The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutM101705 ~\ tQU~e ~~v~ g~~~ 6 ~ if:; ~\ Z r... >< \ ! \.ft;" ~ / ~~y 1820 Jefferson Street P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 James A. DeLeo William S. Marlow Richard A. Broders MINUTES October 17, 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 September 19, and 26, 2005. Member DeLeo seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. ACCEPT PETITION WITHDRAWAL Vice Chairman Broders moved to accept the following petition withdrawal. Member DeLeo seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. APPELLANT Port Townsend Plaza, L.P. APPEAL NO. BOE 05-22-C PARCEL NO. 989 701 003 ACCEPT ASSESSOR'S CERTIFICATE OF ASSESSMENT ROLLS Vice-Chairman Broders moved to accept the Assessor's Certificate of Assessment Rolls for 2005 in the amount of $3,420,486,780. Member DeLeo seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. HEARINGS Dorothy Lyn Hersey 827 - 57th Street Port Townsend, W A 98368 BOE: 05-15-LO 05-32-R PN: 936 903 601 936 903 607 Ms. Hersey was not present. Appraiser Charley Hough represented the Assessor's office and was sworn in by Chairman Marlow. The property under appeal is located within the plat of Duncan Hilltop in California Addition. A residence is constructed on parcel #936 903 607 with the address of 827 - 57th Phone (360)385-9100 Fax (360)385-9382 jeffbocc@Co.jefferson.wa.us Board of Equalization Minutes - October 17, 2005 Pa/:e: 2 Street, Port Townsend. The other parcel (#936 903 601) is bare land and adjoins the first parcel. In an attachment to the petitions the appellant wrote "This market analysis is to appeal the "Change of Value" to my property known as California Addition, Block 36, Lot 4, Jefferson County. The 2006 value has been increased from $25,000 to $80,000. As a licensed Realtor r will prove that this new value cannot be substantiated by "sold" comps from 2004 and 2005. These comps include "For Sale by Owners" as well as property listed by Real Estate Companies. Included are copes of "Sold" properties. Market analysis of "Sold (Lots Only)" located in the California Addition and the Montana Addition ofthe North Beach area. These lots are being compared by "price per sq. ft." ofland only. There are 8 transactions in 2004 and 5 transactions in 2005. The price per sq. ft. in 2004 is 59.215 per sq. ft. At that price per sq. ft. a 5,000 sq. ft. lot would be priced at 546,075. The price per sq. ft. in 2005 is $9.76 per sq. ft. At that price per sq. ft. a 5,000 sq. ft. lot would be priced at $48,800. The lot located next to my lot on 57"' Street was "sold" in 2002 for $36,000. The price per sq. ft. is $7.20. The lot located two lots from my lot on 57th Street "sold" in 2002 for $58,000. The price per sq. ft. is $11.60. The "Change of Value" assessment on my lot of $80,000 for a 5,000 sq. ft. lot would bring the price per sq. ft. to $16.00. The percentage of increase in sales from 2004 to 2005 is 5.5%. The percentage of increase in sales in 2005 to the "Change of V alue" assessment is 64%. In conclusion, there is no data that supports a 64% increase in value. r request that my lot be re-evaluated to reflect the "sold" comparables that r have presented to you. r will also argue that ifthe case for the "Change of Value" increase is based on a "per building site" ofRl zone of 10,000 sq. ft. buildable lot compared to R1I zone of 5,000 sq. ft. buildable lot which can be the case in the North Beach area. The difference being the 40% overall lot coverage (impervious surface) of 10,000 sq. ft. lot would cover 4,000 sq. ft. In a 5,000 sq. ft.lot 40% coverage would be 2,000 sq. ft. rfyou compare a full built out home on 10,000 sq. ft. lot, then there is twice as much home. The conclusion being that a 5,000 sq. ft. lot does not have the opportunity to build as much equity or profit within the confines of5,000 sq. ft. and therefore, less of a value then a R1I zoned lot. My last fact that r will present to you is an article from the Wall Street Journal regarding the overall home appreciation increase in the last three years is 29% in the U.S. rfyou add 29% to the 2002 assessment of25,000 on this property then the "Change of Value" would be $32,250. The "Change of Value" assessment of 64% is equal to Spain and China. r live in Port Townsend, Washington in the USA." In a supplement to the appeal the appellant wrote "This is an appeal to the Jefferson County Assessor "Real Property Comparables" which was the basis for my "Change of Value" to my property (California Addition, Block 36, Lot 4, Jefferson County). Enclosed is a copy of the comparables used by Charles Hough on 8/30/05. r want to thank him for reinforcing my case. The comparable of Duncan Hilltop, Block 1, Lot 10, has a lot size of91.75' x 100.02' which equals 9,176.84 sq. ft. and was sold for $80,000. This equals $8.72 per sq. ft. rfthis was a true comparable then my lot of5,000 sq. ft. would be worth (using $8.72 per sq. ft.) $43,600, yet the Assessor's office valued my lot at $80,000 which is $16.00 per sq. ft. This is almost double the comparable lot used by Jefferson County. This comparable does not prove the County Assessor's case of the "true value" of my lot. The second comparable (Montana Addition, Block 46, Lot 1, Jefferson County, 50' x 100' or 5,000 sq. ft) did sell for $92,000. That lot was listed with my company Jolm L. Scott Real Estate. The lot was owned by a contractor that included a house to be built upon it and was listed as a "residential" listing not a "land" listing. The lot was not listed at $92,000. The buyer offered to pay this amount for the lot only in order for them (the buyer) to have their own builder of choice which the seller agreed upon. The third comparable is a "residential" listing in which r represented the buyers at the time ofthis sale. There is no way one can compare an apple to an orange. Comparables have to be of "LIKE KIND" in order to be comparable. Therefore, as a professional Real Estate Agent, r would never use this comparable. It has no relevance to land only comparables. In closing my "Comparable Market Analysis", r have estimated my value to be $48,800 in averaging 12 comparables. Mr. Hough has onlv 2 comparables. Mr. Hough's analysis does not have enough comparables nor does it prove the increase of the "change of value" of my property to $80,000 and Board of Equalization Minutes - October 17, 2005 Pa~e: 3 therefore, does not show proof ofthe "true" value oflots sold in North Beach." Parcel #936903601 is currently assessed at $80,000 and parcel #936 903 607 is currently assessed at $372,265 ($100,000 for the land and $272,265 for the improvements). The appellant estimates the value of the parcels to be $48,800 and $298,800 ($48,800 for the land and $250,000 for the improvements) respectively. Mr. Hough began with appeal #BOE 05-15-LO. He presented sales of comparable properties that he used in valuing this property. The appellant's estimate of value is based on a square footage rate which is a methodology not used by the Assessor's office. With regard to appeal #BOE 05-32-R he stated that the appellant's property was appraised by an independent appraiser in 2002 for $332,500, yet, the appellant's estimate of the current value is even lower than that amount. Based on the current market, it doesn't appear that this property would have decreased in value since that time. Comparable property sales, including some bare land sales, were presented in support of the current valuation. 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. Glenn Norcross 828 - 57'h Street Port Townsend, W A 98368 BOE: 05-33-R PN: 936904502 Mr. Norcross was not present. Appraiser Charlie Hough represented the Assessor's office and was previously sworn in by Chairman Marlow. The property under appeal is a residential parcel located at 828 57th Street, Port Townsend. The appellant wrote on his petition form "I am appealing the "Change of Value" to my property known as California Addition, Block 45, Lot 2, Jefferson County. Attached is a "Comparable Market Analysis" done by Realtor Lyn Hersey from John L. Scott, PTT. Please keep in mind that at this point in time the remodel on my home has not yet been finaled, (copy of "Permit & Inspection Record" enclosed). In accordance with Ms. Hersey's information and the fact that my remodel is not finaled I am asking that my "Change of V alue" be reduced to $242,500." Currently, the property is valued at $327,585 ($98,920 for the land and $228,665 for the improvements). Mr. Hough presented materials in support ofthe current assessment including sales of comparable properties. He explained that the appellant's house is only assessed at 85% complete and the land value has been reduced by 10% for obstructed view. 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. Mary Johnson & Howard Addis 5665 Jackman Street Port Townsend, W A 98368 BOE: 05-24-R PN: 936 903 604 Ms. Johnson and Mr. Addis were not present. Appraiser Charley Hough represented the Assessor's office and was previously sworn in by Chairman Marlow. The property under appeal is located at 5665 Jackman Street, Port Townsend and consists of a residential parcel on which a house is being constructed. The appellants are only appealing the land value. Their reason for appealing the value is explained in a letter Board of Equalization Minutes - October 17, 2005 Pa2e:4 attached to the petition which states: "The following information and attachments are submitted in support of our dispute regarding the year 2005 assessed value of our property for taxes due year 2006 post marked August 4,2005. We are appealing to the JeffeFson County Board of Equalization for a fair, just, and equitable reduction in our assessed valuation of the land (lot) to reflect the comparable property market values submitted with this petition. The following exhibits are submitted in support of this Notice of Appeal. . Exhibit A: Subject property legal description and 2003 assessment for 2006 taxes. . Exhibit B: Legal description and 2005 dollar per square foot lot/land sales of comparable property to this parcel under appeal. Sales figures range $6.90 to $12.50 per square foot. . Exhibit C: Legal description and 2004 dollar per square foot/land sales of comparable property to this parcel under appeal. Sales figures range $3.00 to 7.69 per square foot. . Exhibit D: Legal description and year 2005 assessment before appeal process for 2006 taxes of water view property, comer parcel across the street and closer to the water than the parcel under appeal. . Exhibit E: Photographs of property under appeal. . Exhibit F: Legal description of additional appeal information on lot/land sales of comparable property to the property under appeal. The attached market analysis of comparable sold property to the property under appeal shows a range of $6.90 to $12.50 per square foot sales year 2005 and $3.00 to 57.69 for sales year 2004. Clearly these numbers represent the actual price paid and therefore, the accurate,fair and real market value of comparable property. The comparable property prices paid represent the basis upon which a value is calculated for our property. It must be noted that all comparable property accurate,fair, and real market values are considerably less than our 2005 assessment of$90,000 or $18.00 per square foot. Additional factors diminishing the value of the property under appeal: 1. Lacks unobstructed views due to existing dwellings. 2. Said property borders Jackman Street, a very busy and noisy thoroughfare and a Jefferson County bus route. 3. Intersection of 57th and Jackman streets is paved to within inches of our property line (see Exhibit E) producing not only a diminution in property value, but a true public safety concern. There is virtually no unpaved area abutting the said property along 57th Street. 4. Very bright light pollution from high intensity sodium vapor street lights of the bus route. Weare therefore, submitting this Notice of Appeal for review of real property valuation determination for year 2005 assessment for 2006 taxes and request a reduction in valuation to reflect comparable property sales figures (see Exhibits B, C and F). In summation: . the property under appeal was purchased 2002 for 511.40 per square foot and, . the property under appeal was reassessed 2005 for taxes due 2006 at 590,000 or $18.00 per square foot and, . sales year 2005 comparable sold property to the property under appeal shows a range of $6.90 to $12.50 per square foot or an average price of $9.70 per square foot and, . sales year 2004 comparable sold property to the property under appeal shows a range of $3.00 to $7.69 per square foot or an average price of$5.34 per square foot and, Board of Equalization Minutes - October 17, 2005 Pal!;e:5 . Exhibit D: Legal description and year 2005 assessment before appeal process for 2006 taxes or corner parcel property, across the street and closer to the water than the parcel under appeal water view is fully landscaped with a paved driveway and is assessed at a value of $15.02 per square foot for the land alone and, . the property under appeal is a home under construction and has not had any improvements made to the land itself and, . the property under appeal value is diminished because it lacks unobstructed views due to existing dwellings and, . the property under appeal value is diminished because it borders Jackman Street, a very busy and noisy main traffic arterial and a Jefferson County bus route and, . the property under appeal value is diminished due to the very bright light pollution of high intensity sodium vapor street lights of the bus route and, . the property under appeal value is diminished because it is located at the intersection of 57th and Jackman Streets and the street is paved to within inches of our property line (see Exhibit E) producing not only a diminution in property value, but a true public safety concern. There is virtually no unpaved area abutting the said property along 57'h Street. Taking into consideration the supporting information presented above we believe the land of the property under appeal should be reassessed to a fair, equitable and real market value no greater than $12.10 per square foot or $60,500. Although, $12.10 per square foot is 24.74% greater than year 2005 comparable land sales figures of$9.70 per square foot, we would accept this number as fair, just and equitable." Mr. Hough reviewed the materials supporting the current assessed value, and discussed the appellants' concerns outlined in their appeal. He explained that the Assessor's office does not use square footage rates as a methodology to assess property values. 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. J. Dorn Campbell 1009 - 22"d Street Port Townsend, W A 98368 BOE: 05-25-LO PN: 931700103 Mr. Campbell was 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 off of Sheridan Avenue (Lots 6 through 10 in Block 1 of Weymouth & Dyer Addition), Port Townsend. Mr. Campbell stated that when the Assessor's staff revalued this property they were probably not aware of a wetland delineation report which shows that a portion of this parcel (Lots 9 and 10) are impacted by a wetland and associated buffers rendering those lots unbuildable. So, if the current assessment is based on the property being buildable, then the fact that a portion of this parcel is unbuildable and has no road access, significantly reduces its value. Currently, the property is valued at $103,500. Mr. Campbell estimates the value to be $72,100. Mr. Hough explained how the property was valued and reviewed the supporting documentation. In September the Board heard appeal #BOE05-16-LO which is similar to this appeal as the property is adjacent to this property and has the same wetland issues. He noted that the City of Port Townsend is Board of Equalization Minutes - October 17, 2005 Pa~e: 6 opening Cleveland Street which is adjacent to this property and runs through the wetland according to a City map. Mr. Campbell stated that development occurred on neighboring property because the City was unaware that the wetland extended as far as it does. He noted that just because the City is opening Cleveland Street doesn't necessarily mean that they will have road access to their property since it is doubtful that access through a wetland would be allowed due to required wetland buffers. Mr. Hough stated that three of the lots already have a reduced value. Two lots are required for a building site. The three lots not affected by the wetland were valued as one building site with an excess lot. 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. Memo from Chief Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney David Alvarez on Easements Relating to the Gardner Appeal, #BOE 05-12-LO This memo clarifies some issues relating to Rights of Way and access through Statutorily Vacated streets to property located inside and outside of plats. Vice-Chairman Broders moved that the memo from Chief Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney David Alvarez regarding Easements Relating to the Gardner Appeal #BOE05-12-LO be made part of the public record. Member DeLeo seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Meeting adjourned. Attest: [t~1(. ~ "~f(Mv~ Erin K. Lundgren,IClelk:-:iJhe Board JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF EQUALIZATION t . William S"I~M. l~~, ~~irmar t:2--. j.. J \ !2! L ~,~__,., ---'1 ' " --"'--'[ ~- Richard A. oders, Vice-Chairman \1-~ a ,de ~ ~es A. DeLeo, Member