Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM112806 1820 Jefferson Street P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 James A. DeLeo William S. Marlow Richard A. Broden MINUTES November 28, 2006 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 Member James A. DeLeo. Vice-Chairman Broders arrived shortly after the meeting began. ASSESSMENT CORRECTION Member DeLeo moved to accept the following assessment correction. Chairman Marlow seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. APPELLANT Robert A. Mattson APPEAL NO. BOE 06-42-R PARCEL NO. 602291 012 Due to inclement weather the following hearings were held via teleconference. HEARINGS Joe and Joy Baisch 3485 Dosewallips Road Brinnon, W A 98320 BOE: 06-42-R PN: 602291012 Mr. and Mrs. Baisch participated via teleconference. Charlie Hough represented the Assessor's office. Chairman Marlow explained the hearing process and swore in both parties. The property under appeal is a residence situated on approximately 3.2 acres located at 3485 Dosewallips Road in Brinnon. Mrs. Baisch stated that they built their home in 1992 and at that time it was valued at $99,800 including the value for land. Over the last 13 years the value has increased every two years. With the most recent assessment the improvement value increased by $86,000. This value increase is excessive. They could not sell the property for that amount. Last year they had an appraisal done on the property, and while it was difficult to find sales of comparable properties it was appraised at $350,000. She noted that a copy of the appraisal was submitted with their petition. A portion of their acreage cannot be developed because it does not meet the County code. Their value is based on speculative buying because they think that Black Point will be building a large development. It is not fair to the community. Their property is assessed $43,000 over Phone (360)385-9100 Fax (360)385-9382 jeffbocC@Co.jefferaon.wa.us Board of Equalization Minutes - November 28, 2006 Pa2e: 2 what it was last year and nothing has changed. Mr. Baisch added that in consideration of other taxing districts such as schools and fire departments in rural communities, the infrastructure is dependent on the members of the community. Both he and his wife participate in community committees and they are on the cuff of doing some planning that is going to require major investments to upgrade the school building. He is concerned that the speculation on Real Estate is going to affect their landowner's ability to support these kinds of initiatives. The significant increases in property taxes are not going to benefit the local community. They need to make some major investments in local infrastructure and they are not going to be able to do that if the County keeps assessing these large percentage increases to their property taxes. Mrs. Baisch stated that she understands that the assessment process is mandated by the State. However, there is no way these kinds of sales are occurring. She sees properties being taken off the market because they can't sell. Assessing the property for what it might possibly sell for in the future is only speculation. All of this is on the backs of the taxpayers and there is absolutely no economic development that is being created in Jefferson County to take the pressure off of homeowners. The valuation process has gone to far with speculation. Mr. Hough explained that the Assessor's office is required by law to reassess property every four years. They are also required to assess property at 100% of its fair market value. The tools that are used to assess property are sales of comparable properties in the area. The appellant's property was assessed as of January I, 2006. He reviewed past assessments and discussed the information he presented in support of the current assessed value, explaining how he valued the property. He noted that the Assessor's office does not speculate what the market will do, they use actual sales of comparable properties which have occurred. While sales may have slowed down, prices are still increasing. Discussion ensued regarding various aspects ofthe appellant's parcel and the comparable sales used by the Assessor. The property is currently valued at $386,970 ($37,245 for the land and $349,725 for the improvements). The appellants estimate the value is $335,000 ($35,000 for the land and $300,000 for the improvements). After reviewing all the information submitted and hearing the testimony of all parties, Chairman Marlow closed the hearing. The Board will conduct a physical inspection of the property and make a determination at a later date. Ruth and Wesley Dunham 1119 N. 30th Street Renton, W A 98056 BOE: 06-17-R PN: 601181006 Mrs. Dunham participated via teleconference. Appraiser Charlie Hough represented the Assessor's office. After explaining the hearing process, Chairman Marlow swore in both parties. The property under appeal consists of a house under construction and a well pump house situated on approximately 3.96 acres located at 350 Point Whitney Road in Brinnon. Mrs. Dunham submitted with her petition a copy of an appraisal that was conducted less than five months from the Assessor's appraisal date and better Board of Equalization Minutes - November 28, 2006 Pa2e: 3 represents the fair market value ofthe property than the comparable property sales presented by the Assessor's appraiser. The professional appraisal indicates the value is $70,000 which is close to the County's previous assessed value of $64,800, not the County's current assessed value of$159,240 ($109,240 for the land and $50,000 for the improvements). She feels the valuation increase is excessive and estimates the value ofthe property is $70,000 ($70,000 for the land and no value for the improvements). Mr. Hough explained that Jefferson County is on a four-year revaluation cycle, which means that properties are only reassessed every four years, with the exception of new construction which is assessed each year until it is 100% complete and then is reassessed every four years. The improvement value of $50,000 is attributed to the new construction value for the house the Dunham's are building. He explained the methodology used to value the land and presented sales of comparable properties. Ms. Dunham noted that the property was also revalued after a boundary line adjustment they had completed. 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. Matthew Keifer & Susan Kline 312 N. 48'h Street Seattle, W A 98103 BOE: 06-26-R PN: 601183109 Mr. Keifer participated via teleconference. Appraiser Charlie Hough represented the Assessor's office. After explaining the hearing process, Chairman Marlow swore in both parties. The property under appeal is the improvements consisting of a cabin and garage. The appellants are not contesting the land value. Mr. Keifer stated that the increase in value is attributed to both the land and the buildings. The buildings are old and have only undergone minor repairs, with the exception of a structural beam being replaced approximately three weeks ago and the repair ofthe roof after being damage in a storm. Other than those repairs, improvements to the property have been negligible and in fact deterioration has outstripped their ability to maintain the property. ill his opinion, the improvements (buildings) have actually decreased in value, therefore the assessment for the improvements should have decreased or at least remained unchanged. The property is currently valued at $330,050 ($227,500 for the land and 5102,550 for the improvements). The appellants estimate the value is $307,875 ($227,500 for the land and $80,375 for the improvements). Mr. Hough explained that property in Jefferson County is on a four-year revaluation cycle which means that property is only assessed once every four years. Value is based on what the property would sell for on the open market. Based on the two comparable property sales he used to value the appellant's property, the value is fair. The house was valued with 22 years effective age and the garage and addition is valued using a 15% depreciation factor. He believes the fair market value of this property is at least $330,000 if not more. Washington State law mandates that all property be assessed at 100% of its fair market value. The appellants stated on their appeal form that the value increased 27.6%. This is true, however, the percentage increase is for the land and improvements and is over a four-year period. Board of Equalization Minutes - November 28, 2006 Pa2e: 4 Mr. Keifer doesn't feel the value ofthe improvements is realistic. If someone were to purchase the property they would probably tear down the house and build a new one. The house should not be valued more than the garage which is a newer structure and is not falling down. Valuing the house with 22 years effective age doesn't seem right when the house is not 22 years old, it is 43 years old. He just feels the house should be valued realistically. 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. Shah ram Milani 4428 - 69th Avenue W. University Place, W A 98466 BOE: 06-31-LO PN: 502311 019 Mr. Milani participated via teleconference. Appraiser Charlie Hough represented the Assessor's office. Chairman Marlow explained the hearing process and swore in both parties. The property under appeal is bare land located off of Pollock Drive south of the Olympic Canal vicinity. Mr. Milani stated that he is not opposed to paying taxes. The key here is paying a fair amount He was told by the Assessor's representative that his property was assessed based on recent sale values. At the time he purchased his property he discovered that he made an error when looking at the boundary lines and he thought it was about 100 feet larger than it actually is. This incorrect identification of the boundary lines left his property less suitable than he had expected with regard to having a view. Therefore, his purchase price of$35,000 for the property was based on his understanding that his property extended another 100 feet. In looking at a map of his property it can be seen that nearly 50% of it is under powerlines which is another issue that restricts the building of structures. He is unable to grow trees near the powerlines because PUD officials will cut them down if they get too tall. Only half of his property is of any use to him. He asked the appraiser ifhe had physically visited his property as well as the neighboring property, which is also over assessed, and he was told yes. Mr. Milani stated that he can guarantee the appraiser never visited the property and that the assessment was conducted from an arm-chair. He knows this because, the neighboring property has a 65 or 70 degree incline. It is just a hillside and yet it is assessed at over $40,000. According to County Health Department records the entire plat is marked orange and identified as an area that has a very high probability of landslide activity. Additionally, that property is owned by the Gunstones and has not changed hands for over 30 years, so the appraiser could not have assessed it based on some recent sale. Currently, the property is assessed at $36,000 (land only). The appellant believes the value is $25,000 (land only). Charley Hough asked the appellant ifhe has a travel trailer and a shed on his property? Mr. Milani replied yes. Mr. Hough stated that he has physically been to the property which is why he knows of his trailer and shed. He explained how he valued the property and stated that a reduction of 20% was given due to poor topography and the negative affect of the powerlines. The appellant purchased the property in October of 2006 for $35,000. The appraisal date is as of January I, 2006. State law requires that all property be assessed at 100% of its fair market value. He reviewed comments from the Department of Community Development's files which indicate that this parcel can be developed. With regard to the neighboring parcel, he spoke with the owner and the value was reduced. Board of Equalization Minutes - November 28, 2006 Pa2e:5 Mr. Milani stated that the appraiser, by his own admission, made an error in the valuation ofthe neighboring parcel. Due to the burden of the number of properties that he has to view, maybe he was pressured, and being human, made an error with the valuation. He is just trying to convey that there are discrepancies and there was an error in judgment. Perhaps there was an error in judgment with his property as well. He explained why he paid $35,000 for the property and feels that he made an honest mistake identifying the boundaries and ended up with less than he thought he had. He thinks the appraiser should revisit his property. 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: ~ ~~ /t-/ Erin Lundgren, Clerk of the ~ JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF EQUALIZATION , ~ Richard A. roders, Vice- an ~~ a.-. be? ~es A. DeLeo, Member