Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM111406 1820 Jefferson Street P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 James A. DeLeo William S. Marlow Richard A. Brod..... MINUTES November 14, 2006 William S. Marlow Richard A. Broders James A. DeLeo Chairman Vice-Chairman Member Chairman William S. Marlow called the meeting to order at 10:00 a.m. in the presence of Vice-Chairman Broders and Member James A. DeLeo. ASSESSOR'S CERnFICATE OF ASSESSMENT ROLLS FOR 2006 Vice-Chairman Broders moved to accept the Assessor's Certificate of Assessment Rolls for 2006 in the amount of$3,723,133,01O. Member DeLeo seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. ASSESSOR'S CERnFICATE OF NEW CONSTRUCnON VALUE FOR 2006 Vice-Chairman Broders moved to accept the Assessor's Certificate of New Construction Value to the County Board of Equalization in the amount of 5108,207, 160. Member DeLeo seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. ASSESSMENT CORRECnONS 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 APPEAL NO. PARCEL NO. David Barse BOE 06-16-LO 701 051 011 John Nelson BOE 06-22-LO 802363 013 " " BOE 06-23-LO 702012003 Frederick W. Thomas BOE 06-32-LO 601 334007 Allan J. Kollar BOE 06-34-LO 701 191006 " " BOE 06-35-LO 701 191010 " " BOE 06-36-R 701 191012 Jo Pitzer BOE 06-40-LO 964601 301 " " BOE 06-41-LO 964601 801 Phone (360)385-9100 Fax (360)385-9382 jeffbocC@Co.jefferaon.wa.uB Board of Equalization Minutes - November 14, 2006 Pa2e: 2 HEARINGS Jack & Shannon Selvidge P.O. Box 543 Quilcene, W A 98376 BOE: 06-21-R PN: 702142002 Mr. Selvidge was present. Appraiser Dennis Pownall represented the Assessor's office. After explaining the hearing process Chairman Marlow swore in both parties. Under appeal is residential structure situated on approximately 38 acres located at 659 Wild Wood Road, Quilcene. Mr. Selvidge stated the property used as comparable by the Assessor in valuing his property is currently on the market and is not at all comparable. His residence is a shop that he converted into a house. It has shop doors and a concrete floor with stains. He noted that the house on the market has not yet sold. Listing prices are not indicative of fair market value. He pointed out a property which did sell in March of this year which he feels should have been used to value his property. His house is located half a mile from a maintained County road with a horrible driveway that takes extensive maintenance each year. There is currently no power to his home and the cost to run power to it is estimated at $55,000. The power company told him they would not even bring in power unless he spent an additional $60,000 to widen the road so their trucks could travel on it. There will never be electrical power to this property because it is just too difficult. His house does have a power system but it is not state ofthe art. It is very humble living. ill contrast, the house which sold this past March is a well built home with power, a master bedroom with private bath, soaking tub, separate shower, bath/vanity, work-saver kitchen, energy saving woodstove, 3/4 bath, two bedroom home, and high producing well all on 26 acres. This property sold for $125,000 and establishes the market. He knows the differences between the houses because he built them both. His house has one interior door and is not the same kind of building. He is not looking for a big "re-sale" value or looking to live a high lifestyle. He wants to live humbly in order to keep his taxes low so he can afford to live in Jefferson County where he was born and grew up. Currently, his property is valued at $259,735 ($89,705 for the land and $170,030 for the improvements). Mr. Selvidge estimates the value is $130,000 ($50,000 for the land and $80,000 for the improvements). Mr. Pownall stated that the comparable sale presented by the appellant was not given to the Assessor's office prior to the hearing, however, he is familiar with the property and so he has no objection. He noted that the transaction in March was a "bank sale". That same property is presently being re-listed at a much higher price than $125,000. The individual who purchased the property bought it with the intention of reselling it, so a value of $ 125,000 is invalid. The comparable property submitted by Mr. Pownall was also built by the appellant. What better comparable to use than another property built by the same person. The comparable property is assessed for less than the amount it sold for in 2002. The appellant's property which is currently assessed at $259,735 had been listed for sale for $365,000. The house is valued at 100% complete while the addition being built onto the house is only valued at 50% complete. Mr. Selvidge stated that the house is not 100% complete. You cannot use properties that are on market and have not sold, as comparable. He acknowledged that his property was listed for sale at one point, but, he did not get any "lookers". His listing price is not comparable, just as the listing price for the neighboring property is not comparable. A comparable property for the purposes of valuation is a "sold property". The only sold property is the one discussed previously. While it does not have a view, it does have power which is a huge difference in the sale of a home. This property has a well, while his property gets water from a spring. Board of Equalization Minutes - November 14, 2006 Pa2e: 3 ill answer to a question posed by Member DeLeo, Mr. Selvidge stated that his house and one acre are valued as residential property and his remaining 37 acres are valued as forest land. The Assessor's office is valuing the one acre his house sits on at $89,705. A person would have a hard time trying to sell one acre that is nearly a mile off of the power grid for $89,000. Mr. Pownall stated that in reference to the comparable property submitted by the appellant, typically "bank sales" are not considered market value because they do not fit the description of market value that involves being exposed to an open market for reasonable length of time and where property is transferred from a willing unobligated seller to a willing unobligated buyer. Mr. Selvidge added that he disagrees and feels the property sale should be considered as a comparable, because, anyone and everyone had the opportunity to bid on the sale ofthat property. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Marlow closed the hearing. The Board will conduct a physical inspection of the property and make a determination at a later date. John and Cindy Hollister 11526 Alpine Drive SW Port Orchard, W A 98367 BOE: 06-18-LO PN: 991700006 Mr. Hollister was present. Appraiser Dennis Pownall represented the Assessor's office. After explaining the hearing process, Chairman Marlow swore in both parties. The property under appeal consists of a one acre parcel located off of Dutch Lane, Quilcene. Mr. Hollister stated that earlier this year they purchased the property for $75,000. After the closing of the sale they discovered there is a building setback requirement of 50 feet from Highway 101 which abuts their property. They thought when they purchased the property that there was only a 5 foot setback requirement. Approximately 427 feet of his property abuts Highway 101. With the 50 foot setback along that entire distance, and allowing for a driveway, there is not much area left available for building a house, a garage or any outbuildings because of the way the parcel is configured. 1h addition, only a small house could be built due to the limited available area. Had they known the limitations with the property they would not have purchased it. The appellants feel they paid too much for the property and that they would not be able to sell tfor the same amount. Currently, the property is assessed at $75,000 (land only). The appellant's estimate of value is 540,000 (land only). Mr. Pownall stated he is not certain to what extent, if any, the property limitations negatively impact the value ofthe property. He noted that while there is a 50 foot setback for the construction of a building, a septic system could be placed within the setback area, thereby, precluding a further reduction of the available building area. Mr. Hollister contacted the County about getting a variance from the 50 foot setback and was told that in order to get a variance they would have to identify how much area is available for building and prove that the property cannot be developed because of the building area limitations. They are not claiming that the property is unbuildable. Certainly there is room for a small house. The loss of value is due to the fact that there is no room for a detached garage or any outbuildings. It would be difficult to sell this parcel for Board of Equalization Minutes - November 14, 2006 Pa2e: 4 $75,000 because ofthe fact that the building area is significantly reduced by the required 50 foot setback. Comparable properties in the area are not affected as much as this parcel is by the 50 foot set back because they are configured differently. 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. Philip Irvin Snow Creek Homes, LLC 7704 Mary Avenue NW Seattle, W A 98117 BOE: 06-43-LO 06-44-LO 06-45-LO 06-46-LO 06-47-LO 06-48-LO 06-49-LO 06-50-LO 06-51-LO 06-52-LO 06-53-LO 06-54-LO 06-55-LO 06-56-LO 06-57-LO 06-58-LO 06-59-LO 06-60-LO PN: 802 024 001 995 400 040 995 400 025 995 400 049 995 400 035 995 400 027 995 400 026 995 400 024 995 400 043 995 400 056 995 400 054 995 400 113 995400114 995400041 995 400 034 995 400 039 995 400 038 995 400 036 The hearing was held via teleconference with Philip Irvin as he was unable to appear in person. Appraiser Dennis Pownall represented the Assessor's office. After explaining the hearing process Chairman Marlow swore in both parties. The property under appeal is located at the Snow Creek Ranch development off of Highway 101, Quilcene. Mr. Irvin explained that this property was platted in the 1960's and was intended to be for recreational use and accessed by a small airstrip, however, the development never succeeded. The plat includes some lots with houses, but, much of it was left dormant for quite a number of years. The developer David Phinizy who was previously in control of Snow Creek, spent an inordinate amount of money on his grandiose ideas for the property and subsequently went bankrupt. Mr. Irvin explained that his father (Michael Irvin) loaned Mr. Phinizy money on the property as a Deed of Trust and then was forced to foreclose on the loan, ending up with the Snow Creek property. The property was transferred to Mr. Irvin from his father. He explained that David Phinizy got the County to allow him to do a radical lot line revision where he moved a number oflots to different locations within the plat. This caused numerous problems, among them the lack of legal access for many of the lots. David Phinizy knew the soils ofthe lots in the plat were bad so he had planned on installing a community septic system. Based on research conducted by Mr. Irvin, the septic system possibilities in the plat are very limited due to very poor soil conditions. 1h addition to these problems, water is not available to all the lots. Mr. Irvin continued to discuss the many problems with these parcels which decrease their market value. Board of Equalization Minutes - November 14, 2006 Pa2e: 5 Mr. Pownall stated that the main issue with all of these parcels appears to be the lack of water. Mr. Irvin agreed and added that the other issues are septic, access and proximity to Highway 101. Mr. Pownall stated the market value ofthe lots in their current state needs to be determined; not the value the lots could be sold for in a developed state, or what it costs to get them to a developed state. It's whether or not the property could sell for their current assessment. From the Assessor's standpoint, Mr. Irvin could sell all ofthese parcels for the amount at which they are currently assessed. He noted that he spoke with a planner from the Jefferson County Community Development office who has dealt with the water issues of this property. The negative impacts of the lack of water and septic requirements for each individual parcel is not clear. However, he tried to be very conservative in his assessment of all the property values and used market sales in his evaluation. He noted that he attempted to address each parcels individual topographical characteristics as well as their size and view. Most of the parcels have already been given a reduction of 50% off their assessed buildable value. ill addition there is a parcel which is approximately 60 acres in size and is zoned I :5. This parcel has the potential to be subdivided and possibly a portion of it could be used for a community septic system or community water system to serve the other lots, thereby allowing the other lots to be developed. Mr. Irvin disputes the methodology oftaking the value of a buildable lot and reducing it by half its value and saying that is the value of an unbuildable lot. That is a total fiction. To say that if you can put a 4 bedroom house on a lot it is worth a certain amount, and if you can't do anything with the lot it is worth half as much, is methodology that is totally beyond reason. The appraiser just blandly says that he has done his best effort and these values are supported, however, if you look at lot 42 the assessed value is $20,230. This looks like an amount that was just pulled out of thin air. As a comparison, Mr. Irvin marketed lot 90 which fronts on the creek and was one of their best camping lots for $10,000. There was no interest in it so he dropped the price down and eventually sold it to the neighbor for $5,200. Admittedly, the sale occurred two years ago, however, the reason the neighbor purchased the lot was so he could sell his house as "creek-front" property. So here we have the best of the best camping lot selling for $5,200, and yet his camping lots with grade problems, noise problems, etc., are being valued at a higher rate than the best camping lot. ill terms of a community septic, the reason that this property was heavily graded was because David Phinizy had planned on putting in a community septic system on the other side of the creek. ill order to do so, he would have had to cross a salmon bearing creek with a septic line. Mr. Phinizy ran into permit problems and after a very expensive process it was determined that it could not be done. ill terms of a community water system, it is possible to put in a six-party well to serve water. However, anything beyond that requires a water right for which there is a 10 year waiting period. It would be a major undertaking to put in a six-party well. ill trying to divide this property, County officials have determined that the most he can do is put in a six-party well. This would mean that the four lots would be served water and the remaining acreage not used for the water system could be divided into two parcels to be developed. Dividing the remaining acreage into two parcels would require many different types of review including a wetlands delineation which would cost approximately $15,000 and a lot of grief. It is just not viable to break up the acreage. He has already paid to have a pre-application conference, he has paid to have a wetlands biologist look at the project, and it is all on hold because of development issues with the property. Board of Equalization Minutes - November 14, 2006 Pa2e: 6 So no, there is not going to be a community septic system and no, there is not going be a community water system, and no, a camping lot is not worth 50% of a buildable lot, and no, lot 42 is not worth $20,230. In response to question posed by Vice-Chairman Broders, Mr. Pownall explained that lot 42 was valued as a view lot with a base value of$75,000. He would need to review it further to see if an error was made in the valuation. He noted that there was some confusion with the lot numbers that have been changed several times due to changes in lot configurations. Mr. Irvin questioned using a base value of S75,000 for a buildable lot. He stated that he sold pairs oflots with proven septic sites and well hookups for $30,000-$35,000 per pair. These lots were sold at the end of2005. Lot 42 is not comparable to the lots which sold. 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. Janice M. Jones P.O. Box 578 Carlsborg, W A 98324 BOE: 06-19-LO PN: 701 304 001 Ms. Jones was present. Appraiser John Pray was present on behalf of the Assessor's office. Chairman Marlow explained the hearing process and swore in both parties. The property under appeal is a one-room cabin situated on approximately .75 acres located at 2912 E. Quilcene Bay Road, Quilcene. Ms. Jones stated that the value of the property should be decreased rather than increased because the property is not usable for personal use due to erosion of the land. The hillside has sloughed away and impacts three parcels in the area, however, their property is most affected. Their property once had a path to the beach but it has been destroyed by landslides and falling trees. There are trees which are leaning toward their cabin that could fall at any time making it unsafe to use their cabin. She presented photographs of the slide area on their property showing the exposed roots of trees and the leaning trees. She purchased the property in 1989 and approximately four years later there was a small land slide showing erosion of the bottom of the property. She took preventative measures to stop the erosion by driving posts into the ground and tying up the trees which had already fallen over using polyester rope. The erosion is so severe that those posts and trees are no longer there. In 1989 the size of the property was 1.66 acres. In 1995 the size was decreased to 1.15 acres. She thinks now it is less than one acre in size. Because the property is so unstable due to landslides it is hazardous to even walk on the property. Ms. Jones feels the property is unusable and doesn't feel its value should be increased. Currently, the property is assessed at $45,125 ($43,625 for the land and $1,500 for the improvements). Ms. Jones feels the land has zero value. She does not dispute the improvement value of$I,500. Mr. Pray discussed sales of comparable property and stated that the appellant's land value has already been reduced by $10,000 to account for the negative impact caused by the land slides. He noted that the appellant's property has increased 22% which equates to 5 Yz % per year over the last four years since the property was revalued. He also added that he does not know if there have been more land slides since 2002. Board of Equalization Minutes - November 14, 2006 Ms. Jones added that the comparable properties discussed by the Assessor's representative are not impacted by the slide area. She admits that they are very steep, but, one has a plateau that could be accessed by a road. Her neighbor cleared some trees off his property which destabilized the ground causing him to lose much of the usability of his property. He has been trying to sell it for years without success. Property that can't be sold is not worth much. Pa2e: 7 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. Barbara Kanter 1026 Carl Johnson Road Quilcene, WA 98376 BOE: 06-20-R PN: 701043017 Ms. Kanter was not present. Appraiser John Pray represented the Assessor's office and was sworn in by Chairman Marlow. The property under appeal is a residential structure situated on approximately 5.468 acres located at 1016 Carl Johnson Road, Quilcene. The following was written on the appellant's petition as the reason for appealing the assessed value: "Assessor based new assessment on sale of parcel #70 I 043016 -land sale price $75,000. This parcel has power (electricity) on the road of his property. To bring power to my property or the property of neighbor #701043020 would be over $56,000." Currently the property is assessed at $85,420 ($70,115 for the land and $15,305 for the improvements). The appellant estimates the value is $65,025 ($53,880 for the land and $11,145 for the improvements). Mr. Pray discussed comparable sales in support ofthe current assessed 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. William W. Thomas 14500 Coyle Road Quilcene, W A 98376 BOE: 06-24-R PN: 601334271 Mr. Thomas was present. Appraiser John Pray was present on behalf of the Assessor's office. Chairman Marlow explained the hearing process and swore in both parties. The property under appeal is a residential structure on a parcel located at 14500 Coyle Road, Quilcene. Mr. Thomas stated that his property is a bad location for a house. Located at the end of Fisherman's Harbor, it is very wet all year and approximately 1/3 of it is a gully making it unusable even to harvest trees. Compared to other properties in the area, most of which have timber that can be marketed to pay for the property. There is also a moratorium on his property for another five years which prevents him from getting any building permits without an appeal. He feels that he was forced into the moratorium with regard to the use of the land. His house is in a state of disrepair. He presented photographs showing the deteriorated condition. The cedar siding on the house makes a great home for bats. There are thousand of bats that live in the siding on the their house. Ifthey were ever going to sell the property they would have to replace all the siding. The back porch was torn off when some horses got loose and hit it. He has not yet replaced it. From scraps he built a shed on the property which is assessed at about $11,000, however, only about Board of Equalization Minutes - November 14, 2006 Pa2e:8 $50.00 in material was used and it is not sealed to the weather. He presented photos of the properties listed as comparable to his property. He feels these other properties have nicer homes and more timber than his property. Currently, the property is assessed at $153,225 ($42,200 for the land and $111,025 for the improvements). Mr. Thomas estimates the value is $111,000 ($30,000 for the land and 580,000 for the improvements). Mr. Pray discussed the sales of comparable properties he used to assess the value ofthis property. He explained how he valued the appellant's house using a depreciation factor of 17%. The house was built in 1980 and is valued at 90% complete. The garage was built in 1991 and is valued at 75% complete. 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. James & Ramona Reid 25863 Tytler Road Poulsbo, W A 98370 BOE: 06-25-R PN: 701093004 Mr. Reid was present. Appraiser John Pray was present on behalf of the Assessor's office. Chairman Marlow explained the hearing process and swore in both parties. The property consists of approximately 2 Y, acres with a cabin and boat shed located off of Carl Johnson Road, Quilcene. Mr. Reid stated the tax increase is enormous compared to what it was four years ago. There are no properties which have sold that are comparable to their property. At 65' above sea level, it is high bank. Basing a value on view is arbitrary because what is considered a good view is in the eye ofthe beholder. The property has to have a locked gate at all times because it is a reserved property belonging to the nature conservancy. Because the property is behind a locked gate fire insurance is cost prohibitive, and there is no fire protection. The property has no potable water or electricity and is two miles from the paved road. He wants to know what he, as a taxpayer, is getting for the increase in taxes. Currently, the property is assessed at $191,325 ($131,000 for the land and $60,325 for the improvements). Mr. Reid estimates the value is $128,000 ($65,000 for the land and $63,000 for the improvements). Mr. Pray presented one comparable property sale and stated that while both the appellant's property and the comparable property are waterfront, the comparable property has a view of mud flats for most of the day, while the appellant's view is far superior. As for the issue ofthe lack of water and power, there is such a minimal difference in value between public utilities versus private utilities such as solar power which Mr. Reid has, that sales do not reflect a negative impact for the lack of public utilities. Mr. Reid is only being assessed $3,500 for his septic system. He is not even being assessed for the gray water system and solar power on the property which, even if assessed, would be very minimal. In regard to the issue of the locked gate, he doesn't see a huge difference between the locked gate at this summer cabin, that would take the fire department five seconds to cut though, or the gates on many properties on the Coyle Peninsula which are used to keep out thieves, as well as drug makers from using the homes as drug labs. Mr. Reid reiterated his issues and stated that the assessment does not take into account that there is no power to the property. Furthermore, he does not feel that the value should be based on tidelands. He agrees that many other properties have locked gates or cables across their driveways while the owners are away for the winter. However, his gate must be closed and locked at all times. Whenever he stays at his Board of Equalization Minutes - November 14, 2006 Pa2e:9 property he must close and lock the gate when he leaves and he must close and lock the gate when he returns. The Nature Conservancy wants it this way in order to keep people out. He noted that there are times when he has company coming that he would like to keep the gate open, but he can't. He has to go let them in and then close and lock the gate behind them and then do the same when they leave. Mr. Pray explained that the current assessment reflects a 15% reduction in value for the distance from public utilities. He noted that if the property did have public utilities there would be an additional assessment of$I,OOO which is typical for all valuations. He agrees that both the appellant's property and the comparable property he used in his assessment have mudflats when the tide goes out. His main point in discussing the tidelands was the view and the fact that the comparable property has a view ofthe mudflats for a longer period of time during the day than the appellants due to their different locations on the bay. 1h his opinion, the view from the comparable property is quite inferior to the view from the appellant's property. Mr. Reid questioned the criteria for judging view. Views are subjective and the County ought to have criteria for judging views. 1h answer to a question from Vice-Chairman Broders, Mr. Reid stated that he drilled a well on the property, but there was salt water intrusion so it could not be used. Even if the well produced potable water it could not be used without power. 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. A(;~t~ . . [,,(..tV' ~/' ...Q~ Enn Lundgre:' ~;-tiJe Board JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF EQUALIZATION !/' t:l1A;I~(~ Richard A. Broders, Vice-Chairman \::V,,",,- a $..;;d &fies A. DeLeo, Member