Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM121007 ~\ tQUAth ~~~ON a) ~ g~~~ ~\ ~ ,..,... lc; ~\ ~ -.. I~ -<) "'" , ; \* *1 ~~ 1820 Jefferson Street P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 James A. DeLeo William S. Marlow Richard A. Broden MINUTES December 10, 2007 William S. Marlow Richard A. Broders James A. DeLeo Chairman Vice-Chairman Member Chairman William S. Marlow called the meeting to order at 9:30 a.m. in the presence of Vice-Chairman Richard A. Broders and Member James A. DeLeo. ASSESSOR'S CERTIFICATE OF NEW CONSTRUCTION VALUE FOR 2007 Vice-Chairman Broders moved to accept the Assessor's Certificate of New Construction Value to the County Board of Equalization in the amount of $88,577,405. Member DeLeo seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. PETITION WITHDRAWAL Vice-Chairman Broders moved to accept the following petition withdrawal. Member DeLeo seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. APPELLANT Norton Company, Randall Scott APPEAL NO. BOE 07-36-R PARCEL NO. 990300212 HEARINGS George & Noele Miller 101 Lake Street S. Kirkland, W A 98033 BOE: 07-122-R PN: 969 400 020 Noele Miller was present. Appraiser Ma1)TI 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 100 Ludlow Point Road, Port Ludlow. Phone (360)385-9100 Fax (3601385-9382 jeflbocC@co.jefferson.wa.u8 Board of Equalization Minutes - December 10, 2007 Paj(e: 2 Mrs. Miller stated that they purchased their home for $740,000 in 2001. She has reviewed the Assessor's comparable property sales and submitted her own comparative market analysis that was done when they purchased the property. She has been in the Real Estate business for 25 years and owned numerous properties, and this is the first time she has appeared before an appeals Board regarding property valuation issues. In reviewing the Assessor's comparable sales she was surprised by some of the sales that were used and by some of the strong sales that were left out. The property shown as the Assessor's comparable property #1 was for sale when the appellants purchased their home. They would have loved to buy that property which included a lovely house that was remodeled with a mother-in-law apartment downstairs with a separate entrance, as well as a separate guest house. What is also unique about this property is that it has a "grandfathered footprint" and was built right on the edge of the bank so it has a stunning water view. County planning regulations now require a 30' building setback from the high water mark. This property was listed for sale for $999,000 when they purchased their property for $740,000. This property recently sold for $1,100,000 in conjunction with the bare lot next to it for $350,000 (Assessor's comparable property #2). In the entire history of assessments their improvement value was always $250,000 - $300,000 lower than the assessment of the Assessor's comparable property #1. Their property is assessed at $1,118,085 while comparable property #1 is assessed at $1,066, I 05. The owner of comparable property # I also owns comparable property #2 which is assessed at $316,660 for the bare lot. She would gladly pay $300,000 to switch properties. The Assessor's comparable property #3 is assessed at $934,600. This is a large lot that has an amazing view over the bay with no buildings in sight. The home on this lot was featured in "Country Living" magazine. It is large in size consisting of 3,800 sq. ft. with three bedrooms, three bathrooms and has plank floors. She discussed the sale of a waterfront property located across the street from their property which has a nice, west facing view and sold for $725,000, but, was not used as a comparable property by the Assessor's office. The view from their property is of a condominium development which is part of the reason they got their property for the price they paid. She was told by a Realtor that their property could not be marketed for more than $899,000. Mrs. Miller discussed the discrepancies on the Assessor's worksheet with regard to the amount of square footage and the number of bedrooms and bathrooms. Their house was built in 1992 and has not been remodeled. She estimates the cost to improve the interior quality of the home to be comparable with the neighboring property will be approximately $200,000. The current assessment of the property is $1,118,085 ($611,500 for the land and $506,585 for the improvements). The appellants estimate the value is $820,000 ($400,000 for the land and $420,000 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 - December 10, 2007 Paj(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 the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort that have low bank waterfront docks and deep water moorage. 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 the appellant's 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. She explained that the Assessor's staff can value waterfront property on a per site basis or by using a rate per front foot. The low bank waterfront parcels to the south of the point located along Ludlow Bay Road are valued using a front foot rate. 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 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 October 2007 there were two sales (lot 7 & lot 8) that occurred in the area south of the point located off of Ludlow Bay Road. Lot 7 and 8 each have two very old outdated structures on them with a low improvement value. However, the lots sold for $925,000 each. They are currently assessed at $849,000 and $730,000 respectively, using a value of $6,500 per front foot. This shows the assessed value of these parcels is below the market value and verifies that the assessments are correct. The fact that comparable property #1 finally sold for $1,150,000 shows that the market fmally caught up. The value of the dock on this property is assessed at $85,000 while the appellant's dock is valued at $40,000. 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 and comparable property # I). It is unknown iflot 9 can be developed due to its size. Between January and July 2007 there were 13 sales of improved property showing an annual average increase in value of 17.4%. Of the 6 land sales that occurred, the annual average increase in value was 34%. One in three sales in the MRP were a "double" or "triple" sale (properties which sold two or three times since the last assessment cycle four years ago). This is incredible evidence that the value of property within the MPR has skyrocketed. Over the last four years improved property sales in the MPR increased on average 21.7% per year and bare land property sales increased on average 139% per year. Ms. Gossell noted that since the time the appellants purchased their property in May 2002, their property value has increased an average of II % per year. Mrs. Miller added that she was informed that lot #9 can be developed. Board of Equalization Minutes - December 10, 2007 Discussion ensued regarding comparable property sales. Paj(e:4 Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Marlow closed the hearing. A determination will be made at a later date. Daniel S. Toepper 1921 Swansonville Road Port Ludlow, WA 98365 BOE: 07-120-R PN: 821 053 021 Daniel S. Toepper was not present. Appraiser John Pray represented the Assessor's office and was sworn in by Chairman Marlow. The property under appeal is a mobile home situated on approximately 2 acres located at 1921 Swansonville Road, Port Ludlow. On the petition form the appellant wrote the following reason for appealing his property value: "No public utilities. No view. Parcel is too small to subdivide or have a second residence. Half of the acreage is wooded. Two acres of rural land with 60' driIled well and gravity septic system is not selling for $91,300 in County. We are located in rural unincorporated Jefferson County. Our parcel should be compared with properties also in unincorporated areas without view or public utilities." The property is currently assessed at $147,400 ($91,300 for the land and $56,100 for the improvements). The appellant estimates the value is $106, I 00 ($50,000 for the land and $56, I 00 for the improvements). Mr. Pray presented three comparable property sales. Comparable property #1 is located off of Reuben Johnson Road, is less than one acre in size, and sold in July 2007 for $270,000. Comparable property #2, located at 2320 Swansonville Road is 1.07 acres in size and sold in November 2006 for $185,000. Comparable #3, located at 114 Thoren Road consists of I acre and sold in June 2006 for $217,000. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Marlow closed the hearing. The Board will make a determination at a later date. Richard B. Toepper 1961 SwaDsonville Road Port Ludlow, W A 98365 BOE: 07-151-R 07-152-R 07-153-LO PN: 821053016 821 054001 821 053 008 Richard B. Toepper 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 consists of three parcels. Parcel #821053016 is a house and shop situated on 3.08 acres located at 1961 SwansonviIle Road, Port Ludlow. Parcel #821 054001 is 10.03 acres in size with a house. Parcel #821 053008 is a bare land parcel. Mr. Toepper stated that he disputes his property value being assessed at its highest and best use. As far as he is concerned, if one acre in this County is worth $75,000, then every acre in the County is worth $75,000 and they should all be taxed the same. That is a ridiculous method of valuation. It's great for developers. His property has been the same farm since 1938. Yet, in order to value it as a farm he must Board of Equalization Minutes - December 10, 2007 Paj(e: 5 show three years offarm producing income from the property. Their personal farming use ofthe property does not make it "farmland" for assessment purposes. His family occasionally sells farm products, but, it is not a commercial farm. To tax his property as development type real estate is total idiocy. Originally, his folks owned the property which consisted of 40 acres with a house and a barn. They added to it over the years. The Assessor's office split the house and I acre from the remaining acreage and taxed them separately. Now the Assessor's office taxes a little over 10 acres and the house which doesn't match the deed to the property. So the County itself is trying to subdivide properties through the authority of the Planning Commission to maximize revenues to the County. As far as he is concerned, he should be taxed for what is on the deed to the property regardless of whether there is a house built on it or not. This is taking away his control of his property. There are properties which have sold in the area. Anybody wanting to sell property will try to get the most they can for their property. Consequently, they will find somebody to pay it, but, if you don't plan on selling your property, you should not be taxed as though you were selling it. His property should be valued for what it is "a farm", not for what it could be. The current assessment and the appellant's estimate of value are listed below: Parcel No. 821 053016 821054001 821 053 008 Assessor's Valuation $121,955 ($97,480 land/$24,475 imps.) $220,260 ($134,665 land/$85,595 imps.) $67,625 (land only) Apoellant's Estimate $44,000 ($20,000 land/$24,000 imps.) $150,000 ($65,000 land/$85,000 imps.) $20,000 (land only) Mr. Pray stated that the appellant is appealing three different parcels. He presented three comparable property sales that occurred within the area that support the current assessment. He valued the one acre building site at $75,000 and the residual acreage at $6,000 per acre. The larger 10 acre parcel is valued at $5,500 per acre. Comparable property #1, located at 51 Reuben Johnson Road is less than one acre in size, and sold in July 2007 for $270,000. Comparable property #2, located at 2320 Swansonville Road is 1.07 acres in size and sold in November 2006 for $185,000. Comparable #3, located at 114 Thoren Road consists of 1 acre and sold in June 2006 for $217,000. He added that the bare land parcel #821 053 008 was given a 25% reduction in value for being undeveloped. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Marlow closed the hearing. The Board will make a determination at a later date. Suzan Amundsen P.O. Box 10726 Fairbanks, AK 99710 BOE: 07-182-LO PN: 977700035 Susan Amundsen 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 waterfront parcel with an old cabin located on Marrowstone Island. Board of Equalization Minutes - December 10,2007 Paj(e: 6 Ms. Amundsen stated that she purchased this property 28 years ago for $34,500. At that time it contained old growth timber. She lived in a pup tent on the property along with her team of sled dogs for which she built dog houses. A couple years later she built a small cabin on the property. She now lives in Alaska and races sled dogs, but, she visits her property on Marrowstone Island every year. It has been her goal to build a retirement home on the property at some point in the future. In the past 5 or 6 years her property has significantly deteriorated. She has had trouble keeping up with the taxes. With the latest assessment her property value increased from $145,000 to $312,000. She has two issues with this increase. The first issue is the fact that the neighbor to north of her property has been cutting vegetation and trees that are on her property in order to gain a better view of Mount Rainier from their property. A quarter of her property has been destroyed by the amount of trees and vegetation that was cut. She filed a lawsuit against her neighbor and won the case. She was awarded $1,000 in damages, but, the court case cost her $33,000. The second issue has to do with the adjacent property to the south of her property. The owner of this neighboring property was allowed by Jefferson County to build a 2-story building on the border ofthe properties without any notification to her. There are trails through her property caused by the workman using her property. The survey lines are gone. The entire property is devastated from what it used to be. Tillman engineering did a stability report on the neighbor's property that says the house is located in an erosion landslide area. The clay cliffs in this area have eroded as a result of property owners denuding the vegetation for the purpose of obtaining sweeping views. Many property owners, except for her, have cut down their trees. The two-story structure is in violation of the Shoreline Management Plan. She was informed by Ryan Tillman of Tillman Engineering, that the entire bluff will fall one of these days and the development of her property may be the straw that breaks the camels back. In closing she stated that she doesn't want to sell the property, but, if she is forced to sell it she is not certain she would get more than $150,000. The property is currently assessed at $312,135 ($311,135 for the land and $1,000 for the improvements). The appellant estimates the valuation of the property is $200,000 ($200,000 for the land and no value for the improvements). Mr. Pray presented two comparable property sales in the area. The appellant's property consists of 130' of high-bank waterfront. Comparable property #1 is 65' of high-bank waterfront and sold in December 2004 for $142,000 and then sold again for $289,000 in January 2007. Comparable property #2 is 95' of high- bank waterfront which sold in May 2005 for $185,000 and then resold in July 2007 for $300,000. These sales show the amount of increase in the value of waterfront property over the last four years. Ms. Amundsen added that she is not certain that the property can be developed due to the restraints of obtaining potable water and a septic system. Mr. Pray noted that both of the comparable properties also do not have water or septic connections at this time. Board of Equalization Minutes - December 10, 2007 Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Marlow closed the hearing. The Board will make a determination at a later date. Paj(e: 7 Nancy H. Koch 263 Old Oak Bay Road Port Hadlock, W A 98339 BOE: 07-191-R PN: 921182015 Nancy Koch 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 waterfront lot located at 263 Old Oak Bay Road, Port Ludlow. With no objection from the Assessor's representative Ms. Koch presented new information in support of her appeal that included a map, charts and photographs. The Assessor's records show that her property is 100% improved, however, approximately 21 % of her property is not improved. The photographs show the area of the property that is not improved. The charts compare the value of her property to others in the area. She has the least amount of waterfront and yet her property is assessed proportionately higher than the other properties. It was explained that the average values were determined using the total acreage as well as the total feet of waterfront for each parcel. The Assessor's comparable property #2 is located on Marrowstone Island and in her opinion, is not at all comparable to her property. Marrowstone Island and Oak Bay are two very different areas, so she only included property sales from the Oak Bay area in her comparisons. The property is currently assessed at $517,785 ($265,000 for the land and $252,785 for the improvements). When the appellant initially filed the petition she estimated the value to be $498,000 ($248,000 for the land and $250,000 for the improvements). However, after conducting research in preparation for her appeal hearing she now feels that the value should be significantly lower than $498,000. She noted that two neighboring waterfront properties were listed for sale this past summer at a price below the Assessor's waterfront valuation rate of $3,000 per front foot and neither of them sold. They were just recently taken offthe market. With regard to the improvement value she explained that her house is 16 years old and she feels the value should be slightly lower. Mr. Pray presented three comparable property sales including the appellant's purchase of the property under appeal which is comparable #1. The appellant purchased the property which consists of 100' of waterfront in August 2003 for $435,000. It is currently assessed at $517,785 which indicates approximately a 22% increase over the four year revaluation period. Comparable property #2 is 65' of waterfront located on Marrowstone Island that sold for $289,000 in January 2007. This sale was used because it occurred more recently and there were not many sales of waterfront property along Oak Bay that occurred close to the assessment date. He felt this property is comparable to the appellant's property because they both face the same direction. Individuals in the market for waterfront would not pay a significant difference in price between the two areas. He noted that comparable property #2 sold Board of Equalization Minutes - December 10, 2007 Paj(e: 8 previously in December 2004 for $142,000. This shows the appreciation in waterfront values. Comparable property #3 is a water view lot located across the street from Oak Bay Road and sold in September 2005 for $282,500. This sale shows what non-waterfront land in area is selling for. He noted that the first 100' of waterfront in this area is assessed at $3,000 per front foot. Anything over 100' is considered "excess front footage" and is valued at a reduced rate. Using this method the assessments of the two properties mentioned by the appellant are actually below the previous asking prices not the other way around. The land value is currently receiving a reduction of 15% for depth and shape. He feels the value is fair. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Marlow closed the hearing. The Board will make a determination at a later date. Margaret H. Burrell 2312 Hood Avenue #A Richland, W A 99854 BOE: 07-87-LO 07-88-LO PN: 994000074 994 000 004 Margaret Burrell and her attorney Craig Walker participated via conference call. Appraiser Charley Hough represented the Assessor's office. After explaining the hearing process, Chairman Marlow swore in both parties. Under appeal are two bare land parcels located off of Seven Sisters Drive on Hoods Head Island, Port Ludlow. Ms. Burrell stated that she feels all the parcels on the island are being overtaxed at too rapid of a rate from 2003 to 2007. She is a senior citizen and the ta;'( increase ",ill cause a definite hardship for her and may force her to sell the property. There is no access to the beach from this property. Lot #128 is assessed at under $15,000 per acre, while her lot #129 is being valued at $20,000 per acre. She also owns the south half of lot #4 including the tidelands which is 30' x 300'. The value of this lot increased 100% since the last assessment, yet, it cannot be developed because it is too small in size. She doesn't feel it is fair to value this lot at half the value of a buildable lot. She question why the Assessor's comparable property #2 is valued $11,000 less than her property? She also wants to know what improvements the County will be making in her neighborhood with all the money the County will be getting from this increase in taxes? Chairman Marlow explained that the Board sympathizes with her concerns, however, according to state law the Board of Equalization can only review matters relating to valuation. Therefore, personal hardship issues cannot be considered. He also explained that the Board members and the Assessor's representative do not have the authority to determine what improvements mayor may not be made on the island. Therefore, they are unable to answer the question. The purpose of this hearing is to determine whether or not the property has been valued correctly. The property is currently assessed at $47,150 for parcel #994 000 074 (land only) and $20,600 for parcel #994000004 (land only). Ms. Burrell estimates the value is $12,150 for parcel #994 000 074 and $10,600 for parcel #994 000 004. Board of Equalization Minutes - December 10,2007 Page: 9 Mr. Hough stated that he included 10 comparable property sales in the information he provided. The sales ofthis unique island property show that people are paying big dollars for it. To answer the appellant's question about the difference in assessed values he explained that lots on the west side of the island are assessed at $40,000 while lots on the north side of the island are high-bank and are assessed at $30,000. In 2002 the State purchased lots 80 through 83, located on the northeast tip of the island, for $500,000. He reviewed all the comparable sales that support the current assessed value. Mr. Walker stated that her most tenable position is with regard to the south half oflot 4. All the other lots along Bywater Bay appear to be full-size lots that can be developed. Her lot cannot be built on and has no value. It doesn't make sense to assess it at half the value of a buildable lot. In addition, the value of Ms. Burrell's water view lot #129 is valued at $40,000 compared to the high-bank water view lots on the east side being valued at $30,000 per acre. Lot #129 is also overvalued compared to the neighboring lot #128 as previously stated by Ms. Burrell. Mr. Hough explained that all the acreage lots, including lots #128 and #129 are valued using the same method. It is not a matter of dividing the total valuation by the total number of acres to come up with the assessed value per acre. All the parcels are different in size which is why the appellant came up with different acreage values for lots #128 and #129. All the acreage lots are valued using a base rate of $40,000 for one acre and $5,000 for each additional acre. Mr. Walker stated that he doesn't disagree that Mr. Hough is consistently valuing property in the area. It just seems that the amount of valuations are not accurate in relationship to the types of property to which Ms. Burrell's property is being compared. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Marlow closed the hearing. The Board will make a determination at a later date. William R. Allyn, Trustee W.R. Allyn Living Trust 387 Old Oak Bay Road Port Hadlock, W A 98339 BOE: 07-213-R PN: 921182025 William R. Allyn was present. Appraiser John Pray represented the Assessor's office. Chairman Marlow explained the hearing process and swore in both parties. Under appeal is waterfront property located at 387 Old Oak Bay Road, Port Hadlock. Mr. Allyn stated that the most recent sale of property was the lot which adjoins his property to the north (parcel #921 182024). It sold on June 30, 2005 for $179,500. It is virtually identical to his property. The sale value must be adjusted for the property appreciation since that date. Using appreciation tables for this area he computed a new land value of$210,584. Two lots south of his property sold for $130,000 in December, 2000. Using the same appreciation tables as before he determined a new total land value of $244,000. However, the two lots which sold consist of more waterfront than his property, so the value was adjusted to account for the difference in size bringing it to a much lower value than the current assessment. He noted that the neighboring lots are only valued Board of Equalization Minutes - December 10, 2007 Page: 10 $8,000 higher than his land and yet those lots have 31 % more waterfront. His land value has appreciated approximately 30% over the last three years which does not represent current or historical appreciation for the area. Based on realistic appreciation rates and the sale price of the adjacent identical property, the value of his property is somewhere between $210,000 and $220,000. He is only disputing the land value. There are inconsistencies with the valuation methodology related to the front footage rate. Enclosure #3 details various information for 16 properties along the waterfront near his property. One inconsistency relates to the manner in which the first 100' of waterfront property is valued as well as the manner in which excess front footage is valued. The values for excess front footage range from $1,650 to $3,000 per front foot. In reviewing the facts of both areas of objections to his land valuation, a strikingly similar valuation amount results. The average valuation of properties (land only) is $210,000. These values are supported by facts and are easily documented and understood. He requests the Board reduce his current land assessment to $216,000. He noted that Enclosure #6 is a photograph of one of the Assessor's comparable properties located at 21 Hiller Drive which is considered medium/high bank and similar to Mr. Allyn's property. Mr. Allyn stated that this property is actually low/no bank waterfront property as shown on a Real Estate website (Enclosure #8). This is not comparable to his 60' high bank property. The remainder of his enclosures include other waterfront and waterview property listings that average $210,000 in value. The property is currently assessed at $659,745 ($259,300 for the land and $400,445 for the improvements). Mr. Pray presented three comparable properties he used to value the appellant's property. Comparable property #2 is 65' of high-bank waterfront located on Marrowstone Island that sold for $289,000 in January 2007. This same property previously sold in December 2004 for $142,000. Comparable property #3 is also on Marrowstone Island. It consists of95' of high-bank waterfront and sold for $185,000 in May 2005 and then sold again in July 2007 for $300,000. The sales on Marrowstone Island were used to show the amount of appreciation in the value of waterfront property. The appellant listed the 2005 sale of the property adjacent to his property in the amount of $179,500. That is very close to the 2005 sale price of the Assessor's comparable property #3. It is noted that comparable property #3 resold in 2007 for $300,000. These sales support the current assessed value ofthe appellant's property. Mr. Allyn noted that the Assessor's comparable property #1 is the low/no bank waterfront property he discussed earlier which explains the higher sale amount. He read the following rebuttal statement for the record: "The Assessor has carefully explained the methodology used in setting the valuation of the land portion of my property. In spite of his persuasive presentation, several questions concerning compliance with RCW 84.40.030 (3) and various paragraphs ofW AC 458 remain that highlight the flaws in the land value determination of my property. Specifically, WAC 458-07-010, Valuation and Revaluation of Real Property, stipulates that "all takes be uniform upon the same class of property..." The inconsistent manner in which the front foot "RF" values are assigned to nearby properties (15 total) listed in my documents (Enclosure #3) directly causes unfair tax assessments for me and my neighbors. The wide variation in "RF" values used on adjacent properties causes one home owner to shoulder, or not, an unfairly greater tax burden. The Assessor's comments have not explained this, apparently subjective, choice. Board of Equalization Minutes - December 10, 2007 Paj(e: 11 The Assessor has based his valuation methodology on the use of a very limited number of comparable properties that he chose. His comparable properties are only the properties that have sold at the highest amounts. WAC 458-07-030 (2)(a)(iv) specifically requires "sale of comparable property actually represents the general effective market demand for property of that type..." Several of the waterfront properties he used as comparable are located much farther away and well outside the "geographical area which the property is located". Other comparable waterfront properties in the local area that the Assessor chose not to use, have sold for a more representative amount. WAC 458-07-030 (2)(a) cites sales of comparison properties within 5 years. WAC 458-07-030 (3) states "...Uses that are within the realm of possibility, but not reasonably probable of occurrence, shall not be considered in valuing property..." It does not provide for an option to select only a single high priced property, to the exclusion of all others. Additionally, when the Assessor discussed comparable "view" property, he did not choose to use as a comparable any ofthe 23 properties located in the Oak Hills development Y, mile away from my property. These 4 acre properties range in price from $129,000 to $249,000. He, once again, chose to use as a comparable only one property 1/4 mile away from my property that sold for an unusually high amount. By omitting these more representative, nearby, comparable properties, the Assessor's valuation becomes greatly inflated. This too is not in compliance with WAC 458-07-030(2)(a)(iv). Finally, and most importantly, in determining the land value the Assessor has chosen to totally discount the sale amount of the identical undeveloped property next door. This property sale occurred only 18 months prior to his revised valuation of my property. This is in clear violation of WAC 458-14-087 (4) which stipulates "More weight shall be given to similar sales occurring closest to the assessment date which require the fewest adjustments for characteristics." The Assessor has offered no reasonable explanation for this exclusion. I ask the Board of Equalization to fully consider all the fact based materials presented and to adjust the land portion ofthe current assessed valuation to $216,000. Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter." Mr. Pray clarified that the photograph presented by the appellant as Enclosure #6 is not a property that was used as comparable during the assessment process. There must have been a misunderstanding between he and the appellant during their discussion prior to the hearing. Mr. Pray stated that he did not pick out or strictly use the highest comparable property sales as a basis for the valuation. In addition, the properties located in the Oak Hills short plat were not used as comparable properties because they are not waterfront. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Marlow closed the hearing. The Board will make a determination at a later date. Randy & Lona Royer P.O. Box 65496 Port Ludlow, WA 98365 BOE: 07-214-R PN: 978900113 Randy Royer was present. Appraiser John Pray represented the Assessor's office. Chairman Marlow explained the hearing process and swore in both parties. Under appeal is waterfront property located at 334 Olympus Blvd., Port Ludlow. Board of Equalization Minutes - December 10, 2007 Paj(e: 12 Mr. Royer stated that their 100' of waterfront property is 60' high-bank with some erosion and sloughing and no beach access. A portion of the property is designated a wetland. With all the rules and regulations he is not certain that he would even be able to get a building permit if it were bare land. This property shares a driveway with an adjacent property to the north. It is the only shared driveway on Olympus Blvd. They have no usable land for outbuildings or parking due to setbacks required for their septic system and drainfield. There is an 1,800 sq. ft. home on the property. He noted that parcel #976 500 002 is also 100' of waterfront, but, it is low-bank with easy beach access, no erosion or wetlands, and a completely unobstructed view of the Hood Canal shipping lanes. It has a 2,741 sq. ft. home constructed on it along with outbuildings. The assessed land value of this parcel is $280,000. It is located approximately 1/3 mile south of their property on the same beach. This parcel is definitely more valuable than their property and yet it is assessed less than their property. He compared his property to more parcels to the north which are also located on Olympus Blvd. Based on the comparisons, his land value should have a value of no more than $280,000. He presented photographs in support of his appeal. The property is currently assessed at $489,125 ($310,000 for the land and $179,125 for the improvements). The appellant estimates the value is $459,125 ($280,000 for the land and $179,125 for the improvements). Mr. Pray presented one land sale in support of his assessment. This 50' of waterfront property located at 418 Olympus Blvd. sold in August 2005 for $265,000. He explained that parcel #976 500 002 referenced by the appellant, is one of two parcels owned by the same individual. The home was actually built straddling the two parcels, thereby, consolidating the parcels so that they cannot be sold separate from each other. As a result, Mr. Pray reduced the land value of one parcel which is why it is lower than the others in the area. He feels the land value ofthe appellant's property is fair. Mr. Royer stated that his valuation should based on more than one comparable property sale. Mr. Pray replied that he used other property sales in his determination of value. He added that the appellant's land value is being reduced by 25% for site quality. 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. Thursday, December 13,2007. Member DeLeo seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Attest: G , ~ ~I h _.' _ _ /., .1 0GLA\_/ LA: L.(,,;~ Enn Lundgren, Cler oftn?Oard JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARl) OF EQUALIZATION j> ~L~liI1Jrman Richard A.l~~:~: Vice~ (De~e"5"4{) James A. DeLeo, Member