Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM091905 1820 Jefferson Street P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 James A. DeLeo William S. Marlow Richard A. Broden MINUTES September 19, 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 August 15, 16 and 24, 2005 as presented. Member DeLeo seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. ASSESSMENT CORRECTIONS Vice-Chairman Broders moved to accept the following assessment corrections. Member DeLeo seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. APPELLANT William & Kathleen Massey " " APPEAL NO. BOE 05-19-LO BOE 05-20-LO BOE 05-21-LO PARCEL NO. 966600401 966600501 966600601 " " HEARINGS Edward & Eileen Barcott 807 Harrison Street Port Townsend, W A 98368 BOE: 05-14-R PN: 965 702 507 Mr. and Mrs. Barcott were present. Appraiser Robert Kingsley represented the Assessor's office. Chairman Marlow explained the hearing process and swore in both parties. The property under appeal is a residence located at 807 Harrison Street, Port Townsend. Mr. Barcott prepared and read the following Phone (360)385-9100 Fax (360)385-9382 jefibocC@Co.jefferson.wa.us Board of Equalization Minutes - September 19, 2005 Pa2e: 2 speech: "I am Edward M. Barcott. A taxpaying, law abiding citizen. I was born July 18,1927 in Anacortes, Washington. I was raised by loving parents who were law abiding, tax paying citizens. I am the youngest of five (5) children who are all tax paying, law abiding citizens. I've had the privilege of serving my country twice. I turned 18 in the summer of 1945. I was drafted as the war ended. I served in the Navy aboard the U.S.S. New Jersey, a BB-62 Battleship. The second time, in the early 50's, I was advised by a draft board member to get married or go to college. I did neither. I was drafted a 2nd time into the service of my country. This time the Army, and I served in Korea from 51-53. Under the G.!. Bill I went to Western Washington College in Bellingham. I became a public school teacher and taught locally for 30 plus years. I have been involved locally in many volunteer programs, and still am. I've always had more than one job. I was a part-time clerk at "Daubies", a local haberdashery, at Water and Taylor streets. I also have friends and family in the commercial fishing industry. I have spent many summers salmon fishing in Alaska and Puget sound; the good old days. And, now the business at hand. Paying taxes is part of our citizenship and it's ok, if it isn't excessive. But, property taxes are becoming an extreme burden upon too many of our citizens. That is why I'm here. Fix it. Change it. You are punishing many iunocent citizens of this country. Four years ago I was told by a friend, "Ed, you're like Don Quixote charging windmills. You can't change the property tax system." He also stated the only things sure in life are taxes and death. Well, here goes, I've read many R.C.W.'s, 84.41.030 through 84.48.15. Wow, what a run around. What a bunch of gobble-de-gook! Only the legislature can do anything about property taxes and they've been inept for decades. The legislators in Olympia and Washington have only two (2) items on their agenda: 1) get a huge war chest, get elected, then re-elected and re-elected, etc., etc.; and 2) get as much pork out of the barrel as possible! Don't do what's best for the majority here and now. Put a band-aid on the problem and move on. This state in its wisdom has put taxes on taxes. They don't hold the line or cap expenditures. Tax money, grant money; it's free, spend it all, and more must be their motto. I guess Teddy Roosevelt and Ike Eisenhower were right. They both said "Do Not be controlled by Corporations or Big Money". Is our democracy in jeopardy? I'm here to vent my spleen. I'm not only speaking for myself, but, for the "Silent Majority": the elderly; people on a fixed income; people on a low-income; the poor and disadvantaged. What is affordable housing? It's not here anymore. I've had more than one job at the same time most of my adult life. I have a little cushion because I was prudent along the way and saved a little. Many others do not. They need help. Our property taxes are based on the wealth of our new neighbors. Assessments are not an exact science and it is far out math. The discrepancy by 3 appraisers on the same house is $85,000. Wow, $85,000. Our new evaluation has jumped from a total of$173,140 to $304,685. An increase ofS13l,445 in 4 years. And from about $1,900 annual tax to about $3,400 annually. Which far exceeds inflation or any reasonable increase. I would say you are about $100,000 plus too high. Another way of saying too high too fast. Our home cost $19,000 in 1971. I have spent about that amount on improvements and upgrades the past decade. Another way to say it is, our home has increased in value 15 times greater than our purchase price. Wow, crazy man, unbelievable, wow. Builders, the trades, real estate agents, wheelers and dealers playing monopoly are having a great time. That's economic development. It's ok, but, the gains are on the backs of the weak, the poor and the disfranchised. Look beyond all the "For Sale" signs around. There is a story behind every "For Sale" sign and all the stories do not have happy endings. The "Silent Majority" is made up of the elderly on fixed incomes, the poor and the weak. To some of us it's not just a house, it's HOME. Some of us don't want to move, but, some of us have to move! The weakest and the poorest are forced out! This is not the democracy I thought we stood for, this is not the call to service for my country Board of Equalization Minutes - September 19, 2005 Pa2e:3 that I thought we stood for. That is why I'm here. We have a system that needs fixing, and no one is talking about it. Where are the elected officials? Where are the leaders? Does money always win? What is affordable housing? When we bought our home in 1971, our "fixer-upper" was affordable. But, to many, this area has now become un-affordable. Weare taxed by the wealth of our new neighbors!!!!! My cousin in California lives in the old family home; 2nd generation. His home is valued at $1,250,000. His annual property tax presently is $900, wow. If and when he sells it, the new owner will be taxed on his purchase price. Maybe we should seek changes in our system of taxes, one way or another. Do you hear the message? Are you asking for changes? Do they hear us in the Assessor's Office? Do they hear us in Olympia? In this county and in this state, the rich have become richer, the poor - poorer, and the middle class is shrinking and slowly going down hill. HELP! HELP! Where are the concerned citizens? Where are the responsible elected officials? What will this body do? In this country, by law a citizen is presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. With taxes, a citizen is guilty and the burden of proof is upon the citizen to prove the government agency is in error. I'm telling you YES, you are in error. In fact, your evaluation on our property is at least $130,000 too high. Lower it for me. Lower it for everyone! Oh taxes, revolution, isn't that how this country got started? The American Revolution; do we have to do it again? I guess I'll pay my over inflated, unreasonable, high, ugly property taxes caused by the wealth of my new neighbors and crazy assessing. And, like my friend said, hang on a little longer, then die. How revolting. The property is currently valued at S304,685 ($197,500 for the land and $107,185 for the improvements). Mr. Barcott did not provide an estimate of value, however, he feels it should be increased at the same rate as inflation. Mr. Kingsley stated that he has nothing to add. Vice-Chairman Broders suggested that Mr. Barcott discuss his concerns about the property tax system with the state legislature. The Board of Equalization only has the authority to insure properties are valued fairly and equitably. 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. Lawrence & Sheila Kouzes P.O. Box 987 Port Townsend, W A 98368 BOE: 05-18-R PN: 974100602 Mr. Kouzes was present. Appraiser Robert Kingsley represented the Assessor's office. Chairman Marlow eXplained the hearing process and swore in both parties. The property under appeal is a residence located at 526 Foster Street, Port Townsend. Mr. Kouzes stated that based on the valuations of surrounding properties, he believes his property is overvalued by $75,000 and he would like the assessment reduced by that amount. Board of Equalization Minutes - September 19,2005 Pa2e: 4 Chairman Marlow asked Mr. Kouzes ifhe researched any comparable property sales in the area? Mr. Kouzes stated he doesn't feel that is relevant in this situation since there are no homes in the area which are similar. His main issue is the fact that his view is gone due to the construction of a two-story house on a neighboring parcel. This newly constructed house is only valued a few thousand dollars more than Mr. Kouzes, however, the view factor alone makes that home worth two to three "hundred" thousand dollars more than his. The view from that house is approximately 180 degrees from both stories, while the view from his house has been completely blocked on the first story, and there is only a "peek-a-boo"view from the second story. Furthermore, his house is 1 0 years old and has depreciated in value. The current assessed value is $509,005 ($154,375 for the land and $354,630 for the improvements). He estimates the value is closer to $479,200 ($143,760 for the land and $335,440 for the improvements). Mr. Kingsley explained that the Kouzes purchased their property for $525,000 in February 2003. After that time a two-story house was constructed on a neighboring parcel which essentially blocks 95% of the Kouzes marine view. Mr. Kingsley agrees that the value of property has been diminished as a result ofthe loss of view. He would like the Board's assistance in determining a lower value. It was noted that Mr. Kouzes over-estimated his property value on the petition form and now believes the value should be lower than $479,200. 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. Elizabeth North 930 Taylor Street Port Townsend, W A 98368 BOE: 05-13-R PN: 988 801 405 Ms. North 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 residence located at 930 Taylor Street, Port Townsend. Following is the appellant's reason for appealing her property value as written on her petition form: "When my mortgage was refinanced (March 2004) the value was determined to be much less than the Assessor's estimate." A copy of an appraisal done in March 2004 was also included. Currently, the property is assessed at $214,305 ($180,000 for the land and $34,305 for the improvements) She estimates the value to be $194,000 ($160,000 for the land and $34,000 for the improvements). Mr. Kingsley stated that the basis for this appeal is an appraisal that was done on the property indicating a value of $156,000 which is substantially lower value than the current assessed value. He wondered how the appraisal could be that low, so he questioned the independent appraiser about it and was told that the appraisal was over a year old and was no longer pertinent. In the past, when appellants presented previously conducted independent appraisals, they were close to market value. However, property in Port Townsend is increasing so quickly that an appraisal done a year ago may not accurately reflect current market value. Mr. Kingsley reviewed the comparable properties listed in the appraisal and noted that one of the properties sold in August 2003 for $180,000 and then resold in September 2004 for $289,000. Another sale used in the appraisal was not an "armslength transaction" because the property was Board of Equalization Minutes - September 19, 2005 Pa2e: 5 exchanged between relatives. Typically, property sales between relatives are not considered or used as comparable. That property sold for $135,000 in 2004 and was assessed by Mr. Kingsley in 2005 for $238,020. He noted that the owners did not appeal the new value. The comparable property sales used by the Assessor were presented to the Board. Mr. Kingsley acknowledged that the appellant's house is not in the best of condition. 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. William S. Laidlaw 6 Kanu Drive Port Townsend, W A 98368 BOE: 05-11-R PN: 952 700 006 Mr. Laidlaw was not present. Appraiser Robert Shold represented the Assessor's office and was sworn in by Chairman Marlow. The property under appeal consists of a residence located at 6 Kanu Drive, Port Townsend. Following is the appellant's reason for appealing his property value as written on his petition form: "Last sale on Kanu was for $430,000 (+-). My home is not the largest by sq. footage and lot size, however, it appears to have the largest new tax value. Two years ago an appraisal was completed valuing the property at $485,000. Other than my landscaping, I've not added any improvements to the home or lot since the date of purchase. A 35% increase in value seems excessive compared to the increase in actual sale prices (15% to 20%) in the last year. As comparable properties, lots on Vista are larger than lots on Kanu Drive. Our lot is 100% utilized, prohibiting any future build-outs." Currently, the property is valued at $507,450 ($184,000 for the land and $323,450 for the improvements). Mr. Laidlaw believes the value of the property is $464,000 ($184,000 for the land and $280,000 for the improvements). Mr. Shold stated that there has been one sale recently in the immediately area. The property which sold is a very old house situated on a lot which is larger than the appellant's lot. It sold in March 2005 for $326,000 and then resold in September 2005 for $512,500. He does not believe the appellant's property is overvalued. He noted that the independent appraisal the appellant had done for refinancing purposes two year ago indicated at that time a value of$485,000. 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 ofthe property and make a determination at a later date. Marco A. Sobrino 71 Vista Drive Port Townsend, W A 98368 BOE: 05-10-R PN: 963700008 Mr. Sobrino was present. Appraiser Robert Shold represented the Assessor's office. After explaining the hearing process Chairman Marlow swore in both parties. The property under appeal is a residence located at 71 Vista Drive, Port Townsend. Mr. Sobrino stated that while his property has an unobstructed water Board of Equalization Minutes - September 19, 2005 Pa2e: 6 view, he believes it is devalued due to its proximity to the Port Townsend Paper Mill. It is negatively impacted by the noise from the paper mill and should not be valued the same as properties which are not affected in the same manner as they are not comparable properties. He doesn't understand how the improvement value could have increased so much in one year since the only change to the property has been to the landscaping. Currently, the assessed value ofthe property is $487,685 ($158,750 for the land and $328,935 for the improvements). The appellant estimates the assessed value is $413,340 ($110,000 for the land and $303,340 for the improvements). Mr. Shold presented sales of comparable properties which support the current assessed value. As far as the impacts ofthe mill on the property, Mr. Sobrino lives there and knows more about that aspect. 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. Cliff Sanderlin & Heather Marks 10522 - 235th Place SW Edmonds, W A 98020-5732 BOE: 05-16-LO PN: 931700111 Mr. Sanderlin and Ms. Marks were not present. Appraiser Charley Hough represented the Assessor's Office and was sworn in by Chairman Marlow. The property under appeal is a bare land parcel located off of Sheridan Avenue (Lots 5,11 & 12 in Block 1 of Weymouth & Dyer Addition), Port Townsend. Following is the reason the appellants are appealing their property value as written on their petition form: "On April 11, 2003 lots 11 and 12 were delineated as Class III wetlands with 50 foot protective buffers, leaving only lot 5 as buildable. Taxes should apply primarily to lot 5; others unusable." They also claim the City of Port Townsend's policies are inconsistent with regard to these wetlands and attached a copy of a letter to the City Public Works Department regarding the future construction of a street and other residential development on neighboring parcels. A copy of the wetland delineation report prepared for this property was also provided. Currently, the property is assessed at $60,000. The appellants estimate the value to be $30,000. Mr. Hough stated that City maps indicate there are wetland areas on this property, however, it appears that the City is allowing the development of neighboring properties as well as the adjacent public street (Cleveland Street) to be opened. When Mr. Hough visited the property he walked on lots 9, 10, and 11 and did not see any signs of the property being wet. He noted that even if the property is considered a wetland with building restrictions, the current assessed value of $60,000 for the 3 lots which make up this parcel is reasonable. One City map shows Cleveland Street runs through the wetland. He doesn't know how the City will allow it to be opened ifit is part of the wetland area. 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. Board of Equalization Minutes - September 19, 2005 Shirley M. Gardner 13626 NE 102"d Street Kirkland, W A 98033 BOE: 05-12-LO Page: 7 PN: 001042002 Mr. and Mrs. Gardner were present. Appraiser Charley Hough represented the Assessor's Office. After explaining the hearing process Chairman Marlow swore in both parties. The property under appeal is a bare land parcel located near Belle Street in the plat of Captain Tibbals Lake Park. Mrs. Gardner asked the Board to consider an adjustment to the value placed on their property due to the Statutory vacation of Belle Street by Jefferson County which has left the property landlocked. Without legal access they are unable to build on their property, nor can they sell it at the current assessed value of $50,000. In 1965 Mrs. Gardner's parents sold a large parcel of land keeping only this one acre and a 20 foot easement connecting the property to Belle Street and providing legal access. After she inherited the property it was logged which opened up and established a road that was used for access by the Gardner's as well as for access to other properties by adjoining property owners. In 1995 a neighboring property owner petitioned the County to vacate Belle Street. Mrs. Gardiner sent a certified letter as well as hand delivered the letter to the County Public Works Director and the County Commissioners asking that they address the effect any proposed road vacation would have on the access to their property. The Prosecuting Attorney determined that the County had no interest or right to address the Gardner's access needs and thus, the street vacation was granted which landlocked their property. Furthermore, the neighboring land owner having title to the property along Belle Street (and the petitioner for the street vacation) has denied the Gardiner's access across his property. Mrs. Gardner stated that they have never sought to sell their property, however, an adjacent property owner offered to purchase it for $14,000. The Gardiner's estimate the value ofthe property is $15,000. Mr. Gardner noted that there are no utilities to the property and it would be very expensive to bring them m. Mr. Hough explained that Belle Street was statutorily vacated by a neighboring property owner, however, property cannot be landlocked along a vacated street. That is to say that owners of property adjacent to that street still have access through that property. Vice-Chairman Broders stated that is true as long as the affected property is located within the same plat abutting the vacated street. In that instance, the owner of the affected property may have to pay the other property owners within the same plat, for that access. In this case, however, it appears as though the Gardner's property which is affected as a result of being landlocked by the street vacation, is not located within the plat that abuts the vacated street. It is located outside of any platted land. Possibly it could be argued in court that the easement from the Gardner's property to Belle Street shows there was intent to access the property from Belle Street. But, that would mean the Gardner's would have to take the issue to court for a Judge to decide. 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 - September 19, 2005 Gerald & Penelope Peabody P.O. Box 1657 Mercer Island, W A 98040 BOE: 05-17-R Page: 8 PN: 989703911 Mr. and Mrs. Peabody were not present. Appraiser Robert Kingsley represented the Assessor's office and was previously sworn in by Chairman Marlow. The property under appeal is a residence located at 620 Hudson Place, Port Townsend. Following is the reason the appellants are appealing their property value as written on their petition form: "The land value of the adjacent parcel to the north was also appraised at $37,000. My land does not have the large expensive bulkhead protecting it from the ocean as does that parcel. Also, that parcel is larger than mine. They cannot have the same value. I sold that parcel in 2002 for $300,000 and it was a very hard sell. It was on the market a long time as people fear the water so close. The building itself is in need of extensive remodeling inside and the new value certainly has not increased by 42%." Currently, the property is valued at $596,345 ($375,000 for the land and $221,345 for the improvements). The appellants estimate the value is $455,000 ($275,000 for the land and $180,000 for the improvements). Robert Kingsley presented sales of comparable properties which support the current assessed value. The appellant's sale ofthe adjacent property to the north in 2002 was used a basis for valuing property in the area. 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. Att~: i/ .. 'i' I ' V. c c, {Ll-f-L "1", ,~cl,-<<Cj?;-<_" ~c Enn K. Lundgren, Clerk Of the~oard l~ JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF EQUALIZATION r M'M~ Richard A. Broders, Vice-Ch31rman /~a~~ ~~es A. DeLeo, Member