Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM110805 ~\ tQU~e ~~..Cl' ~ C5 ~~~\ ~ ~ l~ .~; 2: \ .ft; I ~#/ 1820 Jefferson Street P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 James A. DeLeo William S. Marlow Richard A. Broders MINUTES November 8, 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. ACCEPT ASSESSOR'S CERTIFICATE OF NEW CONSTRUCTION VALUE Vice-Chairman Broders moved to accept the Assessor's Certificate of New Construction Value for 2005 in the amount of $104,480,940. Member DeLeo seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. ACCEPT ASSESSMENT ROLL CORRECTIONS/PETITION WITHDRAWALS Vice Chairman Broders moved to accept the following assessment roll corrections and petition withdrawals. Member DeLeo seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. APPELLANT APPEAL NO. PARCEL NO. Mark and Aunette Johnson BOE 05-54-R 950 100 324 David & Lynne Stanko BOE 05-56-R 937800102 Mountain West Senior Housing (MWSH) BOE 05-26-C 948 332 902 " " BOE 05-27-LO 948315201 " " BOE 05-28-LO 948315205 " " BOE 05-29-LO 948315202 " " BOE 05-30-LO 948318301 Phone (360)385-9100 Fax (360)385-9382 jefibocC@co.jefferson.wa.us Board of Equalization Minutes - November 8, 2005 Pa2e: 2 HEARINGS Britton Kennedy & Janet Neal 4809 - 145'h Street Ct. E. Tacoma, W A 98446 BOE: 05-53-R PN: 821262011 Mr. Kennedy was present. Appraiser Dennis Pownall and Appraiser in training Maryn Gossell represented the Assessor's office. After an explanation of the hearing process, all parties were sworn in by Chairman Marlow. The property under appeal is approximately 2 acres with a residence located at 112 E. Fir Street, Port Ludlow. Mr. Kennedy stated his property is located near Paradise Bay Estates. He noted that the house is unfinished and they do not yet have a certificate of occupancy because, upon a final inspection being done it was noted that some additional items need to be completed. They took out a small loan to begin building this house and are trying to finish it "out of pocket". Their improvement expenses have totaled $35,000 over the past year, yet the assessed value of the improvements has gone up 32% in that same time and they still cannot live in the house. There is also a cabin on the property they have made improvements to over the past three years at a cost of only $1,000, but the assessed value has increased over $15,000. They feel that the comparable property sales used by the Assessor's office in valuing their property are from more exclusive areas and are really not comparable. Their property is waterfront, but it is not part of a planned community. He added that the two adjacent lots consist of five acres and are only valued at $125,000 for the land and $143,000 for the improvements. There seems to be an inequity since the appellants only have two acres and their current assessment is $535,515 ($152,450 for the land and $383,065 for the improvements). He estimates the value to be $386,915 ($152,450 for the land and $234,465 for the improvements). Mr. Pownall reviewed the appraisers notes regarding discussions with the appellants about this appeal. He noted that according to the appellants' estimate of value they do not dispute the land value, even though he questioned the land value during his testimony given today. Mr. Pownall feels that the question of equity with regard to the land value is addressed by "Exhibit D" which shows a neighboring parcel was assessed for S 173,265 and sold in 2004 for $273,000. There shouldn't be any argument about the land value because, it is too low. With regard to the improvement value, he added up all ofthe improvements (porches, decks, patios, concrete driveways, etc.) that were not previously assessed and they totaled $20,342 which is very close to the figure provided by the appellants. When the house was revalued in 2001 it was assessed as being 75% complete. During this last revaluation in 2005 the property was assessed as being 100% complete. The Assessor's office realizes that the house did not pass its final inspection and that the appellants have not received a certificate of occupancy but, it is so close that the items needing to be completed most likely do not amount to much. Failing a final inspection is usually a matter of handrails, staircases, etc. which are not in compliance with current regulations. The cabin (Accessory Dwelling Unit - ADU) was previously valued at $35,000. While it is far from being complete, its value was brought more in line with a building of its size and the value was increased to $50,000. That is just a "shell" value, so its value will easily double by the time it is complete. It is a high quality ADD. In sum, the total increase in value to all ofthe improvements is approximately $35,000. That is the same figure the appellants stated they have paid. The only other increase is the percent of completion to the main residence. Mr. Pownall reviewed the comparable property sales which are "upper end" sales. These sales were researched by another appraiser and Mr. Pownall did not have time to review them prior to this hearing. The Board may want to review them and see how they compare to the appellants' property. The Assessor's staff feels the assessment is fair and reflects market value. Board of Equalization Minutes - November 8, 2005 Page: 3 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. Michael & Thelma Keefe 104 Heritage Lane Port Ludlow, W A 98365 BOE: 05-55-R PN: 998500027 Mr. and Mrs. Keefe were present. Assessor Jack Westerman represented his office. After an explanation of the hearing process, both parties were sworn by Chairman Marlow. Under appeal is the value of a house on a parcel located at 104 Heritage Lane, Port Ludlow. Mr. Keefe stated that they are only contesting the improvement value. In August 2005 they purchased this property which had an assessed value for improvements of $121 ,000 at that time. After the property was revalued for new construction, the improvement value increased to $167,580. The new construction included a porch and a small room addition which cost approximately S 13,000. He noted that the previous owners had also extended the deck at a cost of $8,000 and installed a hot tub which is eight years old and probably not worth much. The assessed value of the new construction increased the total improvement value by $46,000. The total cost of the new construction was only $22,000-$23,000. He realizes they purchased the property for more than it has ever sold for in the past, however, that is not uncommon for most homes in Port Ludlow. Mr. Keefe has heard that property in Jefferson County is revalued every four years, yet, their property taxes have increased every year. He noted that the taxes for more expensive homes have not changed. It is also his understanding that their property will be increased in value again next year. He feels the current valuation is out ofline. Currently, the property is assessed at $220,580 ($53,000 for the land and $167,580 for the improvements). The appellants estimate the value to be $198,000 ($53,000 for the land and $145,000 for the improvements). Mr. Westerman explained that the assessed value of the appellants' property did not change every year. It is only revalued once every four years. The appellants benefitted from the increase in property values when they sold their previous home in Port Ludlow. The appellants purchased this property in August 2005 for $315,000. The new construction was valued as of July 31,2005. By law new construction must be assessed at 100% of fair market value. There are many times that the increase in value is higher than the actual cost of making the improvements. With a value of $220,580 it is clear that the property is not currently assessed at 100% of its fair market value or the value would be closer to $315,000. Mr. Westerman posed the following question: If a property owner makes any improvements within the four year revaluation cycle and it is assessed as new construction, is it fair to calculate the value using the current year tables rather than the tables from the year in which the property was last revalued? The Courts have determined that new construction is to be valued each year throughout the County, regardless, of the four year revaluation cycle. The Port Ludlow area will be revalued in 2007 for taxes payable in 2008 and the appellants will receive a change of value notice at that time. He feels the current valuation of the property is fair considering it is almost $100,000 less than what the appellants paid for it. 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 8, 2005 Page: 4 DETERMINATIONS J. Dorn Campbell 1009 - 22nd Street Port Townsend, W A 98368 BOE:05-25-LO PN: 931700103 After carefully considering the testimony of both parties and conducting a physical inspection of the property, the Board determined that lots 9 and 10 are adversely affected by wetland designations and associated wetland buffers. Vice-Chairman Broders moved to overrule the Assessor's valuation ofthis parcel and reduce it from S 1 03,500 to $95,000 (land only) with the following values assigned to each lot: Lot 9 $10,000; Lot 10 $10,000; Lot 6 $25,000; Lot 7 $25,000; and Lot 8 $25,000. Member DeLeo seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. (See also minutes of October 17, 2005) Robert & Donna (Darby) Greenway 1611 Corona Street Port Townsend, W A 98368 BOE: 05-35-R PN: 001 032 002 The Board carefully considered the testimony of both parties and conducted a physical inspection of the property. According to State law, the Assessor's value is presumed to be correct, unless, the taxpayer proves otherwise by providing clear, cogent and convincing evidence. While it is noted that no information related to market value was presented by either party in this case, the appellant did not provide documentation that would meet the burden of proof that the Assessor's value is incorrect. Thus, the Board is compelled to uphold the current valuation. Vice-Chairman Broders moved to sustain the Assessor's valuation of this parcel in the amount of$2l9,655 ($85,900 for the land and $133,755 for the improvements). Member DeLeo seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. (See also minutes of October 18, 2005) Mary P. Balk (Penelope Odom) 1800 Robbins Street Santa Barbara, CA 93101 BOE: 05-34-LO PN: 951 902 702 The Board carefully considered the information submitted by both parties and conducted a physical inspection of the property. Based on sales of comparable properties, the current assessment appears to represent fair market value ofthe property if it were placed on the open market. Thus, the Board is compelled to uphold the Assessor's valuation. Vice-Chairman Broders moved to sustain the Assessor's valuation of this parcel in the amount of$50,000 (land only). Member DeLeo seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. (See also minutes of October 18, 2005) Mary Johnson & Howard Addis 5665 Jackman Street Port Townsend, W A 98368 BOE: 05-24-R PN: 936 903 604 After carefully considering the information submitted by both parties and conducting a physical inspection of the property, the Board determined that using the petitioner's suggested methodology of valuing the property based solely on square footage would not be an accurate method of determining market value. Board of Equalization Minutes - November 8, 2005 Page: 5 Sales of comparable properties in the area indicate the current assessed value of this parcel represents its true and fair market value if it were placed for sale on the open market. Thus, the Board is compelled to uphold the Assessor's value. Vice-Chairman Broders moved to sustain the Assessor's valuation of this parcel in the amount of$215,000 (590,000 for the land and $125,000 for the improvements). Member DeLeo seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. (See also minutes of October 17, 2005) Dorothy Lyn Hersey 827 - 57th Street Port Townsend, W A 98368 BOE: 05-15-LO 05-32-R PN: 936903601 936 903 607 After carefully considering the information submitted by both parties and conducting a physical inspection of the property, the Board determined that using the petitioner's suggested methodology of valuing the property based solely on square footage would not be an accurate method of determining market value. Sales of comparable properties in the area indicate the current assessed value of this parcel represents its true and fair market value if it were placed for sale on the open market. Thus, the Board is compelled to uphold the Assessor's value. Vice-Chairman Broders moved to sustain the Assessor's valuation of parcel #936903601 in the amount of$80,000 (land only). Member DeLeo seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Vice-Chairman Broders moved to sustain the Assessor's valuation of parcel #936 903607 in the amount of $372,265 ($100,000 for the land and $272,265 for the improvements). Member DeLeo seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. (See also minutes of October 17, 2005) Glenn Norcross 828 - 57'h Street Port Townsend, W A 98368 BOE: 05-33-R PN: 936 904 502 The Board carefully considered the information submitted by both parties and conducted a physical inspection ofthe property. Based on sales of comparable properties, the current assessment appears to represent fair market value of the property ifit were placed on the open market. Thus, the Board is compelled to uphold the Assessor's valuation. Vice-Chairman Broders moved to sustain the Assessor's valuation of this parcel in the amount of$327,585 ($98,920 for the land and $228,665 for the improvements). Member DeLeo seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. (See also minutes of October 17, 2005) Doug Nelsen 5800 Hill Street Port Townsend, W A 98368 BOE: 05-31-R PN: 936 904 703 The Board carefully considered the information submitted by both parties and conducted a physical inspection of the property. Based on sales of comparable properties, the current assessment appears to represent fair market value of the property ifit were placed on the open market. Thus, the Board is compelled to uphold the Assessor's valuation. Vice-Chairman Broders moved to sustain the Assessor's valuation of this parcel in the amount of$355,825 ($175,000 for the land and $180,825 for the improvements). Member DeLeo seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. (See also minutes of October 18, 2005) Board of Equalization Minutes - November 8, 2005 Page: 6 Gerry Kress & Susan Auer 604 - 12th Street Juneau, AK 99801 BOE: 05-52-LO PN: 931402305 The Board carefully considered the information submitted by both parties and conducted a physical inspection ofthe property. Based on sales of comparable properties, the current assessment appears to represent fair market value of the property ifit were placed on the open market. Thus, the Board is compelled to uphold the Assessor's valuation. Vice-Chairman Broders moved to sustain the Assessor's valuation of this parcel in the amount of$43,750 (land only). Member DeLeo seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. (See also minutes of October 18, 2005) James & Nelly Tretter Tretter Rev. Living Family Trust 1839 Washington Street Port Townsend, W A 98368 BOE: 05-23-R PN: 957303105 The Board carefully considered the information submitted by both parties and conducted a physical inspection of the property. The appraisal submitted by the appellant reflects a value based on a methodology which is typically not used in appraising residential property, and which does not reflect the property's current market value based on sales of comparable properties. It is likely that this property would sell for the current assessed value if placed for sale on the open market. Thus, the Board is compelled to uphold the Assessor's determination of value. Vice-Chairman Broders moved to sustain the Assessor's valuation of this parcel in the amount of$1,098,475 (5527,475 for the land and $571,000 for the improvements). Member DeLeo seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. (See also minutes of October 18, 2005) Meeting adjourned. Attct: ~ Zt~c -1,,( . .., .' :'L<-'L./ Erin K. Lundgren, Clerk of e oard JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF EQUALIZATION I~ William, S. Marlow, ChairnYln S l) rlX~.c:::' ( ~~I ~ ~ ''\ ~--~/c.--;~__ Richard A. Broders, Vice-Chairman ~~<- /z, ffi zt J ~A. DeLeo, Member