The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutM121407 (.)\ tQU4lb ~~~ g~~ ..,~ ~ to/:; ~~ I'" ><) ~ \4f; *,/ ~ 1820 Jefferson Street P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 James A. DeLeo William S. Marlow Richard A. Broden MINUTES December 14, 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 WITHDRAWAL Vice-Chairman Broders moved to accept the following petition withdrawal. Member DeLeo seconded the motion which carried by a unauimous vote. APPELLANT Teri Marek APPEAL NO. BOE 07-107-R PARCEL NO. 990 600 122 HEARINGS Jo Ann Jackson 1150 - 17th Avenue E. Seattle, W A 98112 BOE: 07-134-LO PN: 952 200 003 Jo Ann Jackson was not present. Appraiser John Pray represented the Assessor's office and was sworn in by Chairman Marlow. Under appeal is a parcel with a 10' x 12' shed located at 140 Beach Drive, N ordland. On the petition form the appellant wrote the following reason for appealing her property value: "My lot is unbuildable. 1 am not able to have a well based on the size ofthe lot. Most of the properties around me have homes and wells (ie water). Less than I acre/size needed to accommodate well and limitations due to septic sites on neighbor's property." Ms. Jackson also submitted a letter to the Board dated November 28, 2007 which states: "I am sending information to support my appeal of increased property taxes. Please see included statement from PUD's Manager Jim Parker, who states there will be no access to water for up to 2 years and that there is no guarantee that water will ultimately be delivered. The lack of Phone (360)385-9100 Fax (360)385-9382 jeflbocC@Co.jefferson.wa.U8 Board of Equalization Minutes - December 14, 2007 Paj(e: 2 access to water makes my property unbuildable according to the Jefferson County Department of Community Development. The option of a rain collection system is not allowable as a primary source per DCD and an attempt to create/fmd water for a well by Mr. Bombadier, who owned the property before me was also unsuccessful. I have discussed this with Susan Porto (360)385-9404 at Environmental Health/Department of Ecology permit for wells, who states that the application for a well was discussed after initial unsuccessful attempt. She advised me to approach PUD for a statement as to the status of water. Which is that it will not be available during the next several property tax years and that there is no guarantee (a copy of the PUD letter is included). The Assessor has sent several recent sales: #1, location 59 T29 R13 Tax 16, sale date 01/24/07, AFF#106979, sale price $289,000; and #2, location 2616 E. Marrlowstone Road, sale date 07/12/07, AFF#109597, sale price $300,000. My argument is that my property, because oflack of access to water, is unbuildable and that it is not comparable to the properties offered by the J.e. Assessor's office. Please reassess this valuation to $190,000". The current assessment of the property is $292,710 ($291,910 for the land and $800 for the improvements). The appellant estimates the value is $188,800 ($188,000 for the land and $800 for the improvements). Mr. Pray stated that this property is located on the south end of Marrowstone Island and consists of 110 feet of medium-bank waterfront. He provided two comparable property sales. Both are double sales, meaning they sold twice since the last revaluation period four years ago. Comparable property #1 is 65 feet of waterfront. It sold in December 2004 for $142,000 and then sold again in January 2007 for $289,000. Comparable property #2 is 95 feet of high-bank waterfront. It sold in May 2005 for $185,000 and resold in July 2007 for $300,000. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Marlow closed the hearing. A determination will be made at a later date. Russell E. Ritter, Trustee Ritter Family Living Trust 401 Old Oak Bay Road Port Hadlock, W A 98339 BOE: 07-137-R PN: 921183017 Russell Ritter 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 2.44 acres located at 401 Old Oak Bay Road, Port Hadlock. Mr. Ritter presented a copy of a study done by the Washington State University/Washington Center for Real Estate Research which lists the median home prices between 1996 and 2006. According to this study the median home prices in Jefferson County increased approximately 30% during that time. He feels the land value should be reduced to reflect the appropriate value increase from his purchase price of $389,000 in June 2004. He does not dispute the improvement value. The property is currently assessed at $504,375 ($327,100 for the land and $177,275 for the improvements). The appellant estimates the value is $442,275 ($265,000 for the land and $177,275 for the improvements). Board of Equalization Minutes - December 14, 2007 Paj(e: 3 Mr. Pray presented two comparable property sales. Comparable property #1 is located at 3133 Oak Bay Road and consists of 2.38 acres and 125 feet of waterfront. This property sold in August 2005 for $975,000. Comparable property #2 is 1.78 acres in size with a water view located at 2388 Oak Bay Road. It sold for $282,500 in September 2005. The appellant's assessed value has increased approximately 25% since his date of purchase which seems reasonable. Mr. Pray noted that the median home price study can be mis-leading, because, it can be skewed by the price of homes on the market. It is not a good guide for determining the percentage of increase in the market. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Marlow closed the hearing. The Board will make a determination at a later date. Kenneth & Jeanne McMillen McMillen Family Trust 1734 Oak Bay Road Port Hadlock, W A 98339 BOE: 07-138-LO 07-139-R PN: 921073020 921182 006 Kenneth McMillen 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 two waterfront parcels. Parcel #921 073 020 is bare land. Parcel #921 182 006 has a house, however, only the land value is being appealed. The property is located at 291 Yarr Road, Port Hadlock. Mr. McMillen stated that they originally submitted two appeals, but, are now satisfied with the value of the parcel with the house #921 182 006 and would only like to proceed with parcel #921 073 020. This parcel is located in a landslide hazard area which affects the market value. In researching County records he found that Yarr Road had been constructed on fill material and a culvert was never installed because of a neighbor's protest. The road has been patched several times, but, the County has done nothing to correct the problem. Based on a geological study it was determined that the road had changed the course of the water. He doesn't think the absence of a culvert is the basis for the problem, but, it is a contributing factor in an area that is already unstable. A few years ago he had appealed the property where the house is located because there had been a land slide and the house had moved and cracked. The value was subsequently reduced and is still assessed reasonably. They are currently renting the upper level of the house for an amount that almost pays for the property taxes. His son is hoping to build on the bare parcel, but, because of the instability of the property that has been identified by a geotech, he will have to build on a rafting foundation to accommodate for any movement, at considerable more cost than a traditional foundation. The drainfield for the house on the adjacent parcel is also located on the bare parcel. He noted that there is also a 20' wide utility easement through both properties which he authorized in order for PUD to provide water service to properties along Oak Bay Road. For these reasons he feels there should be a reduction in value to parcel #921 073 020. Board of Equalization Minutes - December 14, 2007 The current assessments and the appellant's estimate of values are listed below: Page: 4 Parcel No. 921 073 020 921 182006 Assessor's Valuation $139,500 (land only) $309,010 ($247,500 land/$61,510 imps.) Appellant's Estimate $67,000 (land only) $147,310 ($85,800 land/$61,510 imps.) Mr. Pray stated that the bare land parcel #921 073 020 is already receiving a 50% reduction in value for topography issues and the fact that it contains the drainfield for the house on the adjacent parcel. This parcel consists of 100' of waterfront and is valued at $139,500. He asked if the appellant has an estimate ofthe cost to build on the property? Mr. McMillen stated that the differential cost between a raft foundation and a traditional foundation is approximately $30,000. Two comparable property sales were presented by Mr. Pray. Comparable property #1 consists of 125 feet of waterfront and is located at 3133 Oak Bay Road. It sold in August 2005 for $975,000. Comparable property #2 is a water view lot located at 2388 Oak Bay Road and sold in September 2005 for $282,500. Based on these sales and the current adjustment being given to the land value, 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. Robyn & Emery Walters 126 Deer Hollow Circle Port Ludlow, WA 98365 BOE: 07-121-R PN: 948200019 Robyn & Emery Walters were not present. Appraiser Maryn Gossell represented the Assessor's office and was sworn in by Chairman Marlow. The property under appeal is a residence situated on a lot located at 126 Deer Hollow Circle, Port Ludlow. On the petition form the appellants wrote the following reason for appealing their property value: "Our land value was assessed the same as Edgewood Village lots 22 and 23 and $40,000 more than Edgewood Village lots 25 and 26, all of which have views of Ludlow Bay, Puget Sound and Mt. Baker. Our lot has a view of tennis courts, a driving range and the Three Brothers (peaks only). Our home is 2 bedrooml2 bath." The property is currently assessed at $497,495 ($210,000 for the land and $287,495 for the improvements). The appellants estimate the valuation of the property is $445,000 ($165,000 for the land and $280,000 for the improvements). Ms. Gossell stated that the appellant's house was built in 1998. The photograph included in her information packet shows that it is a very well kept, immaculate home. It is being assessed with three years effective age which she feels is fair when considering how well it has been taken care of. She presented three comparable properties that sold in the area. Comparable property # I is located at I Dunbar Court and sold in June 2006 for $555,545. Comparable property #2 is located at 23 Raeburn Court and sold with another lot that has a very steep ravine and very little usable land. That property sold Board of Equalization Minutes - December 14, 2007 Paj(e: 5 in May 2005 for $640,000. She noted that the improvements on these two comparable properties are valued for more than the appellant's improvement value. Comparable property #3 was the last unimproved parcel to sell in Edgewood Village. It is located at 235 Edgewood Drive and sold for $170,000 in January 2005. From the date of this sale there were two more years of market growth that occurred. Comparable property #3 had sold previously in 2003 for $123,000. These sales support the current assessment of the appellant's property. Also included in the packet of information are two exhibits oftwo property sales that occurred in the area. The first exhibit is a sale of an improved property for $1,135,000 that occurred in September 2007. While this property is not similar to the appellant's property, the sale shows that the market it still very strong in Port Ludlow and especially in Edgewood Village. The second exhibit is what appears to be a "distressed" sale that occurred in August 2007 for $400,000. The reason she believes this was a "distressed" sale is because she spoke with the Realtor handling the property who told her the seller was very ill and had moved to California. Because the seller was probably not coming back to this area, the property was priced to sell immediately. There were multiple offers made on the property and within three days it was under contract. Not much consideration was given to this sale. Based on the appellant's comments about their view, it seems that they have a mountain view. She feels the value is fair and equitable compared to others in the neighborhood. Discussion ensued regarding the differing views and parcel sizes between the appellant's property and the comparable properties. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Marlow closed the hearing. The Board will make a determination at a later date. David & Jerilyn Reid 1331 E. Ludlow Ridge Road Port Ludlow, W A 98365 BOE: 07-127-R PN: 821103010 David Reid 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 waterfront lot located at 1331 E. Ludlow Ridge Road, Port Ludlow. Mr. Reid stated that he is not contesting the improvement value of the property, but, he feels the land value is too high. The land value has increased 76% from the time they purchased the property in 2003. He believes the issue is that the ratio of land value versus improvement value is skewed making the land value too high. The Assessor's comparable property #1 is a lot adjacent to his property. He does not dispute that a lot of money was paid for that lot. The improvements on that lot are valued at $650,000. It is a very elegant timber-framed house which the owner spent over $900,000 to build. The land is valued at $510,000 for a total of valuation of$I,160,OOO. To reflect the actual value of house he feels more value should be distributed to the improvements and less to the land. This parcel and his parcel is high-bank waterfront with eroding bluffs and no beach access. This has to be considered when valuing waterfront property that is actually only "water view" property. On a front footage basis the land value of Board of Equalization Minutes - December 14, 2007 Paj(e: 6 comparable property #1 is $2,620 per front foot which is on the high end of values being considered. Comparable property #2 is valued $3,130 per front foot. This parcel is high-bank which is probably eroding. He questioned whether the owner of this property has challenged the value? Comparable property #3 is not high-bank and is noted by the Assessor as being a superior site. This property is not comparable. Comparable property #4 has a more reasonable value of$2,200 per front foot, and yet it is low-bank with access to the beach. Comparable property #5 is a high-bank eroding site that is valued at $1,930 per front foot. Comparable property #6 is also a high-bank eroding site that is valued at $2,170. Comparable #7 is high-bank, but, is more stable than the others. It is valued at $2,510 per front foot. He noted that his property is valued at $2,230 per front foot. It is a mystery why there are exhibits for two other properties included in the Assessor's information when there is no recent sales data on them. He assumes it is because they were recently for sale. One of these properties has been on the market for about a year with no offers. The other was for sale for about a year, but, was recently taken off the market because it will not sell in the current market condition. Both of these properties are high-bank eroding sites. He did not include them in his analysis because they were exhibits rather than comparable property sales. Mr. Reid reviewed properties sales which he feels are comparable to his property. All are high-bank eroding sites. Comparable property 'B' sold in September 2003 for $180,000 and is valued at $1,120 per front foot. Comparable property 'D' has trees and is more stable than the others with access to the beach. It sold in February 2003 for $475,000 and is valued at $980 per front foot. Using all the comparable property values he calculated the average front foot value to be $1,840. Based on that front foot value his land value should be assessed at $359,000 which is very close to his original estimate of value. The property is currently assessed at $882,860 ($435,000 for the land and $447,860 for the improvements). The appellant estimates the value is $795,860 ($348,000 for the land and $447,860 for the improvements). Ms. Gossell presented an aerial photograph of the area as well as a map outlining the appellant's property; the comparable properties presented by both patties; and two properties currently on the market (one is a bare land parcel listed at $570,000 and the other is an improved parcel listed at $1,750,000 with an independent appraisal completed in December 2005 indicating a value of$I,320,000). She noted that the assessed value is below the four indicators of value that were considered in the assessment process. Comparable property #1 sold in November 2005 for $1,225,000. There were 13 more months of market growth before the appraisal date of January 1,2007. The market listings that were presented as exhibits I and 2 are not considered comparable and were provided for informational purposes only. This property is located at Tala Point in a private gated community off of Paradise Bay Road. It is one of seventeen parcels that all share the tidelands. All the parcels in this area are high-bank waterfront and are being valued as sites rather than being valued by the front foot. The base land value is $500,000 per site. Because the property and houses in this area are unique, she had to look at other comparable properties outside of Tala Point to arrive at a value. She noted that she did not compare this property to property located within the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort (MPR) because of the difference in amenities. Board of Equalization Minutes - December 14,2007 Paj(e: 7 She noted that the appellant has a two year old appraisal that was done in August 2004 showing a value of $700,000. There was substantial market growth in this area since the time the appraisal was done. The land value is being reduced by 15% ($75,000) based on the lack of usable area. All but one of the comparable property sales presented by the appellant occurred in 2003. While they did occur within the four year revaluation period, they occurred very early in that period and prior to the market increase which occurred in 2005 and 2006. Discussion ensued regarding comparable property sales and comparable property market listings. Mr.Reid added that the fact that the property is gated does not support a higher assessed value. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Marlow closed the hearing. The Board will make a determination at a later date. Rose Marie Holden & Warren K. Broberg 102 Edgewood Drive Port Ludlow, W A 98365 BOE: 07-103-R PN: 948200001 Rose Marie Holden and Warren K. Broberg 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 located at 102 Edgewood Drive, Port Ludlow. Ms. Holden stated that the value of their land has increased from $88,000 to $210,000 over the last 10 years. The improvement value increased from $214,450 to $321,000 and they have not done anything to improve the property. This valuation increase seems to have occurred at an accelerated pace. She understands that property values are based on Real Estate market sales here in Washington, but, she would not pay $531,000 for her property. They are both retired and living on a fixed income. If the value of their property can almost double over the period of 10 years, she wonders what they will be facing in the future? Mr. Broberg added that he wishes they could sell the property for what the Assessor's office says it's worth. Other properties in the area are not selling. They no longer have a view of the mountains due to tree growth, and they are not allowed to cut any trees. Ms. Holden stated that someone needs to put a stop to this continuing increase in property values. The property is currently assessed at $531,535 ($210,000 for the land and $321,535 for the improvements). The appellants estimate the value is $341,670 ($108,000 for the land and $233,670 for the improvements). Ms. Gossell explained that she valued the land using a base rate of $200,000 with an additional $10,000 for utilities. It is not being valued as "view" property. The valuation is based on comparable property sales that occurred in the area. Comparable property #1 located at I Dunbar Court sold in June 2006 for Board of Equalization Minutes - December 14, 2007 Paj(e: 8 $555,545. Comparable #2 is 2 lots located at 23 Raeburn Court which sold in May 2005 for $640,000. Comparable property #3 was the last unimproved parcel to sell in Edgewood Village. It is located at 235 Edgewood Drive and sold for $170,000 in January 2005. She noted that there were still two more years of market growth that occurred after the date of that sale. Two exhibits were also included in the packet of information that show two other property sales that occurred in the area. The first exhibit is a sale of an improved property for $1,135,000 that occurred in September 2007. The assessment of that property is $989,000 which is 87% of its market value. The second exhibit is what appears to be a "distressed" sale that occurred in August 2007 for $400,000. She spoke with the Realtor handling this sale and found that it is clearly a "distressed" sale. There were 332 sales that occurred within the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort (MPR). Of those sales, 105 were "double sales" which means they sold twice since the last revaluation period four years ago. This data shows that property values in Port Ludlow have increased significantly. Discussion ensued regarding an easement on the property. 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, December 17,2007. Member DeLeo seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Attest: [:LL'~",-/ 0,/ . 0 ~(/cj EnnLundgren, ~~jd JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF EQUALIZATION I/~ {j~I~Jj7V{r~ Richard A. Broders, Vice-Chairman (D~ I!e,,-sc-i) James A. DeLeo, Member