Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM081505 \. ~\ tQU~e ~~~ ~ 1$ %\ ~ I'" ><J \.ft; ~J "1~ 1820 Jefferson Street P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 James A. DeLeo William S. Marlow Richard A. Broden MINUTES August 15, 2005 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 and Member James A. DeLeo. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Vice-Chairman Broders moved to approve the minutes of July 15, 2005 as presented. Member DeLeo seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. HEARINGS R. W. & Kathleen Bradford P.O. Box 1167 Port Townsend, W A 98368 BOE: 05-06-LO PN: 801322008 Mr. and Mrs. Bradford were not present. Appraiser Robert Shold represented the Assessor's office and was sworn in by Chairman Marlow. The property under appeal is a bare land parcel consisting of9.28 acres located at 10260 Center Road, Quilcene. As written on the petition form, the appellants' reason for appealing the assessed value of their property is "We purchased this property 10/15/2004 for $37,500.", and they estimate that is the value of the property. The current assessed value ofthe property is $57,810.00. Mr. Shold stated he had hoped the appellant would have been present to provide clarification about the purchase of the property. He noted that this property went through a forfeiture proceeding in July 2004 and was purchased by the appellants in October 2004 through a quit claim deed which typically is not indicative of value as compared to open market transactions. 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 ofthe property and make a determination at a later date. Phone (3601385-9100 Fax (360)385-9382 jefibocc@Co.jefferson.wa.us \ Board of Equalization Minutes - AU2ust 15, 2005 Pa2e: 2 Eugene Glavich 383 Old Oak Bay Road Port Hadlock, W A 98339 BOE: 05-04-LO PN: 921182028 Mr. Glavich was not present. Appraiser Robert Kingsley represented the Assessor's office and was sworn in by Chairman Marlow. The property under appeal is a bare lot located at 383 Old Oak Bay Road, Port Hadlock. As written on the petition form, the appellant's reason for appealing the assessed value of his property is "A new survey changed the boundary lines arbitrarily, giving me 30' of my neighbors property. Legally, no property lines changed, but, now I owe more. I don't think I should pay for someone else's property tax." He estimates the value is $26,000. The current assessed value is $66,300. Mr. Kingsley stated he had hoped the appellant would be here so he could explain why he is disputing the value. He presented documentation relating to the boundary line adjustment done by Mr. Glavich and a survey showing the additional 30' of property which was acquired. He doesn't understand why now Mr. Glavich is saying the boundary line was changed arbitrarily and is not correct. 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. Sonja Elend 331 - 7th Avenue, P.O. Box 613 Port Hadlock, W A 98339 BOE: 05-07-R PN: 961 80S 201 Mrs. Elend was present. Appraiser Dennis Pownall represented the Assessor's office. After an explanation of the hearing process, both parties were sworn in by Chairman Marlow. The property under appeal consists of a residence located at 31 Kinkaid Street, Port Hadlock. Mrs. Elend stated that she is requesting a lower valuation for this property as its condition has been substantially degraded from being rented out over the past few years. She discussed her personal hardship issues which she believes contributed to her inability to maintain the property in good condition. Currently she rents the property for non-profit, however, the damages from previous renters still need repair. She discussed the damages and said this property could not be sold for the current assessed value. While the Assessor's comparable properties are modest, they are in better condition that her property. Her estimate of value is $40,000 ($20,000 for the land and $20,000 for the improvements). The current assessed value is $58,330 ($27,000 for the land and $31,330 for the improvements). Mr. Pownall confirmed with Mrs. Elend that she lives directly across the street from this rental property she owns. In reviewing the notes from 1998 in the Assessor's file it appears as though the property was well kept. During the inspection in 2003 it was noted that nobody was home and there seemed to be no apparent change to the property. Board of Equalization Minutes - AUj(ust 15, 2005 Paj(e: 3 Mrs. Elend replied that she had good renters in 1998. Some ofthe damage to the mobile home may not be reversible. Mr. Pownall stated that the question is whether or not the property is reasonably valued at $58,330 in its present condition. After reviewing all the information submitted and hearing the testimony of the 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. Wayne A. Peck, Sr. 281 South Beach Drive Port Ludlow, W A 98365 BOE: 05-02-LO 05-03-LO PN: 950101001 950 201 002 Mr. Peck was present. Appraiser Dennis Pownall represented the Assessor's office. After an explanation of the hearing process, both parties were sworn in by Chairman Marlow. The property under appeal consists of two bare lots located in Trails End Addition off of South Beach Drive, Port Ludlow. Mr. Peck stated he and his wife purchased one lot in 1981 and the other in 1990 with the intent of building on them. About a year ago they applied for a permit to build a pole structure without walls and no foundation to be used as an R.V. carport on one of the lots. Because County maps showed some of the property in the area had changed over time and was now considered wetlands, the appellants were required by the County to conduct a partial wetlands delineation to determine the category of wetlands and necessary setbacks. A hired consultant identified the wetlands as Category II and recommended a 75' building setback. However, the Department of Community Development required a setback of 150' which did not allow adequate space for the construction ofthe pole building, so the building permit was denied. This particular lot he purchased in 1981 for $3,000. It is currently assessed at $3,000. He noted that the property is landlocked and the wetlands were "man-made". Property in the area has become wetlands due to drainage from other property located on the hillside which was cleared. The wetlands delineation report refers to a 12" culvert to carry water to the Bridgehaven estuary, however, the culvert appears to be blocked and consequently the water has no where to go. He did not dispute the value of the property when he thought it could be developed. He is only able to use one of the parcels which he maintains for placement of an outbuilding to store wood and yard tools. Compared to the value of other unbuildable lots in the area, his property is overvalued. Mr. Peck estimates the market value of parcel 950 101 001 is $250 and the market value of parcel 950 201002 is $100. Mr. Pownall stated the Assessor's office does not dispute the fact that this property is considered wetlands, and noted that the property is not currently valued as if it were buildable. Many parcels in this area are consumed by septic systems making them unbuildable. The Assessor used $3,000 as the value for "excess land". This value is not necessarily the marketable value of an excess parcel that could be sold individually. This is why the Assessor did not attempt to address the individual characteristics of each parcel. Excess parcels are worth $3,000 just for the privacy factor, whether they're usable or not. Mr. Peck does not feel that his parcel is worth $3,000 just for privacy. The parcel has been determined to be unusable and he believes its value is reduced as a result. '. Board of Equalization Minutes - AU2ust 15, 2005 Pa2e: 4 Mr. Pownall stated the appellant's parcel is not assessed too high, it's most likely that the parcels which are buildable are assessed too low. All the these similar parcels were valued as ifthey were likely unbuildable. If they later became buildable, the value of parcel was increased accordingly. In essence, the value of a buildable parcel is present even when the assessment has not been increased and additional taxes are not being paid. Mr. Peck disputes that because there are parcels in the area which are assessed at $1,000 and even some at $500. This discrepancy among values tells him that there is something better about his parcel than the parcels with lower values. He understands what Mr. Pownall is saying and if all the parcels in the area were assessed at 53,000 he might buy into it. Mr. Pownall has not personally viewed this property and was not the appraiser who assessed the value. Re is attempting to explain the assessment methodology that was used in valuing all the property in this area. While he is relatively familiar with the property, he does not know how consistent parcels were valued. He does know, however, that 53,000 is far under a buidable site value. There are numerous other parcels of varied quality which are owned by the appellant and are still valued at $3,000. Mr. Peck feels that someone needs to come and look at the entire area to see how properties have changed. 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. Charles C. Hartzell 154 Gunn Road Port Angeles, W A 98362 BOE: 05-01-R PN: 021291041 Mr. Hartzell was not present. Appraiser Robert Kingsley represented the Assessor's office and was previously sworn in by Chairman Marlow. The property under appeal is a parcel with a residence located at 541 Schwartz Road, Nordland. The appellant's reason for appealing the valuation of his property was written on his petition form as follows: "Neighboring property, 5 acres + a trailer sold for $125,000. My .9 acre is land locked, and when I agreed to buy this house/property, I was mislead to believe the previous 1.75 acre parcel I owned was included in sale, and house was finished. I had to pay approx. $30,000 to upgrade house." Currently, the assessed value of the property is $114,745 ($48,000 for the land and $66,745 for the improvements). The appellant estimates the assessed value to be $100,000 ($20,000 for the land and $80,000 for the improvements). Mr. Kingsley had hoped the appellant would have been present for the hearing in order to provide clarification on his appeal. It appears that Mr. Hartzell is claiming the property should be assessed at $100,000, yet he purchased the property for $115,000 in 2001. He is also claiming that the property is landlocked. This is disputed by a survey of the property showing an easement to this parcel. Besides paying $115,000 for the property, the appellant said he paid another $30,000 to upgrade it. Based on the facts relating to this case, the current assessed value seems fair. " .. Board of Equalization Minutes - Aueust 15, 2005 Paee:5 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. Meeting adjourned. Attest: /:. ;/ ~.. t~.. /"L .'" '. .~... . . U..J <.....- -I<. .. ./ u.~.. /'I..-v/.^-/' Erin K. Lundgren, Clerk of the, oard JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF EQUALIZATION ~ William S. Marlow, Chairman aJJ t;J~ Richard A. Broders, Vice-Chairman ~~a A..~ Ii res A. DeLeo, Member