Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM092607 ()\ ~QU.4l ~/,~ON~% a/~ ~\g COI~ ~\ ~ \ ~. ! \~~""2~J '~ 1820 Jefferson Street P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 James A. DeLeo William S. Marlow Richard A. Broden MINUTES September 26, 2007 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 Member James A. DeLeo. Richard A. Broders arrived shortly after the meeting began. ASSESSOR'S STAFF PRESENTATION OF MAPS AND SALES CHARTS Assessor's office staff were present to provide the Board with information on maps and sales charts for the Port Ludlow revaluation area. Individual packets that include this information have been prepared for the Board to use during the Port Ludlow area appeal hearings. Dennis Pownall explained that the information contained within each packet will assist the Board with determining the fair market value of any parcel within the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort (MPR). They have painstakingly delineated all ofthe "double sales" (properties sold twice within the last four years) that have occurred over the last four years within the MPR. Only "double sales" were used to compile the information as they supplied the most accurate data for determining fair market value. Under normal circumstances, "double sales" data is somewhat difficult to come by. However, during this revaluation cycle there were over 100 "double sales" in the MPR alone. All ofthese sales are being supplied to the Board with this information. No other comparable sales are intended to be supplied. Mr. Pownall reviewed the compiled data titled "2007 Board of Equalization Exhibits" which consists of exhibits A - E as follows: Exhibit A Board - Mounted 1. North Port ludlow Improved and Land-Only Re-Sales Map 2. South Port Ludlow Improved and Land-Only Re-Sales Map 3. Improved Re-Sales and Land-Only Re-Sales Graphs Exhibit B Improved Re-Sales % Increase Per Year in Port Ludlow Data Exhibit C Land-Only Re-Sales % Increase Per Year in Port Ludlow Data Exhibit D Port Ludlow Double-Sales by Quarter Data Sheet Phone (360)385-9100 Fax (360)385-9382 jeflbocC@Co.jefferson.wa.us Board of Equalization Minutes - September 26, 2007 Pa~e:2 Exhibit E Assessor's Report Card: (Reflects Data of Parcels Sold within Entire Chimacum School District - Not Exclusively Port Ludlow) 1. Improved Sales Occurring After 07/20/07 Data 2. Land-Only Sales Occurring After 07/20/07 Data Sheet While the number of sales is extremely unusual, it is also impressively clear that the value of properties within the MPR have skyrocketed. As with all averages and medians there are values above and below the middle values. Appellants believe that their property values are below the mid-range data, but that is neither realistic nor accurate. Maryn Gossell noted that "Exhibit E" will be updated each week as their office receives new sales data. The information packets that have been presented are for the Board to keep and use as a reference for all the Port Ludlow appeals. Appellants will be receiving this same information along with a map ofthe area where their property is located. She stated that there was a total of332 sales in the MPR. Of those sales, 105 were "Double" or 'Triple" sales. That is almost 1 in 3 properties which sold more than once. This is a good indicator of what the market is doing. Between the assessment date of January 1, 2007 and July 20,2007 when the rolls were closed, there have been 13 improved land sales with an annual average increase of 17.5%. Bare land sales are up an annual average of 40% since January I, 2007. Current sales activity does not support the argument that the market has fallen. In response to a question from Chairman Marlow, Ms. Gossell explained that the percentile is based on the new assessed value as of January 1, 2007. Chairman Marlow asked how much of this information would apply to Port Ludlow properties outside the MPR? Ms. Gossell responded that she appraised all the properties in Paradise Bay, South Point, Tala Shores and East Ludlow Ridge areas of Port Ludlow and she has found that property values have doubled in all those areas as well. HEARINGS Peter V. Ciani 193 Maxview Drive Port Ludlow, W A 98365 BOE: 07-47-R 07-48-R PN: 721 093 024 935100009 Mr. Ciani was present. Appraiser Charley Hough represented the Assessor's office. After explaining the hearing process, Chairman Marlow swore in both parties. Under appeal are two residences. One is situated on approximately 3 acres located at 193 Maxview Drive, Port Ludlow. The other is situated on a lot located at 831 Thorndyke Road, Port Ludlow. Mr. Ciani stated that he has lived in Jefferson County for 18 years. He has 6 taxable properties, but, is only appealing 2 of them. In dealing with the Assessor's office he always found staff to be very helpful, open and receptive. Sometimes the Assessor's staff must work without complete information about a parcel. This most recent assessment cycle has fallen on historic "highs" in the Real Estate market. Not just nationwide, but, also in our area. It is hard to say whether or not that is reflective of a true value or a Real Estate bubble. He hears experts argue this issue Board of Equalization Minutes - September 26, 2007 Pa~e: 3 all the time and he knows the data is heavily relied upon because it is the best we have. However, the fact ofthe matter is that the data is somewhat reflective of the times which, everyone can agree, are extraordinary in terms of Real Estate valuations. He questions whether this is truly representative of the values on which residents are taxed? In addition to the increased valuation and subsequent increased taxes, County residents live with no increase in County services. As the County has gotten more populated, in many ways services have relatively decreased. Specifically, when his children were in high school there was a lack of adequate school transportation. His children had to ride a bus for 1 Y, hours because there were not enough buses at the time. Road maintenance leaves a lot to be desired on Thorndyke Road when trees fall or when it snows. Security such as Fire and Rescue is also an issue with regard to response time. He had an accident a few years ago where he had to be transported and then later was billed $800 for the rescue transport from Fire and Rescue. So, in addition to paying taxes, residents are also billed for some of these services. Residents in the area are suffering due to escalating taxes, cost ofliving expenses, and fuel and transportation costs. Other intangible factors that negatively affect the values of property along Thorndyke Road include the closure of the Hood Canal Bridge and the Fred Hill Materials Pit-to-Pier project. In 2006 he built a new house on his property, parcel no. 721 093 024. With regard to County services he noted that it took over 11 months to get a building permit. Due to inadequate County staffing the building cycle was delayed. He purchased the property knowing it is in a seismic and landslide zone. However, during the building process he became aware that the acreage was significantly reduced by the delineation of three wetlands on the property. This information was not disclosed to him at the time he purchased the property. The approximate 3 acre building site was reduced to 100' x 75'. Eliminating his ability to construct a circular driveway or put an outbuilding on the property. It also severely limited his landscaping potential, because only certain native plants are allowed. He does not feel that these issues were taken into consideration when the property was assessed. Another issue is the stigma associated with property located in landslide areas. One of his parcels was subject to a landslide, which at the time, the Assessor's office reduced the land value appropriately. Based on documentation from experts in the Real Estate market, he contends that this type of stigma doesn't go away. Both parcels under appeal are subj ect to this stigma. The other parcel under appeal was his previous residence, parcel no. 935 100009. It suffered a landslide in 1997 and was red-tagged by the County at that time. It is difficult to find comparable properties for this property. He noted that he sold a separate parcel to a neighbor in 2006 for $115,000 after having done a comparative market analysis. Currently, the land value of that parcel is $130,000. That is $15,000 over and above what he sold the comparable property for at the peak of the market. In addition, his parcel under appeal which also has a land value of $130,000 and is adjacent to the parcel he sold, suffered the devastation from the landslide. The parcel he sold was not affected, and was deemed by geotechnical engineers to be more stable with no history of landslide activity. Based on this, his property should be valued less than $115,000. Mr. Ciani feels that stigma affects this property as well. While he has it listed for sale for a much higher price than the amount of the current assessment, only 3 people have looked at the property in 5 months with no offers. He just recently reduced the asking price by $75,000. It is currently listed for $599,000. Board of Equalization Minutes - September 26, 2007 Page: 4 Additional documentation regarding the stigma of the property was submitted with the approval of the Assessor's representative. Mr. Ciani's current residence, parcel no. 721 093024, is currently assessed at $293,215 ($73,380 for the land and $219,835 for the improvements). His estimate of value is $279,835 ($60,000 for the land and $219,835 for the improvements). Mr. Ciani's previous residence, parcel no. 935 100009, is currently assessed at $491,405 ($130,000 for the land and $361,405 for the improvements). His estimate of value is $364,000 ($110,000 for the land and $254,000 for the improvements). Charley Hough discussed how he assessed parcel no. 721 093 024 noting that the house is only valued at 70% complete and that the $10,000 value for the site improvements was inadvertently left out and will need to be added next year. He reviewed his exhibits which included maps with seismic and landslide overlays showing which parcels are affected. Exhibits were then presented by Mr. Hough in support of his valuation assessment for parcel no. 935 100 009. He also presented sales of comparable properties. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Marlow closed the hearing. The Board will make a determination at a later date. Wilfred & Dolores Schmidt 62 Shine Road Port Ludlow, W A 98365 BOE: 07-53-R PN: 994400104 Mrs. Schmidt 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 residence situated on approximately Y, an acre located at 62 Shine Road, Port Ludlow. Mrs. Schmidt read the following prepared statement explaining the reasons for appealing her property value: "The original application for this property on 4/17/97 was for the owner builder. It was for 1539 sq. ft. with a 444 sq. ft. garage and 150 sq. ft. of deck. The estimated cost was $84,444. A basement was later added to the plan. Financial problems led to hurry-up and non-finishing. This let to lesser quality both in materials and workmanship - - very poor quality kitchen and bath cupboards and unfinished oak trim, soffits, garage and storage area, electric work, and a totally unsafe deck with greater spans than code and no cross bracing. Cupboards and closet fixtures were not even located on studs. Some items were signed-off on correction notices as being complete when they were not: fireplace, deck dryer vent and landing. We have no idea what lies beneath the rest ofthe items on the correction notices that were also OK'd. The house with these defects and many others did not sell and was reduced in price two times before leasing for one month - - which ran into five free ones. It became a bank repo. This house and the one next door (which sold for $550,000 in 1993) were the only houses in the area with an EXCELLENT condition. This in spite ofthe defects, no hardwood, lack oflandscaping, need of grading and screw-together cupboards. Our lot has a 20 degree slope - - which had to be graded to be usable and it has no easy access to the lower yard. The view is much less than most of the homes in the area and the land area is comparable to many of the flat and usable lots." Board of Equalization Minutes - September 26, 2007 Pa~e:5 She stated they have completed the following repairs: vacuum attachments deck bracing dead madrona cut hot water pump grading rocked drive screens for sliders locate septic/covers finish soffits new thermostat new kitchen move propane tanks TOTAL $340 $150 $300 5200 $300 $315 $166 $408 $2,100 $140 $8,000 $183 $12,602 They still need to finish the following: attach door to jet tub replace fireplace carpet living room raise landing to garage relocate dryer vent redo patio to proper level insulate water pipes finish water shut-off redo heat ducts re-j ack front porch Value should be: Land $70,000 Improvements $161,000 Total $231,000 Mrs. Schmidt provided correction notices and photographs of the many building defects. Currently, the property is assessed at $301,665 ($82,000 for the land and $219,665 for the improvements). The appellants state the value should be $231,000 ($70,000 for the land and $161,000 for the improvements). Charley Hough reviewed his exhibits and explained that he reduced the value by $30,000 for the cost of necessary repairs. He reviewed a comparable property which just recently sold for considerably more than the assessed value. He feels the assessed value is fair. Mrs. Schmidt added that the property which just recently sold is a duplex that has two living quarters. As far as the market value of her property, she feels it has no market value until the repairs have been made. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Marlow closed the hearing. The Board will make a determination at a later date. Board of Equalization Minutes - September 26, 2007 Pa~e: 6 PRESENTATION OF SERVICE PINS Phil Johnson, Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners, presented each member of the Board of Equalization with employee recognition service pins. James A. (Bonzo) DeLeo was recognized and awarded a pin for his 35 years of dedicated service to the citizens of Jefferson County as a member of the Board of Equalization. Richard A. Broders and Williams S. Marlow were also recognized and awarded pins for their dedicated service to the community as members of the Board of Equalization for 15 years. HEARINGS - Continued Sidney & Maureen Poole 33 Twinsview Court Port Ludlow, W A 98365 BOE: 07-37-R PN: 969800014 Mr. Poole was present. Appraiser Maryn Gossell represented the Assessor's office. Both parties were sworn in by Chairman Marlow after he explained the hearing process. The property under appeal is a residence situated on a lot located at 33 Twinsview Court, Port Ludlow. Mr. Poole compared the characteristics of his property to a neighboring property which sold in 2005 for $394,000. The house on the neighboring property is more than 20% larger than his house and has a three-car garage, while his only has a two-car garage. His neighbors who paid $394,000 for their property claimed they made $60,000 in improvements to the property and then listed it for sale for $448,000. This price represents a "loss" for the owners. It was on the market for many months and did not sell. Now it is currently listed at $410,000. In addition, because his house sits 35 feet above the level of the road, his driveway has a sloping elevation of approximately 30 degrees making it unusable at times during the winter when it snows or freezes with ice. Fortunately, he is retired and doesn't have to go anywhere, but, it certainly detracts from the value of the property when he is unable to leave. He noted that one of the properties presented by the Assessor's office as comparable, contains a house that is twice as large as his house. Another comparable property used by the Assessor was a parcel that was purchased by Californians who made $700,000 profit on their home they sold in California. So, they had no problem with paying $425,000 for a tiny house that probably isn't worth more than $300,000. There are many people living in Port Ludlow who came from California and think we have the greatest "buys" around here, because of their ridiculously false values down there. The neighboring parcel with which he shares a driveway contains a house that is 10% larger than his. The valuation and subsequent taxes for that property have always been higher than his property. However, with this latest assessment he finds that the property is now assessed only $1,090 higher. The owners of this neighboring property have made over $75,000 in improvements over the last 14 months which included a new kitchen, deck, fireplace, and landscaping. His home was built in 1998 and he has not made any kind of improvements to the house since that time. Mr. Poole then reviewed market listings for six properties in the area which have not yet sold, were sold below their initial asking price, or were taken off the market after several months with no sale. His wife was a Real Estate Agent in New York and she told him that the only reason a house doesn't sell is that it Board of Equalization Minutes - September 26, 2007 Pa~e:7 is priced too high. This information accurately shows that his home is not worth anywhere near the assessed value of $466, 175 ($190,000 for the land and $276,175 for the improvements). He estimates the value is $328,000 ($108,000 for the land and $220,000 for the improvements). In closing, Mr. Poole discussed the Assessor's information on the percentage of increase. Maryn Gossell explained that the percentage of increase is actually 14.5% per year. She noted that she is aware ofthe steep driveway on this parcel as well as the lack of view, and has already made an adjustment for these factors with a 10% reduction in value off the base rate of the land which equates to a valuation decrease of $20,000. Real Estate values established by property owners or Real Estate agents for the purpose of selling property are not given much weight by the Assessor's staff when assessing property. The actual sale price of property is what must be considered. Since January I, 2007 there have been 13 sales of improved land within the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort with an average annual increase of 17.5%. There have also been 6 bare land sales with an average annual increase of 40%. These figures are based on "ann's length transactions" (transactions where the sale price is based on the amount of money paid between a willing buyer and a willing seller, without obligation to buy or sell). She discussed the comparable property sales she used in valuing the property. Over the last four years there have been a total of332 property sales within the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort. Ofthose property sales, 105 sold and changed ownership two or three times. Almost one out ofthree properties were a double or triple sale. This is the best indicator of market value. The data was presented on graphs and charts for review. Based on this data, the average annual increase over the last four years is 21.7% for properties located in the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort. The annual increase for the appellant's property is 13.75% and a 55% increase from the last revaluation done four years ago. Mr. Poole disputed the Appraiser's annual increase figures, stating that his property increased in value by 81 % from four years ago. He was told by a Real Estate Agent that his house would sell for $389,000. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Marlow closed the hearing. The Board will make a determination at a later date. William & Mary Irwin P.O. Box 521 Chimacum, W A 98325 BOE: 07-38-R PN: 990603111 Mr. Irwin was present. Appraiser Maryn Gossell represented the Assessor's office. After explaining the hearing process, Chairman Marlow swore in both parties. The property under appeal is a residence situated on a lot located at 60 Pioneer Drive, Port Ludlow. Mr. Irwin read the following statement: "I am in disagreement with the Jefferson County Assessor's valuation of my residence at 60 Pioneer Drive, Port Ludlow, parcel #990 603 111. The principal reason for my objection is that I feel the Assessor did not take into account that we do not have a typical "Port Ludlow" home. The original structure was built in 1971 and is 728 sq. ft. (photo 1) which I added on to in 2002-2003 (also photo 1). The total square footage is 1550 sq. ft. or 50 sq. ft. more than the minimum accepted by the Port Ludlow Architectural Control Committee. The original house was made from plywood sheeting inside and out which still exists. The original house had an 8' x 8' kitchen which still exists. Photo 2 and photo 3 show the size of the kitchen and the trim necessary to cover the plywood seams. Board of Equalization Minutes - September 26, 2007 Pa2e: 8 Using the three property comparables provided by the Assessor, photo 4, 5, & 6, I find no correlation between those houses and ours. They are not remodels, they are much newer and much larger and all have garages, we do not (photo 7). All photos were taken from the street showing the front door. I agree, property values are certainly up in the Port Ludlow area, Ijust don't think a house, half of which is 37 years old, with plywood interior walls and a 64 sq. ft. kitchen, and no garage, has increased at the same rate as other non-comparable property in the same area. Currently, the property is assessed at $307,660 ($95,000 for the land and $212,660 for the improvements). The appellant's estimate of value is $256,160 ($95,000 for the land and $161,160 for the improvements). Maryn Gossell presented three sales of comparable properties that were used to value the appellant's property. All three sales were "double sales" which means the property sold twice since the last revaluation four years ago. Based on the sale prices, the three properties all increased in value an average of 13.83% per year over four years and 55.33% over the entire four year period. She explained the value of the appellant's property increased 12.25% per year for a total four year increase of 49% which is below the average value of the comparable properties. Had she valued the appellant's property based on the average percent of increase, the new assessed value would have been 5320,000. The property is currently valued at $307,660. The data compiled on 332 property sales which occurred in the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort area also support the appellant's assessed value. Of those 332 sales, 105 sold two or three times since the last revaluation four years ago. This equates to almost one in three sales being a "double" or "triple" sale with an average increase of 21.7% per year for improved property over the last four years. In addition, the property sales which have occurred between January I, 2007 and July 20,2007 show an annual increase in value of 17.5% for improved properties and 40% for bare land properties. Based on this information she believes the value of the appellant's property is accurate and reflects fair market value. Mr. Irwin stated that he does not dispute his land value. He just feels the Assessor is missing the site specific differences among properties because they do not go inside the homes. The houses considered comparable by the Assessor are not comparable to his home. All of those properties have a larger kitchen, a dishwasher, and a garage. His property has none of those things and should not be valued the same as those other properties. Ms. Gossell explained that the Appraisers do take into account what they see outside in terms of age, construction materials, and the type of construction. All ofthese factors play into the characteristics of the home and are reflected in the valuation. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Marlow closed the hearing. The Board will make a determination at a later date. Richard & Sylvia Timmerman 173 Lagoon Lane Port Ludlow, WA 98365 BOE: 07-39-R PN: 968700104 Mr. and Mrs. Timmerman were present. Appraiser Maryn Gossell represented the Assessor's office. After explaining the hearing process, Chairman Marlow swore in both parties. The property under appeal is a residence situated on a lot located at 173 Lagoon Lane, Port Ludlow. Mr. Timmerman explained that Board of Equalization Minutes - September 26, 2007 Pa~e: 9 they are only appealing the value of the land which has doubled in value since the last revaluation four years ago. The percentage of increase is high and seems to be excessive. His father purchased this property in the early 1950's. Since that time there has been restrictions placed on the property by the County with regard to subdividing and shoreline and wetland setbacks. There are no other properties that are affected by these same restrictions. Due to current setback requirements, the amount of usable property is limited to 100 feet from the shoreline with 2/3 of it being a wetland. Ifhis father had not built a residence on the property, there would not be one, because it is an unbuildable lot based on current regulations and restrictions. He feels they would not be able to sell the property for the assessed value, and even if they could, they don't want to sell the property because it is a family home. They are afraid that they are going to be "taxed out" of their home if the increase in valuation continues at this rate. Mrs. Timmerman added that they are elderly and on a fixed income. As the taxes go up they have less money to live on and make ends meet. When talking to the Assessor's staff on the telephone she was asked why they don't move? Mrs. Timmerman doesn't feel it is a matter of moving. It is a family home. She also discussed the restrictions and noted that there is a road easement behind their house. The property is currently assessed at $747,960 ($432,500 for the land and $315,460 for the improvements). Mr. and Mrs. Timmerman estimate the value is $565,460 ($250,000 for the land and $315,460 for the improvements). Maryn Gossell presented a map outlining the appellant's property as well as four comparable properties all in row directly adjacent to the appellant's property. The map also outlines the wetland area and shows that the comparable properties are also impacted by wetlands. She noted that all of these properties, including the appellant's property, are receiving a 35% reduction in the land value due to tidal swamp behind beachfront site and limited depth. Comparable #4 is receiving an additional 1 0% reduction for depth due to its very small size. The appellants are mainly appealing the land value of their property. Data compiled on sales that occurred over the last four years within the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort, show that resales of bare land have increased an annual average of 139% per year over the last four years. Between January I, 2007 and July 20, 2007 there were six bare land sales showing an annual increase in value of 40%. This data supports the current assessed value. Mr. Timmerman stated that comparable property #4, which is receiving the additional discount for size, is identical in size to their property in terms of usable land. Both properties abut the back edge of the wetland and the road at the same distance. He doesn't understand why property is valued based on what it might sell for. Property should be taxed on the amount it sells for, at the time it sells. It seems that long time property owners are being penalized for building up their property. Chairman Marlow explained that Washington State law requires that all property must be assessed at 100% of fair market value. It is a legislative issue for which the Board of Equalization has no control. The Board of Equalization is appointed to determine whether or not the assessment of property values are fair and equitable. Discussion ensued regarding the map ofthe properties in correlation with the actual topography ofthe properties. Ms. Gossell stated that she physically walked the properties when she conducted her assessment so she is familiar with the wetland area and the homes there. Mr. Timmerman stated if that is the case, then she should know the properties are equal in size. He suggested that she walk the properties again. Board of Equalization Minutes - September 26, 2007 Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Marlow closed the hearing. The Board will make a determination at a later date. Pa2e: 10 ASSESSMENT CORRECTIONS/PETITION WITHDRAWALS 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. Lorraine Hamada/Cavin Richie BOE 07-41-LO 921 324019 George W. Cooke BOE 07-42-R 998 700 073 Robert Birchenough BOE 07-46-R 952 900 020 Jerrold D. Gamer BOE 07-55-R 821 334087 Richard McDonald BOE 07-56-LO 990600141 Hadlock Bay, LLC/Robert Bowen BOE 07-70-R 901 122011 Dee & Sara Meek BOE 07-l05-R 921 194070 Gail Lucas BOE 07-106-R 921194071 Gordon L. Thomas BOE 07-l49-R 821 351 008 .. " BOE 07-150-LO 821 351 011 GaryW.Hall BOE 07-160-LO 801 324002 " " BOE 07-161-LO 801 324004 " " BOE 07-1 62-LO 801 324005 " " BOE 07-l63-R 801 324006 Eve McDougall BOE 07-l96-LO 990600358 Kirk Robbins BOE 07-197-R 721 162033 Greg Hampton BOE 07-215-R 954 600 107 Loran Joe Schreiner BOE 07-216-R 821334041 Vice-Chairman Broders moved to adjourn the meeting until 10:00 a.m. Thursday, September 27,2007. Member DeLeo seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Att9t: ^ L~t~.~ ~i~/~'/"-/ Erin Lundgren, Clerk ofth~ Bfd JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF EQUALIZATION ! William ~. Mar~w, Crairman ~~U;A/YcL- Richard A. Broders, Vice-Chairman (Daft< :iec!) James A. DeLeo, Member