Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM121707 ~\ tQU4lh. ~~~ g~~~ ~ ~ (~,~ 2: ~ ~~J ~~ 1820 Jefferson Street P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 James A. DeLeo William S. Marlow Richard A. Broden MINUTES December 17,2007 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-Chailman Broders moved to accept the following assessment corrections. Member DeLeo seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. " " APPEAL NO. BOE 07-204-LO BOE 07-205-LO BOE 07-206-LO PARCEL NO. 934500016 935400001 935 100002 APPELLANT GGK Associates " " HEARINGS William C. Whipple 140 Montgomery Court Port Ludlow, WA 98365 BOE: 07-208-R PN: 990900013 William Whipple was not present. Appraiser Maryn GosselJ represented the Assessor's office and was sworn in by Chairman Marlow. Under appeal is a residence situated on a waterfront lot located at 140 Montgomery Court, Port Ludlow. On the petition form the appellant wrote the following reason for appealing his property value: "I am 92 years old. My pension is $36,322/S.S. is $17,664. My wife is an invalid and I am fast becoming one. Medical bills are getting high. Taxes are getting too high. If they get much higher, we'll have to sell our home built in 1975. You are raising our taxes almost every year. My income is not. You are taxing us out of our home built as a retirement home. I am too old to go through all of your red tape." Phone (3601385-9100 Fax (360)385-9382 jeflbocC@Co.jefferson.wa.us Board of Equalization Minutes - December 17, 2007 Paj(e: 2 The current assessment of the property is $657,915 ($310,000 for the land and $347,915 for the improvements). The appellant did not provide an estimate of value, but, wrote on his petition that the original value was $225,680. Ms. Gossell presented a map outlining the appellant's property and three comparable property sales. The appellant's home was built in 1984 and is 3,500 sq. ft. All the waterfront properties in this area, including the appellant's property, are valued at a base rate of $300,000 per site. Comparable property #1 is a bare land/waterfront sale that occurred six months after the assessment date in July 2007 for $350,000. This sale supports the land value. Comparable property #2 sold in October 2005 for $880,000. The home on this property was built in 1976 and is similar in size to the appellant's home. Comparable property #3 has a home that was built in 1977 and remodeled in 1997. It is also similar in size to the appellant's property. This property sold in September 2006 for $679,000. Based on these sales, the value of the appellant's property is fair. She shared information she obtained from the local newspaper regarding data from the Northwest Multiple Real Estate Listing Service that shows the number of homes that have sold in Jefferson County has been down 35%, however, the median price of homes has risen by 12%. This shows that the market is still strong in value even though there has been a drop in volume. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Marlow closed the hearing. A determination will be made at a later date. Paul Fricke & Douglas Fricke, Trustees 345 N. Canal Street, Apt. #1408 Chicago, IL 60606 BOE: 07-211-LO PN: 821152 004 and Paul Fricke, Trustee 345 N. Canal Street, Apt. #1408 Chicago, IL 60606 BOE: 07-221-R 07-222-R 821152 005 821152 007 Paul Fricke was present. Appraiser Maryn Gossell represented the Assessor's office. After explaining the hearing process, Chairman Marlow swore in both parties. The three waterfront parcels under appeal are located off of Ludlow Bay Road, Port Ludlow. Mr. Fricke stated that these parcels are undeveloped and do not have legal access. The owner ofthe parcel which separates his properties from Ludlow Bay Road is reluctant to enter into any kind of an easement agreement. Lack of an easement would make selling this property difficult and prevent a potential purchaser from getting financing. He presented appraisals for the property that indicate the fair market value is lower than the current assessed value. Finding comparable properties was difficult so they had to go outside of the Port Ludlow area. He recognizes the difficulty of the Assessor's job in valuing property, but, he feels the value should be based on his appraisals. Board of Equalization Minutes - December 17, 2007 Paj(e: 3 The current assessments and the appellant's estimate of values are listed below: Parcel No. 821 152004 821 152005 821 152007 Assessor's Valuation $1,078,400 (land only) $987,880 ($985,880 land/$2,000 imps.) $691,200 ($685,500 land/$5,700 imps.) Auuellant's Estimate $800,000 (land only) $802,000 ($800,000 land/$2,000 imps.) $605,700 ($600,000 land/$5,700 imps.) Ms. Gossell presented a map outlining the appellant's properties and comparable property sales #1 and #2. The waterfront properties along Ludlow Bay Road are mostly 100 front feet in size. Mr. Fricke owns the only parcels on this stretch of waterfront that are large acreage and consist of 350 to 450 feet of waterfront. It is the most unique property in the entire area and is one-of-a-kind. She suggests that the Board conduct an inspection ofthis gorgeous and pristine property. While this property is very unique, it is equitably valued with other parcels in this area with an assessment of $5,000 per front foot that equates to approximately $500,000 per site. This property is located outside of the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort (MPR) so there is no community septic or water system and the owners are responsible for their o",'ll septic systems and wells. She presented two comparable property sales that occurred in the area. Each property has a cabin that was built on it in the 1940's. They both consist of 50 feet of waterfront. Comparable property # I sold for $460,000 and comparable property #2 sold for $585,000 in 2006. There were two other sales (lots 7 & 8) in the area located off of Ludlow Bay Road which closed October 16, 2007. Both lot 7 and lot 8 have old houses on them and each sold for $925,000. They are currently assessed at $849,000 and $730,000 respectively. This shows the assessed value of these parcels is 27% below the market value and verifies that the assessments are accurate, if not undervalued. Following are the valuation summaries she prepared for the appellant's parcels showing the current assessed value, the previous assessed value from four years ago and the percentage of increase in the assessment over the 4 year revaluation period: Parcel No. 821 152004 821 152005 821 152007 Current 2007 Assessment $1,078,400 $987,880 $691,200 Previous 2003 Assessment $542,400 $522,380 $354,295 Percentage ofIncrease 99% 89% 95% The assessed valuations of both comparable property #1 and comparable property #2 increased 212% over that same period. The appellant's property valuation increase over that 4 year revaluation period is $71,000 under the average increase indicated by sales. In addition, the appellant purchased parcel #821 152 004 seven years ago in March 2000 for $550,000. The assessment for that parcel reflects a 96% increase over that seven year period. Parcel #821 152 005 was purchased by the appellant in July 1999 for $487,500 showing a increase of 103% over 7 Yo years. The appellant purchased parcel #821 152007 in November 2001 for $360,000. Since that time the valuation has increased 92%. Board of Equalization Minutes - December 17, 2007 Paj(c:4 The appraisal listed by the appellant on his petition for this property was done in January 2000 and indicates a value at that time of $500,000. The appellant purchased the bare property a month later for $550,000. She stated that one of the appellant's issues has to do with the lack of an easement for access to the property. The appellant provided a copy of an appraisal for this property that was done in September 2007. In the appraisal it notes the estimated legal and survey costs to cure easements (dominant and subordinate) is $25,000. If the appellant has to hire a lawyer and go to court to get an easement for access to his property, it may cost him $100,000. The Assessor's office is already applying a reduction in value to all these lots for the lack of access: Parcel #821 152004 is receiving a reduction in the amount of $268,000. Parcel #821 152005 is being reduced by $245,000 and parcel #821 152007 is being reduced by $134,000. This totals $647,000 in adjustments for the access issue. The value of all three ofthese properties is equitable. Mr. Fricke stated that he agrees the property is unique, but, that term can be used in more than one way. It is unique for valuation purposes as well. He thinks the standard methodology used for the valuations of properties in this area is not appropriate for the valuation of his property because of its uniqueness. He is unable to subdivide this property due to zoning regulations. Regardless of size, these lots are basically three building sites. He agrees the tidelands add value as a feature, but, in terms of being usable property, the tidelands add no value. The Assessor's comparable property sales #1 and #2 consisting of two 50' waterfront parcels, are not comparable to his property and should not be used as basis for market value. Ms. Gossell stated that if this property was divided into smaller parcels the value would be higher. She noted that County regulations would allow for the construction of one residence and one accessory dwelling unit (AD.U.) on this property due to its large size. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Marlow closed the hearing. The Board will make a determination at a later date. J. Paul & Dawn Taylor 114 Camano Lane Port Ludlow, W A 98365 BOE: 07-212-R PN: 990 600 235 J. Paul and Dawn Taylor were 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 114 Camano Lane, Port Ludlow. Mr. Taylor discussed the comparable property sales used by the Assessor in valuing their property. In conducting research on those property sales they discovered that while the properties are in close proximity to their property, they are not comparable in terms oflot size and square footage of the homes. He reviewed sales prices of other properties in Port Ludlow that are similar in size to his property and sold for amounts below the current assessment of his property. He also reviewed listing prices of properties currently on the market. With the decrease in the market, it is doubtful that those properties will sell for those listed prices. The market decrease needs to be considered. In fact, many people have taken their property off the market because nothing is selling. The individuals who had to sell their properties, were forced to significantly drop their prices in order to do so. Market Board of Equalization Minutes - December 17,2007 Paj(e: 5 values of property across the country have dropped and now it is hitting the northwest. In fact, the "Seattle Times" newspaper headlined "Home Prices Have Slipped; Now Down to 06' Levels". This was very evident during the month of November when only a total of9 units were sold. There are numerous Real Estate agencies in Port Ludlow and usually each agency sells that many or more. There is a home located two streets down from their property that has been on the market for over two years. Even new homes have not sold after being on the market for over eight months. The current assessment of the property is $30 1,925 ($90,000 for the land and $211,925 for the improvements). The appellants estimate the value is between $275,000 and $280,000 (a breakdown between land and improvements was not provided). Ms. Gossell explained that the appellant's property is surrounded by sales on both sides. Comparable property #1 is vacant land which sold in May 2007 for $82,500. Comparable property #2 was a "double sale", which means the property sold twice since the last revaluation period four years ago. It sold in January 2005 for $252,500 and then sold again in December 2006 for $324,900. Comparable property #3 sold in December 2005 for $320,000. All three comparable properties are valued more than the appellant's property and are comparable in square footage according to information contained in the Assessor's records. The appellant's property and all of the comparable properties were valued using a base rate of$100,000 and were given a 20% reduction in value for poor site quality. A value of $1 0,000 for utilities was added to the improved parcels. Within the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort (MPR) there were 332 property sales that occurred since the last revaluation period four years ago. Of those sales, 105 were "double or triple sales" (they sold two or three times since the last revaluation period four years ago). Ms. Gossell presented a map outlining only those 105 property sales. All the sales presented by the appellant occurred after the assessment date of January I, 2007 and listing prices for properties are not given any weight in the valuation process. She has been continuing to chart the sales that occurred after the January 1, 2007 assessment date to see how accurate the assessed values have been. Between January I, 2007 and July 20, 2007 there were 13 improved property sales with an annual increase of 17.4%. Bare land sales show a 34% annual increase. This shows the market is still going strong. While the volume of sales may have dropped, the value of properties sales have not. Data from the Northwest Multiple List states the number of properties sold in Jefferson County during November 07' is 35% down in volume from last year, but, has increased in value by 12%. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Marlow closed the hearing. The Board will make a determination at a later date. Richard & Madge Duce 15413 West Skyview Way Surprise, AZ 85374 BOE: 07-200-LO 07-201-LO PN: 821042109 821 042 110 Richard and Madge Duce were not present. Appraiser John Pray represented the Assessor's office and was sworn in by Chairman Marlow. The property under appeal is two bare land parcels that make up approximately.78 acres located off of Oak Bay Road, Port Ludlow. Board of Equalization Minutes - December 17, 2007 Page: 6 On the petition forms the appellants wrote the following reasons for appealing their property values: "I have not heard of any property selling with non-view, on Oak Bay Road at this assessed value. I would like to see data which this value is based.", and "Would like to see sales on property east of Oak Bay Road, non-view lots. This property has some built in obstacles for use." The current assessment and the appellant's estimate of value for the two parcels are listed below: Parcel No. 821 042 109 821 042 110 Assessor's Valuation $10,000 (land only) $10,000 (land only) Appellant's Estimate $6,000 (land only) $6,000 (land only) Mr. Pray explained that there were no comparable property sales in the immediate area so he used sales of comparable properties located off of Sentinel Firs Road. Comparable property # I is Y, acre in size and sold in December 2005 for $29,500. Comparable property #2 is more similar to the appellant's property. It is .72 acres in size and sold in June 2007 for $22,000. Mr. Pray noted that the appellant purchased the property in April 1990 for $9,700. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Marlow closed the hearing. The Board will make a determination at a later date. Scott Brinton & Rachael Vanlaanen 7084 Flagler Road Nordland, W A 98358 BOE: 07-187-LO PN: 976200501 Rachael Vanlaanen 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 4.75 acres of bare land located at 72 Beveridge Lane, Nordland. Ms. Vanlaanen stated that they are appealing the value of their property because the current assessment does not reflect the amount they actually paid for the property in May 2007. They do not believe the Assessor's comparable properties are relevant due to the septic issues with their lot. A septic permit had previous been denied for this property due to the high water table. Since they purchased the property they have spent close to $20,000 on septic design and installation. Getting power to the property was also costly due to the location of the accessible power and the age of the transformers on the nearest power poles. She stated that they had to pay for the installation of a new transformer. In addition, some of the Assessor's comparable properties have a mountain or water view, which their property does not have. Based on the septic, power and view, they negotiated and paid a fair market price of $150,000 for this property. They don't understand why it is not being assessed for that amount. The property is currently assessed at $168,750 (land only). The appellants estimate the value is $150,000 (land only). Board of Equalization Minutes - December 17, 2007 Paj(e: 7 Mr. Pray presented the comparable properties he used to value the property. When he first saw this sale he did not think it fit with the sale prices of other properties in the area. Comparable property # I is 4.85 acres located off of Griffith Point Road which sold in December 2005 for $185,000. This property does have a slight water view. Comparable property #2 is 1.69 acres located off of SR116, also on Marrowstone Island. It sold in February 2005 for $175,000 and then sold again in May 2007 for $215,000. Comparable property #3 is located off of Meade Road and is 1.15 acres in size. It sold for $115,000 in July 2007. Located further north on Marrowstone Island, off of SR116, is comparable property #4 which is 1.93 acres that sold for $210,000 in March 2006. Mr. Pray stated he noticed on the purchase documents for this property that the appellant's address is the same as the seller's address. He questioned if there is any relation between the appellants and seller and whether or not this property was listed with a Real Estate company? He also questioned when the septic and power were installed? The purchase price plus the $20,000 cost to install the utilities is very close to the assessed value of$168,750. If the Board decides to reduce the value to $150,000 for 2007, the new construction costs will be valued in the next year. Ms. Vanlaanen explained that there is no relation between them and the individual from whom they purchased the property. The reason the address is the same is because they were renting a house on the seller's property so this property did not have an address, and there were no post office boxes available. This property was not listed for sale with a Real Estate company. Mr. Pray added that there is a permit to move the appellant's previously rented residence from the seller's property to this property. He asked if the purchase of the residence was part of this land purchase transaction? Ms. Vanlaanen replied no, it was not part this transaction. She clarified that they purchased the land in May 2007 and all the improvements to the land including the installation of utilities was done after their purchase and has not yet been completed. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Marlow closed the hearing. The Board will make a determination at a later date. Stephen & Jo Ann Jackson 330 Olympus Blvd. Port Ludlow, W A 98365 BOE: 07-192-R PN: 978 900 024 Stephen Jackson was present. Appraiser John Pray represented the Assessor's office. After explaining the hearing process, Chairman Marlow swore in both parties. Under appeal is waterfront property located at 330 Olympus Blvd., Port Ludlow. Mr. Jackson stated he attended a meeting several months ago where the County Assessor Jack Westerman described the property tax law and its deficiencies. Mr. Jackson pointed out that it is therefore, particularly important that the Assessor's office make decisions which are informed and fair. It is suggested that judgement and standards should be applied that do not include the whims or predilections of the particular employee making the assessments. The homeowners guide to property tax states that state law requires property be appraised at its true market value and that certain characteristics that influence the value may include location, view, geographic features, easements, and so forth. Board of Equalization Minutes - December 17, 2007 Paj(e: 8 There are more than 40 waterfront properties on Olympus Boulevard, all facing generally East, and there the resemblance ends. Our property sits on a 60' bluff of 100' of waterfront and is 200' deep. There is no access to the beach below. They are unable to walk out their door and dig for clams or launch their kayak, or have a picnic. Because of bluff erosion, combined with shoreline management regulations, there will probably never be access even if they were wealthy enough to pay for it. We are constricted in our use of the land by the drainage field on the side of the property facing the street. Use is also constricted by staying outside of the site lines of neighboring houses in order to not impede their view. Thus, there is little usable space for any additions. There is no practical room even for small utility buildings of any kind. Our view is obstructed by a dozen 60 to 80 foot trees running along the top of the bluff. Some of them helping to hold the bluff together and all of them under the jurisdiction of shoreline management. Our privacy is curtailed by a shared driveway. A matter of an easement which reflected certain features of the land and for practical purposes is not subject to change. You cannot persuade me that the market value of my land is equal to or greater than the value of a larger waterfront lot with easy beach access, or a secluded lot, or a lot with an unobstructed view. He is certain there is no knowledgeable Realtor who would make such a claim. He knows that other owners have already spoken to the Board about specific cases. He is not here to duplicate their petitions, although, he does agree with their substance. Furthermore, he has no desire to send neighbor against neighbor in an effort to shame the Assessor's office into more equitable performance. He is here to request that attention be paid to the inconsistencies in what appears to be "off the cuff' casualness by the Assessor's office. In the Assessor's responsibility to the citizens his office is obligated to apply a set of relevant guidelines which more realistically portray market value. Guidelines give a citizen competence that serious thought and judgement were exercised in the determination of value. The property is currently assessed at $463,485 ($310,000 for the land and $153,485 for the improvements). The appellants estimate the value is $443,485 ($290,000 for the land and $153,485 for the improvements). Mr. Pray provided one comparable property sale. It is a 50' undeveloped waterfront lot located at 418 Olympus Blvd. This lot sold for $265,000 in August 2005. It is also high bank and not accessible to the beach. He noted that this lot sold again in 2007 for $260,000. With regard to the comments made by the appellant, Mr. Pray stated that he takes his responsibility of assessing property very seriously and apologized if he came across aloof. He realizes there are some inconsistencies, but, the appraisers do their best to insure property values are fair and equitable for all citizens. In response to a question posed by Vice-Chairman Broders, it was explained that the appellant's property, and other properties in the area are receiving a 25% reduction in the land value due to poor site quality. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Marlow closed the hearing. The Board will make a determination at a later date. Patrick & Paula McAvoy 50 Carey Court Port Ludlow, W A 98365 BOE: 07-195-R Paj(e:9 PN: 978 900 085 Board of Equalization Minutes - December 17, 2007 Patrick and Paula McAvoy were 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 situated on a lot located at 50 Carey Court, Port Ludlow. Mrs. McAvoy thanked the Board for the opportunity to explain why they believe their valuation is in error. They have put a lot of work and research into this analysis and she feels the Board will see their point once it is reviewed. They were initially told that the County does a very good job in assessing property, but, that there are isolated incidences of oversight and mis-evaluations. The information provided with their appeal shows that their property was one of these oversights. She provided a large map outlining comparable properties in the area and highlighting the different categories based on land, improved land, recent and comparable sales, and assessment comparisons. The highlighted properties correlate to the spreadsheet which shows the parcel number, owner, location, assessed value, the land characteristics/features, the house/improvements characteristics, and any other structures on the property. Parcel #931 500 213 has a house with basically the same square footage, 2 bedrooms and I bathroom. It has a concrete foundation and a 1,200 sq. ft. garage. The assessed value of the improvements is $52,840. The appellant's house was built in 1974 and has a post and block foundation, and due to poor construction has left the floor very uneven making the installation of new flooring very difficult. They have a 400 sq. ft. garage, and yet, the assessed value oftheir improvements is $101,760. That is a difference of $49,000. Their house is not comparable to the modern properties used by the Assessor in the valuation process. The following properties are most comparable to their property in terms of year built or remodeled, and property characteristics including age and square footage. Yet, these properties have significantly lower assessments than their assessment of$101,760: Parcel #931 500 112 has a post and block foundation. It was remodeled in 1985, and does not have a garage. The assessed value of this parcel is $26,995. Parcel #931 500 105 was built in 1970. It has a concrete foundation, 2 bedrooms, I bathroom. It is assessed at $58,890. Parcel #978 900 007 was remodeled in 1979 and also has a post and block foundation. It has a larger garage and is assessed at $47,895. The spreadsheet includes comparative data on many more parcels in their neighborhood, and shows the inequity in her assessment compared to those parcels. Mr. McAvoy stated this inequity in value has been ongoing ever since the house was constructed. They are not here to complain about paying taxes, they are simply requesting an adjustment in value to make it equal Board of Equalization Minutes - December 17, 2007 Paj(e: 10 and fair with other neighboring properties. His wife has presented many comparable properties that support their case. Mrs. McAvoy likewise stated that they are not opposed to paying their taxes. They would just like the value to be fair, equitable and consistent with the neighboring properties. The property is currently assessed at $164,260 ($62,500 for the land and $101,760 for the improvements). The appellants estimate the value is $99,000 ($47,500 for the land and $51,500 for the improvements). Mr. Pray stated that he provided two comparable property sales. Comparable property #1 is .20 acres located at 7581 Oak Bay Road. The proximity of this property to Oak Bay Road is considered a negative factor. There is a "peek-a-boo" view of the shipping lanes from this property. The was house built in 1935 and is 714 square feet in size. There is also a garage and carport constructed on the property. This property sold in February 2007 for $177,200. Comparable property #2 is located at 591 Olympus Blvd. It was included because it is near the appellant's property. While the home is new, it is noted that this property sold in March 2007 for $337,000. The appellant's property is assessed for $164,260. The apparent discrepancies in the value ofthe improvements are the result of an inspection by the Assessor's staff which revealed to the previous appraiser in 2003 that the property had been remodeled based on a photograph taken of the property in 1995 showing a different condition of the property. The appraiser's notes in the County Assessor's records state that in 200 I there was a loan taken out on this property for $80,000. He asked if the appellants could comment if this was used for a remodel? The appellants purchased the property in 1978 for $42,000. He feels the value of the improvements is fair. Mrs. McAvoy added that their property is located directly across from the Mats Mats Bay boat launch. She wishes she would have gotten a list from the Sheriffs Office showing all the times they have had to call in problems occurring at the boat launch, such as suspicious vehicles, parties, camping, negligent driving, and fires. Twice, the sanican facilities have burned down. It is a horrendous fear to be awakened in the middle of the night and hear a blaze going off very close by. If that incident had occurred in dry weather, the fire would have jumped the road and their entire house could have burned. Living next to a public boat launch is not fun. Mr . McAvoy stated that the proximity to the boat launch should be designated as a negative factor. Mrs. McAvoy asked where the photographs taken by the previous appraiser are located? Mr. Pray answered that they are in the Assessor's office field book which he did not bring to the hearing. Mrs. McAvoy noted that when they first received their revaluation notice they made an appointment with the Assessor's office to get an explanation about the discrepancies in the property valuations throughout the neighborhood. During this meeting Mr. Pray was very uncooperative. All he said was "that's what he would he pay for our house". He did not provide them with any information to support his assessment and is really what sparked this whole thing. If they had been treated with just an ounce of respect, they probably could have worked together. She also pointed out that she received the Assessor's information just 12 days prior to the hearing, and not 14 days prior, as is required. They worked very hard to get all of their information submitted in a timely manner, and apparently the same rules don't apply to the Assessor's office which is supposedly governed by laws. Board of Equalization Minutes - December 17, 2007 Paj(e: 11 With regard to the loan for $80,000, Mrs McAvoy explained that in 2001 they refinanced their property to get a loan which was used to pay for bills, investment property, and a new car. They still have a large amount of that money in the bank, in hopes of having a garage built at the top of their property. Due to the slope of their property they are unable to use the existing garage at the bottom of their driveway. In closing, Mrs. McAvoy added that the characteristics of the Assessor's comparable properties are not at all comparable to their property. She also noted that these sales occurred in 2007, which is after the assessment date of January I, 2007. Sales that occur after the fact cannot be used. Mr. McAvoy stated that ifthese comparable properties are to be used, then they should be used for all the properties included in their analysis and those property values should be increased in order to be equitable. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Marlow closed the hearing. The Board will make a determination at a later date. Mark Reitz 353 East Arden Street Port Hadlock, W A 98339 ROE: 07-210-R . PN: 970800314 Mark Reitz 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 waterfront lot with a shed located at 201 Bayview Drive, Port Ludlow. Mr. Reitz stated that years ago when he purchased the property, it was listed as an R.V. (Recreational Vehicle) lot. The previous owners were unable to put a home on the property due to the small size of the lot which did not allow for the installation of a well and septic system. Mr. Reitz tried unsuccessfully to obtain an easement and get the roadway vacated. He has looked into its development a couple of other times and was finally told by Health Department staff not to bother pursuing it any longer because it would be a waste oftime. This parcel cannot be developed as it currently exists. The comparable property sale used by the Assessor is not at all comparable to his property. His property is half the size of the comparable property which is a very important feature when you are trying to develop property on the waterfront. In addition, the comparable property was developed in 1990 at which time a different set of laws and rules were in place. Comparing these properties can only be done under the assumption that his property can be similarly developed. That is simply not the case. Mr. Reitz thought it interesting, and questioned how it is that the valuation date is January 1,2007, and yet, the comparable property sale is dated January 5, 2007? How can a valuation be based on a sale that has not yet occurred? It seems like justification, after the fact. Perhaps it is a typographical error. Mr. Reitz spoke with the appraiser about the assessment and his only response was "you have a hundred feet of waterfront". This should not be the only thing that matters in valuing waterfront property. Whether or not the property can be developed should be considered. Attempts to develop this property over the last 20 years have been unsuccessful. Board of Equalization Minutes - December 17,2007 Pal?;e: 12 In closing, he stated that there is currently a Real Estate bubble that is breaking. Properties selling for unbelievable prices wiIl not last. It is uillealistic to assume that he could possibly sell his property for the current assessment. The property is currently assessed at $228,170 ($218,000 for the land and $10,170 for the improvements). The appellants estimate the value is $110,170 ($100,000 for the land and $10,170 for the improvements). Mr. Pray stated that he provided this comparable property sale, because it was the only sale that has occurred in the last few years along the channel where the appellant's property is located. The property is improved/developed and sold on January 5, 2007 for $595,000. He explained that the appraisal date for all the properties in this revaluation period is designated as January 1,2007, but, not every single valuation was physicaIly calculated and determined on that specific day. The Assessor's staff conducts property inspections and calculates values after January 1" and up until the revaluation notices are mailed. Furthermore, the Assessor's staff is allowed to use sales that occur during the assessment year. In fact, those are the best determiners of value. When he spoke to the appellant in the office, Mr Pray was trying to stress the point that in order to make any adjustment to the valuation for the lack of being able to develop the property, the appellant needed to submit recent written documentation regarding the inability to instaIl a septic system on the property. The documentation previously received by the Assessor's office regarding the problems with installing a septic was dated in the late 1980's or early 1990's. With the changes and improvements made to septic systems since that time, it was suggested that more current written documentation be submitted. Mr. Reitz stated he is confused about what he was supposed to get in v,-riting. Chairman Marlow stated that the Health Department issues denial letters for septic permit applications. Mr. Reitz stated that he went and talked to the Health Department staff in person. The applications that he made were just in the preliminary stages when he was told not to bother. He was shut down before he even began. Maybe, it is something he should try to pursue, but, they did not seem too enthusiastic about providing a letter even though these things did happen. Member DeLeo stated that they don't doubt his word, as he is under oath, but it helps the Board if there is documented evidence of the septic denial. He asked how long ago Mr. Reitz attempted to get septic system on the property? Mr. Reitz replied it was in the early 1990's, maybe 1992. He then asked if it was too late to get that documentation? Mr. DeLeo answered that he can bring that information to the Assessor's office at any time. Vice-Chairman received clarification from Mr. Pray about the negative adjustments made to the property value, and asked ifhe could explain the flat $10,000 reduction off the land value? Mr. Pray explained that was an adjustment made by the previous appraiser which Mr. Pray carried over into the new revaluation. Mr. Pray thinks that adjustment was made to reflect the development problems Vvith the lot. Typically, $10,000 is added to the land values of properties that have utilities such as power, water and septic. In this case there are no utilities, so, the land value was reduced by $10,000. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Marlow closed the hearing. The Board wiIl make a determination at a later date. Vice-Chairman Broders moved to adjourn the meeting until 9:30 a.m. Tuesday, December 18, 2007. Board of Equalization Minutes - December 17, 2007 Member DeLeo seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Paj(e:13 AZ~G ~l<fa LA, Enn Lundgren, Clerk ofthe~;;;;~ JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF EQUALIZATION f,.. , William S. Milw,~i/ ~ f'j-//Zy:'~ Richard A. Broders, Vice-Chairman (.&Uf!.~L) James A. DeLeo, Member