Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM110107 1820 Jefferson Street P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 James A. DeLeo William S. Marlow Richard A. Broden MINUTES November 1, 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 CORRECTIONS Vice-Chairman Broders moved to accept the following assessment correction. Member DeLeo seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. APPELLANT Bruce & Janice Eddy APPEAL NO. BOE 07-223-R PARCEL NO. 990 600 132 HEARINGS Larry Lawson 10140 Oak Bay Road Port Ludlow, W A 98365 BOE: 07-132-R PN: 821181010 Larry Lawson was present. Appraiser Charley Hough represented the Assessor's office. After explaining the hearing process, Chairman Marlow swore in both parties. Under appeal is a residence situated on approximately 5.5 acres located at 10140 Oak Bay Road, Port Ludlow. Mr. Lawson stated that his property should reflect the value of his neighbors purchase prices, which determine the fair market value. He presented a Real Estate Excise Affidavit showing the sale of an adjacent 1 acre parcel for $8,000. This property has a stream running through it, there is a County road on it, and it has power. He disputes the Assessor's method of valuing one acre of his property at $50,000 to reflect the development of roads, power, etc. This assumption of value is incorrect when the actual market value of 1 acre is $8,000 based on market evidence. Phone (360)385-9100 Fax (360)385-9382 jeflbocC@Co.jefferson.wa.us Board of Equalization Minutes - November 1, 2007 Pa~e: 2 He presented a second Real Estate Excise Mfidavit showing another adjacent parcel consisting of 41.69 acres that sold for $235,000. This equates to $5,636.84 per acre. This sale supports his additional 4.5 acres being valued at a total of$25,365.78, which along with the first developed acre at $8,000 totals $33,365.78 He discussed the appraiser's comparable property sales noting that there were extenuating circumstances with sale #4 resulting in the property selling for more than it was worth. With regard to the value of the home, Mr. Lawson stated that he does not intend to sell his property so it is difficult to determine its value. If he were to sell it, any purchaser would destroy the home and build something new. Any amount that he could get for the house in salvage or scrap would equal the amount in costs to destroy it. The current assessment of the property is $116,855 ($89,445 for the land and $27,410 for the improvements). The appellant estimates the land value is $33,365.78 and feels the improvements have no value. Mr. Hough explained the methodology of valuing acreage throughout the County is to apply a value to one acre as a building site and then value the residual acreage at a lesser rate. The appellant's property is given a value of $50,000 for the one acre site with the residual acreage being valued at $6,500 per acre. Plus there is the $10,000 value added to all parcels with utilities. Sales do not support that the value ofa building site is $8,000 and in this day and age it would be difficult to find one. He noted that he is unable to assess the home based on its salvage or scrap value. It has value as livable space. He feels the current assessment of $27,410 is reasonable and fair. Discussion ensued regarding property sales in the area. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Marlow closed the hearing. A determination will be made at a later date. Lawrence & Carolyn Mehelis 235 Scenic View Lane Port Ludlow, W A 98365 BOE: 07-133-R PN: 821334098 Lawrence Mehelis was present. Appraiser Charley Hough 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 approximately 2.4 acres located at 235 Scenic View Lane, Port Ludlow. Mr. Mehelis stated that his property is not equitably valued with other properties in the area. Tree growth has diminished their view immensely over the last eight years. Their house is a manufactured home which can be moved. He contacted a bank about refinancing their home and was told that the bank could not help them because it is a manufactured home. Board of Equalization Minutes - November 1, 2007 Paj(e:3 Both he and his wife are retired school teachers on a fixed income. His health is fading so they have a lot of health care expenses. Iftheir taxes go up he doesn't know what will happen to them. He doesn't understand why there has to be such as increase in taxes. Especially, when there are no services or sidewalks in their community. The property is currently assessed at $293,890 ($146,680 for the land and $147,210 for the improvements). The appellant estimates the value is 5209,000 ($81,900 for the land and 5127,100 for the improvements). Mr. Hough sympathizes with the appellant, but, he is required by law to assess the property at 100% of its fair market value. He presented comparable sales which support the current assessed value. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Marlow closed the hearing. The Board will make a determination at a later date. Janet L. Stimach 1920 S. Spokane Street Seattle, W A 98144 BOE: 07-190-R PN: 821333005 Janet L. Stimach was present. Appraiser Charley Hough 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 waterfront property located at 352 Margaret Street, Port Ludlow. Ms. Stimach stated that her property is unique in that the house was built on the lot at an angle which does not take advantage ofthe water view. When her neighbor purchased the 200+ feet of waterfront next door they constructed their house right next to the shared property line, so that now her view is directly into their house. She presented a drawing showing the configuration of the houses and stated that this issue negatively impacts the value of her property. The question is how much it is affected. While that is difficult to determine, she suggested a negative reduction in value of 10% might be fair. She presented photographs in support showing the view from her house. She noted that after talking with the neighbor about why they built their house so close to the property line and her house, she learned that the County required the house be built in that location, due to wetlands and setback requirements on their property. She has no argument about the comparable sales presented by the appraiser, but, noted that all those houses are situated on the property facing the water with aesthetically pleasing views. In conclusion she stated that waterfront properties do not always increase in value, plus, the Real Estate market has flattened. The property is currently assessed at $568,165 ($269,720 for the land and $298,445 for the improvements). The appellant did not provide an estimate of value. Board of Equalization Minutes - November 1, 2007 Paj(e: 4 Mr. Hough stated that this house was remodeled in 2004 prior to the construction of the neighbor's house. When the neighbors built the house they did not put many windows on the sides of house facing the appellant's property. He does not know how much this issue affects the value of the property. The land is currently receiving reductions in value for wetlands and excess front footage. Ms. Stimach confirmed that there are no windows on one side ofthe neighbor's house. However, she was in the neighbor's house when it was being constructed and there is a window which looks directly into her bedroom window. So, she closes her blinds when they are home. Discussion ensued regarding the past and present structures on the appellant's property. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Marlow closed the hearing. The Board will make a determination at a later date. Member DeLeo was not present for the following hearing. Daniel & Dorothy Kimble 86 Bayside Court Port Ludlow, W A 98365 BOE: 07-108-R PN: 821163009 Daniel Kimble 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 86 Bayside Court, Port Ludlow. Mr. Kimble stated that he is only appealing the value of the land. He feels that several aspects which impact the land value were not adequately accounted for by the Assessor's staff. One of those aspects is the fact that there is an easement on the property for a Native American burial ground. He presented a map and photographs of the easement which is prohibited from being built upon and must be left in its natural state. As a result, they had to build their home 15' from the easement boundary. The Assessor's records indicate a reduction in the waterfront value for the 50' easement, but, in actuality it affects 70' of the waterfront usage because of the setback requirements. The easement has limited the use of their property and the protected trees growing within the easement block their view. The height of the easement mound also blocks their view to the west and northwest. He believes there is a stigma associated with the fact that there are grave sites on the property and that it negatively affects the value. His parcel is "low bank" waterfront, yet the comparable properties used by the Assessor's staff to value his property are all "no bank" waterfront with access to the beach and no view obstruction. The property is currently assessed at $1,438,695 ($796,825 for the land and $641,870 for the improvements). The appellant estimates the value is $1,175,743 ($533,873 for the land and $641,870 for the improvements). Ms. Gossell presented aerial photographs ofthe property from 1994, prior to the construction of the appellant's house. She discussed sales of comparable property in the immediate area. Comparable property #1 located just one lot over from the appellant's property sold in July 2006 for $2,195,000. It Board of Equalization Minutes - November 1, 2007 Paj(e: 5 consists of 100' of waterfront, while the appellant's property is 150' of waterfront. Both properties are being value at $6,500 per front foot and both are located within the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort (MPR) and have water and sewer utilities. Properties located outside the MPR are responsible for the own water and septic and are valued at $5,000 per front foot. Comparable property #2 is a "double sale", meaning it sold twice since the last revaluation period four years ago. It sold in July 2003 for $833,000 and then sold again in November 2006 for $2,050,000. Like comparable property #1, it is 100' of waterfront and is valued at $6,500 per front foot. In addition to these sales, she presented two exhibits outlining two sales (lots 7 and 8) that occurred in October for $925,000 each. These sales confirm that her values per front foot are accurate and reflective of the market. She stated that the Assessor's office is aware of the issues brought up by the appellant. The land value has been, and is currently, receiving a reduction of 10% for the burial easement and poor topography, as well as a reduction of 31 % for excess front footage. She believes these percentage of reductions are 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 10:00 a.m. Monday, November 5, 2007. Chairman Marlow seconded the motion. The motion carried. Attest: C. ~~~ t " . / /',G.' / - /l~/'-t" - '1-'''L/ Er' tun~gre, er oft e Board JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF EQUALIZATION ? -'-- ~liam Sf 1~~~' 5Jailan ~!JJI+P<7~ Ricl1ard A. Broders, Vice-Ch~ ( Deeu5c'/) James A. DeLeo, Member