Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM110303 1820 Jefferson Street P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 James A. DeLeo William S. Marlow Richard A. Broders MINUTES NOVEMBER 3, 2003 William S. Marlow Richard A. Broders James A. DeLeo Chairman Vice-Chairman Member Chairman William S. Marlow called the meeting to order at 9:00 am. in the presence of Vice-Chairman Richard A. Broders and Member James A. DeLeo. HEARINGS Summers Family Revocable Trust Donald Summers 142 Sea Vista Terrace Port Ludlow, W A 98365 BOE: 03-84-R PN: 998 700 054 Mr. Sunnners was present. Assessor Jack Westerman represented the Assessor's office. After explaining the hearing process Chairman Marlow swore them in. The property under appeal is a residence on a lot located at 142 Sea Vista Terrace, Port Ludlow. Mr. Summers stated he has owned this property since 1994 and it has increased in value over 13% which is more than the amount it has appreciated over the last nine years. The increased development taking place in Port Ludlow has been a competing factor with the marketability of existing homes. He reviewed the comparable property sales used by the Assessor in valuing his property and described the differentiating characteristics and locations. One property sale does not represent a trend and should not be used as a basis for valuation. Currently the property is assessed at $317,185 ($138,000 for the land and $179,185 for the improvements). Mr. Sunnners estimates the value to be $281,000 ($106,000 for the land and $175,000 for the improvements). Mr. Westerman agrees that one of the properties which sold (lot 41) is not the best comparable to the appellant's property. The appellant's valuation was primarily based on two other properties which sold (lots 51 and 52). He noted that the appellant's house is 100 square feet bigger than the house located on lot 51. In his opinion the value is fair and equitable. 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. Phone (3601385-9100 Fax (360)385-9382 jeffbocc@co.jefferson.wa.us Board of Equalization Minutes - November 3, 2003 Pajte: 2 William & Katherine Funke, Trustees P.O. Box 65334 Port Ludlow, WA 98365 BOE: 03-70-R PN: 821162012 Mr. Funke was present. Assessor Jack Westerman represented the Assessor's office. Chairman Marlow explained the hearing process and swore them in. The property under appeal consists of a house on approximately 113 acre including common tidelands and greenbelt located at 75 Scott Court, Port Ludlow. Mr. Funke discussed the following supplemental letter to his appeal: "The Assessor's 2003 property market value assessments for all Oak Bay and Great Scott parcels were based on an arbitrary and incorrect apportionment ofthe Great Scott Short Plat land value and the value of the Jefferson County approved permit to construct a four 50 foot slip marina dock off the Great Scott property. In addition, the Oak Bay Short Plat 2003 assessments also reflect the 2001 sale of Oak Bay parcel 821 162 013 for $580,000 which sale was $116,000 higher than the current commercially assessed market value of $464,000 as determined by The Land & Home Appraisal Services, Inc., Bremerton, W A, per the parcel owner, Dr. Paul Taylor-Smith. With reference to my property Assessment Appeal 03-70-R and Addendum, and to the attached fact sheet: Great Scott Plat Considerations in 2003 tax assessment Oak Bay parcel 821 162012 1. The 1999 assessments of the three identical 73.3 foot shoreline Oak Bay lots reflected the July 1, 1996 County re-assessments (based on actual sales) pricing each lot at $120,000 plus $1,452 tideland surcharge. This totaled $360,000 for 220 feet of shoreline property or $1,636 per foot plus $20 per foot surcharge. 2. The Great Scott Plat including Dock permit sold for $435,000 and the subsequent 1999 assessments for the three identical 53.3 foot shoreline Scott parcels (all adjacent and identical to the Oak Bay shoreline parcels) arbitrarily valued the three lots at $142,500 each plus $30,000 for the Dock permit plus $3,200 ($20 per foot tidelands surcharge). The lot only valuation totals $427,500 for 160 feet of shoreline property identical in every feature to the 220 feet of Oak Bay shoreline and equates to $2,672 per foot plus $20 per foot surcharge. This is 66.6% higher than the Oak Bay shoreline value. The comparable Oak Bay 1999 sales and assessments dictate the Great Scott property value be assessed at the Oak Bay footage price of$I,636 which equates to a total of$261,760 plus $3,200 tidelands surcharge for the three Scott parcels. Accordingly, the premium paid for the approved Scott Plat dock permit was $170,000. The subsequent dock construction cost of$120,000 places the cost/value of the completed four slip dock at $290,000, or $72,500 per slip. Note: A check with the Port of Anacortes shows this per 50 foot slip dock cost to be comparable. Reference is also given to the current Port Ludlow Associates application to extend the Port Ludlow Marina and the attendant costs to prepare, evaluate, test and multiple agency negotiations, all of which were duplicated during the five year procedure to obtain County permit approval, to appreciate the cost value of the Great Scott permit. Board of Equalization Minutes - November 3, 2003 Pajte: 3 Oak Bay Parcel 821 162013 Sale Considerations 2003 tax assessment Oak Bay parcel 821 162012 3. The 1999 assessment of this parcel was land only $120,000, house $241,030 plus tideland surcharge and sewer for a total of $368,462. 4. Subsequent to the 1999 tax assessment this parcel purchased a 1/4 interest in the Scott Dock (one 50' slip valued per above calculations at $72,000) after which it sold for $580,000. 5. The 2003 tax assessment increased this parcel's value to land only $175,000, house 325,560, plus sewer and tidelands surcharges for a total of$51O,012. An additional assessment for dock use was $43,750 for a grand total of$553,762. 6. This parcel's owner, my neighbor, Paul Taylor-Smith, subsequent to his purchasing parcel 821 162 013 received a commercial assessment of a $500,000 market value citing the market did not justify the $580,000 paid. 7. A more recent September/October 2003 commercial assessment reduced the value to $464,000. Revised conclusions to my Appeal of2003 tax assessment to my parcel 821 162 012 based on the above information: My parcel's 1999 assessment was house $276,010 (actual cost documents submitted to Assessor totaled $266,040) and lot $120,000 sewer and tidelands surcharge $7,450 for a grand total of $403,460. My parcel's 2003 assessment is house $315,453 and lot $175,000, sewer and tidelands surcharge $9,452 for a grand total of $499,905 The Land & Home Appraisal Services, Inc. most current appraisal of my neighbor's parcel, 821 162013 reflects the "current" market, described as soft for this price house, of$464,000 includes his 50 foot dock slip ownership which should be valued at $72,500. This equated to this parcels land and improvements value of$39l,500. This reflects a $23,038 increase (5.9%) to market value of my neighbor's parcel (excluding any plus or minus dock value). I believe this approximate 6% also reflects other Port Ludlow property value increases. Sunnnary and Action Request parcel 821 162012 In consideration of the foregoing my property tax assessment should only reflect a 6% increase over the 1999 assessed value, combined land and improvements which equates to a combined 2003 assessment valuation of $403,460 x 106% = $437,668. Note: The setback line infringement compromising my dining room privacy created by my other Oak Bay neighbor, the County approval for the Port Ludlow marina expansion which will compromise our water view and privacy and structural damage to the main pillars holding our front porch overhang will be covered by a separate assessment request to the Assessor." Mr. Funke also included a fact sheet containing data from the Assessor's office. Board of Equalization Minutes - November 3, 2003 Pajte: 4 Mr. Westerman stated the idea of a $464,000 appraisal being entered as testimony is not allowed. The appellant has provided no proof of the appraisal and any discussion of it is hearsay. All that has been presented as far as sales and appraisals in the Great Scott Short Plat or the Oak Bay Short plat is a $500,000 appraisal that was done in April of 2003 for the property adjacent to the appellant's property. The adjacent property (parcel #821 162013) is owned by Paul Taylor-Smith who has a hearing scheduled for later this afternoon. The appraisal for $500,000 is the only valid appraisal which has been presented. The appellant also has not provided one sale within the appeal time period. He added that based on the recommendation of the Prosecuting Attorney's office, the Assessor's staff conducted a telephone interview with the appraiser who came up with the $500,000 value. During the interview it was discovered that the appraiser had submitted an addendum to this appraisal which increased the value from $500,000 to $516,000, that neither Mr. Funke nor Mr. Smith has provided to the Board. This Board has been misled. While he doesn't believe that Mr. Funke purposely misled the Board, it will need to be addressed whether or not Mr. Smith is purposely attempting to mislead the Board by committing peIjury, ifhe testifies on the information submitted. The reason for the $16,000 difference is strictly because the appraiser was not aware that there was a dock slip available to the property owned by Mr. Smith. The appraiser determined the market value of that dock slip to be $16,000. So, now the appraisal amount of $516,000 should be considered and not the $500,000 appraisal amount which has been introduced. Mr. Westerman stated that he doesn't hold Mr. Funke at all responsible for the inaccurate information. The idea of trying to mis-lead the Board concerns Mr. Westerman and is the reason he asked the Prosecutor to be available at this hearing. He pointed out that Mr. Funke's house is approximately 25% larger than Mr. Smith's house that was appraised without a dock slip for $500,000 and with a dock slip for $516,000. Mr. Smith's house was also measured incorrectly by the appraiser. The appraiser's measurements are 106 square feet lower than what they should be. The measurements in the Assessor's records were confirmed accurate according to the building plans and actual physical measurements conducted a second time by the Assessor's staff. Had the appraiser's square footage measurements been accurate, he would have arrived at an appraised value higher than the initial $500,000. Additionally, the appraisal did not include a cost approach or an income approach. The appraiser only used the market approach. Therefore, this is not a full-blown appraisal and does not meet the uniform standards of professional appraisal practices. This appraisal only proves that the Assessor's office has this property under valued. The Assessor's office doesn't have Mr. Funke's property valued higher, because it is felt that there are extenuating circumstances, such as Mr. Smith's being of slightly better quality. Also submitted with the Assessor's information is a copy of the Real Estate listing for the property located on the other side ofMr. Funke's property showing their property is for sale for $659,500. While a listing is not a fair indicator of market value, Mr. Westerman noted that the neighboring parcel is currently assessed at $491,745. Given the fact that Mr. Funke has not provided clear, cogent and convincing evidence that the Assessor's valuation is incorrect, the Board has no alternative other than to sustain the current assessed value. For the record, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney David Alvarez provided the Washington Administrative Code #458-14-006 which relates to consideration of evidence. 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. Board of Equalization Minutes - November 3, 2003 Pajte:5 Elaine Malven (Thornburg) - Thornburg Trust 4360 Oak Bay Road Port Ludlow, W A 98365 BOE: 03-69-R PN: 921 301 003 Ms. Malven was not present. Appraiser Robert Shold represented the Assessor's office and was swom in by Chairman Marlow. The property under appeal is a house located on approximately 22 acres located at 4360 Oak Bay Road, Port Ludlow. Ms. Malven stated on her petition "Prices have not gone up as shown. I could have sold it in 1995 if! could have divided it. I have had it for sale since after my husband's death. I do not feel I should have to stand a loss because of what necessitated my having to put so much money in building this home due to my husband's health requirements. He was too heavy for me to lift him and it required having to make living quarters for help." Currently the property is assessed at $316,210 ($40,350 for the land and $275,860 for the improvements). The appellant estimates the value is $277,080 ($38,400 for the land and $238,680 for the improvements). Mr. Shold explained he was not the appraiser who most recently assessed this property, however, in reviewing the information used in the valuation he does not see any anomalies, nor does he see any evidence provided by the appellant indicating the property is incorrectly valued. After reviewing all the information submitted and hearing the testimony of the representative for the Assessor's office, Chairman Marlow closed the hearing. The Board will conduct a physical inspection of the property and make a determination at a later date. Jerrold Gamer 223 Scenic View Lane Port Ludlow, W A 98365 BOE: 03-65-R PN: 821334087 Mr. Gamer was present. Appraiser Robert Shold represented the Assessor's office. After explaining the hearing process Chairman Marlow swore them in. The property under appeal is a house and garage/shop situated on 2.39 acres located at 223 Scenic View Lane, Port Townsend. Mr. Gamer stated he purchased the property in 1998 and subsequently built the garage/shop and made repairs to the house. He expected the assessed value to be adjusted accordingly, however, in his opinion, the assessed value far exceeds its market value. When the construction of the garage/shop was completed and the repairs to the house were made, he had an appraisal done for refinancing purposes. The appraisal indicated a value of $358,000 which was close to the 2002/2003 assessed value of $359,060. The current assessment reflects a new 2003/2004 assessed value of$393,760 ($85,375 for the land and $308,385 for the improvements) which he believes is out of line and in no way reflects the fair market value of his property. The property will never sell for that amount. He estimates the value to be $359,060 ($83,375 for the land and $275,685 for the improvements). Mr. Shold stated he is not the appraiser who most recently assessed the property. The appraisal submitted by Mr. Gamer appears to accurately reflect the fair market value of the property. Based on the appraisal, he would concur that the property value is close to a value of $360,000. He noted that the appraisal was conducted 2 years ago, and he has no evidence to show that property values have increased since that time. 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. Board of Equalization Minutes - November 3, 2003 Pajte: 6 Steven & Margaret Painter 4071 Paradise Bay Road Port Ludlow, W A 98365 BOE: 03-63-R PN: 821 262010 Mr. Painter 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 situated on approximately 5 Yo acres located at 4071 Paradise Bay Road, Port Ludlow. Mr. Painter stated the assessed value of all single family homes in Jefferson County is based on an average of 90% of fair market value. This is verified in almost all cases reviewed and he presented an example using his neighbor's property. In talking with the Assessor he learned that there is a fixed approach in valuing waterfront, so the only way Mr. Painter could arrive at his estimate of 90% of fair market value was to reduce the improvement value. Based on this method he estimates the property value is $445,000 ($248,750 for the land and $196,250 for the improvements). Currently the property is assessed at $494,140 ($248,750 for the land and $245,390 for the improvements). Mr. Shold stated he is not the appraiser who assessed this property. He has no knowledge of the particulars with regard to the value of this property and is unable to dispute any of the comments made by Mr. Painter. It is noted that in the mass appraisal process used by the Assessor's office they may not always reach a value equal to sale prices, however, staff does attempt to assess all property at 100% of fair market value. 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. Paul Taylor Smith 63 Scott court Port Ludlow, W A 98365 BOE: 03-58-R PN: 821162013 Mr. Taylor-Smith was present. Assessor Jack Westerman 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 .43 acres including common tidelands and greenbelt located at 63 Scott Court, Port Ludlow. Mr. Taylor-Smith stated he is asking for a true and fair market value appraisal of his property and he bases his request on two independent commercial appraisals that he has had done on the property since April of 2003. It was brought to his attention this morning that he has been accused in this office of attempting to commit fraud in relationship to the first appraisal and he wishes to address that now as it may affect the remainder of the hearing. In April of2000 a commercial appraisal was performed on his property for refinancing purposes. At that time he had no knowledge of the County's assessment of his property. When he received a copy of the commercial appraisal indicating his property was valued at $500,000 he was immensely disappointed and contacted the appraiser. Subsequent to finding out about the accusation this morning, he called the appraiser and the appraiser faxed a letter to the County which states: "Upon completion of the appraised report I was accused by Mr. Taylor-Smith of bringing in an estimated market value too low for his home. I was aware at that time of my inspection that the house did sell on 3/1412001 for the sum of $580,000. The comparables at the time of my appraisal did not support the previous sale value. Mr. Taylor-Smith then inquired of me if! was aware that he has an interest in his next door neighbors' dock and boat slip. I couldn't find any indication of this interest on the County's web site, nor in the multiple listings (MLS). Mr. Taylor-Smith then faxed to my office notarized documents that he indeed has interest in the dock/slip. On the request of the lender in this transaction; I Board of Equalization Minutes - November 3, 2003 Pajte: 7 then amended my appraisal to include the dock/slip. The estimated market value after considering the dock/slip adjusted the appraisal to $516,000." The appraisal Mr. Taylor-Smith submitted with his appeal was faxed to him from the commercial loan institution on the 30th of April 2003. You can note the fax number on the copy of the appraisal at the top of the page. He assumed that amount was the true value of the property. The appraiser would not supply Mr. Taylor-Smith with a copy ofthe appraisal directly because the loan institution was the client, not Mr. Taylor-Smith, even though Mr. Taylor-Smith paid for the appraisal. Mr. Taylor-Smith stated ifhe is being accused of fraud, then he wants to terminate the hearing and obtain legal council to pursue libel action against the County. He continued, stating when he received the Assessor's valuation notice showing a 10% difference in value from the appraisal he was obviously concerned. Chairman Marlow interrupted Mr. Taylor-Smith's testimony and asked him to reiterate his concerns with the fraud accusations. Mr. Taylor-Smith stated ifhe is being accused of trying to commit fraud to the Board of Equalization then he would like to terminate this hearing and obtain legal counsel to pursue libel action against the County. He is a physician in this community and he takes his reputation immensely serious, both as a physician and as a person. His neighbors are now saying that he was accused of fraud this morning and he is deeply disturbed by that accusation. Chairman Marlow explained that the previous hearing held this morning has no bearing on this hearing, other than some similar valuation issues with the properties that were discussed. During the previous hearing held this morning, one of the issues brought up was that the appraisal was not complete. Mr. Taylor-Smith asked ifhe could submit the letter from the appraiser which he had just read to the Board? Mr. Westerman replied no. Chairman Marlow confirmed the Assessor's response, explaining that the Board is bound by rules which state that additional documentary evidence must be submitted to the Board of Equalization and the Assessor no later than seven business days prior to the appellant's scheduled hearing. Mr. Taylor-Smith argued that he just now found out about the accusation. Chairman Marlow stated the Board members understand, however, they are still bound by state statutes which govern the Board. Unless the Assessor's representative agrees that the additional documentary evidence can be submitted, the Board is unable to accept it. Mr. Taylor-Smith stated he assumes that the purpose of this hearing is to arrive at the fair market value of the property. Absolutely, replied Chairman Marlow. Mr. Westerman doesn't believe Chairman Marlow answered Mr. Taylor-Smith's question. He heard the question to be, "If there is going to be an accusation of fraud or peIjury on his behalf, he wants to stop the hearing right now?" For his benefit, that needs to be answered. During the previous hearing the appellant did not present an appraisal for $500,000. At the recommendation ofthe Prosecuting Attorney's office Board of Equalization Minutes - November 3, 2003 Pajte: 8 the Assessor, Mr. Westerman and an Appraiser, Robert Shold deposed the appraiser in regard to particular appraisal and he was surprised that an appraisal for $500,000 was submitted when in fact, as Dr. Smith stated, there was an amendment to that appraisal increasing the value to $516,000 which was not submitted. Mr. Taylor-Smith responded he only received a copy of the $500,000 appraisal and he did not receive it from the appraiser. The appraiser would not give him a copy of the appraisal, therefore, he obtained a copy from the financing institution so he assumed that was the commercial appraisal for his property. He was unaware that the appraisal had been amended and increased by $16,000. Mr. Westerman stated Mr. Taylor-Smith is saying under penalty of peIjury that even after his phone call to the appraiser expressing his disappointment in the $500,000 value, he had no knowledge whatsoever that this value was going to be amended. Mr. Taylor-Smith stated he was informed there would be no material change in the value of the property and he was immensely disappointed and angry at that time. This is helping to clarifY this issue, said Mr. Westerman. Based on the deposition of the commercial appraiser it is known that the appraisal was amended to indicate a value of $516,000. Unbeknown to the Assessor's office, up to this point in time Mr. Taylor-Smith was never made aware that the value was amended to $516,000. If he is stating under the penalty ofpeIjury, which is the oath he just took, that he had no knowledge of the amended appraisal, than the Assessor's office has no question ofpeIjury in this case. Mr. Taylor-Smith replied he is indeed making that statement. Mr. Westerman stated based on information obtained from the commercial appraiser, the Assessor's office assumed, maybe incorrectly, that Mr. Taylor-Smith was aware ofthe appraisal being amended to $516,000. The appraiser what somewhat surprised that the amended appraisal wasn't included with Mr. Taylor-Smith's appeal. The Assessor's staff was then somewhat upset that Mr. Taylor-Smith, unbeknown to the Assessor's office, was submitting an appraisal that he thought was complete, and the Assessor's office thought should have an addendum showing the amended value. Given the testimony provided during the previous hearing held this moming, and (even though it cannot be introduced) the witnessed deposition ofthe commercial appraiser, the Assessor's office believes that if as a group they can agree that the amended appraisal was for $516,000, then the Assessor's office has no problem with the amended appraisal being submitted to the Board as additional documentary evidence at this time Mr. Taylor-Smith has absolutely no problem with that at all. He was not aware of the amendment and as he stated previously, it was not his appraisal. With the fraudlpeIjury issue having been resolved Mr. Taylor-Smith continued with his testimony stating he was obviously concerned about the 10% difference between the commercial appraisal and the County's appraisal. Clearly as an investment property it is not in his best interest for the value to be significantly less than his purchase amount. Consequently, on September 17, 2003 he hired the same commercial appraiser to perform an appraisal for him personally, not for a commercial lender. He informed the appraiser of the County's current assessment. In September the property was reappraised for the amount of $464,000. He noted it specifically identifies the dock and uses three separate comparable properties which were not used in the initial comparison. Mr. Taylor-Smith said he is not a trained appraiser and he Board of Equalization Minutes - November 3, 2003 Pajte:9 has no intention oftrying to defraud the County out oftaxes they are due based on the valuation of this property. He must therefore, rely on commercial evaluations of the property and he assumes the appraiser he used is a reputable and ethical appraiser, as are the County's appraisers. There is obviously now a 20% difference in value between the County's valuation and the commercial land appraisal of his property. He assumes the true market value must be somewhere between these two amounts. Currently the property is assessed at $554,760 ($228,200 for the land and $326,560 for the improvements). Mr. Westerman noted the only appraisal submitted with the appellant's petition was the one conducted in April 2003 in the amount of$500,000 which was amended to $516,000. The appraisal conducted in September 2003 in the amount of $464,000 was not submitted to the Board prior to the hearing and therefore, is inadmissible and cannot be considered. He noted that the $16,000 amendment to the appraisal conducted in April, is attributed to Mr. Taylor-Smith's ownership interest in a dock slip located on a separate parcel of property. The appraisal is a summary appraisal used for lending purposes only. It does not meet the uniform standards of professional appraisal practices because it does not include a cost approach or an income approach in arriving at the value. It is also noted in the appraisal that the house consists of 1,572 square feet when in fact, it consists of 1,688 square feet. So not only did Mr. Taylor- Smith not receive consideration for the dock ownership, but, he got an appraiser who incorrectly measured his house. Mr.Westerman measured the house based on the architectural plans that were submitted to the Department of Community Development when application for a building permit was made. He also visited the property and remeasured the house in person and had those measurements drawn on their AutoCAD computer program which was presented to the Board as part of the documentary evidence previously submitted. Using the correct square footage and considering the $16,000 for the value ofthe dock, the value would be $527,010 as ofthe assessment date January 1, 2003. However, during the remeasuring process, it was discovered that a hot tub had been installed on the property. This was not discovered sooner, because there was no building permit for it. Mr. Westerman ask Mr. Taylor-Smith if the hot tub was installed prior to July 31, 2003? Mr. Taylor-Smith replied he thought it was installed in August, but, he does not remember. Mr. Westerman stated the Assessor's office will value the hot tub as new construction next year. As far as the value for this appeal, the Board should not consider the appraisal amount of$516,000, but rather the amount of$527,010 which accounts for the commercial appraiser's error in calculating the square footage. Mr. Taylor-Smith paid $580,000 for the property and it is assessed at $554,760. Discussion ensued regarding the valuation of docks. 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. George Carlin 8233 - 41st NE Seattle, W A 98115 BOE: 03-50-LO 03-51-LO 03-53-LO PN: 990600107 990400149 990 603 122 Mr. Carlin was not present. Appraiser Robert Shold represented the Assessor's office and was previously sworn in by Chairman Marlow. Under appeal are three bare land parcels located at different locations in Port Ludlow. The appellant stated on his petition forms that he is appealing the valuation of these parcels based on "Past sales of similar properties and prices of similar properties for sale." Following is the Board of Equalization Minutes - November 3, 2003 Pajte: 10 current assessment and the appellant's estimate of value for each parcel: Parcel number 990 600 107 990400149 990603 122 Assessor's Valuation $30,000 $30,000 $32,000 Apoellant's Estimate of Value $27,000 $17,000 $26,000 Mr. Shold noted that parcel number 990 600 107 which is valued at $30,000 is currently listed for sale by the appellant for $39,500; parcel number 990 400 149 also valued at $30,000 is currently listed for sale by the appellant for $29,500; and parcel number 990603 122 valued at $32,000 is also currently listed for sale by the appellant for $39,500. While listing prices do not always reflect market value, it is interesting to compare the listing prices with the appellant's estimate of values. In answer to a question from Chairman Marlow, Mr. Shold stated he did not know how long the properties had been on the market. Mr. Shold also noted that he is present on behalf of Robert Kingsley who appraised these parcels most recently, but, could not attend the hearing today. 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 properties and make a determination at a later date. Lambert & June Demers 404 South Bay Lane Port Ludlow, W A 98365 BOE: 03-78-R PN: 969 300 009 Mr. Demers was present. Assessor Jack Westerman represented the Assessor's office. After explaining the hearing process Chairman Marlow swore them in. The property under appeal is a house on a lot located at 404 South Bay Lane, Port Ludlow. Mr. Demers stated they had intended to submit additional documentary evidence to the Board, but, failed to do so. Without that documentation he questions whether or not they should postpone their hearing until next year? Mr. Westerman explained that the appellants were in his office last Thursday conducting research and gathering information for presentation to the Board. When Mr. Westerman discovered who they were he informed them that they would not be able submit any additional information to the Board because of the rule requiring that additional documentary evidence must be submitted no later than seven business days prior to the appellant's scheduled hearing. The purpose of this rule is not to be punitive, but rather to allow the other party adequate time to review the information in order to provide a rebuttal. He noted that this same rule applies to the Assessor's office as well. That being said, the only information before the Board for consideration is the appellants' petition form and the documentation submitted by the Assessor's office. Mr. Demers' concern is that in determining the valuation of his property, the size or area of the lot is a non-issue for some reason. Due to setback requirements for a cul-de-sac and the waterfront, a variance was required before he could even build his house on the lot. Some of the neighboring lots are at least three times as big as their lot and yet that was not taken into consideration in the valuation. He believes there should be a discount given due to the size of their lot. Additionally, there is a 5% adjustment increasing the valuation for the view, when in fact the garage and trees on the neighboring parcel obstructs their view. Board of Equalization Minutes - November 3, 2003 Pajte: 11 Mr. Westerman stated Mr. Demers' house has a footprint of2,5l7 square feet just on the first floor. However small the lot might be, a house is situated on it that is as big as any other house you will find anywhere. He then presented land sales which have occurred in the area. Mr. Demers added that he is unable to have a three-car garage, a greenhouse, a tennis court or a pickle- ball court due to the size of his lot. Discussion ensued regarding the appellants' purchase of the property and subsequent removal ofan old house which had previously been built on the lot. Mr. Westerman stated when the physical inspection of the property is conducted the Board may determine that a 5% or 10% adjustment is warranted due to the impact the lot size may have on additional improvements being built on the property. Currently the property is assessed at $716,255 ($257,280 for the land and $458,975 for the improvements). The appellants estimate the land value to be $220,000. They do not dispute the improvement value. 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. DETERMINATION ORDER CORRECTIONS Member DeLeo was not present for the following discussion. Mark Wyse 6044 E. Hollyhock Street Phoenix, AZ 85018 BOE: 03-05-R PN: 961 601102 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: 961 601 201 Robert & Barbara Calderwood Calderwood Family Trust 90-B South Chandler Court Port Ludlow, WA 98365 BOE: 03-47-R PN: 961601202 Chairman Marlow reported that it has been brought to the attention ofthe Board that the determination orders issued on October 14, 2003 for the above referenced appeals were determined invalid by the Washington State Department of Revenue due to the fact that, for each appeal, the Board of Equalization ordered "two" different valuations to take effect at different times within the four year revaluation cycle. According to State law the Board can only order "one" value to take effect within the four year revaluation cycle. This requirement is defined in RCW 84.48.034 County Board of Equalization - Duration of Order I Board of Equalization Minutes - November 3, 2003 Pajte: 12 which states "The board of equalization may enter an order that has effect up to the end of the assessment cycle used by the assessor, ifthere has been no intervening change in the value during that time." It is further defined in WAC 458-14-116 (5) Orders a/the board - Notice a/Value adjustments - Effective date which states "In counties with a multiyear revaluation cycle, orders issued by the board shall have effect up to the end ofthe revaluation cycle used by the assessor and approved by the department. ..." As a result of the order being determined invalid, the Board of Equalization must issue a "Corrected" order for each appeal, establishing "one" value which shall have effect up to the end of the revaluation cycle. Vice-Chairman Broders moved to correct the determination orders by reducing the improvement value of all four parcels by $70,000. The reduced values shall have effect up to the end of the revaluation cycle. In the absence of Member DeLeo, Chairman Marlow seconded the motion. The motion carried. Following are the corrected determination orders reflecting the appropriate reduction in the improvement value for each of the four parcels, the Assessor's land values are not changed: ADDellant Mark A. Wyse John & Patricia Emery Douglas & Marianne Barber Robert & Barbara Calderwood ADDeal No. BOE 03-05-R BOE 03-06-R BOE 03-07-R HOE 03-47-R Parcel No. 961601 102 961 601 101 961 601 201 961 601 202 Assessor's ImDrovement Value $164,260 $184,860 $160,590 $181,920 Board's Corrected ImDrovement Value $94,260 $114,860 $90,590 $111,920 (See also minutes of September 8, 2003 and October 14, 2003) Meeting adjourned. At~~~f: G~uc 11. 7 "il/\.?~~ Erin K. Lundgren, Clerk ::;t:;;;;;;7 '---C- JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF EQUALIZATION t:---- . Willian: S. jv1lf"IOW. .'. ChaiIWan R]JJ II -f\-vL Richard A. rfriters, Vice-Chairman ()~() JJ..-L bffies A. De[e'o, Member