Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM091002 1820 Jefferson Street P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 James A. DeLeo WUUam S. Marlow Richard A. Broden MINUTES SEPTEMBER 10, 2002 William S. Marlow Richard A. Broders James A. DeLeo Chairman Vice-Chairman Member Chairman William S. Marlow called the meeting to order at 10:00 a.m. in the presence of Vice-Chairman Richard A. Broders and Member James A. DeLeo. HEARINGS Jack Crowder 3941 Park Drive #20-343 EI Dorado Hills, CA 95762 BOE: 02-41-LO PN: 702122031 Mr. Crowder was not present. Appraiser Robert Shold represented the Assessor's office and was sworn in by Chairman Marlow. The property under appeal consists of approximately 5 residential acres located at Rice Lake in Quilcene. Mr. Crowder explained his reasons for appealing the property value in various attachments to his petition which read as follows: "...First,I purchased this parcel in the summer of 2000 for $50,000. Even though its valuation had been set at $17,080 in the 1998 review, I was told by the realtor and owner that it was a "fair market value" at that time. The key phrase being "at that time". Since market values change on an ongoing basis and that the market from two years ago is much changed from today - I must ask to what degree is the fair market value considered in the assessment? Second, in the two years that I have owned this property, I have made NO improvements to the land or access road. In no way has any work been performed that would have changed the value of the parcel in question. Third, I would ask that you review the letter that was sent to me (by a Mr. Robert Shold of the Jefferson County Assessor's Office) in response to my initial inquiry regarding the new assessed value. I would like to draw your attention to the second sentence in the document which begins, "Sales during the last four years are used...." If, in fact, such land sales figures are used - his sentence confuses me. If the sale price of $50,000 was in the records, how was the figure of $35,520 determined? If the sales price of $50,000 was not used - why was the actual assessment information that I requested in my original inquiry dated 6/13/02 (also attached) not given? I therefore ask that the original assessment value of $17,080 be used as no work has been done to the property and the sales price was in fact NOT used to determine the $35,520. If this is not an acceptable request, I ask that a more thorough accounting be given as to how the assessment was calculated so that I might be able to contest this assessment based on more complete information..." Mr. Crowder also attached the following three exhibits: Exhibit A, copy of property description as referenced in the sale document of July 7, 2000; Exhibit B, copy of letter dated June 13, 2002 to the Assessor asking for more information regarding basis for assessment; and Exhibit C, copy of letter dated June 17,2002 from Assessor's Office (Robert Shold) responding to Mr. Crowder's letter. In another Phone (360)385-9100 Fax (3601385-9382 jeffbocc@co.jefferBon.wa.ua Board of Equalization Minutes. September 10, 2002 Page: 2 attachment to Mr. Crowder's petition he writes: "...The date of the appraisal (Exhibit F) is 1/1/02 with the change date of 5/24/02. There are sales dates listed on the plot map (Exhibit E) with a sale of plot 702 122 016 dated 2/19/02. Was this used in calculating the assessment of my plot? No explanation is given to determine how any of the five sales were used to calculate my assessment. Was this appraisal filled out on 1/1/02 or 5/24/02? Which surrounding plot sales were used in determining the assessment? Were any of them? If not, why are they included on the plot map? According to Exhibit C, the sales price of my plot is what was used. The appraisal letter has two different land code uses: 1365 and 1575. I assume that this refers to the 1 acre of lakefront and 2.63 acres of residential (as listed in the REMARKS). (No information was given to understand the land codes or comment numbers). How were the values of $25,000 and $10,520 given to land codes 1365 and 1575 respectively? I asked for this information from the Assessor's office (Exhibit B). The only response I received, prior to filing an appeal, was the letter from Robert Shold (Exhibit C) that stated surprise that the property was assessed at the amount listed on the appraisal. I have asked for information to determine how and why my land was assessed the way it is. I have been given conflicting information from the Assessor's office. I have filed an appeal with the Board of Equalization due to the fact that until someone explains how this assessment was determined - I can only consider any assessment made to be arbitrary. Given that the assessment doubled from 1998 - I believe it is very reasonable on my part to ask for this information before agreeing to the new tax rate..." Mr. Shold stated that this property was revalued as of January 1, 2002. He presented comparable sales in the immediate area which support the current assessed value of $35,520. While the appellant purchased the property for $50,000, it was the only lakefront sale which has occurred, therefore, Mr. Shold did not feel the sale amount necessarily reflects true market value due to the particular location of the property. As such, Mr. Shold did not assess the property nearly as high as the sale price. The other sales in the area ranged in price from $23,000 to $30,000, however, those properties were not on the lake. After reviewing all the information submitted and hearing the testimony of the Assessor's representative, Chairman Marlow closed the hearing. The Board will conduct a physical inspection of the property and make a determination at a later date. Discovery View Associates W. Scott Phinney 1 Mount Jefferson Terrace Lake Oswego, OR 97035 BOE: 02-40-C PN: 948332903 No representative was present on behalf of Discovery View Associates. Appraiser Robert Shold represented the Assessor's office and was sworn in by Chairman Marlow. The property under appeal consists of a low-income housing development located at 1051 Hancock Street, Port Townsend. Just prior to the hearing a letter was sent by facsimile to the Board by the appellant requesting to withdraw their appeal and stating that the current assessment of $1,315,140 is acceptable. Mr. Shold also received a copy of the letter and read it into the record. After reviewing all the information submitted and hearing no further comments, Chairman Marlow closed the hearing. The Board will deliberate and make a determination at a later date. Board of Equalization Minutes - September 10, 2002 Kah Tai Care Center Life Care Centers of America James J. Miner c/o KPMG, LLP 3100 Two Union Square 601 Union Street Seattlle, WA 98101-2327 BOE: 02-54-C Page: 3 PN: 949817101 No representative was present on behalf of Kah Tai Care Center. Appraiser Robert Shold represented the Assessor's office and was sworn in by Chairman Marlow. The property under appeal is an assisted care facility for the elderly which is located at 751 Keamey Street, Port Townsend. The appellant's reason for appealing the property value is outlined in an attachment to the petition which reads as follows: "The subject is an assisted care facility which was built in 1965. The building is 24,315 square feet and is currently assessed at $2,360,725 or $97 per square foot. We reviewed sales within our "CaMPS" subscription for Snohomish, Pierce, King and Clark counties. Typically, there aren't many sales of this type of property. We did identify three sales which we felt suggested an over assessment of the subject. Sale number 1 is located in Bellevue, W A. It is newer than the subject (12 years) and larger at 77,942 square feet. Both of these attributes would suggest a lower overall value per square foot on the subject than the selling price at $88.49 per square foot. Sale number 2 is located in Issaquah, WA. This property is considerably newer than the subject having been built in 1995. The improvement is larger than the subject in size at 52,681 square feet. The sales price at $96.05 per square foot would need a downward adjustment due to the improvements age when compared to the subject. Sale number 3 is located in Mill Creek, WA. This property is also considerably newer than the subject having been built in 1998. This sale represents a property that is slightly smaller than the subject at 13,008 square feet. The age and size of this sale would suggest a lower value for the subject than the $99.94 per square foot that the sale suggests. When comparing the three sales to the subject we feel that they support $70 per square foot. We feel that the allocation should be as follows: 24,315 square feet @ $70 per square foot = $1,702,000 (Rounded), Land: $586,000 and Building: $1,116,000". Currently the property is assessed at $2,360,725 ($586,000 for the land and $1,774,725 for the improvements). Mr. Shold explained that this property sold in 1991 for $2,300,000. He discussed the comparable sales information submitted by the appellant and stated that he does not agree with their conclusion that $70 per square foot represents fair market value. He feels the current assessed value is fair. After reviewing all the information submitted and hearing the testimony of the Assessor's representative, Chairman Marlow closed the hearing. The Board will conduct a physical inspection of the property and make a determination at a later date. Warren & Patricia Berg 91 Wren Court Port Ludlow, WA 98365 BOE: 02-58-R 02-59-R 02-60-LO PN: 601342017 601 342 020 601 342 024 Mr. Berg 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 three residential lots located on the Coyle Peninsula off of Whitney Road. Mr. Berg stated that most of the comparable property sales used by the Assessor in valuing his property are located on the west side of the Coyle Peninsula and have views of the Olympic Mountains. Their property is located on the East side and does not have that view. One parcel is Board of Equalization Minutes. September 10, 2002 Page: 4 high bank waterfront and two are low bank waterfront which have no access to the beach at all due to wetlands. The quality of the beach is rocky and muddy which could have a negative impact in selling the property. There is a road through the middle of the high bank waterfront parcel #601 342020 preventing the use of the back portion of the property. The low bank waterfront parcels are identified as #601 342024 which is bare land, and #601 342 017 which has a cabin located on it. Mr. Berg believes that because of the water restrictions for septic purposes, mound systems would be required in order to build on these parcels. Mound systems are quite expensive and he feels that affects the valuation. He noted that his neighbor Bill Whitney is also appealing his property values and has a hearing scheduled for this afternoon. Much of the information Mr. Whitney will be presenting applies to this appeal as well. The current assessed values and Mr. Berg's estimate of value for each parcel are listed below: Parcel #601 342 017 Current assessed value: $198,630 ($163,625 for the land and $35,005 for the improvements) Appellant's estimate of value: $149,800 ($120,000 for the land and $29,800 for the improvements) Parcel #601 342020 Current assessed value: $221,205 ($140,370 for the land and $80,835 for the improvements) Appellant's estimate of value: $180,000 ($110,000 for the land and $70,000 for the improvements) Parcel #601 342 024 (bare land) Current assessed value: $155,625 Appellant's estimate of value: $118,000 Mr. Schuck stated that the fact that the appellant's property does not have a view of the Olympic Mountains does not necessarily negatively affect the value of the property. Three of the properties which were used as comparable sales in valuing the appellant's property, face to the east. He noted that a 10% reduction has been given to the appellant's property valuation for the wetlands/lagoon and he admits the percentage of reduction is subjective. As for the quality of the beach being rocky and muddy, the Board has seen in previous appeal hearings recently that there have been many sales of properties with mudflat beaches in the immediate area. Based on sales, mudflat beaches do not appear to have a negative impact on valuations. With regard to the parcels needing mound systems for development, Mr. Schuck stated that if Mr. Berg can provide documentation which proves mound systems would be required, than another reduction in the valuation could be given. Properties in the area, including the appellant's, increased in value dramatically based on the sales which occurred. He reviewed the sales he used in assessing the property. 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. H. Stanley Halvarson TR 1024 Kellum Street Fairbanks, AK 99701-4318 BOE: 02-56-R PN: 601342010 Mr. Halvarson was present. Appraiser Peter Schuck represented the Assessor's office. After explaining the hearing process Chairman Marlow swore them in. The property under appeal is a waterfront parcel with a . , Board of Equalization Minutes - September 10, 2002 Page: 5 house located on the Coyle Peninsula at 560 Johnson Road. Mr. Halvarson stated his family has owned this property since the mid 1970's. Over the years they have watched the assessed value gradually increase due to the variations in the millage rate based on levies which have been approved by the voters. However, the most recent assessment is almost double the previous assessment. Receiving such an increase all at once has a great impact. Increases should be gradual in order for individuals to budget for them. He opposes this type of valuation and thinks it should be modified to be percentage based. There have been very few sales in the area. The Assessor's representative has put together comparable property sales within the entire area, however, it has been his observation that there are many "for sale" signs and not a great number of actual sales in the immediate area. The property is currently assessed at $275,785 ($105,685 for the land and $170,100 for the improvements). The appellants estimate the value to be $200,000 ($100,000 for the land and $100,000 for the improvements). Mr. Schuck stated that the appellant's property is the only low bank waterfront along Johnson Road. He explained that Jefferson County is on a four year revaluation cycle which means that property is only revalued once every four years. The millage rate changes from year to year due to the bonds and levies approved by the voters. Approximately 1/3 of property taxes are voter approved. The Quilcene School District recently passed a large bond issue which has also contributed to the increase in property taxes in this area. Mr. Schuck stated that he used the same comparable property sales that were presented in the previous hearing for Mr. Berg's appeal. In closing, Mr. Schuck suggested that Mr. Halvarson look into the senior exemption program which can potentially reduce a property owner's tax liability by 1/3. 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. William E. Whitney, Jr. 1341 Whitney Road Quilcene, WA 98376 BOE: 02-27-LO 02-28-R 02-29-LO 02-30-LO 02-31-LO 02-32-LO 02-33-LO 02.34-LO 02.35-R 02-36-LO PN: 996400001 996 400 007 996 400 002 996 400 006 996 400 003 996 400 005 996 400 004 996 400 008 996 400 009 996 400 012 Mr. and Mrs. Whitney were present. Appraiser Peter Schuck represented the Assessor's office. After explaining the hearing process Chairman Marlow swore them in. Under appeal are ten parcels located on the Coyle Peninsula off of Whitney Road. Mr. Whitney presented written general comments titled "Board of Equalization Presentation" (Exhibit #1) to the Board who asked if Mr. Schuck objects to the additional information being submitted? Mr. Schuck stated he does not object to any additional information being submitted by the appellant as long as he is allowed additional time to review and comment on it if necessary. The Board agreed. Mr. Whitney stated that his family has owned this property since the 1940's. For many years the property was used for vacationing and in 1970 they built a beach cabin. In 1983 they remodeled the cabin in preparation of his retirement in 1984 and have lived on the property since that time. They were Board of Equalization Minutes - September 10, 2002 Page: 6 shocked at the recent revaluation notices they received on twelve of their family's fourteen tax parcels, ten of which they are currently appealing. Their intent over the years has been to hold onto this property to allow the timber to mature and enjoy the natural surroundings. The valuation increase on the twelve parcels was 45.8% or approximately $520,000. One parcel alone increased in value 79.1 %. While he can appreciate the budget problems facing the County and the pressure to increase revenue, he does not feel that the revaluations of the ten parcels under appeal represent true market value. He presented a summary sheet titled "Lagoon View Property Assessed Valuation - Attachment No.1" (Exhibit #2) in which he has shown for each parcel the previous assessed value, current assessed value with increase percentage, and the owner's/appellant's estimate of value with increase percentage. The Board will note that the amounts listed as the owner's estimate of value are modified slightly from what was listed on the actual petition forrns. The change was due to time restraints at the time the petition forms were filed. Also submitted for easy reference was a plat map (Exhibit #3) with the parcels under appeal shaded in red. It has been fairly well established that assessed values are to be based on true market value. He understands true market value to be a price that a willing buyer would pay a willing seller for property, with neither party being under duress. He thinks that during the recent high-tech boom years, there were some purchases which do not quite fall under that requirement. During his research on sales in the area, Mr. Whitney reviewed the assessed values of 589 parcels (including all the waterfront parcels) and prepared a large map (which was not submitted for inclusion in the record) wherein he identified all the parcels which he reviewed and indicated which parcels he deterrnined to have sold within the last four years. He then compiled a spreadsheet of the 589 parcels titled "Tabulation of Toandos Peninsula Tax Parcels With 2002 Re-Evaluation Appraisal Information" (Exhibit #4) listing the acreage, front footage, land use code, current assessed value, sale date and sale price (where applicable) for each parcel. In discussion with local Realtors and other property owners, he learned that properties on the west side of the peninsula with a view of the Olympic Mountains, afternoon sun exposure, more attractive beaches and warmer water, generally established a higher market value than properties on the east side of the peninsula. This fact is readily apparent in Dabob Cove and Zelatched Point where there is some resort type development and other amenities. Non-waterfront lots on the west side sell for $10,000 to $20,000 more than similar lots on the east side and waterfront lots on the west side appear to have anywhere from $100 to $400 greater value per front foot than the lots facing east. It is interesting to note that there were 93 sales in the area within the last four years and 11 of those parcels are actually residences. In 1998 there were 23 sales, 20 sales in 1999, 24 sales in 2000, 24 sales in 2001 and 2 sales so far in 2002. This information shows the market value trend. He believes the tragedy of September 11, 2001 has had an affect on the economy resulting in a drop-off in sales. Realtors have advised that they are not even receiving offers on properties which are listed below the assessed values. In some cases the timber on the property influences the market value. One of their disputes is the assessed valuation of the Green Belt/Open Space which has been distributed to the valuation of the Lagoon View subdivision lots. They also dispute the reduction in value which is given to larger properties with longer portions of waterfront. He presented photographs (Exhibit #5) which show the topography of the waterfront portion of the Green Belt/Open Space property is a wetland. Another concern with regard to equity is the fact that neither the Open Space beach access parcel in Dabob Cove or the Open Space beach access parcel at Zelatched Point are given any assessed valued according to records retrieved through the Internet off of the Assessor's website (Exhibit #6). Mr. Whitney stated that the tideland value appears to be fair and is not disputed. They also accept the fact that the a=ss trail to the beach has value, however, it should be noted that there are no picnic or barbecue facilities like there are at Dabob Cove and Zelatched Point. They believe it would be more reasonable to distribute a value of $10,000 per lot to the Lagoon View subdivision lots for the tidelands and beach access. That value is slightly less than half of the current distributed assessed value. They also believe that the additional value for the tidelands and beach access should be distributed among all the lots which have access rights to the tidelands and beach. More than just these 11 lots have beach access rights. Two other lots and the lots owned by Mr. Berg (see previously held Board of Equalization Minutes. September 10, 2002 Page: 7 hearing above) share the beach access as documented in their deeds, and therefore, should share in the valuation distribution. Four of the lots which they are appealing are located inland and have beach access and tideland rights. He presented a listing of comparable property sales titled "Toandos Large Lot Sales from Selected Non Waterfront Subdivisions - AUachment2" (Exhibit #7) which have occurred over the last four years and indicate an average selling price of $34,320. To his knowledge none of these lots included beach access rights at the time of sale. Adding their assumed value of $10,000 for the Open Space beach access and tideland rights to these inland lots, they would have an average value of $44,320 per lot. He also pointed out that these four lots adjoin land which is classified as "Rural Forest" which requires a buffer zone of 100' feet. This amounts to the loss of use of approximately 3/4 of an acre on each of his lots numbered 1-3 and the loss of 2 acres on lot number 4. The degree of impact on the value is unknown, however, representatives from the County Department of Community Development have advised him that a structure could not be built on the property unless a variance was granted. Mr. Whitney feels this decreases the acreage value of these lots and he explained his estimate of value as outlined in his submittal titled "Valuation of Lagoon View Lots 1,2, 3, & 4 - Attachment 3" (Exhibit #8) versus how they are currently assessed. Mr. Whitney and the appraiser Mr. Schuck stipulated to lower values for two other parcels under appeal (lots 5 & 6). The assessments of lots 7, 8 and 9 do not reflect true market value. The value of lot 7 would be acceptable if a reduction in value was given to the Green Belt/Open Space parcel in front of it. The assessment of lot 8 was based on a comparable property sale, where in the Appellant's opinion, the buyer overpaid for the property considering there is community beach access directly in front of the house. They also question the excess front footage rate used in valuing lot 8. Their house is located on lot 9 which increased in value 57.4%. The comments made on lot 8 apply to lot 9 as well. They do not dispute the improvement value, however, they do dispute the excess front footage rate used in valuing the waterfront. Mr. Whitney discussed the comparable sales information used in valuing his property and he presented written comments titled "Comments Regarding Supporting Sales Produced By Assessor" (Exhibit #9) and copies of the Assessor's maps with the comparable property sales shaded in blue (Exhibit #10). Looking at sale trends over the last four years it would appear that their estimates of value represent fair market value. Mr. Schuck stated that Mr. Whitney has been very thorough in researching sales and putting together the information for his appeal. In Mr. Schuck's opinion the open space property does not have any contributory value to lots 8 and 9 as they already front on the water and have access to the beach, however, it does contribute value to the upland lots and the high bank waterfront lots as it provides beach access rights to those lots. The sales which occurred at Dabob Cove and Zelatched Point prove that having the beach access amenity increases the value. Mr. Schuck was unaware of any picnic facilities at either Dabob Cove or Zelatched Point at the time he revalued them. He explained that the valuations were based on both bare land sales and improved land sales. With improved property, a value is given to the improvements and the remaining value is distributed to the land. The excess front footage rates are consistently used to value waterfront properties throughout the County. There is no data indicating the rates are correct, however, this system has been used to maintain equity among similar properties and is the best methodology available. During Mr. Whitney's testimony he stated that neighboring property owners have use of the appellant's tidelands and should share in the assessment. The Assessor's office has no documented evidence of that fact. Mr. Schuck stated that the comparable property sales presented by the appellant are not comparable at all with regard to the beach access amenities. Only properties located in Dabob Cove and Zelatched Point have the same amenities and are considered comparable. He noted that in valuing those properties the beach access amenity value was included in the overall value and not valued separately as it was with the appellant's property. As for the buffer zone required on each of the four lots adjacent to property designated as "Rural Forest" land, it is Mr. Schuck's understanding that this issue will be addressed by the Commissioners. Board of Equalization Minutes - September 10, 2002 Discussion continued regarding comparable property sales. Page: 8 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. Meeting adjourned. i\~t: c .' / /iA l./ Jj ,hGVll~pJ Enn K. LUndg;eJ, 'Cl~k '1 the B&ard JEFFERSON COUNTY BOi\RD OF EQUALIZATION rn~ (\h:d A. B;:;2ce-Chairman ~DeLeO' Member