Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM090902 1820 Jefl'erson Street P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 ~ a2~J :f~lil~ William S. Marlow Richard A. Broders James A. DeLeo Jam.. ilMrTES William S. Marlow SEPTEMBER 9, 2002 Richard A. Broden Chairman Vice-Chairman Member Vice-Chairman Richard A. Broders called the meeting to order at 9:30 a.m. in the presence of Member James A. DeLeo. Chairman William S. Marlow was not present. HEARING WAIVERS/ASSESSMENT CORRECTIONS Member DeLeo moved to accept the following assessment corrections and petition withdrawals. Vice- Chairman Broders seconded the motion. The motion passed. APPELLANT J. Clyde & M. Bebe Tibbatts Donna Corey Allen & Dorothy Wright William D. Jones Ben & Nancy Olson APPEAL NO. BOE 02-03-LO BOE 02-07-R BOE 02-08-R BOE 02-23-R BOE 02-64-LO PARCEL NO. 983 400 709 955 900 003 990 600 301 701 304 009 601 332 016 HEARINGS John W. Chamberlain 160 - 24th Avenue San Francisco, CA 94121 BOE: 02-06-R PN: 990 300 116 Mr. Chamberlain was not present. Appraiser Robert Shold represented the Assessor's office and was sworn in by Vice-Chairman Broders. The property under appeal is a condominium (unit 16) in building 12 of Admiralty I, located at 1 Olympic Way, Port Ludlow. Mr. Chamberlain stated on his petition that he purchased the property on February 15, 2002 for $80,000. He believes his purchase price represents fair market value of the property. The current assessment is $108,250 ($20,250 for the land and $88,000 for the improvements). Mr. Shold stated that this property was last revalued in 1999 and will be revalued again in 2003. He presented comparable sales in support of the current assessed value. He noted that Mr. Chamberlain purchased this property from the University Unitarian Church, a non-profit corporation. Mr. Chamberlain is also listed as the purchaser in two other condominium sale transactions in Admiralty I which were used as comparable properties to support the current assessed value. Phone (360)385-9100 F8Jl (360)385-9382 jeffbocC@Co.jeffer8oD.wa.u8 Board of Equalization Minutes - September 9, 2002 Page: 2 After reviewing all the information submitted and hearing the testimony of the Assessor's representative, Vice- Chairman Broders closed the hearing. The Board will conduct a physical inspection of the property and make a determination at a later date. Richard & Mary DeLong 2000 Water Street Port Townsend, W A 98368 BOE: 02-13-R PN: 957 306 701 Chuck Henry, Attorney at Law was present on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. DeLong. Appraiser Robert Kingsley represented the Assessor's office. After explaining the hearing process Vice-Chairman Broders swore them in. The property under appeal is a Victorian Bed and Breakfast known as the Old Consulate Inn, located at 313 Walker Street, Port Townsend. Mr. Henry explained that the DeLong's purchased the property in May 2000. At that time the previous owners were going through a divorce and a local title company (Jefferson Title Company) handled the closing of the sale. In this process, Jefferson Title Company recorded the incorrect selling price on the Real Estate Excise Tax Affidavit. The taxable selling price was listed as $874,200 when it should have been $725,400. As a result of this error the appellants paid excess Real Estate Excise taxes as well as additional property taxes until the mistake was discovered and corrected by Jefferson Title Company earlier this year. Mr. Henry noted that the corrected Real Estate Excise Tax Affidavit prepared by Jefferson Title Company also contains an error. The date of the sale is listed as May 30, 2002 when the sale actually closed on May 30, 2000 as evidenced in the sale agreement. The appellants feel the current assessment of $859,830 ($277,875 for the land and $581,955 for the improvements) is too high and should not be based on the incorrectly listed sale price, but rather should reflect the actual sale price of $725,400 ($234,377 for the land and $491,023 for the improvements). Mr. Henry noted that the only improvements the appellants made to the property was the replacement of the roof which cost approximately $18,231. Mr. Kingsley stated that he is present on behalf of Assessor Jack Westerman who assessed this property, but could not attend the hearing today. He agrees that the assessment should reflect the sale price of $725,400 along with an increase of $18,231 for the replacement value of the roof, changing the total assessment to $743,631. With regard to the breakdown between land and improvement values, he requests that the current land assessment of $277,875 remain the same to maintain equity among all land values in the area and that any adjustment in value be made to the improvements. Mr. Henry stated that the cost of $18,231 to replace the roof does not necessarily enhance the value of the structure by the same amount. The cost of an improvement made to property does not directly reflect the improved fair market value. It would seem to him that it is usually a lesser value. Mr. Kingsley stated that normally he would agree, however, on the petition form it indicates that in July 2002 a bank appraised the property for $838,000. Admittedly the appraisal was conducted for refinancing purposes, however, an appraiser who is independent of the Assessor's Office determined that value. Mr. Henry replied that since the purpose of that appraisal was for a different valuation basis, it doesn't appear to be reflective of the fair market value. He added that the Board might also take into consideration the fact that the appellants have paid excess taxes for the period of two years because of the error made by Jefferson Title Company. He believes there is some basis to equalize the assessment to account for that. Board of Equalization Minutes - September 9, 2002 Page: 3 The appellants should be able to receive a refund for those taxes paid in excess of what was actually owed due to the error, stated Mr. Kingsley. Vice-Chairman Broders agreed that a refund can occur in some cases, however, the Board of Equalization can only address valuation issues and is unable to base their determination on the unfortunate error which occurred. After reviewing all the information submitted and hearing the testimony of both parties, Vice-Chairman Broders closed the hearing. The Board will conduct a physical inspection of the property and make a determination at a later date. Jurgan & Johanna Veigel 251 Windrose Drive Port Ludlow, W A 98365 BOE: 02-19-R PN: 931900 040 Mr. and Mrs. Veigel were present. Appraiser Robert Shold represented the Assessor's office. After explaining the hearing process Vice-Chairman Broders swore them in. The property under appeal consists of a residential lot and a one-story house located at 251 Windrose Drive in Bayview Village Division No.1, Port Ludlow. Mr. Veigel stated that they purchased the house in February 2002 for $182,000 which he feels was too much because of certain disadvantages. There is absolutely no view from the house. All the other houses in the neighborhood have a view of the water, marina, or golf course. This property had been on the market for two years before they purchased it. The previous owners had trouble selling the property because of the lack of a view. In addition, there are water drainage problems with the property which will be very expensive to repair. Mr . Veigel presented sales of properties which have comparable homes, but views which are superior to their view. The current assessment of $203,600 ($38,500 for the land and $165,100 for the improvements) is too high. He estimates the value to be $163,000 ($33,000 for the land and $130,000 for the improvements). Mr. Shold was present on behalf of Assessor Jack Westerman who assessed this property but could not attend the hearing today. He stated that this same parcel of property was appealed to the Board of Equalization last year by the previous owner. In reviewing the comparable sales presented by the appellant he noted that the current assessed values of those parcels are well below the sale prices. The fact that the sale price of the appellant's property is below the assessed value appears to be unique to this parcel and attributed to the problems with the house and view. It does not seem to be an overall trend in the area that sales are less than the assessed values. After reviewing all the information submitted and hearing the testimony of both parties, Vice-Chairman Broders closed the hearing. The Board will conduct a physical inspection of the property and make a determination at a later date. William & Susan Conklin 210 Kala Heights Drive Port Townsend, W A 98368 BOE: 02-22-R PN: 965 800 006 Mr. Conklin was present. Appraiser Robert Kingsley represented the Assessor's office. After explaining the hearing process Vice-Chairman Broders swore them in. The property under appeal consists of a residential lot Board of Equalization Minutes - September 9, 2002 Page: 4 and a one story house located at 210 Kala Heights Drive, Kala Point, Port Townsend. Mr. Conklin stated that his property is the smallest in square footage compared to other properties on his street and yet his property valuation is the highest. Subsequently, he met with the tax Assessor Jack Westerman to get some clarification with regard to how his property is valued. Mr. Westerman explained that all the properties located on the water side of Kala Heights Drive were valued at $180,000 and then $4,000 was added when the septic system was installed. Then a determination was made that his property and the property to the north have the best views of all of the properties on that street, so a 10% premium was added to the value of those properties. Mr. Conklin believes that determining "best" view is a terribly subjective opinion and he disagrees with it. All of the houses on Kala Heights Drive have spectacular views. They all have virtually a 180 degree view of the Cascade Mountain Range. In fact, he contracted with a mapper to draw a profile of the Cascade Mountain Range from Kala Heights Drive, and ten of his neighbors have participated in the cost of producing this map because they all share the same view. It is unclear how the Assessor's office determines "best" view in each neighborhood. However, it can be argued that the properties on his street have "equal" views, and each property owner would probably argue that his/her view is equal or better than the others. Mr. Conklin stated that in his case he has an excellent view. It's what he calls an unfiltered view. Which means there is nothing in front of his house or between the house, bluff and Cascade Mountains. In Mr. Conklin's opinion that is not the "best" view. If you talk with any artist or landscape photographer, they will tell you that a better view is always when there is something in the foreground such as trees, shrubbery, a sculpture, etc. He believes a filtered view is better than an unfiltered view. After discussing varying degrees of views from various lots along his street he reiterated that there is too much subjectivity in automatically assigning premiums based on opinions of views. He would like the Board to review the category of "best" as it pertains to his property. He believes all the parcels along that street should be valued the same unless there are problems with the property which can be quantified and make it different from the other properties. This parcel is currently assessed at $449,405 ($202,000 for the land and $247,405 for the improvements). Mr. Conklin estimates the value to be $431,405 ($184,000 for the land and $247,405 for the improvements). Mr. Kingsley stated that he is present on behalf of Assessor Jack Westerman who assessed this property but could not attend the hearing today. The property under appeal was purchased by the appellant in February 2000 for $450,000. The appellant stated on his petition that he has no quarrel with the total assessed value of his property, but, he thinks the land valuation is inequitable compared to all the waterfront view homes on Kala Heights Drive. Mr. Kingsley agrees that the 10% increase in value for the view is subjective, however, it was a judgement that was made based on the market value of the property. The Board of Equalization is being asked to determine if the adjustment is correct or incorrect, fair or not fair, and Mr. Kingsley believes that if the Board makes an adjustment in value, it will be adjusted to the market and not to the assessed value of other lots. Mr. Conklin stated that there is too much subjectivity in assessing values. He does not disagree with the total valuation, he disagrees with the methodology used to come up with the total valuation. Mr. Kingsley explained that the entire process of appraising property is subjective. Everything he values is based on his judgement. The main goal of the Assessor's office is to assess property at fair market value. One of the best indicators of value is a sale. Based on the sale price of this parcel, the assessed value seems fair. Mr. Conklin stated it is the approach versus the end result. It is the precedent that is being set. If the land value was lower he would expect the improvement value to be increased. He just doesn't agree with how the land is valued. Board of Equalization Minutes - September 9, 2002 Page: 5 After reviewing all the information submitted and hearing the testimony of both parties, Vice-Chairman Broders closed the hearing. The Board will conduct a physical inspection of the property and make a determination at a later date. Jack & Mary Louise Adney 610 Gise Street Port Townsend, W A 98368 BOE: 02-12-R PN: 948324202 Mr. and Mrs. Adney were present. Appraiser Dennis Pownall represented the Assessor's office. After explaining the hearing process Vice-Chairman Broders swore them in. The property under appeal is a residential lot and a house located at 610 Gise Street, Port Townsend. Mr. Adney stated that when they received the change in valuation notice they were surprised to see how much their property had increased in value over a short period of time. They did not realize until after they filed their appeal, that Jefferson County is on a four year revaluation cycle and that their property valuation only changes once every four years. One of the problems with the property is the increasing traffic noise from Sims Way. They were aware of the noise when they purchased the property, however, they feel it is diminishing its value and the rapid increase in the assessment is not warranted. In addition, there is a bare lot adjacent to their property which is not maintained by the City or the property owners. This lot has a negative impact on the value of their property as it becomes a great fire hazard during the summer when it is not mowed. Currently the assessed value of this parcel is $324,315 ($106,700 for the land and $217,615 for the improvements). The appellants estimate the value to be $240,070 ($70,220 for the land and $169,850 for the improvements). Mr. Pownall explained that the main factor in valuing property is property sales. The appellants purchased the property in October 1998 for $337,000. He assessed it in January 2000 for $324,315 which is less than the amount it sold for two years prior. At the time he assessed the property he was aware of the noise factor from Sims Way and considered making an adjustment for the noise, but the sales did not warrant a decrease in value. Sales in the area do not indicate that traffic noise from Sims Way has a negative affect on property values. He presented comparable property sales which support the current assessment. As for the vacant property next door, it is owned by the Jefferson Land Trust. It can never be built on, so the view will never be obstructed. The fact that the grass grows high and becomes a fire hazard is certainly an issue, however, it is not unlike having a house adjacent to an undeveloped lot full of trees. The market determines property values based on sales. He provided a query of property sales in the area which compared sale amounts to assessed values. The information shows properties to be undervalued not overvalued. Mrs. Adney questioned how the fair market value increased from $240,00 to $324,000 over a period of four years? Mr. Pownall replied that it is not an unreasonable amount of an increase. The properties which are ascending in value all have to do with water. Whether they are waterfront or have water views, these properties are climbing at an extraordinarily fast rate. Based on the appellant's purchase price and the current market, he does not feel the property is over valued. After reviewing all the information submitted and hearing the testimony of both parties, Vice-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 - September 9, 2002 Pa2e: 6 John & Kathleen Bosi 3404 Kelsey Court Flower Mound, TX 75028 BOE: 02-0l-LO PN: 002 334 002 Mr. and Mrs. Bosi were not present. Appraiser Robert Kingsley represented the Assessor's office and was sworn in by Vice-Chairman Broders. Under appeal is approximately 19.58 acres of bare land located off of Highway 101 in Gardiner. The appellants' reason for appealing the property value as stated on their petition is that the property has been clear cut and rezoned from one residence per five acres to one residence per 20 acres. They also noted that the purchase price of $97,500 in June 2001 is significantly lower than the current assessment of $145,655. The appellants estimate the value to be the purchase price of the property. Mr. Kingsley stated that he mailed a copy of the hearing information to the appellants and he spoke with Mr. Bosi on the telephone after they had received it. Mr. Bosi's issue is that he purchased the property for $97,500 and yet it is assessed at $145,655. Mr. Kingsley explained that the property had sold in 1993 for $155,000. At that time the property could have been subdivided into four separate five acre parcels and each sold as separate building sites. Since then, the property has been rezoned to only allow one residence per 20 acres which prevents any subdividing of this parcel. The appellants are currently building their retirement home on the property. Due to the change in zoning regulations, Mr. Kingsley feels that fair market value is probably the appellants' purchase price of $97,500. After reviewing all the information submitted and hearing the testimony of the Assessor's representative, Vice- Chairman Broders closed the hearing. The Board will conduct a physical inspection of the property and make a determination at a later date. Deborah R. Petersen 2532 Island Dr. NW Olympia, W A 98502 BOE: 02-17-R PN: 602292001 Ms. Petersen was not present. Appraiser Robert Kingsley represented the Assessor's office and was sworn in by Vice-Chairman Broders. The property under appeal is a residence located on approximately 8.5 acres at 3945 Dosewallips Road, Brinnon. Ms. Petersen's reason for appealing the property value is stated on her petition as "My property was reassessed last summer 2001. I have not done anything except finish staining the cedar siding since then, because I ran out of money. The assessment from June 2002 shows an increase in value of $15,690. I haven't done anything to the house to reflect that increase." Currently the property is assessed at $144,195 ($40,470 for the land and $103,725 for the improvements). Ms. Petersen estimates the value to be $128,505 ($38,800 for the land and $89,705 for the improvements). Mr. Kingsley stated the basis of this appeal is that the house is not finished and that no improvements have been made. He noted that there are two structures situated on the property. One structure is a cabin with a loft and the other is the appellant's house. An addition was built onto the cabin, which partially contributed to the increase in value. The house is still rated at 90% complete, however, the increase in the table rates from four years ago accounts for most of the valuation increase. Mr. Kingsley feels the current assessment reflects true and fair market value of this parcel. Board of Equalization Minutes. September 9, 2002 Page: 7 After reviewing all the information submitted and hearing the testimony of the Assessor's representative, Vice- 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. AtF;G~ 1~. v~lAJ1/vUJJ Erin K. Lundgren, Clerk of the 'Board ,J JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF EQUALIZATION (Excused Absence) William S. Marlow, Chairman ~WJ~ Richard A. Broders, Vice-Chairman ~/ ,e;, FA. tfeLe~ember