Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM101807 ()\ tQUAlb ~~~ g~~~6 co:i ~)2 .... 0< . ~~J ~~lilN~ 1820 Jefferson Street P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 James A. DeLeo William S. Marlow Richard A. Broden MINUTES October 18, 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. ASSESSMENT CORRECTION AND PETITION WITHDRAWAL Vice-Chairman Broders moved to accept the following petition withdrawal and assessment correction. Member DeLeo seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. APPELLANT Donna Munn Helen Weber APPEAL NO. BOE 07-50-R BOE 07-109-R PARCEL NO. 961 800606 990 603 160 HEARINGS Mats Mats Bay Trust Nancy Zingheim, Stephen Walsh, Trustee 6281 Oak Bay Road Port Ludlow, W A 98365 BOE: 07-71-R PN: 921324014 Bill Zingheim 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 5 acres ofland with 214 feet of waterfront located at 6281 Oak Bay Road, Port Ludlow. Mr. Zingheim presented an aerial photograph of the property which shows the general outline of the property. He also presented a map outlining wetlands and a creek on his property. He contends that over half of his property is a wetland making it unusable due to development setback requirements, thereby, reducing the value of his property. A neighboring property owner appealed the value of her land and Phone (360)385-9100 Fax (360)385-9382 jeflbocC@Co.jefferson.wa.us Board of Equalization Minutes - October 18, 2007 Pa~e:2 received a reduction in value because it is a wetland and unbuildable. The situation is the same with his property. There are also wells which diminish the usable land due to setback requirements. The topography of the property also limits the area that could be developed, and the location ofthe well on the property precludes the installation of a septic system. Essentially, his property is unbuildable with the exception of what is there now. Ifhis modular home were to burn down or be removed, not much of a house could be constructed in its place due to the small 1,100 square foot size of the building footprint. When he attempted to get a loan, he was told that he could only get $125,000 which was 80% of the value of the property that they perceived because of the lack of buildability. This is a long stretch from what the County says it's worth. In addition, he disputes the comparable property sales used by the Assessor to value his property and noted that the bank could not find any comparable properties during the loan process. For these reasons he feels the current assessment is grossly over valued. The current assessment ofthe property is $439,275 ($352,025 for the land and $87,250 for the improvements). Mr. Zingheim estimates the value is $200,960 ($133,825 for the land and $67,135 for the improvements). Mr. Pray presented and discussed the comparable property sales he used to value the property. Based on sales he came up with a waterfront rate of $3,000 per front foot with a 35% reduction in value for those properties on the mud flats. The appellant's property is on the mud flats and the land value is receiving this adjustment (-20% for mud flats and -15% for site quality). In speaking with the appellant prior to the hearing he was confused by the appellant referring to the property as vacant land and not being buildable when in fact there is a structure already on the property. Records show that the appellant purchased the land in February 1994 for $140,000 and then later moved in a mobile home and built a garage on the property. Mr. Pray added that he was willing to reduce the appellant's property value by an additional 15% for wetlands, but, since there was such a difference of opinion in value between him and the appellant, he thought it would be best have a hearing and leave the decision to the Board. Mr. Zingheim stated that the net amount of his land that is usable is comparable to the property which sold for $231,500 (Assessor's comparable #2). The value should be based on what land you can use. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Marlow closed the hearing. A determination will be made at a later date. Shirley Anne Sandoz Trust P.O. Box 201 N ordland, W A 98358 BOE: 07-74-R PN: 021212001 Shirley Sandoz 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 approximately 6 acres ofland with 1,100 feet of waterfront located at 1430 Schwartz Road, Nordland. Ms. Sandoz stated that in preparation for the hearing she hired a certified residential appraiser to conduct an appraisal of her property to determine the fair market value of her property. A copy of that appraisal was submitted to the Board as additional evidence in support of her appeal. The appraisal indicates a Board of Equalization Minutes - October 18, 2007 Pa~e: 3 value of $775,000. Her property is unique, making it difficult to find comparable neighboring properties. This appraisal is based on other comparable properties in the County. The property is currently assessed at $1,053,480 ($826,750 for the land and $226,730 for the improvements). The appellant estimates the value is $776,730 ($550,000 for the land and $226,730 for the improvements). Mr. Pray stated that two ofthe comparable properties (#1 and #2) included in the appellant's appraisal are waterfront parcels which are split by a highway. There is not much of a view from either ofthese two properties in comparison to the appellant's view. Comparable properties #3 and #4 used in the appraisal also do not compare to the appellant's property in that they have significantly less waterfront footage. The negative adjustments given by the appraiser to the comparable property values for these differences are very low. Comparable property #5 is more similar to the appellant's property, however, it has not sold. It is an active listing and only has 107 feet of waterfront compared to the appellant's property with 1,100 feet of waterfront. Again, with this comparable, the appraiser did not apply much of a negative adjustment in value to the comparable property for the difference in waterfront footage. He doesn't feel that the comparable property sales used for this appraisal were the best available comparable properties. Mr. Pray discussed the comparable properties he used to value the appellant's property. He noted that he has already applied a 55% reduction in the land value for excess front footage, plus given another 55% reduction in the land value for depth and shape. The appellant purchased this property in July 2003 for $625,000 and has been undergoing a significant remodel. He asked Ms. Sandoz what her remodel costs have been to date? Ms. Sandoz replied that it is around $94,500. She also noted that the house is unsaleable in its current state of reconstruction. Mr. Pray concluded that based on the purchase price and the amount of the remodel materials, not including labor, because Ms. Sandoz's husband is doing the majority of the work, he believes the appellant's valuation estimate of $775,000 is low. Ms. Sandoz stated that the appraiser who conducted her appraisal did take into account the Assessor's comparable property #1, but did not cite it because it was a land only sale and does not have a house on it. The Assessor's other comparable properties #2 and #3 were not used by the appraiser because it was felt they were not very recent, having occurred in 2005 and 2006. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Marlow closed the hearing. The Board will make a determination at a later date. James & Joan Edwards 235 Mats View Terrace Port Ludlow, W A 98365 BOE: 07-78-R PN: 970900011 James and Joan Edwards were 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 lot located at 235 Mats View Terrace, Port Ludlow. Board of Equalization Minutes - October 18, 2007 Pa~e: 4 Mr. Edwards explained that they are only appealing the value ofthe land. Directly behind their property is a mobile home and a grove of alder trees that have blocked most of their view. They had their property on the market for a year with no offers. Some individuals would not even look at the house when they saw the mobile home situated on the adjacent parcel. This has had an impact on the value of their property. He noted that lot 6 sold for $399,000. They had their house listed for sale for $785,000 which turned out to be a figment of their Realtor's imagination. Photographs were presented in support of the appeal. The property is currently assessed at $656,950 ($210,000 for the land and $446,950 for the improvements). The appellant estimates the value is $581,950 ($135,000 for the land and $446,950 for the improvements). Mr. Pray presented comparable land sales which occurred in the area and noted that both comparable properties have sold twice since the last revaluation period 4 years ago. He believes the appellant's property is superior to the comparable properties. Discussion ensued regarding comparable properties. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Marlow closed the hearing. The Board will make a determination at a later date. Dale & Lisa Wilde 419 North Bayview Drive Port Ludlow, W A 98365 BOE: 07-80-R PN: 921332032 Dale Wilde 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 with detached accessory dwelling unit and shop situated on a waterfront lot located at 419 N. Bayview Drive, Port Ludlow. Mr. Wilde stated that he submitted an analysis of properties along Olele Point comparing various characteristics as well as assessed values. He noted that his waterfront property is a rock beach with no access. In addition, his property is subject to restrictive covenants placed on the property by the Washington State Department ofFish and Wildlife due to a Bald Eagles' nest that was discovered on the property. His appeal of these covenants was denied and now there is an eagle management plan in place which states that he is unable to disturb the property within 100 feet radius of the tree with the eagles' nest. This severely restricts the use of his property and devalues it as well. Mr. Wilde also disputes the Assessor's methodology of valuing property, noting that two of the comparable sales used by the Assessor are located on Mats Mats Bay and are not at all comparable to his property. The property is currently assessed at $1,788,585 ($817,075 for the land and S97l,510 for the improvements). Mr. Wilde estimates the property value is $1,278,295 ($473,450 for the land and $804,845 for the improvements). Board of Equalization Minutes - October 18, 2007 Pa~e:5 Mr. Pray discussed the comparable sales he used to value the property. From his observation, the appellant's house appears to be a high quality custom built home which is comparable to sale #3 that he presented. The appellant's land value is receiving reductions for excess front footage, topography, access and negative impacts due to the eagle's nest. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Marlow closed the hearing. The Board will make a determination at a later date. Robert Marsh Marsh Family Trust 152 West Maple Port Ludlow, W A 98365 BOE: 07-97-R PN: 984000512 Robert Marsh was not present. Appraiser Maryn Gossell represented the Assessor's office and was sworn in by Chairman Marlow. The property under appeal is a residence and three (3) lots located at 152 Maple Street, Port Ludlow. In an attachment to the appellant's appeal he explained his reasons for appealing his property valuation: "The east third of assessed property (lot #12 of original plat) apparently has no reasonable economic value to us. This is referred to in a memo to us dated July 24, 2007 from the Department of Community Development. This memo should be available to each member of the Board. Please pay attention to the restrictions implicated on this property. Especially noteworthy, is the last statement on the backside outlined under the hearing: Recommendation - - Find Another Location, etc. We honestly feel that the Fisheries have a greater interest in that portion of land than we do. Let them pay that portion of assessed valuation. In any event, we should not be assessed for property they have ultimately declared as theirs. Note: There are no fish in that creek. We feel that should we be placed in a position to find another location as recommended; the hardships we endure would be magnified due to our health and age. However, should we be placed in the uncomfortable position of paying taxes in the amount due in 2008; we may be homeless, hungry and hurting. It is difficult to budget any funds for future expenses (such as property taxes) not knowing what they might be. Especially, a 60% increase. We are retired on a fixed income and do not benefit from cost of living increases." The property is currently assessed at $127,925 ($46,000 for the land and $81,925 for the improvements). The appellant estimates the value is $101,210 ($30,660 for the land and $70,550 for the improvements). Ms. Gossell presented a map outlining the appellant's property as well as three comparable property sales located adjacent to the appellant's property. The attached photograph was taken in 1998 and shows the property with a carport which has since been enclosed and converted to a house. A wood porch/deck was also added. She discussed the comparable sales she used in valuing the property which support the current assessed value. Vice-Chairman Broders asked about the appellant's concern with a type 5 stream on the property preventing the appellant from building an addition on his property. Ms. Gossell replied that the preconference report prepared by the Department of Community Development states their Board of Equalization Minutes - October 18, 2007 Pa2e: 6 recommendation is for the appellant to find another location for the addition beyond the buffer and leave the stream as is. She stated that she is not giving any type of an adjustment in value due to the stream. However, one of the lots is assessed at a lower rate because it is a non-waterview lot with limited utility due to septic restrictions. In answer to a question posed by Chairman Marlow, Ms. Gossell stated that it is unknov.:n if the appellant's proposed addition can be placed in another location or if the buffers encumber the entire property. Discussion ensued regarding the assessment methodology of land values. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Marlow closed the hearing. The Board will make a determination at a later date. Marilyn H. Elgin 31 Trader Lane Port Ludlow, W A 98365 BOE: 07-60-R PN: 990603178 Marilyn Elgin was present. Appraiser Maryn Gossell represented the Assessor's office. After explaining the hearing process, Chairman Marlow swore in both parties. Under appeal is a residence situated on a lot located at 31 Trader Lane, Port Ludlow. Ms. Elgin stated that she is concerned about her property taxes increasing more than 100% and her property value increasing from $33,000 to $95,000. She has reviewed the Assessor's sales information and wants an explanation of the increase. Trees are being taken down on many lots in Port Ludlow in order to improve the views. Her property does not have a view and is not comparable to these other lots. The property is currently assessed at $262,385 ($95,000 for the land and $167,385 for the improvements). Ms. Elgin estimates the value is $230,000 (a breakdown between land and improvements was not provided). Ms. Gossell stated that the appellant's property and comparable properties #1, #2, & #3 are all valued as non-view lots using the same land code. The three comparable property sales that were used in her assessment are located very close to the appellant's property as shown on the map. All are recent sales. Site view quality adjustments were made based on individual property views. The appellant's land value is currently receiving a 15% reduction for this factor. Ms. Gossell discussed the comparable property sales and compared the appellant's property value increase with the average annual valuation increase of properties located in the North Bay area of Port Ludlow. Land values in the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort (MPR) have skyrocketed over the last four years. Ofthe 332 property sales that occurred in the MPR since the last valuation period four years ago, 105 were "double sales", meaning they sold twice within the last four years. This data is accurate and the property valuations are equitable. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Marlow closed the hearing. The Board will make a determination at a later date. Board of Equalization Minutes - October 18, 2007 Pa~e: 7 Timothy & Dianne Jane Johnson 365 Camber Lane Port Ludlow, W A 98365 BOE: 07-68-R PN: 969700018 Timothy & Dianne Jane Johnson were present. Appraiser Maryn Gossell represented the Assessor's office. After explaining the hearing process, Chairman Marlow swore in both parties. Under appeal is a residence situated on a lot located at 365 Camber Lane, Port Ludlow. Mr. Johnson stated that he appreciates the difficulty ofthe Assessor's office job to value property, however, he feels other methods of valuation could be considered. From a property value standpoint, Port Ludlow is somewhat unique. He is not saying it is higher or lower, but, it is different than the rest of Jefferson County. Over half of the people living in Port Ludlow are predominantly from out of State. This creates different economic drivers that are going to expand and contract and values are not necessarily going to parallel the rest of the County. He realizes there are a lot of different ways to assess property values. There are manuals, databases, other sales and comparable values, etc. But, in order to look at the values as of January 1, 2007, he decided to review all sales that occurred within Port Ludlow, six (6) months prior and six (6) months after that date. Port Ludlow is divided into basically three (3) types of properties: 1) waterfront property; 2) view property; and 3) non-waterfront, non-view property. Their property falls within the third category, so he only compared his property value to the sales of non-waterfront, non-view property. Using the sales data he calculated the properties individual sale prices per square footage for each residence. There were very few sales of bare land, so it was difficult to determine the land value. He also looked at whether or not properties changed significantly between June 2006 and June 2007. In reviewing the sales that had occurred the prices appeared fairly flat. The age of their house is also older than the average age ofthe houses which sold during that time. He found that the average sale price was approximately $180 per square foot. To determine the land value he had to look at properties currently listed for sale on the market because there were very few sales. The average listing price is $87,000. One approach is to take the average price per square foot ($180) and apply it to the square footage of their house (1,875 sq. ft.) to arrive at the market value of $338,388. Another method would be to leave the residence value unchanged and adjust the land value down from 5140,000 to $87,000. He realizes that the land value includes some improvements, but not $60,000 worth of improvements. Based on the market, bare lots are not selling for $140,000. He noted that they have a nice lot, but it is steep and there are easements on two sides of it. In closing he added that he has no problem with how the property is appraised with respect to their neighbors. The neighborhood values were not based on recent sales. The value he is presenting is based on recent sales. Because there are different ways of looking at the value, perhaps there is a win-win scenario from the Board's perspective. The property is currently assessed at $380,020 ($140,000 for the land and $240,020 for the improvements). The appellants estimate the value is $338,388 (a breakdown between land and improvements was not provided). Board of Equalization Minutes - October 18, 2007 Pa~e: 8 Ms. Gossell confirmed that the appellants' residence is 1,875 sq. ft., built in 1993 and remodeled in 2005 with an addition offto one side of the house. In reviewing the comparable data presented by the appellant for the sales which occurred between June 2006 and June 2007, she noted that the current assessment of all of the properties listed is lower than the sales price. She computed the percentage of the assessed value to all the sales prices which results in a 96% median. She presented three (3) comparable property sales that occurred in 2005 and were used to assess the property. One of which was a "double sale" meaning it sold twice since the last revaluation period four years ago. In assessing property she looks at all ofthe sales that occurred within the four year revaluation period, not just the sales that OCCUlTed within the six (6) month period before and after the date of assessment. More weight is given to "double sales" because they are the best indicator of value. Also heavily considered were sales that took place in 2005, 2006 and the first few months of2007. She believes the 2005 sales are good comparable properties. Land is not sold by the square foot noted Ms. Gossell. It is a characteristic that determines the market value, but land is not valued in that way. Based on sales data, improved property values have increased an average of 19.7% per year in the South Bay area of Port Ludlow. The Assessor's sales data shows that the market is not flat. Properties are still selling for more than they are currently assessed. Mr. Johnson stated that sales of non-waterfront, non-view property have been flat. There is nothing in the Assessor's argument talking about sales of real property. He is looking at more recent sales which show the market is flat. What happened in 2005 is not what is currently happening with regard to the market. He disagrees that his type of property is escalating in value at 19% per year. Ms. Gossell added that she reviews the Real Estate web site listings to get an idea of what is on the market and what is selling. She noted that the appellants' property is currently listed for sale for $398,500 and is under contingent to be sold. Of course it is just a listing price. Mr. Johnson stated that their asking price was reduced to $383,000 and it is under contingent which he is not at liberty to discuss, but is significantly less than $380,000. It has also been on the market for a long time. There is no relationship between asking price and selling price. He would sell it in a minute for $380,000. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Marlow closed the hearing. The Board will make a determination at a later date. Vice-Chairman Broders moved to adjourn the meeting until 10:00 a.m. Monday, October 22,2007. Chairman Marlow seconded the motion. The motion carried. Att~. _ ~~! If [. 1 .' .. ' . /'-LA,_..../, L- _ / ~ Ent':undgren, ler o1i:~~aia--' JEFFERSON COUNTY BO~RD OF EQUALIZATION f- ~illiam r.Jv1lB' 10 .~_~I irman :-; ~I P/4. 0. ----c Richard A. ro ers, ice-CMi,u,an (D,'e~~",l.) James A. DeLeo, Member