Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM101507 1820 Jefferson Street P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 James A. DeLeo Wllliam S. Marlow Richard A. Broders MINUTES October 15, 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 Kenneth L. Schneider Family Rev. Trust 181 Pioneer Drive Port Ludlow, W A 98365 BOE: 07-45-R PN: 990 600 389 Mr. Schneider was not present. Appraiser Maryn Gossell represented the Assessor's office and was sworn in by Chairman Marlow. Under appeal is a residence situated on a lot located at 181 Pioneer Drive, Port Ludlow. The appellant's reason for appealing his property valuation is listed on his petition as follows: "Neighbor to the south does not maintain upkeep - six photos attached. New House (adjacent north) sold for $430,000 2 to 3 years ago, was vacated, has not sold. North property landscaping is limited to an occasional effort." The property is currently assessed at $297,695 ($95,000 for the land and $202,695 for the improvements). The appellant estimates the value is $240,000 (567,000 for the land and $173,000 for the improvements). Maryn Gossell stated the house was built in 1980. She presented three comparable property sales in support ofthe assessment. All of which are "double" sales, meaning the properties sold twice since the last revaluation cycle four years ago. She recognizes the appellant's issue with regard to the lack of maintenance/upkeep on the neighboring parcel to the south. It is difficult to determine to what degree this issue impacts the value of the property since it can quickly be remedied. Therefore, she has not made any adjustment to the value for this issue. Phone (360)385-9100 Fax (360)385-9382 jeflbocc@co.jefferson.wa.us Board of Equalization Minutes - October 15, 2007 Pa~e: 2 Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Marlow closed the hearing. The Board will make a determination at a later date. Miles & M. Elizabeth Miller 52 Wells Ridge Court Port Ludlow, W A 98365 BOE: 07-49-R PN: 990100003 Ms. Miller 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 52 Wells Ridge Court, Port Ludlow. Ms. Miller stated she is only appealing the land value. After getting clarification on the information she received from the Assessor and answers to her questions about the assessment process, Ms. Miller stated that she compared the value of her property to other properties located on Wells Ridge Court. She doesn't understand why the land value of her property is assessed higher than two other parcels (lot 5 & 6) on the same street that are larger or similar in size and one parcel (lot 7) that has a water view. The property is currently assessed at $470,545 ($140,000 for the land and $330,545 for the improvements). The appellant estimates the value is $430,545 ($100,000 for the land and $330,545 for the improvements). Maryn Gossell explained that the appellant's property was given a 30% increase in value for size of the site. She reviewed three comparable property sales she used in valuing the property. Two ofthe properties were "double" sales, meaning they sold twice since the time of the last assessment four years ago. According to the Assessor's records the appellant's property is .60 acre in size. The three comparable properties used in the assessment are all substantially smaller than the appellant's property with lot sizes of .33, .32, .37 acres. She stated that there are many factors considered when assessing land such as topography, view, size, shape, corner, etc. Utilities on the property are also assessed and included in the land value. On this same street, she added that lot 8 which is raw land with no improvements has sold twice within the last four years. It sold in January 2005 for $100,000 and then sold again one year and 10 months later in October 2006 for $235,000. Lot 7 has also sold twice. It sold in December 2004 for $100,000 and then again six months later in June 2005 for $117,500. She did not include these sales in the packet for this hearing because they are view properties and she is not assessing the appellant's property as view property. While these sales are not comparable to the appellant's property, it does show that there has been activity in the immediate neighborhood for raw land. The Assessor's office has been tracking improved property and bare land sales since they closed the rolls on July 20,2007. Based on the figures, the current assessed value is at 81.8% of the bare land sales. This shows they are below 100% of market value at this time. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Marlow closed the hearing. The Board will make a determination at a later date. Board of Equalization Minutes - October 15, 2007 Pa~e: 3 Thomas I. Bradshaw 134 Deer Hollow Circle Port Ludlow, W A 98365 BOE: 07-52-R PN: 948 200 020 Mr. Bradshaw 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 134 Deer Hollow Circle, Port Ludlow. Mr. Bradshaw sketched out his property in relationship to his neighborhood on a white board and explained that the back of his property abuts the community tennis courts which are hidden behind trees. His property does not border the golf course and he has no view of the water. In addition, there a 15' easement on his property for access to the adjacent lot 19. This takes up a considerable portion of his property. There is a second easement on the property because the house on an adjacent parcel was put too close to the property line. Except for utility easements, there are no other easements on any of the neighboring parcels in the area. His property is valued the same or more than other lots in the area with outstanding views and no easements. The value appears to be unequal and inappropriately high. The property is currently assessed at $537,005 ($210,000 for the land $327,005 for the improvements). The appellant estimates the value is $495,000 ($170,000 for the land and $325,000 for the improvements). Maryn Gossell explained how she valued the appellant's property. She noted that the appellant submitted a letter from a Realtor with John L. Scott Realty in Bainbridge Island that states "The home is in like-new and is in excellent condition with many upgrades. The home is beautifully landscaped ... including a partial view to the Hood Canal." The Realtor also states in the letter that the County's assessed value is typically below the actual market value. Bainbridge Island is on an annual assessment cycle. Property in Jefferson County is assessed once every four years. She presented comparable property sales that were used in the current assessment of the appellant's property. In August 2007 a parcel adjacent to the appellant's property sold for $400,000. In talking with the Realtor involved with this sale she learned that it was a "distressed" sale, because the owner was pressured to sell for health reasons. This sale was under contract in two days and is not reflective of market value due to the urgency to sell. Therefore, it does not have any weight with regard to the market value of the appellant's property. But, she wanted the Board to be aware of it because it is right next door to the appellant's property. She confirmed that there is an easement on the appellant's property, but, stated it is impossible for her to ascertain if it has a negative impact on the value. She does not believe that it does, so she did not make any negative adjustment to the value for that issue. Over the last four years improved property sales in the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort (MPR) increased on average 21.7% per year and bare land property sales increased on average 139% per year. One in three sales in the MRP were "double sales" (properties which sold twice since the last assessment cycle four years ago). Board of Equalization Minutes - October 15, 2007 Pa~e: 4 She noted that from the time the assessment rolls were closed (July 20,2007), the Assessor's office has been tracking improved property and bare land sales in the entire revaluation area which includes Port Ludlow. Based on the figures, the current assessed value is at 89.7% of improved property sales and the current assessed value of bare land property is at 81.8% of the bare land sales. This shows they are below 100% of market value at this time. Mr. Bradshaw pointed out that all the comparable property sales that were presented are on the golf course. His property is not, nor does he have a view of the golf course. He doesn't see how they can be used as comparable properties. He added that he does not have a view ofthe Hood Canal in spite of what Ms. Gossell has said. He has a view of Whidbey Island that is about one degree through a gap in the trees which are growing rapidly. Next year there will be no view and he has no control over that as he is not allowed to cut any trees. As far as the sale of the property next to his, he does not believe it was a "distessed" sale. He thinks they were eager to sell, but, the fact that they wanted to sell in a hurry is a personal decision. Local Realtor's don't know why it sold for such a low amount, but, they don't believe it was a "distressed" sale. Discussion ensued regarding the comparable sales and the easements on the property. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Marlow closed the hearing. The Board will make a determination at a later date. George & Goldie Leslie 7705 Onyx Drive SW Lakewood, W A 98498-4847 BOE: 07-62-R PN: 921294002 Mr. Leslie 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 a waterfront lot located at 551 Bay Way, Port Ludlow. Mr. Leslie takes issue with the fact that the owner of the neighboring parcel operates a helicopter to and from that parcel. He feels this is a safety hazard and prevents them from eJ1ioying the use oftheir property. He's not sure the Assessor's staff was aware ofthis issue at the time of the assessment. The Jefferson County Code does not address private heliports and airfields. There is no language in the Code to prevent it or restrict it. The appellant's believe their property value is decreased because of this issue, but, there is no way for them to determine how much it decreases the value. There are no comparable property sales. He feels the expertise of the Assessor's staff should enable them to make a determination on how this affects the value ofthe property. Included with the petition were photographs of the neighbor's property and information about the helicopter flightpath. The property is currently assessed at $688,390 ($462,190 for the land and $226,200 for the improvements). The appellant did not provide an estimate of the value. Board of Equalization Minutes - October 15, 2007 Pa~e:5 John Pray presented two comparable property sales located directly south of the appellants' property. It is difficult for the Assessor's staffto find market evidence showing that the helicopter has a negative influence on the value of the property. There are no sales indicating a drop in the market value due to this issue. It is also difficult for the Assessor's staffto track how often the helicopter is flown to and from the property since it is not an airport. The only similar example he can think of are the properties located above the Jefferson County International Airport in the Woodland Hill area. Sales in that area do not indicate a market decline due to the proximity of the airport. Mr. Leslie added that he has no market evidence relating to the affect, however, ifhe was a potential buyer looking at this property and had knowledge of the "kit-built" helicopter operating next door, he would offer to pay a lower amount or simply not purchase the property. Discussion ensued regarding how other parcels in the area are affected. Mr. Leslie stated the helicopter landing pad is located right next to the owner's house. The owner has been operating the helicopter intermittently for approximately 3-4 months. It is not operated daily. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Marlow closed the hearing. The Board will make a determination at a later date. David W. Heid 80 Burns Road Port Ludlow, WA98365 BOE: 07-90-LO PN: 921194010 Mr. Reid was not present. Appraiser John Pray represented the Assessor's office and was sworn in by Chairman Marlow. The property under appeal is approximately 1.6 acres of bare land located at 82 Burns Road, Port Ludlow. The appellant's reason for appealing his property valuation is that a certified septic system designer looked at his property and dug test holes and determined the soil would not merit an attempt to apply for a septic permit. In a letter to the appraiser attached to the petition, Mr. Heid stated that he would get a statement from the certified septic designer substantiating this fact. A letter has not been submitted to the appraiser. The property is currently assessed at $204,500 (bare land). The appellant estimates the value is $90,000. John Pray stated that according to the appellant he is unable to get a septic system on the property. This issue was taken into consideration during the assessment and the property is receiving a 75% reduction in value for depth and utility. In addition, a reduction of $1 0,000 was made for the lack of utilities on the site. He presented sales of comparable property that support the current assessment. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Marlow closed the hearing. The Board will make a determination at a later date. Board of Equalization Minutes - October 15, 2007 Pa~e: 6 Ross Budden 1218 West Dravus Street Seattle, W A 98119 BOE: 07-69-R PN: 976500005 Mr. Budden 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 waterfront lot with a residence located at 94 Maple Lane, Port Ludlow. Mr. Budden stated his biggest concern is with the poor condition of his neighbor's property and its degradation of the neighborhood. He has submitted written testimony and photographs as evidence in support of his concerns. The Assessor provided three comparable property sales that were used to value his property, and he does not see any relation between them. The first comparable property is high-bank waterfront bare land with a septic system and a road. The second comparable property is located off of Olyrnpus Boulevard. There is a relatively modern house on the property and it is not waterfront. Comparable property #3 is high-bank waterfront with a large house that is palatial by comparison. There are ten lots in North Port Ludlow Beach Tracts which are virtually all the same with regard to size, bank height and topography. Yet, lots 7 & 8 are valued differently. In speaking with the Assessor's representative about the differing values, he was told that one of the lots was considered view property. He disputes this because the property goes all the way down to the beach. He used to own that property and just recently sold it. It is low-bank/no-bank waterfront and has a creek on it. He doesn't understand why there is such a disparity among the property values. Mr. Budden discussed the poor condition of the property (parcel #976500004) adjacent to his stating that it has had a failed septic system since 1994 and causing sewage to be dumped on the beach since that time. He has been trying to get the County to do something about it. The County's aerial photographs show the degrading condition of the property with cars and stuff all over the property. If someone were interested in purchasing his property and saw the adjacent property they would turn around and run. He noted that the adjacent property also has a different valuation which is lower than his property value and others in the neighborhood. This property has its own road, while he and his neighbor on the other side of his property share a road. He would like to know the rationale for how the properties in his neighborhood were valued. He is not going to argue about the improvement values with regard to the house because they are fairly subjective. But, the land is all the same and it is not being treated equally. Another neighbor who owns two lots, moved the house from one ofthe lots so it now straddles both lots. The value of one ofthe lots is currently being assessed with no improvements and the land value is only assessed at $136,800. The property is currently assessed at $345,695 ($254,820 for the land and $90,875 for the improvements). Mr. Budden estimates the value is $190,875 ($100,000 for the land and $90,875 for the improvements). Board of Equalization Minutes - October 15, 2007 Pa~e: 7 John Pray reviewed the three comparable sales he used in his assessment. Comparable property #1 located off of Olympus Boulevard was a bare land sale. This property sold twice since the last revaluation was conducted four years ago. It sold in August 2004 for $119,000 and then sold again one year and two days later for $265,000. It is 50' of medium-high bank waterfront. This is the only recent sale of bare land along Olympus Boulevard. Comparable property #2 also sold twice. It sold in April 2005 for $265,000 and then sold again in August 2007 (after the current revaluation appraisal date ofJanuary 1, 2007) for $365,000. While this property is not waterfront, he used it to show that it sold for more than the assessed value of the appellant's property which is waterfront. Comparable property #3 is low-bank waterfront which sold for $575,000 in August 2005. Based on these sales he determined a rate per front of $4,000 for these low-bank waterfront parcels. In regard to the appellant's concern about the individual values of the parcels, he explained that each parcel is valued on its individual characteristics and which vary from each other. Mr. Pray noted that the appellant sold lot 8 in August 2007 for $500,000. The parcel that the appellant owns which is subject to this appeal is currently being assessed at $3,000 per front with a 10% reduction in value for topography. The parcels south of the appellant's property are valued at $2,000 per front foot because of the elevation ofthe building sites and the fact that the building sites are set back from the actual waterfront. The sales which have occurred support the assessed values and show that the appellant's property is not overvalued. Mr. Budden added that the owners oflot 8, which is one of the parcels valued at $2,000 per front foot, chose to build their house further up on the lot instead of closer to the water. That is a personal choice and shouldn't devalue the property. The waterfront is still accessible. With regard to comparable property #2 he noted that the assessed value is $79,000 less than the purchase price of $365,000. Mr. Budden stated he is not necessarily complaining about the value, he just wants to see the same formula used for similar properties. As for the two lots with the house that sits on both of them, Mr. Budden feels the one lot should not be valued less than the others. It has the same waterfront, bank height, and easy access. Just because the owners say they are using it for storage doesn't make it right for them to pay less than the rest of the neighbors. He uses his garage and the apartment above it for storage. The apartment has never been occupied. It is the same as those neighbors that say they are using their house for storage. Mr. Pray reiterated that comparable property #2 sold in April 2005 for $265,000. That property was assessed as of January 1, 2007 prior to the property selling again in August 2007 for $365,000. That most recent sale occurred after the rolls were closed and therefore could not be considered when the property was revalued. This is why there is the discrepancy between its assessment and most recent sale price. With regard to the property that has the house straddling both lots, Mr. Pray explained that he valued one lot at a lower amount because it cannot be sold as a separate buildable lot. That lot is now encumbered by the house which sits on a portion of it. While the two lots were not procedurally consolidated, they cannot be sold separately for this reason. The assessed value of the improvements is included on the other lot. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Marlow closed the hearing. The Board will make a determination at a later date. Board of Equalization Minutes - October 15,2007 Pa~e: 8 APPROVAL OF MINUTES Vice-Chairman Broders moved to approved the minutes of August 27, and 29, 2007 and September 10, 2007 as presented. Member DeLeo seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. ASSESSOR'S CERTIFICATE OF ASSESSMENT ROLLS FOR 2007 Vice-Chairman Broders moved accept the Assessor's Certificate of Assessment Rolls for 2007 in the amount of$4,575,117,000. Member DeLeo seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. ASSESSMENT CORRECTIONS AND PETITION WITHDRAWALS Vice-Chairman Broders moved to accept the following petition withdrawals and assessment corrections. Member DeLeo seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. APPELLANT APPEAL NO. PARCEL NO. Ryan & Ann Dicks BOE 07-06-LO 801 333 006 " " BOE 07-07-LO 801 334 001 " " BOE 07-08-LO 801 334002 " " BOE 07-09-LO 801 334003 " " BOE07-10-R 801334004 " " BOE 07-11-LO 801 334005 " " BOE 07-12-LO 801 334 006 James & Melva Fitzmorris BOE 07-66-R 990600 383 Edward Pelkey BOE 07-72-LO 984 000 404 " " BOE 07-73-R 984 000 405 Kenneth & Grace Easterbrook BOE 07-75-R 998 700 005 Andrew Dempsey BOE 07-77-LO 721174031 Timothy & Mari Bangle BOE 07-82-R 990 600 125 Robert Woodman BOE 07-83-LO 721 173002 " " BOE 07-84-R 721 173006 DBC #1, Brian Dempsey BOE 07-85-R 721 174006 " " BOE 07-86-LO 721174024 Gerald A. Strang BOE 07-91-LO 935 700 025 Melody Dickinson BOE 07-102-R 996 600 027 Patrick Dreckman BOE 07-142-LO 721 093025 Terrence O'Brien BOE 07-2l7-LO 990 600 131 Board of Equalization Minutes - October 15, 2007 Pa~e: 9 Vice-Chairman Broders moved to adjourn the meeting until 10:30 a.m. Wednesday, October 17,2007. Chairman Marlow seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Attest: 0,' 'J UkA/L/?hw i 1/~4 C/ Erin Lundgren, Clerk of the Board JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF EQUALIZATION /-- William S. Marlow, <;:hairman ~~i-~Af}lJ~ Richard A. Broders, Vice-Chairman (Dee "&<5 e L) James A. DeLeo, Member