Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM102507 ()\ tQU4lb. ~~~ g;j.,~~~ ~ co (~ ~\ Z I ) \. */ ~~ 1820 Jefferson Street P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 James A. DeLeo William S. Marlow Richard A. Brodera MINUTES October 25, 2007 William S. Marlow Richard A. Broders James A. DeLeo Chairman Vice-Chairman Member Chairman William S. Marlow called the meeting to order at 11 :30 a.m. in the presence of Vice-Chairman Richard A. Broders and Member James A. DeLeo. 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 Richard & Karen Fyock Monica Brown J ames Watson Anthony Monti Patrick Dreckman Saburo Sako/Robert Okura APPEAL NO. BOE 07-104-R BOE 07-116-R BOE 07-118-R BOE 07-128-R BOE 07-143-R BOE 07-218-LO PARCEL NO. 948 200 004 990600135 969 400 023 990 600 344 721093027 998 200 303 HEARINGS Reed & Kathy Ulmer 80 W. Ludlow Point Road Port Ludlow, W A 98365 BOE: 07-101-R PN: 969300001 Reed and Kathy Ulmer 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 waterfront parcel located at 80 W. Ludlow Point Road, Port Ludlow. Phone (360)385-9100 Fax (360)385-9382 jeflbocC@Co.jefferson.wa.us Board of Equalization Minutes - October 25, 2007 Pa~e: 2 Mr. Ulmer stated that their property is essentially being valued using an "85% good" factor which they dispute. The comparable property sales used by the Assessor's office to value their property include custom homes that are much higher in quality than their home. Their home borderlines something you would tear down. Built in 1968, it was one of the first homes on the bay. To his knowledge it was never remodeled prior to their ownership. They purchased the property in 2002 and are currently remodeling the home to increase its overall size as well as repair some major problems such as dryrot, insect infestations, leaky plumbing and inadequate electrical wiring. Once these upgrades have been completed then their home will be on par with the rest of the homes it is being compared with. Also of concern is the valuation of their dock. In comparison to other properties in the area with docks, their dock is not a "deep water dock". 1t can only be used for mooring small or low draft boats because part of the dock goes dry at low tide, and yet, it is being assessed the same as the other "deep water docks" in the area. Mr. Ulmer questioned why the Assessor's office did not consider the sale of waterfront property located across the street from their property as comparable or use it in the valuation process? This property was sold in August of2006 for $775,000. The home on this professionally landscaped property is much larger and newer with many custom features. Mr. Ulmer stated their house is not even in the same classification as this house but yet the value of this property is assessed lower than their value. He feels the County should use as many comparable sales as possible to determine the fair market value. Included with the petition is the Real Estate listing summary showing a photograph and the selling price of this property. A photograph of their property is included as well. With regard to the land valuation there were two other sales of property on their street that occurred in August 2006. One was a raw land sale of medium bank waterfront property which is almost identical to the height of their property. It sold for $350,000. The Ulmer's feel this fair market sale should have been the baseline market value for the land value. The parcel adjacent to this raw land parcel has a house constructed on it and was purchased by the same person. Mrs. Ulmer noted that the land value for both of these parcels is assessed at $600,000 with a reduction given to the raw land parcel of 50% as a "2nd lot" adjustment. Therefore, this property owner is getting a tax credit. She questioned how a parcel can have a base value of S600,000 when it only sold for S350,000? Discussion ensued regarding property valuations percentages of increase. Mr. Ulmer stated they understand valuations have increased and they are not appealing in order to get out of paying taxes. In general, they take exception to the method of valuation and the comparable sales that were used. It doesn't appear that properties were valued equitably. The property is currently assessed at $866,360 ($642,160 for the land and $224,200 for the improvements). The appellants estimate the value is $674,200 ($450,000 for the land and $224,200 for the improvements). Ms. Gossell presented a map highlighting the appellant's property and the six (6) comparable property sales she used to value the property. Also presented were two (2) exhibits on sales, a larger map showing the properties in the area and highlighting the various property assessments, and aerial photographs from the Washington State website that show the lay of the land. She explained that the parcels, including the Board of Equalization Minutes - October 25, 2007 Pa~e:3 appellants' parcel, located on the point, all have fantastic, expanding water views and are all assessed using a base land value of $600,000 per site. These are the only parcels in Port Ludlow that have low bank waterfront with deep water moorage. Comparable property sale #2 (lot 9) was the raw land sale discussed by the appellant that sold for $350,000. It has an extremely rocky beach and is not low bank, sandy waterfront like some of the other parcels. This parcel was purchased together with the adjacent parcel (lot 8). Lot 8 which is comparable property sale #1 sold for $1,150,000. When two lots are owned by the same individual the typical method used by the Assessor's office is to apply a 50% reduction to the second lot. She explained that the Assessor's staff can value waterfront property on a per site basis or by the front foot. The low bank waterfront parcels to the south of the point located along Ludlow Bay Road are valued by the front foot. The parcels are generally 100 feet wide and are valued at $6,500 per front foot which equates to $650,000 per site. She noted on the large map where the parcels are divided by the POli Ludlow Master Planned Resort (MPR). All the parcels located within the MPR have water and sewer utilities. The owners ofthe parcels located outside the MPR boundary are responsible for their own wells and septic systems. The parcels located outside the MPR boundary are generally 100 feet wide and are valued at $5,000 per front foot equating to $500,000 per site. The parcels on either side of the point do not have the same views and are assessed using a base land value of $450,000 per site. The property located across the street from the appellant's property that was mentioned in their testimony is currently valued at the $450,000 rate, and it is noted that the view from this property is completely different. The view from this parcel is of the inner Port Ludlow Bay and looks directly at houses located across the bay. On the aerial photographs she pointed out the docks and noted that she also included photographs of the appellants' property showing the garage that was built to replace the carport. At the time she assessed the property she was unaware that the appellants' dock was on a mudflat at low tide. The aerial photographs do not show that fact, so she trusts what the appellants' are stating is true. The other docks in the area are always on deep water, which she agrees is an advantage for having large or specialized boats. She is aware of two other docks in the area that are on a mudflat at low tide which are assessed at $40,000. The deep water docks are assessed between $75,000 to $80,000. She suggested that the Board may want to consider an adjustment to the appellants' dock value due to the mudflats. It is currently valued at $75,000 because it was thought to be a deep water dock at the time of the assessment. Ms. Gossell added that there were a total of 332 sales in the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort. Ofthose sales, 105 were "double sales", meaning they sold twice since the last revaluation period four years ago. In addition, there were two sales (lot 7 & lot 8) in the area south of the point off of Ludlow Bay Road which closed October 16, 2007. Both lot 7 and lot 8 each sold for $925,000. They are currently assessed at $849,000 and $730,000 respectively. This shows the assessed value of these parcels is below the market value and verifies that the assessments are correct. She added that the appellants' property is being rated as "good". She is aware the home was built in 1968 and she is giving it a negative adjustment of 15 years effective age. The other homes in the area do not have this same adjustment. She has visited the home twice which is currently under new construction. Board of Equalization Minutes - October 25, 2007 Pa~e:4 Mr. Ulmer stated that the appraiser's comment that they have a fantastic view from their property is highly subjective. Properties on the inner bay are unique and there are not many places like it that exist in the Puget Sound. The properties on that side face southwest and some have peek-a-boo views of the Olympic Mountains. People love that location which is very tranquil. In fact, their neighbors value their location and view just as much as they value theirs. Properties were for sale on both sides of the street when their neighbors were looking to buy property in the area and they chose to purchase property on the inner bay and not on the point. The Ulmer's property on the point also has a nice view, but, it is subjected to road noise from across the bay and noise from a neighbors busy use of their dock. Mr. and Mrs. Ulmer noted that they do not have a sandy beach. It is rocky and very similar to the Assessor's comparable property #2 in terms of grade, distance and vegetation. So they don't misrepresent their dock, they noted that it doesn't go completely dry at low tide. They are able to tie up their small fishing boat with a shallow draft to the end of it. It seems that the Appraiser has dramatically discounted the value of the two properties which each sold for $925,000, and yet they have much lower assessments. Clearly they are worth more. He questioned why those parcels aren't being assessed at their sale prices or why the same consideration isn't being made for their property? Mrs. Ulmer added that the sale of the property for $350,000 (appraiser's comparable sale #2 -lot 9) was a separate negotiated purchase from the adjacent parcel. Both parcels were purchased by the same individual, but, they were separate transactions. Mr. Ulmer noted that there are two other parcels on the point (lots 6 and 7) which are also owned by the same individual and yet they are not receiving a 50% reduction in value for one of their lots, like lots 8 and 9 are receiving. Ms. Gossell noted that prior to lots 8 and 9 being sold they were under the same ownership and were receiving the 50% reduction. As for the property sales for $925,000, they verify that her values are correct. The assessments of those properties are at about 87% of the sale prices and are not overvalued. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Marlow closed the hearing. The Board will make a determination at a later date. Thomas & D. Elizabeth Kingston 52 Sea Vista Terrace Port Ludlow, W A 98365 ROE: 07-100-R PN: 998700045 Thomas & D. Elizabeth Kingston 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 52 Sea Vista Terrace, Port Ludlow. Board of Equalization Minutes - October 25, 2007 Page: 5 Mr. Kingston stated they submitted copies of maps along with their petition that were printed from Jefferson County Community Development's website that show their property is located in an unstable recentlhigh hazardous landslide area. The property is hardpan and solid as a rock, but, any interested purchasers may be scared away because of the maps. He doesn't think there is real potential for a landslide to occur, but, the area has not been professionally evaluated in several years and the maps show differently. They are concerned that these maps could prevent the future sale of their property which negatively affects its market value. Mrs. Kingston stated that their assessment has increased by 5182,380. This is a significant increase considering the property is located in a hazardous landslide area. They did not know it was located in a hazardous landslide area when they purchase the property. The property is currently assessed at $487,945 (5230,000 for the land and $257,945 for the improvements). The appellants estimate the value is $305,565 (5118,000 for the land and $187,565 for the improvements). Maryn Gossell presented a map outlining the appellant's property and three (3) comparable property sales that were used in the assessment proQess. The appellant's property and all of the comparable property sales are located in Teal Lake Village. Comparable property #1 is located on the same street as the appellant's property and sold in May 2005 for $522,500. Comparable property #2 sold for $569,000 in July 2006, and comparable property #3 sold for $429,000 in August 2005. All the comparable properties are similar to the appellant's property and support the current assessed value. According to the appellant's petition they are asking for the value to be reduced to $305,565 which is the amount of their previous assessment established four years ago. For the assessment to be changed to the amount it was four years does not allow for any market growth. The sales that have occurred in Port Ludlow over the last four years show an average increase of almost 22% per year. One in three property sales that occurred within the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort (MPR) were "double sales", meaning they sold twice since the last revaluation period four years ago. The sales data clearly shows that the values of property in the MPR have skyrocketed over the last four years. Based on the comparable sales the appellant's improvement value is being assessed at $113 per square foot. Comparable property #1 is assessed at $113 per square foot. Comparable property #2 is assessed at $108, but, it also has $100,000 in value added for new construction which is not reflected in the square footage rate. Comparable property #3 is assessed at $122 per square foot. Based on the comparable property sales, the appellant's property is valued correctly. With regard to the appellant's concerns about the maps showing the property is located in a hazardous land slide area, she noted that no evidence has been seen indicating these maps have any impact on the market value. Mr. Kingston stated that the maps are fairly new and they just recently learned about their existence. Their property is shown in the middle of a "red zone" on a hazardous landslide area map. He has a hard time believing that it doesn't have an impact on the property value. Board of Equalization Minutes - October 25, 2007 Pa~e:6 Mrs. Kingston added that there are currently 173 homes for sale in Port Ludlow. No one would buy a home located in a landslide area over a home that is not. The appraiser may have not seen the maps, but, they are there and everyone is concerned about them. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Marlow closed the hearing. The Board will make a determination at a later date. David & Sally Unieski 333 S. Bay Lane Port Ludlow, W A 98365 BOE: 07-79-R PN: 969 400 029 David and Sally Unieski 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 waterfront parcel located at 333 S. Bay Lane, Port Ludlow. Mr. Unieski stated he was surprised when he received notice of his new assessment. It is his understanding that the assessment was based on the sale of another property (lot 27) located on Ludlow Point Road. He noted that he purchased his property the same year lot 27 was purchased. Prior to the construction of the house, lot 27 was originally purchased for $120,000. He purchased his property prior to constructing his house for $79,500 which is 1/3 less than lot 27. Up until this last assessment, his property had always been valued 1/3 less than lot 27. Additionally, his property consists of 48 feet of waterfront of which 10 feet is a drainage easement. Lot 27 has 100 feet of waterfront. The appraiser has reduced his property value by 25% for view and another 10% for limited frontage. Ifhis amount of waterfront is half the amount oflot 27 than it should be getting a reduction of 50% not 10%. He noted that the assessment of lot 27 also reflects a reduction in value of 25% for view. He questioned the reasoning behind the values for the view. He feels the value has to be based on the size and frontage of the lot. In twelve years his land value has increased in value from $79,500 to $302,500. Lot 27 is currently valued at $347,500. Ifhis land was valued 1/3 less than lot 27 when it was purchased, then it should still be valued 1/3 less now at $231,667. Then the reductions for view should be taken off that value. He also disputes the value of the improvements. His home has LP siding which reduces the value of the house. Ifhe sells the house he has to disclose to the new owner the fact that it has LP siding. There should be a reduction in value for this issue as well. The property is currently assessed at $665,175 (5302,500 for the land $362,675 for the improvements). The appellant estimates the value is $466,800 ($290,000 for the land and $176,800 for the improvements). Maryn Gossell presented a map outlining the appellant's property and three (3) comparable property sales that were used in the assessment process. She also presented a larger map showing the properties in the area and highlighting the various property assessments. She noted that the improvement value is receiving a reduction of$12,000 due to the fact that it has LP siding. So that issue is addressed with a value reduction. The land is also receiving a reduction in value of35% due to limited frontage, topography, view and easement. Board of Equalization Minutes - October 25, 2007 Pa~e:7 She explained that the properties in this area are valued by site. They are not being valued on a front foot basis. Comparable property #1 (lot 27), which is located one lot over from the appellant's property, sold for $775,000 in August 2006. Comparable property #2 is located between the appellant's property and lot 27 (Comparable #1) is raw land that sold for $242,500 in July 2004. Comparable property #3 is located across the street from the appellant's property and sold for $975,000 in August 2006. These comparable property sales support the current assessed value. The appellant's property value has increased approximately 13% per year since the last revaluation cycle four years ago. The average increase of improved property sales that have occurred within the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort (MPR) over the last four years is approximately 22% per year. She noted on the large map the location of the appellant's property and stated that their parcel along with the other parcels located on either side of the point are assessed using a base land value of $450,000 per site. Parcels on the point are assessed using a base land value of $600,000 per site. The low bank waterfront parcels to the south of the point located along Ludlow Bay Road are valued by the front foot. The parcels are generally 100 feet wide and are valued at $6,500 per front toot which equates to $650,000 per site. She noted on the map where the parcels are divided by the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort (MPR). All the parcels located within the MPR have water and sewer utilities. The owners of the parcels located outside the MPR boundary are responsible for their own wells and septic systems. The parcels located outside the MPR boundary are generally 100 feet wide and are valued at $5,000 per front foot equating to $500,000 per site. In addition, there were two sales (lot 7 & lot 8) that occurred last week in the area south ofthe point off of Ludlow Bay Road. Both lot 7 and lot 8 consist of 100 feet of waterfront with very old buildings and each sold for $925,000. Each parcel is currently assessed at $6,500 per front foot: Lot 7 is assessed at $849,000 and lot 8 is assessed at $730,000. The value ofS6,500 per front foot is the highest value in the area, so these sales show that the assessments are correct. Mrs. Unieski added that the appraiser's comparable property #3 located across the street from their property is not actually in the 'inner harbor'. That property has a completely different and fantastic view looking out toward Puget Sound, the mountains and the marina. It also has dock facilities which their property does not have. In fact, they are restricted from building a dock, installing a buoy, or anchoring a boat for any length of time. The other side of the point has better use of the water and beach area. Mr. Unieski noted that other properties in the area are receiving a reduction in value for the mudflats. When the tide goes out their property is also a mudflat, but, they are not receiving a reduction in value for this issue. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Marlow closed the hearing. The Board will make a determination at a later date. Board of Equalization Minutes - October 25, 2007 Pa~e: 8 William & Katherine Funke, Trustee 75 Scott Court Port Ludlow, W A 98365 BOE: 07-81-R PN: 821162012 William and Katherine Funke 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 waterfront lot located at 75 Scott Court, Port Ludlow. Mr. Funke discussed a map and photographs of properties in the area. The appraiser's comparable property #2 is approximately Y2 an acre (20,000 sq. ft.) and located on a point, while his property is approximately 15,000 sq. ft. and situated in the middle ofa row offour (4) houses. In his opinion the Assessor's 2007 determination of value for his property greatly exceeds the 2007 assessed value for a similar waterfront property (parcel #968 800017) located at Ebb Tide Court. He is only comparing the land values between the two properties because the homes are not comparable. The owner purchased this property in 2004 for $280,000. The 2007 assessment is $360,000 equating to $16.66 per sq. ft. He purchased his property in 1996 for $125,000 which equates to $8.30 per sq. ft. In 1999 the land was assessed for $127,450. Then in 2003 the land assessment increased to $184,450 equating to $12.25 per sq. ft. With this last assessment the land value increased to $311,000 or $20.58 per sq. ft. There have been no sales on his street that justify this type of a valuation increase. Now it has been argued that the amount of square footage is irrelevant because only one house can be built on a lot. However, as you can see from the photographs, there is a tremendous difference between the properties. He discussed 18 other similar residential waterfront properties that border the north shoreline of Ludlow Bay located between the Marina and the Commercial Center. The property is currently assessed at $688,380 ($311,450 for the land and $376,930 for the improvements). The appellant is not contesting the improvement value, but, feels the land value should be reduced to $250,900 for a total valuation of$627,830. Ms. Gossell presented a map outlining the appellant's property as well as three comparable property sales she used in the assessment process. All three sales were raw land. Comparable property #1 is located in Ludlow Cove Division I, Phase II and is quite smaller than the appellant's property. This property sold in December 2004 for $250,000 and then sold again in February 2007 for $300,000. Also located in this same division is Comparable property #2 which sold in September 2004 for $280,000. Comparable property #3 is located in Ludlow Cove Division I, Phase I and sold for $260,000 in January 2004. Included in the appellant's land value is $10,000 for utilities and $1,452 for 220 front feet of tideland access. She explained that the Assessor's staff does not value property on a square footage basis. A total of 332 sales occurred within the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort (MPR) since the last revaluation cycle four years ago. Ofthose sales, one in three were "double sales", meaning they sold twice within that four year time period. Between January and July 2007 there were 13 sales of improved property showing an aunual average increase in value of 17.4%. Of the land sales, the annual average increase in value was 34%. She also calculated North Bay sales vs. South Bay sales. North Bay land sales showed an average annual increase of 133%. Based on sales information the property value is fair. Discussion ensued regarding the method of valuation. Board of Equalization Minutes - October 25, 2007 Pa~e:9 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 :30 p.m. Monday, October 29, 2007. Chairman Marlow seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Attc~: ~~ 1 (./Dl, 0 L/lict C L[.1.--- Enn Lundgren, ter 0 the ~!rrd JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF EQUALIZATION l.-~-.. C~~~1:~ Richard A. Broders, Vice-Chairman ( DeCCII.5e.A) James A. DeLeo, Member