Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM112106 1820 Jefferson Street P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 James A. DeLeo William S. Marlow Richard A. Broden MINUTES November 21, 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. ASSESSMENT CORRECnON/PEnTION WITHDRAWAL Vice-Chairman Broders moved to accept the following petition withdrawal and assessment correction. Member DeLeo seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. APPELLANT Douglas W. Tufts, Dabob Foundation Kristin Kennell APPEAL NO. BOE 06-30-LO BOE 06-37-R PARCEL NO. 601 213 005 701 191016 HEARINGS Kristin Kennell P.O. Box 598 Quilcene, W A 98376 BOE: 06-37-R PN: 701191016 Hearing cancelled - see above assessment correction. George Casprowitz 13563 - 23A Avenue Surrey, B.C. CANADA V4A9Vl BOE: 06-39-R PN: 601323015 Mr. Casprowitz was present. Appraiser John Pray represented the Assessor's office. After explaining the hearing process, Chairman Marlow swore in both parties. The property under appeal consists of a 2 story house situated on a 26 acre parcel with waterfront located at 670 Tskutsko Point Road in Qui1cene. The appellants own 1/5 interest in the land as part of a joint tenancy. Mr. Casprowitz stated that he is only contesting the value of the improvements and not the value of the land. He feels a 37% increase in the improvement value is too high. There is an amount of $14,800 that was added and they have not made Phone (360)385-9100 Fax (360)385-9382 jeffbocC@Co.jefferson.wa.us Board of Equalization Minutes - November 21, 2006 Pa2e: 2 any recent improvements to the property. Only one of the comparable properties used by the Assessor is actually comparable to their property in terms of being an unfinished building. The comparable property has a concrete foundation and their structure has a post and beam foundation. The only improvement made to this property in the last 10-15 years was the replacement of the roof with a metal roof when it was damaged by a tree branch. After that their insurance rates increased so high that they can no longer afford to have insurance. The comparable property has forced air heating, while their property has no electrical service whatsoever and a wood stove as the only heat source. There is also no telephone service. This property is a cabin and not a residence. It is shared between five people and there is a joint tenancy contact which makes the property difficult to sell. Currently, the property is assessed at $205,905 ($61,560 for the land and $144,345 for the improvements). The appellant's estimate of value is $155,560 ($61,560 for the land and $94,000 for the improvements). Mr. Pray explained how he valued the property noting that he gave negative adjustments due to the type of foundation, plumbing and lack of power. The added improvement value of$14,000 is broken down as follows: $4,000 is attributed to a new deck and $10,000 is attributed to water and septic utilities. Typically, the improvement value for utilities is added to the land value, but, since there are five separate interests in the land, this value was added to the appellant's improvement (building) value because it is specific to their building. So in actuality the improvement value is really $134,345, because the $144,345 value includes $ 1 0,000 that would normally be included in the land value. He explained that the term "improvements" is confusing for many people. The term "improvements" is merely a title given to the buildings and structures situated on the land. It does not mean that actual improvements were made to the property. He noted that even though a property owner may not have made physical improvements to their property, the value still increases over time. This property has increased in value 42% over the last four years since the property was revalued. This equates to an increase of roughly 10Yz % per year. In closing he added that the appellant's house has been assessed each year at 50% complete since 1981. Having not been touched for that length of time, the property is in a pretty bad state. He is not certain how much value should be attributed to the house. Not many comparable properties were found that could be used as a basis. Discussion ensued regarding the lack of 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 ofthe property and make a determination at a later date. Martin Babare 6442 View Ridge Drive Tacoma, WA 98411 BOE: 06-28-R PN: 701 093 002 Mr. Babare was not present. Appraiser John Pray represented the Assessor's office and was previously sworn in by Chairman Marlow. The property under appeal is a cabin situated on 4 acres with high bank waterfront located off of Carl Johnson Road in Quilcene. Mr. Babare wrote on his petition form the following reason for appealing his property value: "Square footage of basement is only 504 square feet, no potable water, electricity to site. No public roads, fire protection. Critical area for slides." The property Board of Equalization Minutes - November 21, 2006 Pa2e:3 is currently valued at $382,940 ($213,700 for the land and $169,240 for the improvements). Mr. Barbare estimates the value is $275,000 ($150,000 for the land and $125,000 for the improvements). Mr. Pray discussed sales of comparable properties used to value the appellant's property. He also explained how the value was attributed. 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. Robert & Elaine Nuerenberg 3169 Day Road Greenbank, W A 98253 BOE: 06-29-LO PN: 601103009 Mr. and Mrs. Nuerenberg were present with their Attorney James Bendell. Appraiser John Pray represented the Assessor's office. Chairman Marlow explained the hearing process and swore in all parties. The property under appeal is approximately 10 acres of bare land located off of Ken's Way in Quilcene. Mr. Bendell explained that the Nuerenberg's did not just hire him to represent them for this appeal, but rather, he was hired to help them file a lawsuit regarding their purchase ofthis property. The appellant's paid $495,000 for this property in order to build a home and retire there. After the sale had closed they discovered there is no legal access to the property. Because there is no legal access they are unable to bring electric power to the property. ill addition, this property is subject to an eagle management plan which outlines extreme restrictions on the property. All of these issues make it impossible to develop the property. They understand that the assessment is based on the market value, however, the appellants would not have paid $495,000 for the property had they known about all the problems with getting it developed. The appellants are in litigation with the sellers claiming damages for overpayment. ill this case the current assessment is not the fair market value of the property. With the approval of the Assessor's representative the following exhibits were presented: Exhibit B) Title illsurance Policy, wherein it states under Schedule B, EXCEPTIONS FROM COVERAGE, Page 2, Item No.5 "Loss or damage by reason that there appears to exist no insurable right of access to and from the land herein described to a public right-of-way."...; Exhibits C & D) Documents relating to the Eagle Management Plan. Mr. Nuerenberg added that it did not occur to them to ask about legal access at the time of purchase because it seemed from their observations that it was obvious that it had access. They did see something on the County's website about an Eagle Management Plan and they did ask about a power easement and were told that both of those items were not issues. They were told that there is no active Eagle Management Plan and that there was power available at Coyle Road and that the neighbors wanted to go in on it. They were clearly and directly misled on both of these issues. There is an access road to their property, but, the road is on property owned by the Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR). While the DNR is not restricting the use of the road, they refuse to grant legal access. Mrs. Nuerenberg added that if the DNR logs its property and causes damage to the road, DNR will not repair Board of Equalization Minutes - November 21, 2006 Pa2e: 4 the road or allow adjacent property owners to pay for the repair ofthe road themselves. The community that uses this road is at the mercy of the DNR who could close the road at any time. Currently, the property is assessed at $485,200 (land only). The appellant's believe the value is $200,000 (land only). Mr. Pray stated that this property sold in October of 2004 for $450,000 and then sold to the appellants in March 2006 for $495,000. These sales were used as the basis for the current assessed value. He explained that he has limited knowledge of Eagle Management Plans and little information about the adjacent property owner's access through State lands. The DNR cannot land-lock the adjacent property owners, so there may be legal remedies. Mr. Nuerenberg explained that other property owners in the area that use the road have approached the DNR to attempt to come up with a solution. They offered what seemed to be very reasonable alternatives, but the DNR refused them all. It is the DNR's position that because it's a State agency they cannot be compelled to grant easements even if it results in land-locking. They have basically been very belligerent and say they don't have to do anything. Essentially, the Nuerenberg's are left with a piece of property they cannot develop, log, plant/dig on, or legally access. The property was advertised as having commercial grade timber, but what good is commercial grade timber if you're restricted from cutting it down. For them personally, the property has zero value. Their estimate of value of 5200,000 is too high if you can't do anything with the property. Having a view doesn't mean anything if you can't use it. Mr. Bendell stated that if the Nuerenberg's were to try to sell this property they would have to disclose the fact that the property cannot be developed and that there is no legal access. He does not see how this property could even be sold for $200,000. With regard to the Eagle Management Plan, he noted that the plan has to be in effect 12 years after the eagle leaves. So even ifthe eagle died today, the plan would still be in effect for 12 more years, and as far as they know the eagle is real healthy and is not wished ill in any way. Based on all of these issues the current assessment should be reduced to reflect the true market value of this property. Vice-Chairman Broders stated that in looking at the Eagle Management Plan he noticed condition #4 states: "The construction of a single-family residence in the identified building envelope shall be allowed. " Mr. Nuerenberg explained that the Eagle Management Plan itself does not restrict building or development of the property, it's the fact that they do not have legal access. Last week they contacted the Jefferson County Department of Community Development bye-mail and asked if they could get a building permit if their property had no legal access and the response from the County was no, you cannot. Mr. Bendell explained that the Eagle Management Plan severely restricts the property with regard to when development activities can take place, but is not a total banishment, just a limitation. The banishment comes from the lack of legal access. A copy of the e-mail correspondence between the appellants and the Department of Community Development was presented as evidence. Board of Equalization Minutes - November 21, 2006 Pa2e: 5 Chairman Marlow asked if the other property owners in the area that also rely on this road for access to their property had obtained building permits for their homes? Mr. Bendell responded that most of the homes were built in the 1970's. Mr. Nuerenberg explained that in 1968 there was a 10 year lease between the property owners and the DNR allowing the property owners legal access to the road. The lease was renewed for another 10 years in 1978. But when the lease expired in 1988 it was never renewed and now the D:t';'R refuses to renew the lease. 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. Due to another commitment Member Deleo excused himself from the meeting. Glen Scheiber 13240 Madison Ave. Bainbridge Island, WA 98110 BOE: 06-33-LO PN: 981901 527 Mr. Scheiber was present. Appraiser Maryn Gossell represented the Assessor's office. Chairman Marlow explained the hearing process and swore in all parties. The property under appeal is bare land located off of Gorge Court in Olympic Canal Tracts in Brinnon. Mr. Scheiber stated that he purchased this lot for $500 in 1964 when the development at this location was phasing out. This lot is not accessible and is below road grade by at least 15 feet. ill addition the lot has gradient of approximately 30 degrees from the top of the lot down to the base of the creek. The lower portion ofthis parcel is a wetland area and according the Jefferson County engineering documents the entire parcel is designated as a slide hazard area along with other adjoining lots. All this has confirmed what he knew all along, and that is that this is not a buildable lot. Over time the assessed value has increased. ill 1990 the assessed value was reduced by 30% due to the topography. He noted that the topography has not changed, but the value has changed and the most recent assessed valuation is $10,500 (land only). He discussed the differences between his property and the property considered comparable by the Assessor's staff. The appellant's estimate of value is $5,000 (land only). Ms. Gossell explained that during the revaluation process the Assessor's staff does not always know which parcels are buildable or not. They know what amount the properties have sold for and whether or not they are bare land. Comparable property #1 was valued using the same base rate as the appellants ($10,500) and then was given a 25% increase due to its size. The appellant's property should also be given a percentage increase because of its size, however, due to its topography it is only valued at the base rate of$10,500. By not giving the percentage increase in value, the Assessor's office is taking into account the size and topography of the parcel. Comparable property #2 was also valued with a base rate of$10,500, and due to the quality of the site, it was given an additional 10% increase in value. These comparable properties are in close proximity to the appellant's property and were recently sold. She noted that another benefit to the owner ofthis parcel and other parcels located in Olympic Canal Tracts is that there are four community park areas that are available for them to use. This is an amenity that allows boat access to Hood Canal. With these benefits for owning property there, it is felt that S 1 0,500 is a fair value. Board of Equalization Minutes - November 21, 2006 Pa2e: 6 Mr. Scheiber stated that he doesn't understand how the size value is applied by the Assessor's office. If the property is not a buildable site according to County codes, than it is not a buildable site. Size is moot unless it is buildable. Ms. Gossell stated that many of these lots are recreational lots. Just because a lot is not buildable doesn't mean it's not usable. You can still pull up in a fully self-contained RV and still have access to the public areas that are available to the property owners and there is value in that. This has been shown with the sale of the two parcels she submitted as comparable property. The current assessment is a fair market value for the facilities that are available. Mr. Scheiber stated that those two parcels are level or have a level area on them. His is not level. The concept of putting a recreational vehicle on his property is impossible due to the topography and it is located in a slide zone. Discussion ensued regarding the size ofthe property and water availability in the area. 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. George & Karen Sickel 222 Sickel Loop Brinnon, WA 98320 BOE: 06-38-LO PN: 980100104 Mr. Sickel was present. Appraiser Maryn Gossell represented the Assessor's office. Chairman Marlow explained the hearing process and swore in both parties. The property under appeal is bare land (lot #6) located in Olympic Canal Tracts off of Highway 101 in Brinnon. Mr. Sickel stated that he used to own one of the comparable parcels (lot #4) presented by the Assessor's office, so he is familiar with the property. He purchased that parcel (lot #4) and another parcel (lot #3) in order to have rights to Olympic Canal Tracts which allows access to 40 acres of tidelands with clams and oysters. Sometime later he sold lot #4 to another property owner in the area and traded lot #3 for lot #6 (the parcel now under appeal) with the same property owner he sold lot #4 to. The property trade was handled through a quit claim transfer and at the time the Assessor's office arbitrarily set a value of$4,800 for each parcel. At that point he was going to file an appeal with the Board of Equalization because lot #6 which he got in exchange for lot #3 is a wet land and is not accessible or buildable, but, he thought he would wait to file his appeal. Then when he received his latest assessment increasing the value he decided to appeal the value. He stated that it is not a matter of money, it is a matter of principle. He discussed the differences between his property and the properties presented as comparable by the Assessor's office, and presented a list of properties which he feels are more comparable to his property in terms being wetlands and unbuildable. The Assessor's office did not even address his comparable properties. The only value to Board of Equalization Minutes - November 21, 2006 these parcels is having membership in Olympic Canal Tracts. Currently, the property is assessed at $6,300 (land only). Mr. Sickel estimates the value is $2,000 (land only). Pa2e: 7 Ms. Gossell explained that the reason she did not address the comparable properties presented by the appellant is that they are not located in Olympic Canal Tracts and do not have membership in Olympic Canal Tracts or share any of the same amenities such as access to the community park areas and boat access to the beach. Therefore, they are not considered similar properties. Her reasoning for choosing the specific comparable properties she used is because they both front on Highway 101 as does the appellant's property. She stated that the appellant's property is valued at a base rate of $10,500 with a reduction of 25% due to the topography and a reduction of another 15% due to the proximity to the highway. The value has been reduced a total of 40% to take into account the issues brought up by the appellant. She acknowledged that Mr. Sickel previously owned lot #4 and lot #5. He sold lot #4 and traded lot #5 to the same individual, which left Mr. Sickel owning lot #6 so he could have access to the amenities of Olympic Canal Tracts. Mr. Sickel stated the Assessor's comments regarding the trade are correct. However, he noted that the value of $4,800 assessed for each parcel was just a suggested value by the Assessor's staff and is arbitrary. Of the five comparable properties he presented, he is unable to attest whether or not all five have beach rights, but, he can say that one ofthem does. He assumed that since the others were in the same area that they also had beach rights. Discussion ensued regarding the parcels outside of Olympic Canal Tracts. 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. Attest: [k~v ..'::i.u [) ,:, - ~ Enn Lundgrert ~l3o'ard JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF EQUALIZATION t-- William S. Marlo! Chairman. ~M~ Richard A. Broders, Vice-Chairman ~t7~~ JfJes A DeLeo, Member