Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM102703 David Goldsmith 1820 Jefferson Street PO Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 MINUTES OCTOBER 27, 2003 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. Member James A. DeLeo arrived shortly after the meeting began. HEARINGS Morris & Llona James P.O. Box 1162 Port Hadlock. W A 98339 BOE: 03-81-R PN: 996400601 Mr. and Mrs. James were present. Appraiser Dennis Pownall represented the Assessor's office. After explaining the hearing process Chairman Marlow swore them in. The property under appeal consists of a residence located at 60 'C' Street, Port Hadlock. Mr. James explained that they appealed the assessment four years ago and no improvements have been made to the property since that time, yet, the value oftheir house has increased 22%. The assessment is too high and does not represent fair market value because of the neighborhood where it is located. He discussed recent sales of similar properties which support a lower assessed value for his home. The appellants take good care oftheir property, but, no improvements have been made, there is no view and it is not waterfront. Currently the property is assessed at $178,970 ($29,000 for the land and $149,970 for the improvements). Based on comparable properties, the appellant's estimate of value is $152,409 ($29,000 for the land and $123,409). Mr. Pownall explained that he recently listened to the tape recording of the hearing held four years ago where the appellant stated that perhaps his house would be worth the amount of the assessment if it were not located where it is. At that time Mr. Pownall did not feel the value was too high, however, he did not have any sales data to support his value and subsequently, understood why the Board lowered the value. It is difficult to find comparable properties for a house which is above the average and at the upper end of market value. You can only make comparisons by what it is not. In valuing this property, the only adjustment Mr. Pownall made was the removal ofthe Board of Equalization's adjustment from four years ago and the addition of the upgrade value for the current assessment year. Mr. Pownall's argument for this appeal is supported by a property sale located two houses away from the appellant's house and on the same street. This property sold for $175,000 in October 2002 and had previously sold in 1993 for $115,300. The difference between the new sale amount and the old sale amount indicates an increase of Phone (360)385-9100 Fax (360)385-9382 dgo1dsmith@co.jefferson.wa.us Board of Equalization Minutes - October 27, 2003 Pajte:2 52% over a period of9 Y, years, which computes to an increase in value of 5.48% per year or almost 22% for a four year period. Mr. Pownall noted a minor error in his calculation of the acreage on the appellant's assessment which would have increased the assessment by approximately $1,900. In April of this year another comparable property sold on a different street for $145,330. It previously sold in 1996 for $93,000 which amounts to an increase in value of 8.85% per year over a period of a little more than 6 years. Mr. James noted that while the house on his street did sell for a significant amount, it is also a much newer house with double wall construction and a shake roof, and sits on a bigger lot with a well manicured yard. 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. Kenneth W. Larson 100 'C' Street Port Hadlock, W A 98339 BOE: 03-77-R PN: 996 400 602 Mr. Larson was present. Appraiser Dennis Pownall represented the Assessor's office. After explaining the hearing process Chairman Marlow swore them in. The property under appeal consists of a residence located at 100 'c' Street, Port Hadlock and is currently assessed at $139,780 ($30,880 for the land and $108,900 for the improvements). Mr. Larson feels his property is overvalued by $10,000 and estimates the value to be $129,780 ($30,880 for the land and $98,900 for the improvements). It is located in the same neighborhood as the James' property (see previous hearing) and the same comparable property sale was used in the valuation. He does not believe that the property which sold is comparable since it is newer, larger, has a carport, a larger shed, more landscaping with an underground watering system, and contains a greenhouse complete with running water, electricity and a propane stove. The roof on the appellant's property is failing and the electric furnace no longer works as a heating source. The furnace fan still works so he uses that in conjunction with a wood stove to heat his house. Mr. Pownall presented the same information he submitted for the previous hearing. He noted that he did not value Mr. Larson's property as high as the James' property due to its age, quality and present condition. If problems such as the failing roof are repaired, than the potential value ofthe house is higher. The appellant's property is caught in the middle of the best quality house on the street and the highest sale property on the street. Mr. Pownall thinks that the properties along this street are worth more than any other properties in that area, because of the well maintained atmosphere and yards. The recent sale proves it. He is sympathetic to the appellant's view and he attempted to make adjustments for the differences among the properties as much as he could. Mr. Larson summarized that basically he is being penalized because he has ambition and maintains his yard. In other words, he should let it grow up and let it go to crap. 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 ofthe property and make a determination at a later date. Board of Equalization Minutes - October 27, 2003 Pajte: 3 Oskars Petersons P.O. Box 1143 Port Townsend, W A 98368 BOE: 03-62-R PN: 989 400 508 Mr. Petersons was present. Appraiser Dennis Pownall represented the Assessor's office. After explaining the hearing process Chairman Marlow swore them in. The property under appeal is a two-story wooden building used for both residential and business purposes, located at 1761lrondale Road, Port Hadlock. Mr. Petersons stated this property was damaged by fire in 2000. The Assessor's office reduced the value in 2001 due to the fire damage. It was suggested that Mr. Petersons remove what was left of the damaged building and construct a new one in its place. However, his lot does not meet the County zoning regulation standards for being large enough to be considered a buildable lot. Ifhe removed the existing structure he would not be able to rebuild a new one. When Mr. Petersons began repairing the damaged building he tore off the siding and interior paneling and discovered that the 100 year old building was structurally sound and did not sustain any fire damage. He has made some repairs, but there is still much to do. When he received the recent change of value notice from the Assessor's office he was very surprised to see the value had increased from $21,540 to $34,055. The improvements are valued at $11,055 and he doesn't understand why. His estimate of value is $25,000 ($23,000 for the land and $2,000 for the improvements). Mr. Pownall stated that the building under repair is not the building it used to be. When he assessed the building he valued it similar to a shed giving it a token value of$ll,055 which he feels is low and does not reflect its market value. Photographs of the building were presented which show the repairs made to the building and its present quality. Mr. Petersons noted that it looks good from the outside because he recently put new siding on the building. The interior, however, is still gutted. The building does not have power, water, heat or a septic connection. It is uninhabitable. 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. Luther & Karla Bland 4327 N. Jefferson Street Spokane, W A 99205 BOE: 03-56-R PN: 942 903 502 Mr. Bland was present. Appraiser Dennis Pownall represented the Assessor's office. Chairman Marlow explained the hearing process and swore them in. The property under appeal consists of a mobile home located at 57 Hunt Road, Port Hadlock. Mr. Bland stated that he does not dispute the land value, however, he feels the improvement value is too high. The mobile home has been used as a rental and is in poor condition. No improvements have been made to the property since 1996, so he doesn't understand how the value ofthe mobile home has increased from $35,400 to $53,780. He talked with several individuals who stated that their assessments did not increase by that much. A local Realtor also informed him that the mobile home would not sell for more than $40,000 due to its poor condition. Mr. Bland estimates the value of the mobile home to be $30,000. Board of Equalization Minutes - October 27, 2003 Pajte: 4 Mr. Pownall stated that he is not aware of the interior condition of the mobile home and explained how he assessed it. As a rental property, the condition depends upon the individual tenant. Maybe an adjustment is needed. He noted that there is a discrepancy with the dimensions of the mobile home. The rental affidavit shows the mobile home dimensions are 28' x 52', while the square footage calculated by the Assessor's office indicates the mobile home dimensions are 24' x 48'. Value is based on the amount of square footage and if the square footage in the Assessor's records is low, than the assessment is also low. Comparable property sales were then presented to the Board. 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. Mark Lopeman 10233 Rhody Drive Chimacum, W A 98325 BOE: 03-75-R PN: 901101000 Mr. Lopeman was present. Appraiser Robert Shold represented the Assessor's office. After explaining the hearing process Chairman Marlow swore them in. The property under appeal consists of a house on approximately 5 acres located at 10233 Rhody Drive, Chimacum. Mr. Lopeman stated that he doesn't understand why his assessment increased so much since there is no view and no improvements have been made to property. There is a five acre parcel located across the street which has a view and yet the assessment of that property hardly increased at all. Currently the appellant's property is assessed at $301,640 ($51,320 for the land and $250,320 for the improvements). Mr. Lopeman estimates the value to be $291,000 ($46,000 for the land and $245,000 for the improvements). Mr. Shold explained that there have been a number of property sales along Rhody Drive which indicate that all of the properties were undervalued compared to the sale prices. In order to reach market value of properties in this area, the land and improvement values had to be increased during this past revaluation cycle. The problem in valuing the appellant's property is that there are no comparable properties in the area. Mr. Lopeman's house is on the higher end of any other houses along Rhody Drive. There is not a big difference between the current assessed value and Mr. Lopeman's estimate of value. Whether the property is worth one value or the other is debatable. 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. Robert Schladetzky 2982 Beaver Valley Road Port Ludlow, W A 98365 BOE: 03-67-R 03-68-R PN: 821073009 901142043 Mr. Schladetzky was present. Appraiser Robert Shold represented the Assessor's office. After explaining the hearing process Chairman Marlow swore them in. Two separate parcels are under appeal. Parcel number 821 073 009 consists of a house located at 3013 Beaver Valley Road, Chimacum, and parcel number 901 142043 is approximately Y, an acre with a mobile home situated on it located at 9353 Rhody Drive, Chimacum. Mr. Schladetzky stated he would like to begin with parcel number 821 073 009. He doesn't understand why the revaluation notice shows an increase under improvements when there have been no improvements made to the property and asked for clarification of that classification. Board of Equalization Minutes - October 27, 2003 Pajte: 5 Mr. Shold explained that the term "improvements" is strictly the reference to the building value. When assessing real property the total value must be broken down between buildings and land. The term "improvements" does not refer to actual improvements that have been made to the property. Given that explanation, Mr. Schladetzky decided that he no longer disputes the valuation of parcel number 821 073009 (BOE #03-67-R). He continued by stating that he believes parcel number 901 142043 is overvalued due to wetlands, floodplains and the inability to replace the mobile home because of restrictions placed on the property since the time he purchased it. The double-wide mobile home which is currently situated on the property is almost 30 years old. According to building regulations he is unable to replace the aging mobile home with a similar sized newer mobile home. These regulations only allow him to make repairs and even those are limited. His property value is significantly reduced because of these restrictions. He noted that it is zoned commercial, and when he attempted to sell the property he discovered all these regulations that prohibit anything being done with the property. Currently it is assessed at $61,495 ($39,500 for the land and $21,995 for the improvements). Mr. Schladetzkyestimates the value to be $24,000 ($15,000 for the land and $9,000 for the improvements). Mr. Shold stated that while the property is zone commercial, it is valued as residential property because of its current use. In reviewing sales of property in the area he noted that they were not affected by the wetlands. According to maps from the Department of Community Development the usability of Mr. Schladetzky's property is impacted by wetlands and floodplains which limit the size and use of his parcel and very well may impact the value. Discussion ensued regarding the regulations restricting the use of the parcel. 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. Dr. W. Lars Sikes 126 Groves Way Port Ludlow, W A 98365 BOE: 03-79-R PN: 721194013 Mr. Sikes was present. Appraiser Dennis Pownall represented the Assessor's office. After explaining the hearing process Chairman Marlow swore them in. The property under appeal consists of a one story house with a daylight basement on approximately 2.7 acres located at 126 Groves Way, Port Ludlow. Mr. Sikes presented photographs, maps and satellite photos and explained that his home is located near the proposed "Pit-to-Pier" project site in Shine. Even though this project is in the proposal stage, it is having an impact on the current value of his home and his neighbor's home. The proposed location of the industrial pier will be right out Mr. Sikes' front window. The impacts of the potential noise, dust, light, water, dirt, unsightly pier, barges and ships will significantly decrease the value of his home. His neighbor has been trying to sell his property for the past year and nine months and has been unable to because of its proximity to the proposed project site. The proposed pier complex is huge, consisting of a nine-story building which will be 91 feet high and extend far out into the water. Mr. Sikes and his wife purchased this property as an investment for retirement. They love the area and the location, but, had they Board of Equalization Minutes - October 27, 2003 Pajte: 6 known that their property was going to be adjacent to a pier, they would never have purchased the property. He presented a letter from a local Real Estate Agent giving her opinion about the impact of the proposed Fred Hill Materials pit-to-pier project on the value of the appellant's home. She feels the proposed project has a major negative impact on the value and noted that each person who has had interest in the neighboring property which is for sale, has declined to purchase the home solely because of the possibility that a pier may be constructed next door. The sellers have had to reduce their price by $50,000. No one wants to live next door to what is perceived to be a noisy, dirty, unsightly project. She further stated that the proposed project might have an even greater impact on the Sikes' home if they were to try to sell, because they would have a more direct view of the pier if it was built. The Sikes purchased the property in January 2002 for $420,000. The Real Estate agent stated that they would be hard pressed to sell it for that amount today. In her opinion, they would have to reduce their home in price so that the price outweighs the risk of the pier. They would be lucky to sell their home for $380,000. This is a $60,000 loss in value in less than two years just because ofthe potential impacts of the proposed project. Currently the property is assessed at $419,705 ($63,200 for the land and $356,505 for the improvements). The Sikes' estimate the value to be $370,030 ($54,200 for the land and $315,830 for the improvements). Mr. Pownall stated that he doesn't have any additional information to present to the Board. The appellant purchased the property in January 2002 for $420,000. An appraisal of the property done in December 2001 indicated the value to be $430,000. No property sales have occurred recently that can be used to extrapolate information regarding the impact the proposed project may have on property values in the immediate area. Without documented sales evidence the questionable impacts from the proposed project are subjective. He presented sales charts prepared by Assessor's staff which show some sales that occurred after the proposed project was noticed to the public. It is difficult to determine if those sales were influenced by the proposed project and if so, to what degree. There is not enough substantiated information with sales data to support an adjustment at this point in time. The other issue is that this is about a "proposed" project which may never come to fruition. Vice-Chairman Broders asked about the proximity of the charted sales to the Sikes' property? Mr. Pownall replied that the sales are not very close to Mr. Sikes. Chairman Marlow asked how much the neighbor's property is listed for? Mr. Sikes replied it was initially listed for $595,000 and they had to lower their price to $545,000 due to the impact ofthe project. 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. ~t:_ \ 1/ ..UGl} , rin K. Lundgr~n, Cle JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF EQUALIZATION ice-Chairman bc. .6k-~ V..es <.. DeLeo, Member