Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM121307 ~\ tQU4tb. ~ ~ON~~ g<,.,., O~\ ~ co (:; ~\ Z ... ><) \~ ~/ ~...';: G~OY ~~ 1820 Jefferson Street P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 James A. DeLeo William S. Marlow Richard A. Broden MINUTES December 13, 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. PETITION WITHDRAWALS Vice-Chairman Broders moved to accept the following petition withdrawal. Member DeLeo seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. APPELLANT Fredric C. Dunlap Bruce Ladd Scollin, Trustee " " APPEAL NO. BOE 07-67-R BOE 07-144-LO BOE 07-145-R BOE 07-146-R PARCEL NO. 996 600 023 968800016 990 300 206 990 300 117 " " HEARINGS David & Joy Amos 1871 Swansonville Road Port Ludlow, W A 98365 BOE: 07-63-LO 07-64-R 07-65-R PN: 821053001 821 053 017 821 053 018 David Amos was present. Appraiser John Pray represented the Assessor's office. After explaining the hearing process, Chairman Marlow swore in both parties. Under appeal is a residence and approximately 14 acres located at 1871 Swansonville Road, Port Ludlow. Mr. Amos stated that their property has double in value over the last four years. Their primary residence is situated on parcel #821 053 017. It was built in the 1930's and was remodeled in the 1970's. It is a farmhouse and not your typical "Port Ludlow" home. Phone (360)385-9100 Fax (360)385-9382 jeflbocC@Co.jefferson.wa.u8 Board of Equalization Minutes - December 13, 2007 Paj(e:2 He discussed the comparable property sales used by the Assessor in the valuation of his property and stated that they are not at all comparable to his property. The Assessor's comparable property #1 is still on the market and has not sold. Comparable property #3 is located directly across from the Port Ludlow development. It sold for $300,000 and has a water view. The appellant's parcel #821 053 018 has no water. In the 1940's two sheds were put on the property and joined together to make a residence. A kitchen and bathroom were added. When the appellants purchased the property 15 years ago, Mr. Amos remodeled the building and added a cement floor where the woodshed and carport had been. He noted that water is provided to this parcel from parcel #821 053 017 where the appellant's residence is located. Again the Assessor's comparable properties are not comparable to this property. The third parcel under appeal, #821 053 00 I, consists of 10 acres. There are no improvements on the property other than fencing and it is landlocked. There is no access to this property. The nearest power is 300 feet away and there is no water or septic system. Each of these parcels is assessed $75,000 for the first acre. He doesn't think every acre in Jefferson County is worth $75,000. If property values are increased 100% in four years, they are not going to be able to afford to stay in Jefferson County. The current assessment and the appellant's estimate of value are listed below: Parcel No. 821 053001 821 053017 821 053018 Assessor's Valuation $108,000 (land only) $270,785 ($95,980 land/$174,805 imps.) $135,165 ($88,720 land/$46,445 imps.) Appellant's Estimate $65,000 (land only) $165,000 ($40,000 land/$125,000 imps.) $70,000 ($20,000 land/$50,000 imps.) Mr. Pray explained that he used the same four comparable properties to value of all three of the appellant's parcels under appeal. Comparable property #1 is .78 acre and is located at 51 Reuben Johnson Road. It sold for $270,000 in July 2007. There is a house on this parcel that was built in 1920. Comparable properties #2 and #3 are located off of Swansonville Road. Comparable property #2 consisting of 5.98 acres sold in December 2005 for $295,000, and comparable property #3 which is 1.13 acres in size and sold in November 2006 for $185,000. Comparable #4 is 3 acres in size and is located at 171 Jefferson Avenue. It sold for $300,000 in May 2007. As far as the appellant's comment about comparable property #1 still being for sale, Mr. Pray stated that it may be relisted. He pointed out that the property listed as comparable #4 was given a $100,000 one acre site value compared to the $75,000 one acre site value used for the property further up Swansonville Road. While there may have been a view from this parcel at one time, .there is not much of a view from it now. The house on this parcel was built in 1935. Someone is living on parcel #821 053 018 and while the appellant stated that there is no water on this parcel, water is being directed to it from another parcel. As far as the house on this parcel being a shed, it was remodeled in 1995 at a cost of $20,000. The property was purchased in 1989 for $32,000. Board of Equalization Minutes - December 13, 2007 Paj(e: 3 With regard to the issue of parcel #821 053001 being landlocked, it would not be too problematic to get access to that parcel. Based on the comparable sales, the property values are fair and reasonable. Mr. Amos noted that the Assessor's comparable property #2 has two homesites because it was divided into two parcels. He noted that parcel #821 053018 has no stand alone water system. If you're going to assess property on its own value, you have to take into account the lack of its own utilities and the cost to get those utilities. He has an easement to parcel #821 053 00 I, but, it should not be considered a homesite until road access is gained and it is connected to utilities at a cost of $50,000. Mr. Pray stated that the Assessor's office has no record of comparable property #2 being divided into two parcels, but, he can look into the matter and provide information to the Board if necessary. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Marlow closed the hearing. A determination will be made at a later date. Roger & Mary Lou Struthers 328 Olympus Blvd. Port Ludlow, WA 98365 BOE: 07-124-R PN: 978900114 Roger Struthers was present. Appraiser John Pray represented the Assessor's office. Chairman Marlow explained the hearing process and swore in both parties. Under appeal is a residence situated on waterfront property located 328 Olympus Blvd., Port Ludlow. Mr. Struthers stated that over the last three months he has submitted information to the Board and the Assessor's office for this hearing. He read the following statement for the record: "Board Members: My wife and I have spent many days preparing for this appeal. Have each of you done your part by a) thoroughly reviewing all documentation and photographs we have submitted to your office over the last three months?, b) visiting the subject property, all parcels we used as comparable sales and the one parcel used by the Assessor as a comparable sale? Listed below are the comparable sales we used and the basic reasoning for our conclusions: Comparable #1,234 Olympus Blvd., 2 bedroom, 2 Y2 bath, 2343 sq. ft. with 3-car garage and stairway to beach. Level lot with 100% usable space. Subject property, 328 Olympus Blvd., 2 bedroom, 2 bath, 2292 sq. ft. with 2-car garage (garage can only be used for one car due to retaining wall required by County after home was built). There is no access to beach. Little usable space on lot and very dangerous driveway due to retaining wall. Market value based on comparable #1 = $345,430. Comparable #2, 232 Olympus Blvd., 2 bedroom, 2 bath, approximately 2000 sq. ft., I-car garage, no beach access, 140 ft. wide lot. Very similar to out house, with same view. Comparison lot far superior with 140' wide gently sloped lot. Sale price of$365,000 in August 2007. Approximately current market value of our house. Board of Equalization Minutes - December 13, 2007 Paj(e: 4 Comparable #3, includes two parcels. One is a vacant lot located adjacent to comparable property #1 at 234 Olympus Blvd. and the other is vacant lot located at 50 Montgomery Court, used the Assessor's method of calculating current market (true) value and averaged cost of 2 quality lots with similar size and views in neighborhood to arrive at value of our land in the amount of$141,800. Used Assessor's replacement cost of house less loss of use of one garage and dangerous/deficient driveway to arrive at true value of house in the amount of $213,465. Based on comparable #3 the market value of the property = $355,265. Conclusion: Comparisons #1, #2 and #3 show market value of our house and lots to be $345,000 to $365,000." Documentation and photographs were submitted in support ofthis information. He reviewed a letter he submitted on November 28,2007 which states the Jefferson County Assessor's office has provided no valid comparative evidence to justify increasing our total assessed valuation from $396,260 to $573,465. The Assessor has used the sale price per frontage foot of a 50 foot wide lot - parcel #978 900 021 - and has attempted to extrapolate that price per frontage foot and apply it to our lot. The lot they have used cannot be used for comparison purposes with our lot because their comparison lot has no significant improvements. Parcel #978 900 021 can only be used for comparison purposes to establish the value of other buildable 50 foot or similar size lots with no significant improvements. Those lots must be in this neighborhood and located adjacent to Puget Sound. The true and fair value of our lot can only be determined by comparing recent sales of similar size lots which have significant improvements and a water view. The Assessor has provided no recent sales information to support the assessed value of the improvements. They simply used a calculation of the current replacement value which is unacceptable and not the true and fair market value of our improvements (house). Once significant improvements have been made to a lot, the only way to determine the true and fair value of the house and the lot is by comparing them with similar houses and lots recently sold in the same neighborhood. We have provided the Board of Equalization with two recent sales of houses which accurately establish the true and fair value of our house and lot. If necessary, adjustments were made to the comparable sales amounts to account for negative features of our lot. The correct true and fair value of our land and improvements is approximately $345,000 to $365,000. These amounts were established using comparable sale #1 - parcel #978 900 III and comparable sale #2 parcel #978900036. Based upon all evidence available, the current value of $345,000 to $365,000 will likely decline in the next several years. Real Estate experts are predicting sharp declines in Real Estate because ofthe lack of credit available to buyers and a looming recession. If these experts are correct, the true and fair value of our property must be adjusted downward in coming years. Based upon the evidence we have presented, please adjust the Assessor's valuation of$573,465 downward to $345,000 to $365,000. This would reflect the current true and fair value of our land and improvements. A map obtained from Jefferson County's website was also presented that shows 80% to 90% of their land is either a wetland or landslide hazard area. Both are negative features which sharply reduce the value. Board of Equalization Minutes - December 13,2007 Paj(e: 5 Mr. Struthers reviewed his land valuation analysis. The Assessor has distorted the assessed value of our water-front properties by using only one lot, parcel #978 900 021, located at 418 Olympus Blvd. as a comparable sale. The comparison lot was the only buildable waterfront lot for sale in this neighborhood for several years and has been sold at least three (3) times in the last five (5) years by investors/speculators. The last sale occurred on November I, 2007 and the seller lost several thousand dollars after installing a septic system, incurring Realtor fees and transfer fees. The lot was sold for $5,000 less than the purchase price. The 50 feet of frontage of the speculative aberration has been divided into the $265,000 purchase price on August 15,2005 to somehow arrive at a $4,000 per front foot value. A factor of75% was applied to the $4,000 per foot to arrive at our assessed value. $3,000 per foot x 100' = $300,000. This does not accurately reflect the true and fair value of our lot. U sing the Assessor's method of valuation, two other lots which have sold in the last five (5) years more accurately reflect the current value of our lot and many other waterfront lots. These lots are as follows: Parcel 990900016 978 900035 Address 50 Montgomery Lane 234 Olympus Blvd. Date Sold 05/30/03 03/03/05 Front Feet 130 75 Amount $169,000 $191,250 TOTAL 205 $360,250 Calculation of correct assessed value: Total Cost - 2 lots: $36,250, Divided by Total Front Feet 205 ~ $1,757 ft. $1,757 x Assessor's Adjustment .75 = $1,318 ft. $1,318 x 100 ft. = $131,800 $131,800 plus site improvement value $10,000 = $141,800 true and fair value The property is currently assessed at $573,465 ($310,000 for the land and $263,465 for the improvements). The appellant estimates the value is $345,430 ($185,500 for the land and $159,930 for the improvements). In closing he stated that he does not feel that the property used by the Assessor in valuing their property is comparable. Mr. Pray provided one comparable property sale of a bare land parcel located at 418 Olympus Blvd. It is 50 feet of high-bank waterfront that sold for $265,000 in August of2005. It is five parcels away from the appellant's property and is similar in view and bank height. The appellant's comparable property #1 is comprised of two parcels including one of the appellant's comparable #3 properties. It sold for $575,000 in March 2005 and consists of 150 feet of waterfront. The Board QfEqualization Minutes - December 13, 2007 Page: 6 two parcels are owned by the same individual so they were valued contiguous in the amount of $456,250. With the improvements the total value is $666,180. It is currently listed for sale for $849,000. He noted that the appellant's comparable property #2 is a view lot and not waterfront. He does not agree that it is comparable to the appellant's property. The appellant's comparable property #3 located on Montgomery Court is located in the Port Ludlow community and was not valued by Mr. Pray. It appears that it is not waterfront although he does not have the specific details. The appellant presented other comparable properties located along Condon Lane in Port Ludlow that range from 75 to 90 feet of waterfront and they are valued similarly to the appellant's property. The appellant purchased his property in February of2000 for $119,000. The house was built in 2004. He asked the appellant how much it cost to build the house? Mr. Struthers replied that he does not know how much it cost which is why he used the replacement cost as a basis for his calculations. Discussion ensued regarding the land value and the comparable property sales used by the appellant to arrive at his estimate of value. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Marlow closed the hearing. The Board will make a determination at a later date. Archie & Suzanne Charawell P.O. Box 65026 Port Ludlow, WA 98365 BOE: 07-125-LO PN: 978900060 Archie Charawell 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 bare land located at 341 Olympus Blvd., Port Ludlow. Mr. Charawell stated that this property is a wetland and has not increased in value. It is not buildable because it is not suitable for drainfield. All that lives there are the frogs. The Assessor's office reduces land values by 50% if they cannot be developed, but, he feels it has no value. The Army Corps of Engineers required him to put a drain across his property so the neighboring property would not flood. Copies of the letters from the Army Corps of Engineers were submitted with the petition form. This property could not be sold to anyone to develop. It is not even any good for growing trees. A portion of his driveway crosses the edge of this property. There is approximately 10 feet of gravel on this portion. The assessment seems a bit high for a driveway. The property is currently assessed at $20,000 (land only). The appellant feels the property has no value. Mr. Pray stated that he does not have any comparable property sales for this property. The base land value is $50,000 with a 20% reduction given for size and a 50% reduction given for septic denial. Most likely, this parcel would only sell with the sale of the appellant's parcel with the home. In looking at the value of both parcels ($267,000 +$20,000), the total value seems fair. Board of Equalization Minutes - December 13, 2007 Page: 7 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. Friday, December 14, 2007. Member DeLeo seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Attest: Y/LC:/L/V/iL-AL-c(.1 '/t1</L- EMLundgren, ~the "jard JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF EQUALIZATION ~----- Williaml S. ~olJha' ~)-('t}l?t;, Richard A. Broders. Vice-Chairman (DU?eIl5('~) James A. DeLeo, Member