Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM090803 James A. DeLeo 1820 Jefferson Street P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, W A 98368 William S. Marlow MINUTES SEPTEMBER 8, 2003 William S. Marlow Richard A. Broders James A. DeLeo Richard A. Broders ChairmaD 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 absent. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Member DeLeo moved to approve the minutes of July 15,2003 as presented. Vice-Chairman Broders seconded the motion. The motion carried. HEARING WAIVERS/ASSESSMENT CORRECTIONS Member DeLeo moved to accept the following assessment corrections and petition withdrawals. Vice- Chairman Broders seconded the motion. The motion carried. APPELLANT Ervin & Esther Fortney Donald & Barbara Hutchins James Scott Dalgleish/for A.C. Dalgleish Ryan & Marion Huxtable Lambert F. Eliel, Trustee Thomas Krebsbach & Danell Tobey Brian & Jeanie Glaspell " " Michael & Dora Whittaker APPEAL NO. BOE 03-02-R BOE 03-03-R BOE 03-04-LO BOE 03-08-R BOE 03-10-LO BOE 03-12-LO BOE 03-42-LO BOE 03-43-LO BOE 03-46-R PARCEL NO. 940 500 046 978706101 936 100 107 988 800 302 977 100611 701314009 001 022003 001 022 009 991 700001 Phone (3601i385-9100 Fax (360)385-9382 jeffbocc@co.jefferson.wa.us Board of Equalization Minutes - September 8, 2003 Pajte: 2 HEARINGS Discovery View Associates c/o Property Research Ltd., RobinsonlPhinney One Mt. Jefferson Terrace Lake Oswego, OR 97035 BOE: 03-48-C 03-49-C PN: 948 332 903 948 320 501 Bishop Park - Port Townsend, LLC c/o Property Research Ltd., RobinsonlPhinney One Mt. Jefferson Terrace Lake Oswego, OR 97035 No representative was present on behalf of Discovery View Associates. Appraiser Robert Kingsley represented the Assessor's office and was sworn in by Vice-Chairman Broders. The property under appeal consists of two (2) low-income housing developments known as Discovery View Apartments located at 1051 Hancock Street, Port Townsend and Bishop Park Apartments located at 819 Hancock Street, Port Townsend. Prior to the hearing a letter was sent to the Board by the appellant requesting that the current assessed values ofthese two (2) properties be sustained to enable the appellant to move this case to the Washington State Board of Tax Appeals where it can be consolidated with appeals for other similar properties. It was further explained in the letter that there is pending litigation (Washington Court of Appeals Case No. 42539-1) to decide the valuation issues concerning this type of property. A copy of the letter was provided to Mr. Kingsley for the Assessor's records. After reviewing all the information submitted, Vice-Chairman Broders closed the hearing. Based on the information presented, Member DeLeo moved to sustain the assessed valuation of $1,315,140 ($415,960 for the land and $899,180 for the improvements) for parcel number 948332903 (Discovery View Apartments) and to sustain the assessed valuation of $910,820 ($622,820 for the land and $288,000 for the improvements) for parcel number 948320501 (Bishop Park Apartments). Vice- Chairman Broders seconded the motion. The motion carried. John & Patricia Emery 70-A South Chandler Court Port Ludlow, WA 98365 BOE: 03-06-R PN: 961601101 Douglas & Marianne Barber 90-A South Chandler Court Port Ludlow, W A 98365 BOE: 03-07-R PN: 961601201 At the request of the appellants, their hearings were combined as they are appealing the exact same issue. Mr. and Mrs. Emery and Mr. and Mrs. Barber were present. Appraiser Dennis Pownall represented the Assessor's office. After explaining the hearing process, Vice-Chairman Broders administered an oath to all parties. The property under appeal is two of four condominium units located in two separate duplex buildings. Each appellant is contesting the valuation of their own condominium unit (the other two .Board of Equalization Minutes - September 8, 2003 Pajte: 3 condominium units are also under appeal and hearings are scheduled later). The Emery's condominium unit is located at 70-A South Chandler Court, Port Ludlow, and the Barber's condominium unit is located at 90-A South Chandler Court, Port Ludlow. Mr. Emery began by stating that in April 2002 Mr. Barber brought to his attention that there was a deflection in the roof of the Emery's condominium unit. They contacted the builder who sent a crew to reinforce the roof and stated that it was no real big problem. In looking at the other condominium duplex in which the Barber's live, it was noticed that the roof on that building was also deflecting in the same area. The owners contacted the builder again who said the problem would be taken care of. After approximately six months of waiting, a sub-contractor was finally hired to do the repairs. However, after looking the roof over, the sub-contractor refused to make the repairs, stating that the contractor had used the wrong trusses for a cement tile roof. The trusses used by the contractor during construction of the duplexes are for a composition roof which is the reason they are not supporting the cement tile roof. Apparently, during the construction of the buildings, the specifications called for a composition roof and for some reason the contractor used cement tile without using the appropriate trusses which would support it. At this point, the owners' condominium association (Inner Harbor Village) hired a structural engineer to evaluate the roof problems. During the evaluation the structural engineer found even more serious problems with the construction of the roof (ie. a truss put in upside down, many hangers did not have sufficient nails nor were the right kind of nails used). The problems were so severe that the structural engineer told the owners that even with the supports that have been put in temporarily, if there is any snow, they should get out of their homes. It was the structural engineer's judgement that the roof was unsound. The owners then contacted Olympic Resource Management, the developer from which they purchased their condominiums, to inform them of the roof problems. Discussions between the owners and Olympic Resource Management concluded in June 2003 and an agreement was finally reached. A copy of the repair agreement was presented to the Board showing a cost estimate of $280,000 to repair the roofs of the four condominium units in the two duplex buildings. Mr. Barber stated that Olympic Ridge Inc. is currently making the repairs which are scheduled to be completed by October 15,2003. He noted that the scope of work is based on reports completed by a structural engineer hired by Olympic Resource Management who confirmed that the roof structure was totally inadequate and in danger of collapse as found by the structural engineer hired by the owners' condominium association. Photographs, copies of the reports, correspondence and a time line of the activity which has taken place is also available for the Board's review. The owners of the other two duplex condominium units have experienced difficulties resulting from the roof problems as one owner has been unable to sell his unit because it is deemed worthless by the Realtor, and the other owner has been unable to get a mortgage due to the nature of the problem rendering the property worthless. The only way a bank would give them a loan was at a high interest rate and if they would sign a document stating that they wouldn't sue the builder. Mr. Barber added that he and his wife had wanted to refinance their mortgage to take advantage of the low interest rates, but, have been unable to do so because of the problems with their property. Mrs. Barber stated that the County did not inspect the building properly. Had there been an inspection by the County there would be no problems. Mr. Barber stated that a copy of all this information has also been provided to the County Department of Community Development. According to County records, the only thing approved on this project was the plan for a composition roof. The County was not aware that the contractor had constructed the buildings with tile roofs. .Board' of Equalization Minutes - September 8, 2003 Mrs. Barber added that the builder changed plans onsite which is illegal. Pajte: 4 Currently the Emery's property is assessed at $216,360 ($31,500 for the land and $184,860 for the improvements) and the Barber's property is assessed at $192,090 ($31,500 for the land and $160,590 for the improvements). Both appellants feel the fair market value is the amount of their assessment less their 114 portion of the total cost of the repairs ($280,000/4 = $70,000). Mr. Pownall explained that the Assessor's office revalues property once every four years. Their goal is to assess property at 100% of its fair market value as of the assessment date of January 1, 2003. Anything can happen to property in the interim. He explained that in addition to the Emery's and the Barber's, the other two owners ofthe other two units have also appealed their assessments and their hearings are scheduled later. What applies to one unit, will apply to all the units because they all are affected by the same problem. The Assessor's office is open to many possibilities as far as a cost to cure the problem. None of this information was presented to the Assessor's office and this is the first time they have seen an estimate of the repair costs. Mrs. Barber stated that since a copy of the information was provided to the Department of Community Development they assumed that department would share it with the Assessor's office. Mr. Pownall questioned who is paying for the cost ofthe repairs? The appellants answered that Olympic Resource Management's insurance company will be paying for the repair costs. Mr. Pownall admits that the appellants have been significantly inconvenienced and the value of the condominiums was dramatically reduced due to the problems with the roof. Now that the repairs are being made the overall value of the condominiums will be restored. Houses which have experienced damage and are repaired by engineers and licensed contractors do not usually go down in value. It's as if the damage had never occurred. In this case, it is difficult to determine how much of an adjustment to make and how long it should remain in effect. Mrs. Barber stated that this has been a problem since 2000 and even though they did not realize the failing roof until 2002, they were still paying taxes on a much higher valuation than the property was actually worth. Mr. Barber stated that is the issue. They are not concemed about the future they are concerned about now and recovery for past taxes paid. Vice-Chairman Broders explained that refunds of taxes paid for previous years are only considered in certain circumstances. The Board of Equalization can only consider the value of this parcel as of the revaluation date ofJanuary 1, 2003. The appellants will need to consult with the Assessor regarding refunds of taxes paid for previous years. Mr. Barber stated that Mr. Westerman told them that they needed to provide the cost estimate at the hearing today, and that it would be used in considering whether or not they get a refund of their taxes. Mr. Pownall stated that the Assessor's office had no way knowing that the problem existed until the appellants brought it to the staffs attention. The appellants are asking for a refund oftaxes paid for years prior to knowledge of the existing problems. He requested a copy of the repair agreement with the estimated repair costs. It is unclear how much impact the estimate will have on the adjustment since the repairs are being paid by the developer's insurance company and not by the appellants themselves. Board of Equalization Minutes - September 8, 2003 Pajte: 5 Mr. Barber questioned why it matters who pays for the repairs? The owners pay the property taxes. Mr. Pownall suggested that the Soard discuss this appeal with Jack Westerman when he returns at the end of the week. He feels an adjustment for only one year would be fair since the repairs are being made. Mrs. Sarber stated that Jack Westerman told them the adjustment would be in effect until the next revaluation cycle. Mr. Pownall stated it is highly unlikely that they would make an adjustment for four years when the damage is repaired within approximately one year of it being discovered. The market value became affected as soon as the problems were discovered and it becomes unaffected when the repairs have been completed. That is a period of approximately one year in this case. Mr. Emery disagrees. When a vehicle is damaged it does not retain the same market value as it had prior to sustaining the damage. In his opinion, most people would not pay the same price for a vehicle which had been damaged and repaired as they would for a vehicle which had never been damaged. The reason for this is the fact that it was damaged becomes a negotiable matter. If the owners ever try to sell their property they will have to disclose the problems with the roof. In fact, just recently a potential buyer for one of the units decided not to make the purchase because he had heard of the problems the current owners are having, even though he knew the roofwas being repaired. Mr. Pownall stated that a vehicle cannot be compared to real property, since real property appreciates in value and vehicles depreciate in value. The appellants have the newest and probably strongest fully engineered roof in all of Port Ludlow. Whether or not this will have an adverse affect on the market value is unknown until one of the owners sell their property. Mrs. Sarber added that the entire building was designed for a composition roof, and while the roof is now engineered to support the cement tiles, it is unknown at this point if the building itself (foundation, walls, drywall, etc.) is adequately constructed to support the cement tile roof. The entire building could still collapse because the wrong type of roofing materials were used. After reviewing all the information submitted and hearing the testimony of all parties, Vice-Chairman Broders closed the hearing. The Soard will conduct a physical inspection ofthe properties and make a determination at a later date. Robert & Barbara Calderwood Calderwood Family Trust 90-B South Chandler Court Port Ludlow, W A 98365 BOE: 03-47-R PN: 961601202 Mr. and Mrs. Calderwood 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 one of four condominium units located in two separate duplex buildings (see also previous hearing for BOE 03-06-R and BOE 03-07-R and hearing to held on September 9, 2003 for BOE 03-05-R). The Calderwood's condominium unit is located at 90-S South Chandler Court, Port Ludlow. Mrs. Calderwood eXplained that the building in which their condominium unit is located was constructed with the wrong type of roofmg materials which has caused the roof to sag. Their particular unit was .Board' of Equalization Minutes - September 8, 2003 Pajte: 6 constructed without heating vents in the master bedroom and without an air/fan vent in the master bathroom, which were problems that the other units did not have. They are very upset with the County for not inspecting the builder's work and thereby allowing the building to be constructed with these defects. They own a motorhome and usually travel south for the winter, so it wasn't until they had to stay to deal with these problems that they noticed the lack of heat in the bedroom. Their house was not livable so they had to live in the motorhome for a while. Dealing with these problems has caused them a great deal of frustration and cost Mrs. Calderwood her emotional and physical health. They were told that the roof wasn't safe and ifit should snow they should get out of the house immediately. Mr. Calderwood stated that had there been an inspection, these defects would have been revealed. Mrs. Calderwood stated that even though the roof is being repaired she doesn't trust what the association had done. She feels they were railroaded into signing the papers because all the other owners wanted it. A contractor even told them that the building should be completely tom down and rebuilt. Vice-Chairman Broders explained that the Board understands their frustration in dealing with the problem, however, the responsibility of the Board of Equalization is to determine the fair market value of the property as of the assessment date of January 1, 2003. Mrs. Calderwood stated that they lived in California during the 1994 earthquake and afterward there was a huge decrease in property values. It took seven years for the value of their property to increase. The same applies in this case. They will have to disclose any problems with the property if they decide to try to sell it. As a potential buyer, she would be very skeptical about purchasing this property knowing its problems. No matter what they do to the roof, it is going to take time before there is confidence in this property. Mr. Calderwood stated that the building was not built to code, therefore the current assessment must be too high. They didn't get what they paid for. He believes the County has some responsibility in this problem. Currently the property is assessed at $213,420 ($31,500 for the land and $181,920 for the improvements). The appellants feel the land value is fair, but do not know how much the improvements should be valued. Mr. Pownall explained that property is assessed at 100% of its fair market value. The current assessment was based on the appellant's purchase price of $214,000 in December of 2000. Property in Jefferson County is only assessed once every four years. It is understood that there are major problems with the roof caving in on four separate condominium units. The Board has the figures on the repair costs and the Assessor's office is in agreement that an adjustment in value should be made, however, he doesn't feel a refund for past years is warranted. He suggests an adjustment in the amount of the repairs costs for a period of one year. Mr. Calderwood suggested that if they are unable to receive a refund for past years, perhaps an adjustment can be made for the next four years or until the next revaluation cycle, in order to compensate them for past years. In closing they noted that they were unable to get a loan from a bank due to the problems with the building. 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 8, 2003 Pajte:7 Jack & Doris Vogt 165 Trafalgar Drive Port Townsend. W A 98368 BOE: 03-09-R PN: 965 000 079 Mr. and Mrs. Vogt were present. Appraiser Robert Kingsley represented the Assessor's office. Vice- Chairman Broders explained the hearing process and swore them in. The property under appeal consists of a lot and house located in the Kala Point neighborhood at 165 Trafalgar Drive, Port Townsend. Mr. V ogt presented photographs which show that their water view has been obstructed by the construction of a house on the lot directly across the street from their property. Mrs. V ogt added that the appraiser that assessed their property four years ago told them to inform the Assessor's office when the neighboring house was built. The property is currently assessed at $212,150 ($47,750 for the land and $164,400 for the improvements). The appellant's estimate of value is $159,113 ($35,813 for the land and $123,300 for the improvements). Mr. Kingsley stated that he is present on behalf of Assessor Jack Westerman who conducted the assessment of this property but is unable to attend the hearing today. He stated that a lot adjacent to the appellant's property sold for $230,000 on August 29,2001 which may have some of the same view characteristics as the appellant's property. The building permit for the construction of the house across the street from the appellant's property was issued in mid-December of 2002 and the date of the assessment is January 1,2003. This is brings up the question as to whether or not the view was obstructed as of the appraisal date. Maybe the adjustment in valuation for the loss of the view needs to be made next year rather than this year. Mr. Vogt stated that the construction began on January 28,2003. He noted that the adjacent property referred to by Mr. Kingsley, has a water view which can never be obstructed since no additional construction can occur in the future on the property across the street from it. The appellants are currently in litigation with the owners who are building on the lot across the street because the construction of the house has exceeded height limits set forth in their community rules. Discussion ensued regarding the effect that "potential" view obstruction has on the valuation of property. After reviewing all the information submitted and hearing the testimony of both parties, Vice-Chairman Broders closed the hearing. The Board will conduct a physical inspection of the property and make a determination at a later date. Meeting adjourned. A~t: EU~i$clerkof JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF EQUALIZATION (Excused Absence) William S. Marlow, Chairman Richard A. Broders, Vice-Chairman ~r1e~d:Eber