Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM102907 ()\ tQU41 ~~% <:5 ~~~\ 0 CO (l!4 ~I Z ~~.... j ~~t/ 1820 Jefferson Street P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 James A. DeLeo William S. Marlow Richard A. Broden MINUTES October 29, 2007 William S. Marlow Richard A. Broders James A. DeLeo Chairman Vice-Chairman Member Chairman William S. Marlow called the meeting to order at 1 :30 p.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 APPEAL NO. PARCEL NO. Hancock Street Apartments BOE 07-l6-C 948323 501 Kearney Street Apartments BOE 07-l7-C 949817502 Nor'West Village PT, LLC BOE 07-l8-C 948314201 Bishop Park Port Townsend, LLC BOE 07-19-C 948 320501 Discovery View Associates BOE 07-20-C 948 332 903 Laurel Heights, LLC BOE 07-21-C 966700001 " " BOE 07-22-C 966 700 002 " " BOE 07-23-C 966 700 003 " " BOE 07-24-C 966 700 004 " " BOE 07-25-C 966 700 005 " " BOE 07-26-C 966 700 006 " " BOE 07-27-C 966 700 007 " " BOE 07-28-C 966 700 008 " " BOE 07-29-C 966 700 009 " " BOE 07-30-C 966700010 " " BOE 07-31-C 966700011 " " BOE 07-32-C 966700012 " " BOE 07-33-C 966700013 " " BOE 07-34-C 966 700014 Ben G. Stark BOE07-117-R 942 902 902 E. Jean & John A. Carkin BOE 07-119-R 969 000 008 Phone (360)385-9100 Fax (3601385-9382 jeflbocC@Co.jefferson.wa.us Board of Equalization Minutes - October 29, 2007 Pa~e: 2 HEARINGS Kenneth & Judith Thomas 291 Mt. Constance Way Port Ludlow, W A 98365 BOE: 07-123-R PN: 978800014 Kenneth & Judith Thomas were present. Appraiser Maryn Gossel1 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 291 Mt. Constance Way, Port Ludlow. Mr. Thomas stated that there is a lot located down the street which has the same square footage as their lot, except that it has more space in the back for recreational use. This lot is being assessed at $110,000, while their lot is assessed at $140,000. Another neighboring lot is approximately 6,000 square feet larger than the appel1ant's lot and it also has a large recreational area with enough room for a second building. This lot is assessed at $150,000 which is only slightly more than the value ofthe appel1ant's lot. These assessments are not equitable. He presented photographs of their backyard showing that the house was constructed only 10 feet away from a 5-6 foot high rockwall. They are unable to use the property above that rockwal1, so they have a very smal1 backyard. Mrs. Thomas added that their backyard consists of a pathway and a narrow garden area. Mr. Thomas stated another item of concern is there are three power transformer holes with covers that are 4' x 7' in size. One is located in the middle of their front yard. The other two border their property near the street. Plus the master transformer for the telephone and television service lines for the entire development is located adjacent to their property. This diminishes the useable area of their front yard. In speaking with the appraiser about the variation between his property value and the property valued at $110,000 he was told that the other property may be receiving a lower value due to its location and that headlights from oncoming cars may shine into the windows ofthat home. Based on his observation he does not think that happens. Approximately 10 people live on this cul-de-sac and al1 of them are retired. So only about two or three people drive their cars at night with the lights on. In addition, due to the way the houses are configured, the main exposure to headlight beams would be on the garage. Mrs. Thomas summarized that essential1y their concerns are with the small area of their property. On the maps their property looks as large as others in the neighborhood. But, in reality, the property is not entirely usable. Plus no one else has a large electrical vault in their front yard which is very disruptive when it is accessed. In fact, they were told they would have to move some of their plants from around the vault or they may be damaged when access to the vault is needed. It is unknown how often access to the vault wil1 be needed. But, in any case, it is ugly and detracts from their property. The current assessment of the property is $468,625 ($140,000 for the land and $328,625 for the improvements). The appel1ants estimate the value is $438,625 ($110,000 for the land and $328,625 for the improvements). Board of Equalization Minutes - October 29, 2007 Pa~e: 3 Ms. Gossel1 presented a map outlining the appellant's property and the comparable sales used in the assessment process. The appellants purchased the property for $447,000 in November 2005. She noted that the back yard has not changed since they purchased the property and the electrical transformers were present at the time of purchase. This area consists oftwo or three different types of model homes. The homes on the three comparable properties she used in the revaluation process are all the same model and age as the appel1ant's home with a few different characteristics. Comparable property #1 is located adjacent to the appellant's property and is valued at $462,000. Comparable property #2 was a "double sale", which means it sold twice since the last revaluation period four years ago. It has a large road easement right through the middle. This property sold in July 2005 for $417,000 and again in August 2007 for $560,000. This is a strong indication of the market value of properties in this subdivision. Because there are no raw land parcels in this subdivision she has to distribute the value between land and improvements. Based on sales information she believes the value is accurate and consistent with the entire subdivision. Mrs. Thomas stated that the property which sold for $560,000 was an anomaly. There are three or four other properties in the neighborhood that have been for sale for well over a year with no interested purchasers. It is her understanding that the home is one level and does not have any stairs which was required by the purchaser. Mr. Thomas noted that they purchased their property prior to the house being constructed so there was no understanding of how the house was going to be situated on the lot. There was no electrical vault at the time they purchased the property. They were already committed financially to the property by the time these issues arose. Vice-Chairman Broders asked if the electrical utilities are located on the lot or on an easement adjacent to the road. Mr. Thomas replied that it is located on an easement. They did not understand that when they purchased the property or they would have purchased a different lot. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Marlow closed the hearing. A determination will be made at a later date. Pamela A. Crone-Wenzloff P.O. Box 488 Port Haldock, W A 98339 BOE: 07-98-R PN: 996401102 Pamela A. Crone-Wenzloffwas 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 a lot located at 151 'D' Street, Port Hadlock. Ms. Wenzloff stated that her home is a 12' x 45' 1970 mobile home consisting of 540 sq. ft.. It has only I bedroom and 1 bathroom, old vinyl flooring and only the front room is carpeted. The original 1970 appliances are still in the home with the exception of the refrigerator. The bathroom is very antiquated with a metal sink and undersized bathtub. The Assessor's staff is comparing their mobile home to mobile homes that are newer and much larger in size (approximately 700 sq. ft.) and most have carpeting throughout the home. There is a discrepancy in the date of the homes as well as size. She doesn't feel that her home should be valued the same as these newer and larger homes. Board of Equalization Minutes - October 29, 2007 Pa~e: 4 She presented an appraisal showing a value of $3,220.39 for the mobile home. This mobile home was moved from a shoreline view lot in Port Ludlow where it was surrounded by a cedar deck.. The assessed value of the mobile home at that location was $7,000. The current location of the mobile is considered a ghetto and yet the assessment of the mobile home has doubled. The property is currently assessed at $62,925 ($48,000 for the land and $14,925 for the improvements). The appellant estimates the value is 5>51,220.39 ($48,000 for the land and $3,220.39 for the improvements). Mr. Pownall presented a map outlining the location of the appellant's property. All the comparable property sales he is presenting are located in B&R Mobile Home park. The reason he used the homes in the park is because they are situated on rented property so there is no land value attached to them. It is difficult, if not impossible to find a place to live under $65,000, regardless ofthe size. The Assessor's office looks at the overall value of the property with improvements. The hmd value is mainly determined by raw land sales and the remaining value is an abstracted value for the improvements. Determining the value of mobile homes is highly subjective. It is very difficult to itemize convenience which amounts to affordable housing. rfthe mobile home was jacked up and put on the street it would only be worth $2,500 to $3,000. But, the fact that it is located on land and cormected to utilities making it livable, increases its value. Another common misconception is that manufactured or mobile homes go down in value as they get older. It doesn't really happen that way, because as the cost of living keeps going up, they become a higher level of affordable housing and actually increase in value. This is supported by sales. He reviewed the comparable property sales noting that he realizes they are not exactly the same as the appellant's property, but, they show the market value. All have sold for more than the current assessment ofthe appellant's property. Discussion ensued regarding "effective age" adjustments made to the improvement values ofthe comparable properties for differing characteristics. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Marlow closed the hearing. The Board will make a determination at a later date. Russell & Donna Camfield P.O. Box 208 Chimacum, W A 98325 BOE: 07-135-LO PN: 956 700 705 Russell and Dorma Camfield were present. Appraiser Dermis Pownall represented the Assessor's office. After explaining the hearing process, Chairman Marlow swore in both parties. The property under appeal is raw land located off of Market Street, Port Hadlock. Board of Equalization Minutes - October 29, 2007 Pa2e:5 Mrs. Camfield stated that the value of her property increased in value from $2,000 to $4,000. This lot is landlocked and therefore has no access. In addition, it cannot be developed or sold because it serves as the septic drainfield for the adjacent lot. She is unable to consolidate the two lots because they are located in two different plats. The property is currently assessed at $4,000 (bare land). The appellant did provide an estimate of the value, but, did note that she feels it should be valued less than the current assessment. Mr. Pownall confirmed that this property contains the septic drainfield and consolidating the two lots is not an option because they are located in two different plats. Parcels located in different plats cannot be consolidated. The other lot is worthless without a drainfield. He feels the value of $4,000 for this property as a drainfield is reasonable. In comparison the neighbor's adjacent bare lots are valued at $10,200. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Marlow closed the hearing. The Board will make a determination at a later date. P. Tim & Kathryn Loika 2395 NW Estaview Circle Corvallis, OR 97330 BOE: 07-140-R 07-141-LO PN: 994800101 994800102 Mr. and Mrs. Loika were not present. Appraiser Dennis Pownall represented the Assessor's office and was sworn in by Chairman Marlow. The property under appeal is a structure and two parcels located at 240 Brighton Street, Port Hadlock. In letters attached to the petition forms the appellants explained the following reasons for appealing their property values: "I believe the assessment of parcel 994 800101 is to high because: 1) Assessment of adjacent waterfront properties; 2) Recent sale of nearby properties (within 200 feet); and 3) Purchase price of property. Parcel 994 800 101 which is a 60' wide lot (too small to put a septic on) has a 20' x 30' shed on it appraised (I believe fairly) at $46,500 and land (I believe inaccurately) assessed at $125,165. Parcel 994 800 102 is a 120' wide lot which has a septic system and approved plans for a 1,700 square foot home. Its current assessment is $270,950 which is $2,257.91 per waterfront foot. Parcel 994 800 103 is adjacent waterfront, has a $3,000 structure and is assessed at $151,780 or approximately $1,084 per waterfront foot. I believe this figure to be much more accurate of current market rates. I bought it for $120,000 about 3 years ago. Twenty feet north a 225' waterfront property with a septic and a small mobile and deck, and a producing well with more flat area than my parcels, is assessed at $185,570 or $824.75 per waterfront foot. When I talked with the appraiser about the difference he told me he reduced her property 70% because of 1) steepness (my property is just as steep); 2) small building site (the flat area of her property is larger than mine); and 3) height from water (it is only 10 to 15 feet higher than mine). Finally, he said it was subjective. Parcel 994 800 101 is assessed at $3,082.67 per waterfront foot and parcel 994 800 102 is assessed at $2,257.91 per waterfront foot. An incredible difference when considering one has a small mobile, deck, septic system, and well and the other has a 20' x 30' shed. Going north the next waterfront lot with a stick built house on it is assessed at $274,405. The next huge waterfront lot after that with a large stick built house, garage, and rental owned by Jamison is assessed at $381,410. Directly behind the lots lawn are water view lots which sold in the $50,000 dollar range Board of Equalization Minutes - October 29, 2007 Pa~e: 6 within the last two years (twice the size) of994 800101 and buildable. Directly above my lot is a large blue house with a basement and water access which sold in the last month for $250,000. The housing market is in a downturn, many properties adjacent to me are for sale and have been for sale for year or more and are not selling. Finally, I purchased lot 1 (994800101) and lots 2, and 3 (994 800102) with a 1,700 square foot modular home and wrap around deck on it for $188,000 seven years ago. The modular home and deck are no longer there. I moved the modular to parcel 962 113 716 where you have assessed it for $55,235. Does is make sense to anyone that when you move a structure valued at 555,235 by your appraiser that the remaining land value should go from 564,395 to $138,460 for parcel 994 800101, and from $122,000 to $270,950 for parcel 994 800 102? If you need more evidence of an error please look at the waterfront property adjacent and south of my lots 1,2,3,4 and 5 and you will notice it similarly appraised to Ms. Wolf s property. It also has an installed septic system." Mr. Pownall stated he has been corresponding with the appellant via e-mail and read the e-mail into the record. He explained that a lot has transpired from the time the appellant initially filed the appeal and those changes are not reflected on the petition form. After the petition form was filed the appellants consolidated these two parcels into one parcel identified as parcel #994 800 101. After the consolidation his property was valued at $445,775 which includes the value of the remaining building in the amount of $46,500. Since the appellant also owns two more adjacent lots 4 and 5 (not currently under appeal), Mr. Pownall considered valuing them all as one building site. But, it does not seem reasonable without knowing what the appellant's plans are for those lots. The appellant purchased lots 4 and 5 in May 2004 for $125,000. There have not been many sales in this area, so he used the sale oflots 4 and 5 as a basis to come up with a new recommended value for the Board to consider for this property. He recommends the Board leave the improvement value unchanged at $46,500, but, reduce the land value to $302,930 for a new total property value of $349,430. 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. Tuesday, October 30, 2007. Member DeLeo seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Attest: 8::, l k.:r}AlkeL-/ Enn Lundgren, Clerk ofJhe Board JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF EQUALIZATION , /_~. (/ ~lli~ S. ~arl??C W) tt~ ?" Richard r'~oders, Vice-Chao (Deeetued) James A. DeLeo, Member