Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM102207 1820 Jefferson Street P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 James A. DeLeo WUliam S. Marlow Richard A. Broders MINUTES October 22, 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 Wayne T. Bibbins P.O. Box 1941 Port Townsend, W A 98368 BOE: 07-13-R PN: 948304804 Wayne T. Bibbins was not present. Appraiser Dennis Pownall represented the Assessor's office and was sworn in by Chairman Marlow. Under appeal is a garage with an apartment above it located at 1645 Jackman Street, Port Townsend. As stated on Mr. Bibbins' petition and in a letter attached to his petition he is appealing his property valuation for the following reason: "My calculations are based on actual cost approach as I built the home. The home has a small 600 sq. ft. heated living space, and is mostly garage. In 2004, the unimproved land was assessed at $22,750. In 2005 the property was reassessed at $55,000. I purchased the property in March 2004 for $36,000. Here is factual documentation of "Sales Comparison" and "Cost Approach". Sales comparison: I paid $36,000 for this land in 2004. That is the true value as defined in the "Homeowners guide to property taxes", provided by the Washington State Department of Revenue. It represents the "value" that a "willing buyer paid to a willing seller", both parties unobligated. Nobody is ever obligated to purchase real property, it is completely voluntary, and never mandatory by any law of the state. So this criteria, although used in the states' and my calculation is irrelevant, lacks no pertinency to the determination. The Assessor claimed that in 2005, my property value went from $22,750 to $55,000. This represents an increase in assessed value of l40%! This determination was not done in respect to "sales comparison" or "cost approach". It is completely subjective on some other criteria that is not according to the states laws. A 140% increase in assessed value is completely subjective and bordering on unconstitutional. I believe the assessment is very highly over assessed and that property values vary Phone 1360)385-9100 Fax (360)385-9382 jeflbocc@co.jefferson.wa.us Board of Equalization Minutes - October 22, 2007 Pa~e:2 tremendously depending on numerous criteria. A properties only true value is based on the moment a willing buyer and a willing seller agree on a price. That price was $36,000. To compare property values in a "comparison approach" is highly subjective and subject to the Assessor's interpretation and many variables. A temporary over inflated Real Estate market perhaps should not be the basis of our tax code. The improvements on this said parcel cost me 543,680. The Assessor's office stated $94,000. That represents a "mark-up" of 115% from the real and actual "value" that I built the home for. The "cost of replacing this structure" as quoted from the homeowners guide to property taxes is $43,680 for me, as I am the person who built the home and I am the person levied taxes. Should the "cost approach" be based on the replacement cost of another home in the area? There are no other homes in the area with nearly identical characteristics as this one. To compare its "cost" to another home is again, subjective. I do challenge the calculations of this assessment and the constitutionality ofthis assessment, and will institue legal proceedings ifthere is not a compromise made in this assessment." The current assessment of the property is $149,000 ($55,000 for the land and $94,000 for the improvements). The appellant estimates the value is $82,680 ($36,000 for the land and $46,680 for the improvements). Mr. Pownall presented an aerial photograph of where the property is located, as well as two (2) sales of comparable properties located on either side of the appellant's property. The appellant claims he paid $36,000 for the land, however, Mr. Pownall presented a Real Estate Excise Affidavit showing he actually paid $43,000 for the property. He explained that the increase in the land value from $22,750 to $55,000 occurred when the 50% reduction for undeveloped land was removed from the property once the appellant constructed the improvements currently on the property. The $55,000 includes the value for utilities as well. This property value is fair and equitable. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Marlow closed the hearing. A determination will be made at a later date. Richard W. Bean 241 W. Swaney Port Hadlock, W A 98339 BOE: 07-154-LO 07-155-LO 07-156-LO 07-157-R 07-158-LO 07-159-LO PN: 961806705 961 806 706 961 806 707 961 806 708 961 806 709 961 806 717 Richard W. Bean was present. Appraiser Dennis Pownall represented the Assessor's office. After explaining the hearing process, Chairman Marlow swore in both parties. The property under appeal is a residence and six (6) parcels of land located at 241 W. Swaney, Port Hadlock. Mr. Bean stated he doesn't feel his property warrants a 100% increase in value. He understands that property has gone up in value, however, a 30% increase is more in line due to the property surroundings. His property is next to a wrecking yard and a level 3 sex-offender that has moved into his neighborhood across the street from him. He feels both of these factors negatively impact the value of his property. No improvements have been made to the property and the Real Estate market has declined. Following is the current assessment and the appellant's estimate of value for the parcels under appeal: Board of Equalization Minutes - October 22, 2007 PARCEL NUMBER 961 806705 - 961 806706 - 961 806707 - 961806708 - 961806709 - 961806717 CURRENT ASSESSMENT $19,000 (bare land) $4,000 (bare land) $4,000 (bare land) $114,520 (land $40,000/imps. $74,520) $8,000 (bare land) $4,000 (bare land) Pa~e: 3 APPELLANT'S ESTIMATE OF VALUE $12,350 $2,600 $2,600 $95,771 (land $29,900/imps. $65,871) $5,200 $2,600 Mr. Pownall stated that he is sympathetic to the appellant's concerns, but he his unable to determine the degree to which the issues affect the property value. He agrees that there is an issue with having a sexual predator living next door, but how permanent is that issue when that person could move away anytime. In the past he reduced the valuations of the properties adjacent to the junk yard. However, recent sales of property in the area don't show that the junk yard negatively affects the market value so the negative adjustments were removed. This property is assessed equitably with all the properties in the area. The total value of all the parcels the appellant owns is $149,520. The property is worth that at a very mmlmum. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Marlow closed the hearing. The Board will make a determination at a later date. Clell & Gail Whitney 891 Black Bear Road Port Townsend, WA 98368 BOE: 07-59-R PN: 942 600 612 Clell & Gail Whitney were present. Appraiser Dennis Pownall 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 two lots located at 51 Kem Street, Port Hadlock. Mr. Whitney stated that the poor condition of the neighborhood has greatly devalued their rental property. Because of the poor condition of the neighborhood they are only able to get a low amount for rent. The adjacent property is assessed for much less than their property even though they were built the same year. The adjacent property also has a front porch, 2-full bathrooms, built-in dishwasher, and a double-car garage which their property does not have. Mrs. Whitney presented photographs showing the poor condition ofthe neighbor's property. Two years ago they complained to the Health Department to do something about the junk on the property. The neighbor did clean up some of the junk, but after a while went right back to collecting more junk. The junk also attracted rats. While their property is being rented at this time, there were several people who looked at the place when it was vacant who chose not to rent it because they didn't want to live next to the property with all the junk. Mr. Whitney stated that if the neighbor's property is assessed less due to the junk on it, then they should have to clean it up. In addition, the market has decreased and nothing is selling like before. Board of Equalization Minutes - October 22, 2007 Pa~e:4 The property is currently assessed at $148,095 ($45,000 for the land and $103,095 for the improvements). The appellant estimates the value is $120,000 ($35,000 for the land and $85,000 for the improvements). Mr. Pownall stated that the neighbor's house is valued less due to the condition of the property. He does not disagree with the appellants' issues, but based on current sales, the value is fair. He realizes that the they aren't getting as much rent for the property as they would like because of the adjacent property. It is difficult to determine the impact that has on the value when circumstances could change and the property could be cleaned up tomorrow. This property is not valued based on the income produced. It is valued based on market sales. Mrs. Whitney agrees that the adjacent property could get cleaned up tomorrow which would make their place worth more, but for right now it is not. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Marlow closed the hearing. The Board will make a determination at a later date. Sandra, Randy & James Hansen 2002 West 14'. Street Port Angeles, W A 98363 BOE: 07-96-LO PN: 021321001 Sandra Hansen 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 narrow strip of waterfront property with no structures located off of SRl16 on Marrowstone Island. Ms. Hansen stated this property has been in the Hansen family since 1910, so there is some personal attachment and wishes to keep it in the family. The property is a narrow strip ofland that is eroding. It could never be developed and is only wide enough to allow access to the beach. She presented a survey and explained that originally the property was 3/4 of an acre in size. Due to erosion it is now .33 of an acre in size. They are paying taxes on property they don't even have anymore. The property is currently assessed at $75,600 (bare land). Ms. Hansen estimates the property value is $37,800. Mr. Pray explained how he valued the property using a low bank waterfront rate with a reduction of 93% due to the lack of depth and utility. The property value is also being reduced another 48% for excess front footage. He valued the property based on the Assessor's records showing 600 feet of waterfront and 600 feet of tidelands. Just south ofthis property there was sale of 20 1 feet tidelands for $12,000. The appellant's tidelands are assessed at $8,385. In answer to a question from Mr. Pray, Ms. Hansen replied that adjacent property owners are not interested in purchasing the property so no price was ever discussed. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Marlow closed the hearing. The Board will make a determination at a later date. Board of Equalization Minntes - October 22, 2007 Pa~e:5 Cnrtis R. Wilcox 3329 Beaver Loop Kenai, AK 99611 BOE: 07-54-R PN: 978 900 071 Curtis Wilcox was 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 320 Verner Avenue, Port Ludlow. On the petition form the appellant explained the following reasons for appealing his property valuation: "I visited this land recently. The garage is falling down and is unusable. The house is in constant need of repair. The land has drainage issues - north facing - poor water - and would not be a buildable lot in today's market. Please go visit the property and see for yourself." The property is currently assessed at $97,495 ($72,500 for the land and $24,995 for the improvements). The appellant estimates the value is $53,000 ($38,000 for the land and $15,000 for the improvements). Mr. Pray noted that size adjustments were made to the value of this property after the appellant's petition was filed. So the actual value of the property is $84,995 ($60,000 for the land and $24,995 for the improvements). He was only able to find one comparable property sale in the area which sold three times since the last revaluation cycle four years ago. The appellant noted the poor condition of the improvements, but it is currently only being assessed at $24,995. The appellant is currently living out of state, and while no one was home at the time he visited the property, it did appear to be lived in. Looking at the notes from the previous appraiser this property was being rented out. So there may be rental income on the property. Mr. Pray believes the current assessed value is fair. 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 I 0:00 a.m. Monday, October 24, 2007. Member DeLeo seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Attest: t;, ~~' C/U_-'" L/ .1,! . Ie..... Erin iundgren, erk of the . ail' JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF EQUALIZATION (~-_.. William S',.,Marlow, C~airman ~AA~ Richard A. {;;>!~, Vice-Chairman (Deee <<5,''''- ) James A. DeLeo, Member