Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM092707 ()\ tQU4L &>~~ g~~~ co r:i ~\ ~ ,... ><1 I i \. ~ / '?;~~ 1820 Jefferson Street P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 James A. DeLeo William S. Marlow Richard A. Broden MINUTES September 27, 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 Vice-Chairman Richard A. Broders and Member James A. DeLeo. HEARINGS Marc Mauney & Lynne Rogerson 2133 Oak Bay Road Port Hadlock, W A 98339 BOE: 07-35-R PN: 921182012 Mr. Mauney was present. Appraiser John Pray represented the Assessor's office. After explaining the hearing process, Chairman Marlow swore in both parties. Under appeal is a residence situated on approximately 9.7 acres located at 2133 Oak Bay Road, Port Hadlock. Mr. Mauney stated that he purchased the property eight years ago for $425,000. It is a gorgeous piece of waterfront property and anyone visiting the property would think it's worth a million dollars. That's what they thought too when they purchased the property. However, when they began the permit process to build a home on the property they were told by the Community Development office that they were not going to be able to build anything on the property because it is located in a landslide and geologically hazardous area. This was unknown to them at the time of purchase. In fact, they tried to get the sellers to take the property back which the sellers could not afford to do. Mr. Mauney then sued the geological company that surveyed the land and failed to detect this issue prior to their purchase of the property. In order to build on the property they had to do a number of things to satisfy the County. They now have a house on the property, however, they have taken on a huge risk in building it. The problem is not that the entire hillside is going to slide down someday. The issue is that there is chronic differential settling of the earth. This not only affects their property, but it also affects adjacent neighboring properties to the north and south. The property to south is owned by the McMillen's whose house was "red-tagged" after movement of the land caused the foundation to fail and their house fell apart. Now that they are aware of this hazard and have multiple geological surveys, they would have to disclose this information to a potential purchaser of the property. It is almost impossible to determine the market Phone (360)385-9100 Fax 1360)385-9382 jeflbocc@Co.jefferson.wa.us Board of Equalization Minutes - September 27,2007 Pa2e: 2 value of their property, because it is difficult to find a comparable property that has sold. If you look at pristine waterfront properties that are comparable in terms of aesthetics, their values are going to be extremely high. However, the risk that someone would have to take on to build where their property is located, has an impact on market value. The risk includes determining the type of foundation to build to maintain a house, maintaining roads and utilities damaged by constant differential settling, and critical erosion of the land. All of these issues are critical. Mr. Mauney stated that they would not have purchased the property had they known it was located in a geological landslide hazard area. He feels the fair market value of the property is somewhere between what the County would pay for it to maintain it as an open park without any development allowable and what someone would pay for it to build something on it. It is difficult to assess what someone is going to pay for a piece of property to risk building on it. It is also unknown whether or not the County would even allow someone to build on that property. He submitted copies of multiple reports with his petition that show his property is located in a geologically hazardous area. There are two geological surveys: one prepared by Tillman Engineering several years ago for the County, and a more recent one prepared by a private firm that resulted in the McMillen's property becoming uninhabitable due to the land slide activity. The county road that runs above his property has to be repaired and patched at least one a year due to the differential settling of the land. In fact, he was told that ten years ago there was a huge failure of the road that allowed the asphalt to differentially settle approximately three feet causing serious damage to the transmission of a vehicle when it struck the asphalt. Mr. Mauney owns another lot in Port Ludlow that increased in value 8 times the amount it was assessed at 4 years ago. He is not contesting the value of that property because it is fair. The assessment ofthe property he is appealing is not fair and the landslide issues need to be taken into account in a huge way. The property is currently assessed at $1,036,740 ($609,940 for the land and $426,800 for the improvements). Mr. Mauney estimates the value is $676,800 ($250,000 for the land and $426,800 for the improvements). John Pray stated that he believes the landslide issue has been taken into account. The appellant paid $425,000 for the property in 1999. He explained that he carried over and applied the same adjustments that were previously given during the 2003 assessment. Those adjustments include a 10% reduction in the land value on 100 front feet of property due to rough topography; a 48% reduction in the land value for the excess front footage; and a 53% reduction in the land value on the residual acreage due to the landslide activity. The appellant's estimate ofland value is extremely low based on the market. Finding comparable properties of acreage on waterfront was difficult. He discussed a comparable property located off of Schwartz Road on Marrowstone Island. Mr. Mauney commented that when they purchased the property the purchase price became the assessed value. At that time, they appealed the assessed value based on these issue and the Board reduced the value to $250,000. Chairman Marlow asked Mr. Mauney if they are experiencing any structural problems with their home? Mr. Mauney replied that when they built their home they hired a geologist and a structural engineer to design the foundation. The house is basically built on a floating foundation that is 18" thick with two layers of re-bar. It is hoped that when differential settling of the land occurs that the house will float and not result in structural problems. Board of Equalization Minutes - September 27, 2007 Pa~e: 3 Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Marlow closed the hearing. The Board will make a determination at a later date. Judith Walls 190 N. Bay Way Port Ludlow, W A 98365 BOE: 07-40-R PN: 976800010 Ms. Walls 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 is a residence situated on 4 lots located at 190 N. Bay Way, Port Ludlow. Ms. Walls disputes the assessed value of her property because the upper two lots situated between Oak Bay Road and Bay Way are unusable due to the installation of two septic systems and a neighbor's well that abuts her property and their well-house that is partially located on her property. The neighbors will not move the well-house and she does not feel it would be a good idea to have a battle with them to get it moved. These lots cannot be developed, sold or used for any other purpose other than septic systemJdrainfields. In fact, it was her understanding that several years ago her four lots had been consolidated into one parcel for this reason, yet, they have been assessed separately. The two lower lots are 30' high bank waterfront properties which do not perk. She presented a diagram of her lots showing the location of the drainfields, the neighbor's well-house and the structures built on the property which include her house and an A.D.D. She added that her sewage has to be pumped uphill approximately 700 feet, so when there are power outages she has a problem with it backing up into the house. This has forced her to have to install drains for surface water diversion. If she were to sell her property she would have to disclose this information to a potential buyer. She could not market her property like other waterfront properties. Currently, the property is assessed at $521,745 ($156,945 for the land and $364,800 for the improvements). The appellant estimates the value is $306,945 ($150,000 for the land and $156,945 for the improvements). John Pray noted that the appellant's house is valued at 90% complete with a 25% depreciation factor. The value per square foot is $78.00 for the house and $68.00 per square foot for the A.D.D. In support of the assessed value he presented sales of comparable properties in the area. He confirmed that the four lots were consolidated under one parcel number. The issue with the use restraints on the upper lots was taken into account with an 80% reduction in value being applied to the upper lots due to their restricted use as drainfields for the lower waterfront lots. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Marlow closed the hearing. The Board will make a determination at a later date. Shirley Spencer & Johanna Wiseman 62 Laurel Street Port Hadlock, W A 98339 BOE: 07-43-R PN: 921063007 Ms. Spencer and Ms. Wiseman were not present. Appraiser John Pray represented the Assessor's office and was sworn in by Chairman Marlow. The property under appeal is a residence situated on a lot located at 62 Laurel Street, Port Hadlock. On the petition form the appellants wrote the following reason for Board of Equalization Minutes - September 27, 2007 Pa~e:4 appealing the valuation of their property: "The enclosed residential appraisal was done on the same day that the Assessor came to value the property. It shows a significant difference in fair market value. Similar properties are on the market for much less and are not selling. No improvements have been added to our property." Currently, the property is assessed at $1,069,840 ($517,415 for the land $552,425 for the improvements). The appellants estimate the value is $$775,000 ($275,000 for the land and $500,000 for the improvements). John Pray stated that the appellants purchased this property in December 2005 for $1,075,000. The sale of this property is the best indicator of its market value and was greatly considered during the valuation process. As evidence of value the appellants provided an appraisal that was done for refinancing purposes. He noted that the amount of the appellants' loan was $500,000. With this in mind, not much weight was given to the residential appraisal. He discussed the comparable property sales that were used in valuing the property. In closing, he noted that prior to the appellant's purchase of this property, it was on the market for two months at $1,095,000. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Marlow closed the hearing. The Board will make a determination at a later date. Member DeLeo was not present for the following hearing. Ken & Francesca Franklin 30 Tyner Lane Chimacum, W A 98325 BOE: 07-94-R PN: 963 000 408 Mr. and Mrs. Franklin were not present. Appraiser Charley Hough represented the Assessor's office and was sworn in by Chairman Marlow. The property under appeal is residential land with a 1979 manufactured home located at 30 Tyner Lane, Chimacum. In a letter attached to the petition form the appellants provided the following reasons for appealing their property value: "I am writing to protest the recent new valuation for the above property. The land value went from $28,000 to $60,000. That's over 100% increase, or a dollar increase of$32,000! The improvements changed from $99,270 to $139,840, an increase of$40,570. The total went from $127,270 to $199,840. The residence is a 1979 manufactured home. The garage has never been fmished. There have been no additions or improvements to this residence. There have been no landscaping changes. What is here, is exactly what has been here for many years. There may have been some properties in the neighborhood that have sold for more. However, these have been stick-built homes, not manufactured homes. I respectfully request a reduction in this valuation for 2008 based upon the above. I'd appreciate hearing from you on this request. Thank you." Currently, the property is assessed at $199,840 ($60,000 for the land and $139,840 for the improvements). The appellants estimate the value is $160,000 ($50,000 for the land and $110,000 for the improvements). Charley Hough stated he had hoped the appellants would have attended the hearing so he could ask them why they say the garage has never been finished. He noted that the previous owners lived in the garage/ AD.V. and rented out the trailer. Furthermore, when he visited the property to assess it he saw Board of Equalization Minutes - September 27, 2007 Pa~e: 5 someone open the blinds in the window and he could see inside. He presented a 2003 sale flyer describing the property with an A.D.D. Also in support of the value he presented comparable sales data, Real Estate Excise Tax Affidavits and area maps Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Marlow closed the hearing. The Board will make a determination at a later date. Member DeLeo was present for the following hearings. Dallas & Barbara Crow 632 Bywater Way N. Port Ludlow, W A 98365 BOE: 07-76-R PN: 821265025 Mr. and Mrs. Crow were 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 a lot located at 632 Bywater WayN., Port Ludlow. Mr. Crow stated they feel the comparable properties used by the Assessor's office to value their property are not comparable. Their house sits on approximately Yz acre. The remaining Y2 acre of property is wooded, sloped and unusable, unlike the property they are being compared to that has barns, horses and an orchard. In addition, their view is diminishing due to tree growth. They don't understand how the land value increased by 79% and the improvement value increased by 57% in four years. Mrs. Crow presented information and photographs showing the disparity in the comparison of their property to the comparable properties used by the Assessor's office in the valuation process. As shown by photographs, their property has a narrow view corridor with trees growing up in it, while the Assessor's comparable property #1 has a panoramic view. Mr. Crow noted that comparable property #1 is now for sale for over a million dollars. The property is currently assessed at $438,005 ($151,800 for the land and $286,205 for the improvements). The appellants estimate the value is $381,700 ($95,700 for the land and $286,000 for the improvements). Charley Hough stated there were not many sales in the immediate area so he used the closest comparable sales to the appellants' property that he could find. The comparable properties have a 25% increase in the land value for view. The appellants' value does not have this same increase and therefore addresses their concern about the different views. He agrees that it is a large increase in value over four years. However, the Assessor's office must value property at fair market value. Ms. Crow added that their property is being compared to million dollar homes located in the exclusive area of Olympic Ridge. Their house is much more modest and is located in the much more modest area of Bywater Way North. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Marlow closed the hearing. The Board will make a determination at a later date. Board of Equalization Minutes - September 27, 2007 Paee: 6 Robert Schladetzky 2982 Beaver Valley Road Port Ludlow, W A 98365 BOE: 07-57-R 07-58-R PN: 901142043 821 073 001 Mr. Schladetzky 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 parcels of property. Parcel #901 142043 consists of a lot with a 1974 double-wide mobile home situated at 9353 Rhody Drive, Chimacum. Parcel #821 073 001 consists of approximately 11 acres with a house, shop, barn and large outbuilding located at 2982 Beaver Valley Road, Port Ludlow. Mr. Schladetzky began discussing parcel #821 073 001 where his home is located. The value ofthis parcel has increased 265% over four years which he anticipates will double his taxes. He doesn't understand what increased the value so greatly. His house was built in 1920 and as was common at that time his house was constructed with 2' x 4' framing and little or no insulation. The basement is unfinished and is not insulated or heated. Exposed backfill dirt is visible atop foundation walls. The house contains the original plumbing and electrical wiring. It has single-pane windows and the original siding. He added a bedroom and bathroom in the late 1980's which increased the living space to 1,500 square feet. The only improvements to his house were made 4 years ago and included a new roof and painting. There is 20' x 40' shop that looks as if it was constructed in the 1950's. Installing power is the only improvements he has made to this building. The pole barn is 40' x 100' and dates back to the 1940's. It has no foundation, no insulation, and no heat. It is a useful storage shed. The only significant structure on the property is a 3,500 square foot building that he built in 1995 to house a large pipe organ. County regulations prohibit him from using the building in any way for commercial purposes or as a residence. It is used approximately a half-dozen times a year for private gatherings. Of his 11 acres, only 5 acres are cleared. The remainder is forested with steep slopes making it unbuildable and difficult to even log if permitted. He would understand an increase in his property valuation ifhe had a mountain or water view, or even if his property was located off of a private road, but, his property has none of these attributes and in fact the front door of his house is located 30 feet from State Highway 19. Last week he contacted the Washington State Department of Transportation to get a traffic count for the number of vehicles that travel SR19 and was provided information that in excess of 6,000 vehicles pass his front door on a daily average. He feels there is a negative impact on the value of his property due to highway noise and the fact they he takes his life in his hands to cross the highway twice a day to get the newspaper and his mail. This should be taken into account during the assessment. Mr. Schladetzky then compared his assessment to the lower assessments oftwo properties located across the street from his property. The improvement value of his property was previously $134,000. He doesn't understand the significant increase in value when he has not made any recent improvements or added any new buildings. Board of Equalization Minutes - September 27, 2007 Pa~e: 7 Currently, the property is assessed at $578,170 ($170,540 for the land and $407,630 for the improvements). Mr. Schladetzky's estimate of value is $460,000 ($110,000 for the land and 5350,000 for the improvements). Charley Hough presented comparable sales in the area and explained how he valued the property. Sales indicate land values have increased significantly. He explained that the reason the properties across the street have lower assessments is because they are negatively affected by wetlands. Mr. Schladetzsky's property is not affected by wetlands. Mr. Schladetzky discussed parcel #901 142043. He purchased this property in 1981. There is a 1974 double-wide mobile situated on the property. Miraculously it is still in place and serves as a rental home. There is also a 20' x 40' structure that was built on the property and is used as a shop/garage. This structure was constructed from raw sawn planks that have never been painted. It has power, but, is unheated. Since the time he purchased the property regnlations have been put in place that restrict the use of his property. He was told by the County Planning Department that he is restricted from replacing the mobile home with another building even if the footprint is the same size. Regulations state that a variance could possibly be granted if the new structure is located 75' from the ordinary high-water mark. Plus, it would require work with consultants to prepare a habitat enhancement plan. Other limiting factors include the property is located in a flood plain, there are required wetland setbacks from Chimacum creek as well as required property line setbacks from the road and adjacent properties. Basically, it has been classed as an unbuildable lot, and should anything happen to the existing mobile home, he would be unable to replace it and be left with a vacant lot. Attempts to sell the property have been unsuccessful because of these issues. He doesn't feel that a 33 year old mobile home has appreciated in value. It provides affordable housing to a family of five, but, if the taxes keep going up he is going to have to increase the rent. Currently, the property is assessed at $74,810 ($50,000 for the land and $24,810 for the improvements). Mr. Schladetzky's estimate of value is $52,000 ($36,000 for the land and $16,000 for the improvements). Charley Hough explained how he valued the property. He agrees that there is not much that can be done with the property due to the restrictions and he feels the 20% reduction in value he placed on the property adequately addresses those issues. He also realizes that it is an older mobile home, but, there is not much similar property available for only $74,000. Mr. Sch1adetzky stated another issue is that the septic system on the property becomes submerged underwater whenever the creek rises due to consecutive days of rain. This happened last year and cost him $400 to have it pumped out. This has the potential of being an ongoing problem. Ifhe could find someone to buy for $74,000, it would be gone. He is trying to sell it to the current renters for $50,000. While they understand the restrictions on the property, he doesn't think they realize the long-term effect regarding the inability to get fmancing on it in the future. In closing he stated that he does not see the value in this at all. He will put up a for sale sign in front of it tomorrow for $74,810 and see how fast it goes. Board of Equalization Minutes - September 27, 2007 Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Marlow closed the hearing. The Board will make a determination at a later date. Pa~e: 8 Arthur & Virginia Moyer 72 Harms Lane Port Ludlow, W A 98365 BOE: 07-89-R PN: 990603164 Mr. and Mrs. Moyer were both present. Appraiser Maryn Gossell represented the Assessor's office. After explaining the hearing process, Chairman Marlow swore in both parties. Under appeal is residential property situated at 72 Harms Lane, Port Ludlow. Mr. Moyer stated that he received the information the Assessor used in valuing his property, but, had a difficult time determining how it was used. Ifhe understands correctly, the data used was for the entire area of the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort (MPR). Port Ludlow is not a homogenous body. It consists of different values in North Bay than in South Bay. Certainly, in the case of North Bay they have seen a very fast rise in property values, especially land values. If you review the data presented by the Assessor's office you will see that the 139% value increase per year is highly influenced by the sale of bare land parcels. rfyou remove those sales from the calculation you will find that the value increase per year is 79.2%. He feels the different types of property should be treated differently. His property should not be valued based on sale averages. The improvement value does reflect the difference in the quality of the house. Their house is oflesser quality than other homes in the area. He feels that the sales data has not been analyzed correctly. You cannot combine all the sales which occurred in the entire Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort area. You have to look at each property based on its own characteristics. He was never given any documentation that showed sales of property that were comparable to his property. Currently, the property is assessed at $487,765 ($160,000 for the land and $327,765 for the improvements). Mr. Moyer estimates the value is $346,930 ($100,000 for the land and $246,930 for the improvements). Maryn Gossell stated that she has calculated all of the sales which have occurred in the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort (MPR) over the last four years. There were a total of 332 sales. Of those sales, 105 sold and changed ownership two or three times. Almost one out of three 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. In addition, the property sales which have occurred between January 1, 2007 and July 20,2007 continue to show an arrnual increase in value of 17.5% for improved properties and 34% for bare land properties. She commented on the comparable properties that the appellant provided in a letter she just received yesterday, and noted that the appellant's valuation has increased 40% which is lower than the comparable properties mentioned in the letter. His value is consistent and equitable among the neighboring properties. Board of Equalization Minutes - September 27, 2007 Pa2e: 9 With regard to the appellant's concern about quality not be being addressed, she stated that quality is always addressed in every appraisal. Each individual property is looked at based on its individual characteristics and its construction (time of construction, quality of materials, size, etc). All oftms is considered during the assessment process and is reflected in the price per square foot. Discussion ensued regarding comparable sales, average values and the assessment process. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Marlow closed the hearing. The Board will make a determination at a later date. Member DeLeo was not present for the following hearing. George & Madeleine Zeeler-Warner 4304 Amoroso Place Davis, CA 95618 BOE: 07-61-R PN: 990200018 George & Madeleine Zeeler- Warner were not present. Senior Appraiser Robert Shold represented the Assessor's office and was sworn in by the Chairman Marlow. The property under appeal is a condominium located at 91-6 N. Bay Lane, Port Ludlow. The appellants' reason for appealing their property valuation is listed on their petition as follows: "All top units were valued at the same price regardless of improvements inside. Our unit has never been updated. Still has old ships ladder, Oliginal kitchen (floor, cabinets, appliances from 1974). Several top units have had over $100,000 in improvements making them more valuable than ours. Please adjust our value down to $280,000." Currently, the property is assessed at $341,000 ($125,000 for the land and $216,000 for the improvements). The appellants' estimate of value is $280,000 ($105,000 for the land and $175,000 for the improvements). Robert Shold explained that this is a top floor unit located in the original North Bay condominiums just west ofthe marina in Port Ludlow. The difficulty with the appellants' issue is the Assessor's staff typically does not conduct interior inspections of homes. So, if a building permit is not obtained they have no way of knowing the actual interior status of any given unit. The appellants are stating that their unit has never been updated and many of the other units have been. They have not identified whether or not any of the units which have sold were updated. Comparable property sales were then presented which support the current assessed value. Adjustments have been made for other units which have not been updated, but, without any information on the appellant's property and without an interior inspection he is unable to confirm this and subsequently make an adjustment in value. A 10% reduction off of the improvement value is typically given for this issue. After reviewing the information submitted by both parties and hearing the testimony of the Assessor's representative, Chairman Marlow closed the hearing. The Board will make a determination at a later date. Board of Equalization Minutes - September 27, 2007 Pa~e: 10 REQUEST TO WAIVE FILING DEADLINE The Board reviewed a request from John & Leona Long to waive the filing deadline for the review of real property valuation determination for the following parcels: 021 191 006,021 191 007,212 020 010 & 212 020010. Based on the facts relating to the late filing of this petition the Board determined that the appellant did not meet the filing requirement as outlined by State law. State law requires that appeal forms must be received by the filing deadline, or postmarked no later than the filing deadline, as outlined in RCW 84.40.038 and WAC 458-14-056. These laws further describe specific exemptions for waiving the filing deadline. Based on the exemptions listed in the referenced Statute and WAC Rule, the Board did not find good cause for waiving the filing deadline and is unable to accept the appeal for the 2007 Board of Equalization season. Vice-Chairman Broders moved to deny the request to waive the filing deadline. Chairman Marlow seconded the motion. The motion carried. This decision is final and may not be appealed. The Clerk will write a letter to the appellants notifYing them of the Board's decision and will retain the petition for consideration during the 2008 Board of Equalization season. ASSESSMENT CORRECTION Vice-Chairman Broders moved to accept the following assessment correction. Member DeLeo seconded the motion. The motion carried. APPELLANT Dennis & Karen Hoeper APPEAL NO. BOB 07-51-R PARCEL NO. 983 400 404 Vice-Chairman Broders moved to adjourn the meeting until I 0:00 a.m. Monday, October 15, 2007. Chairman Marlow seconded the motion. The motion carried. Attest: fL:c. k,-lY~A-/ Erin Lundgren, Clerk oUthe Board JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF EQUALIZATION t~_._ ~jlJ/~Zan Richard A.~:;g~ViC~ (Pe"edc.t. ) James A. DeLeo, Member