hearing process Chainnan Marlow swore them in. The property under appeal consists of approximately 5 acres of land with a one-story, 1,344 square foot house located at 233 Blueberry Hill Drive, Quilcene. Mrs. Naughton stated that they are not disputing the assessment of the improvements, although there was a discrepancy in the Assessor's information on the square footage of the decking. Their measurements were a little less than the Assessor's measurements. The main focus of their appeal is on the land assessment. Currently the property is assessed at $171,420 ($47,300 for the land and $124,120 for the improvements). The appellants estimate of value is $161,420 ($37,800 for the land and $123,620 for the improvements). All ten lots in their development sold for their original prices set in 1996. Since that time several of the lots are on the market and none have sold. A well was put in on the lot across the street from theirs and it resold two years ago for less than $40,000. Other than that not much is selling in their area. A Realtor told her that the market activity of the Coyle area is very slow. Asking price is not "getting" price and she feels that is something that needs to be considered. Some of the comparable sales used by the Assessor are the same sales she found in her research. Two of the sales used by the Assessor are in their development. Lot five which has a well and septic design is on the market for $49,900 and has not sold. Lot two is on the market for $43,500 and also has not sold. Both bare land parcels. The Realtor stated that they are not even getting offers at these prices and that the owners have set the prices unrealistically high. The Realtor gave her a listing of four recent sales of five acres parcels in the Coyle area which sold between $26,500 and $34,000. It looks as though land in the Coyle area averages about $6,000 per acre for bare land. They expect their property to be assessed for that amount with additional value added for the improvements, septic and well. Another point for consideration is the fact that since they purchased the property their view has decreased as a result of tree growth on lots owned by other individuals. Since they do not own the trees there is nothing they can do about it. In addition, the road has decreased in quality over time thereby decreasing its value. She believes the current assessed value of the land is too high and all of these concerns she has expressed negatively affect the value. Mr. Schuck discussed the history of three of the appellant's comparable sales which sold between $26,500 and $34,000. These properties were "stump farms" which means that the owners logged the property and at the time of the sales there were still piles of "slash" laying on the property. It is hard to compare a five acre parcel located in a well done development to a five acre parcel which purchased solely for logging purposes and then resold. He noted that when he valued the appellant's property he noticed that the view had diminished and he gave a 10% reduction for view loss. There is also a road which splits the appellants property, so another 25% reduction in value was given for the road incursion as well as for sloping topography. He explained how acreage is typically valued and presented comparable sales used in valuing the property. Board of Equalization Minutes - August 12, 2002 Page: 5 Mrs. Naughton presented a description of property which is for sale and which appears to be very similar to their property, with an asking price of $158,500. Discussion ensued regarding comparable sales. In sum, their estimate of value is fair based on what is in the paper; information from Realtors; the sale of lot five; and the loss of view and road quality. After reviewing all the information submitted and hearing the testimony of both parties, Chairman Marlow closed the hearing. The Board will conduct a physical inspection of the property and make a determination at a later date. Allan & Mary Kollar 1421 E. Aloha Seattle, W A 98112 BOE: 02-15-LO PN: 701191 006 Mr. and Mrs. Kollar were present. Appraiser Peter Schuck represented the Assessor's office. Chairman Marlow explained the hearing process and swore them in. The property under appeal consists of a bare land parcel located at 1417 East Quilcene Road, Quilcene. Mr. Kollar stated that their property value increased over 90% of the previous assessed value. This parcel is one of three separate parcels which they own and are adjacent to each other. It was clarified that the parcel under appeal is non-buildable. The previous owner was told by Windemere Real Estate that they would not list the property. The appellants purchased the parcel to be used as a natural buffer. They purchased another parcel to the South, and took the house off of it to leave it in its natural state. They are very interested in preserving the nature along that side of the bay because it is the last of the eagle and heron nests and is an important area for the fish found along the shoreline. Mr. Kollar stated that they are aware of the sales which have occurred in the area and understand that they are used as a basis for valuing other parcels. They question whether or not the parcel is buildable as it is being taxed similar to other buildable parcels. They do not know how to prove the parcel is not buildable other than they were told that it would not be listed for sale as a buildable lot. Mrs. Kollar added that the evidence that it is not a buildable lot is the fact that the proximity of their well, which is located on the adjacent parcel where their house is also situated, will require a setback which would prevent building on this parcel. Also abutting this parcel is the septic system for another owners home situated on the adjacent lot on the other side. The only reason they purchased this property was for a buffer and they know the eagles and herons use it. They had visions of someone buying it and logging it, as has happened so much in their community, so this was an opportunity to make sure it didn't happen next door to them. Nothing has been done to improve the property other than to keep it natural, so they were surprised when this parcel was assessed similar to property cultivated for development. In closing, Mr. Kollar noted that the entire 200 front feet of their property was filled in with dirt and logs. Due to ecological elements they have attempted to purchase the property owned by the Anderson's located above and across the road from their property, however the Anderson's are not willing to sell. Currently the property is assessed at $55,100. The appellants estimate the value to be $28,500. Board of Equalization Minutes - August 12, 2002 Page: 6 Mr. Schuck stated that when he valued the property he took into consideration that this parcel may not be buildable and valued it as excess front footage to the parcel on which their house is situated. It is not valued as a separate building site. It was valued as an amenity to the other parcel. Without written documentation from the Health Department proving that this is an unbuildable lot, he is unable to value it as such. He explained how front footage is valued and discussed comparable sales in the area used to base his valuation. Mr. Kollar stated that they are not trying to avoid paying taxes, they just don't want to pay for value that is not there. If the parcel is buildable than they agree the value is fair. They feel the parcel should be valued as a single parcel. Since they have not joined the two parcels they feel that nobody else should take the liberty to do it for them for any reason. The comparable sales presented by Mr. Schuck are not truly comparable in their view. After reviewing all the information submitted and hearing the testimony of both parties, Chainnan Marlow closed the hearing. The Board will conduct a physical inspection of the property and make a detennination at a later date. Meeting adjourned. Attest: ;;. .lI ~t lJvcf). / /~vG Erin K. Lundgren, Clerk 0 the Boa d JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF EQUALIZATION l William S. Marlow, Chairman ~At5~C Richard A. Broders, Vice-Chairman ~D~te~e~