Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM081604 1820 Jefferson Street P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 James A. DeLeo WllIlam S. Marlow Richard A. Broden MINUTES August 16, 2004 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 a.m. in the presence of Vice-Chairman Richard A. Broders and Member James A. DeLeo. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Member DeLeo moved to approve the minutes of July 15, 2004 as presented. Vice-Chairman Broders seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. HEARING W AIVERSI ASSESSMENT CORRECTIONS Vice-Chairman Broders moved to accept the following assessment corrections and petition withdrawals. Member DeLeo seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. APPELLANT Joan Summers " " APPEAL NO. BOE 04-02-LO BOE 04-03-R BOE 04-06-R BOE 04-11-LO PARCEL NO. 993 200 003 993 000 035 937200105 962 112201 Kenneth Ward Patricia O'Meara Phone (360)385-9100 Fax (360)385-9382 jeffbocC@Co.jefferson.wa.us Board of Equalization Minutes - AU2ust 16, 2004 Allan Learned/Craig Learned/Susan Black 63 Cedar View Drive Port Townsend, W A 98368 Pa2e: 2 HEARINGS BOE: 04-16-LO 04-17-LO 04-18-LO 04-19-LO PN: 961804302 961 804 303 961 804 304 961 804 306 Allan Learned 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 4 bare land parcels located in Irondale on a bluff overlooking Port Townsend Bay. Mr. Learned owns two of the parcels and his son and daughter own the other two. He explained that these parcels were revalued by the Assessor's office as of January 1, 2003, at which time they incorrectly combined the parcels as a method to set the value. Combining the parcels is extremely inappropriate since the parcels are owned by two separate entities. Additionally, Mr. Learned owns another parcel which fronts directly on the bluff and is located in front of the four parcels under appeal. The value of this other parcel is not under appeal, however, the Assessor's office combined it with the other four parcels in determining the current assessment. By using the valuation method of combining all the parcels, the back four parcels are valued as having have a good view. Mr. Learned contends that due to growth of trees and brush on the parcel located on the bluff, the back parcels have no view and should not be valued as such. He attempted to find sales of comparable property and while he was unsuccessful in finding any bare land sales in the immediate area, he did locate some along Prospect A venue. He noted that he took into consideration that properties in his neighborhood are not as well maintained as they are along Prospect Avenue and his estimated value reflects a reduction for that. Following is the current assessed valuation and Mr. Learned's estimated value for each parcel. 961 804 302 961 804 303 961 804 304 961 804306 Current Assessment 545,000 $156,000 $6,000 $24,000 Appellant's Estimated Value $28,000 $96,000 $4,000 $14,000 Mr. Pownall presented the following information explaining how the property was valued: "The Learned ownership of Iron dale lots encompasses five parcels and is composed of Lots 6 to 68 (63 lots) in Block 43; Lots 26 to 42 (17 lots) in Block 45; and a portion of vacated 2nd Street (approximately 12 lots). Some of the lots are irregular in length and the total lot count equates to approximately 92 lots. This 92- lot ownership is equivalent to 15-plus 6-lot sites counting the vacated street, or 15-plus 5-lot sites without counting the vacated street. The total area appears to be approximately 5.3 acres. In order to determine the fair market value ofthis (these) parcel(s), several scenarios were weighed. The existing parcel configurations are not consistent with the ownership's highest and best use and were therefore disregarded. Since development costs and the availability of public water system taps required to serve 15 potential sites is difficult to determine, the following methodology was employed. Board of Equalization Minutes - AU2ust 16, 2004 Pa2e: 3 I believe it can be safely assumed that the possibility of establishing 5 one-acre sites is feasible. I believe it fair to assume that all five sites would have very good marine views, similar to the views in Prospect View Estates, which lies Northerly of the subject property. The predominate sale price of "front row" sites in Prospect View Estates was $80,000 each for sites of 1/3 to Y2 acre with public water system and site preparation completed. It seems both fair and reasonable to value the undeveloped Learned land, at approximately half of its developed value. Therefore, the Learned land will be valued as one developed site ($80,000) and four undeveloped sites (580,000 x 50% = $40,000 ea.). An additional25% for size will also be added, bringing the developed site to $100,000 and the value of the undeveloped sites to $50,000 each. The total value of the Learned property in its present condition is $300,000, plus utilities and structures. It is recommended that the value be distributed proportionally among the existing five parcel numbers." Mr. Pownall noted that the appellant only appealed 4 parcels, however, for equity purposes, there is a fifth parcel which must also be considered, as the value of each parcel is a proportion of a single valuation. In addition, restoration work on Chimacum Creek Beach is scheduled to begin soon which will improve the area. In a statement prepared for the Board he says: "It has come to my attention, while processing the pending BOE case for the Learned's property, that only 4 ofthe 6 contiguous parcels are presented for appeal. It appears that while the owners of the property protest of "inappropriate" appraisal methodology in their appeals, they accept the valuation of the two parcels which benefitted the most by said methodology, and have omitted those two from the appeal process. I submit to you that the individual values of the four Learned-owned properties presently under appeal cannot be accurately valued without equalization of value ofthe adjacent two properties under Learned ownership. One of the withheld properties was valued solely as a protective view corridor assemblage for the lots rearward. The other property which was withheld is a parcel composed of high bank water view lots with residence and outbuildings. Both parcels have values greater individually than they do when considered as portions of, or influences to, the Learned ownerships as a whole. This reduced value is reflected in their present state, and is not to be considered as a fair market value representation of their individual values." A map and an aerial photograph outlining the parcels was also presented along with a recommendation of value for each parcel using the methodology similarly used in valuing adjacent properties. Sales of comparable properties were discussed which show that the values are consistent. Mr. Learned added that the reason he only appealed the value of the four parcels was because it is his feeling that each parcel should be valued individually and not given a proportionate value of the parcels as a whole. Especially when they are under different ownership. And the fact that Chimacum Creek Beach is being improved has absolutely no bearing on the assessed value at this time. Board of Equalization Minutes - AU2ust 16, 2004 Pa2e: 4 After reviewing all the information submitted and hearing the testimony of both parties, Chairman ;vIarlow closed the hearing. The Board will conduct a physical inspection of the property and make a determination at a later date. Richard McDonald 333 Montgomery Lane Port Ludlow, W A 98365 BOE: 04-04-R PN: 990600140 ;vIr. McDonald was not present. Appraiser Robert Kingsley represented the Assessor's office and was sworn in by Chairman Marlow. The property under appeal is a residence on a lot located at 333 Montgomery Lane in Port Ludlow. On his petition the appellant states: "Lot values have gone down. The lot next door (2 - area 1 - 41) sold for 548,000. Home values have not increased $35,000 for tax purposes." Currently the property is valued at $341,510 ($83,000 for the land and $258,510 for the improvements). The Appellant estimates the value to be 5288,410 (563,000 for the land and $225,410 for the improvements). Mr. Kingsley presented and discussed two sales of comparable properties that were used in valuing this parcel. He believes the current assessment reflects fair market value. 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. James & Sharon Walker 71 Timber Heights Drive Port Ludlow, W A 98365 BOE: 04-01-R PN: 998 500 060 Mr. and Mrs. Walker were not present. Assessor Jack Westerman represented the Assessor's office and was sworn in by Chairman Marlow. The property under appeal consists of a residence on a lot located at 71 Timber Heights Drive in Port Ludlow. Reasons for appealing the property value were listed on the petition as: "We had extensive changes in the interior layout and materials that added to the sales price, but, didn't add to the additional value of the home. Here are sales of the same home with the same view on Timber Heights Drive: Lots 61, $369,950; 62, $335,800; 64, $348,600; 66, $393,500; and 68, $395,000. The property is currently assessed at $423,050 ($143,000 for the land and $280,050 for the improvements). The appellants' estimate of value is $375,000 ($135,000 for the land and $240,000 for the improvements). Mr. Westerman explained that the parcel under appeal is lot 60 at Timberton Village #3. Currently it is assessed at $423,050 and the appellants believe it should be valued at $375,000. On the petition form the appellants reported that they purchased the property for $429,442 in 2002. He presented to the Board a copy of the interior and exterior layout of the residence, a map of the area showing the location of the lot, the Assessor's computer worksheet, and two mortgage documents. The first mortgage document shows the appellant's obtained a loan in the amount of$386,450. Most banks in our area provide loans for up to a maximum of 90% ofthe collateral value. If the amount oftheir loan is 90% of their property value, then their property value is 5429,390 which is very close to the appellant's purchase price. The second . Board of Equalization Minutes - AU2ust 16, 2004 Pa2e: 5 mortgage document shows that the appellants refmanced their loan in the amount of $390,000 and the security for the loan was solely lot 60. Again, if the bank provided the loan at 90% of the property value, then the property value is $433,333. Mr. Westerman stated that two banks have estimated the value to be very close to the purchase amount. He noted that the current assessment is approximately $10,000 less. After reviewing all the information submitted and hearing the testimony ofthe 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. Arthur E. Moyer 72 Harms Lane Port Ludlow, W A 98365 BOE: 04-15-R PN: 990603164 Mr. Moyer was present. Appraiser Robert Kingsley represented the Assessor's office. After explaining the hearing process, Chairman Marlow swore them in. The property under appeal is a lot with a residence located at 72 Harms Lane, Port Ludlow. Mr. Moyer stated that he is only contesting the land value and not the value of the improvements. The basis of his appeal is that the view from his property has considerably diminished due to tree growth in the area. He presented a Real Estate property brochure listing for sale a neighboring lot for $69,900. This is evidence that property values have gone down. Especially those which are losing views because of tree growth. Lots located across the street are significantly lower in Assessed value, yet are similar to his property. The current assessment of his land value is $100,000. He estimates the land value to be $83,000. Mr. Kingsley discussed comparable property sales and explained that views in the North Bay development can vary from one lot to the next. He noted that property owners seek reduced values when trees have grown and blocked their view, however, when trees are cut and their views are improved, property owners do not seek to have their values increased. 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. Aty::st: //. I / "., (f , . ,,-f '. ',' " / ,,'! c',' -. (/>("., tj'u, ,.. Erin K. Lundgren, Clerk oDl'be Board JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF EQUALIZATION I - !^- B:rrIO Richard A. Broders, Vice-Chairman ~4s~o:*mber