Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM121807 \)\ "EQV.1lh ~~~ g ;.(~~ ~ t:Q (:i ~\ 2 .... >< \ . I '. ~I ~~ 1820 Jefferson Street P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 James A. DeLeo William S. Marlow Richard A. Broden MINUTES December 18,2007 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. ASSESSMENT CORRECTIONS Vice-Chairman Broders moved to accept the following assessment corrections. Member DeLeo seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. " " APPEAL NO. BOE 07-147-LO BOE 07-148-R PARCEL NO. 994 800 203 994 800 204 APPELLANT Michael Hoskins & Cheryl Grogan HEARINGS Phillip & Anette Otness 135 W. Ludlow Point Road Port Ludlow, WA 98365 BOE: 07-129-R PN: 969 400 022 Phillip Otness was 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 situated on a waterfront lot located at 135 W. Ludlow Point Road, Port Ludlow. Mr. Otness thanked the Board for the opportunity to discuss his concerns, and thanked Ms. Gossell for the information she sent to him regarding the assessment. His appeal is based on two issues. First, he does not feel it is appropriate to apply a flat rate of $600,000 to the land values of the properties located on the point. The value should be based on all the sales in the area, not just one or two property sales. Secondly, the properties on the point have very different views from one another. The view from his property is more comparable to the properties around the point which are valued at $450,000 per site. He Phone (360)385-9100 Fax (360)385-9382 jeflbocC@Co.jefferson.wa.us Board of Equalization Minutes - December 18, 2007 Paj(e: 2 discussed the history of some of the lots on the point which sold between 200 I and 2003 for approximately $250,000. These sales should be used as a basis for valuing properties in the area. He agrees property values have increased, but, not up to $600,000. The Assessor's comparable property #6 is located off of Ludlow Bay Road where the views are of Admiralty Inlet and the shipping channel. The lots in that area are premium and not at all comparable to his property or other properties located on the point. Comparable property #1 is located on the point and was on the market for several years. It was looked at by hundreds of people, and eventually sold for an amount over market value. The adjacent comparable property #2 which is undeveloped, was also on the market. It sold for $350,000 to the same individual who purchased comparable property #1. The base land value of comparable property #2 is assessed at $300,000. He doesn't understand why the land value of this lot is not assessed at the same base rate of $600,000. Or why the land values of all the properties on the point are not based on $350,000 which is evidenced by the sale of the undeveloped lot. If the other lots on the point are valued at $600,000, then comparable property #2 should be valued the same, regardless of multiple lot ownership. Due to the size and shape of his lot he had to construct a triangular shaped house which limited the direction of his view. His property faces northwest, where the other lots on the point face northeast. The homes on adjacent parcels obstruct his view of the central harbor. He reviewed the sales of waterfront properties located across the water from his property which he feels are more comparable. They have exact reciprocal views and sold in the $250,000 range. All were put on the market around the same time and took about 3 years for them to sell. He reviewed and discussed photographs of the varying views. He also presented a nautical chart showing the direction and distance across the water from various properties. In closing, Mr. Otness stated that he is only appealing the land value. The current assessment of the property is $1,164,530 ($613,220 for the land and $551,310 for the improvements). The appellants estimate the value is $1,014,530 ($463,220 for the land and $551,310 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 located on the point, including the appellants' parcel, are all assessed using a base land value of $600,000 per site. 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 low bank waterfront parcels to the south of the point located along Ludlow Bay Road are valued by the front foot. 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 Board of Equalization Minutes - December 18, 2007 Paj(e: 3 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. There were two sales (lot 7 & lot 8) in the area south of the point off of Ludlow Bay Road which closed in October 2007. Both lot 7 and lot 8 have old buildings on them and each sold for $925,000. They are currently assessed at $849,000 and $730,000 respectively. This shows the assessed values of these parcels are below the market value. The appellant's property along with the other parcels on the point are the only parcels in Port Ludlow that have low bank waterfront with private docks. The pier, ramp and dock on the appellant's property is valued at $40,000. An appraisal done on an adjacent property shows a value of $85,000 for their dock. She reviewed the comparable property sales and explained that comparable property #1 sold for $1,150,000 in July 2006. This sale shows that the market finally caught up with the listing price for this property. Comparable property #2 was the vacant land sale discussed by the appellant that sold for $350,000. It is located adjacent to comparable property #1 and was purchased by the same individual. There is a question whether or not this property can be developed due to its small size. She noted that when two lots are owned by the same individual the typical method used by the Assessor's office is to apply a 50% reduction in value to the second lot. Comparable property #3 sold for $975,000, comparable property #4 sold for $1,700,000, comparable property #5 sold for $998,500, and comparable property #6 sold for $2,195,000. All of these sales occurred in 2006. The sale price of comparable property #6 indicates a valuation base rate of $13,500 per front foot. There is absolutely no way that she could have assessed properties in the area at that amount when they had previously been assessed at $4,000 per front foot. The properties are currently at $6,500 per front foot which is 27% below market value as of October 2007. She added that there were a total of332 sales in the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort. Of those sales, 105 were "double sales", meaning they sold twice since the last revaluation period four years ago. A couple ofthe appellant's comparable property sales occurred in 2003 and 2004 and are considered too old. The market increased significantly in 2005 and 2006. Based on all the information she has presented she believes the current assessment is fair and equitable. Mr. Otness stated that lots 7 and 8 discussed by the appraiser are acreage lots with low-bank waterfront. He noted that the properties on the point are not the only properties with docks. There is a lot located just around the corner from his property which has a dock and that lot has a base land value of $450,000. Based on the information he provided, the base land value of his property should also be $450,000. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Marlow closed the hearing. A determination will be made at a later date. Board of Equalization Minutes - December 18,2007 Paj(e:4 Douglas Tourville 1423 Emerick Road Cle Elum, W A 98922 BOE: 07-130-LO PN: 821151014 Douglas Tourville was not present. Appraiser Maryn Gossell represented the Assessor's office and was sworn in by Chairman Marlow. Under appeal is a bare lot located at 990 Tala Shore Drive, Port Ludlow. In a letter attached to the petition form the appellant wrote the following reason for appealing his property value: "Dear Board, Thank you for the opportuuity to address what I feel needs to be corrected either with the assessed value of my property or information on the County's website. I have included with this mailing, the page that addresses "parcel tags". I recently faxed this page to Maryn, in the Assessor's office, to review. She conveyed to me I would need to appeal to the Board as she could not make a determination. Last year I listed this property for sale with Karen Best at Coldwell Banker in Port Ludlow. I had a great response to the listing and a few close to full price offers. However, after further research by those prospective buyers, they rescinded their offers due to the website information listed above. When Karen called me to tell me the reasons, I logged onto the website to view the erroneous information myself. Specifically, the note suggested by Mike Ajax and Patrick McGraner is that the 'building site above cannot be used due to eagles nest". They were at this property to do a Binding Advanced Determination in November 1994. To my knowledge, neither Mike or Patrick represent Fish and Wildlife, nor do they represent Anita McMillan or Shelly Ament at Fish and Wildlife. I will have Karen Best support this information with a letter to you. My attempts to get this information removed from the website have been extremely frustrating. I've talked to people in your office and they say it is the responsibility of the County to make the correction. At this point Shelly sent me a letter addressing her determination of this issue from a biologists perspective representing the State of Washington. Since there are eagles present, albeit several hundred feet away, a two page minimal Eagle Management Plan will be required prior to development ofthis property. I will have Shelly send you information supporting this before the Board meets this year. My point here is that this property is either improvable or is recreational and should be taxed accordingly. I have invested huge amounts of money installing an onsite sewage system, drilling a well, getting power to this property, etc. The permit process was followed for each ofthese upgrades." Two letters from Shelly Ament, Wildlife Biologist with the Washington State Department ofFish and Wildlife, were submitted as additional evidence along with a map showing the location ofthe Tala Point/Tala Shores bald eagle nest trees and copies ofthe Bald Eagle Protection Rules, Bald Eagle Management Recommendations, and other general information on bald eagle management. The second letter dated December 10, 2007 states "... Mr. Tourville's property is located within the documented Tala Shores Bald Eagle Territory. The Washington State Department ofFish and Wildlife (WDFW) has been monitoring this territory since 1983. The Tala Shores eagle pair has been highly successful at producing eaglets within the territory. Mr. Tourville's property is lcoated very near the tree that contained the original nest #1. In the past WDFW staff was concerned about the possible disturbance associated with construction of a residence on the western portion of the Tourville property. Apparently, a binding advanced determination was conducted on the property by Jefferson County Department of Community Development staff in November of 1994. A parcel tag was implemented for the parcel which stated the 'building site above cannot be used due to eagle's nest'. There have been changing circumstances in the past 13 years and the WDFW fully supports that this parcel tag be removed from the Jefferson County Board of Equalization Minutes - December 18, 2007 Paj(c:5 parcel-tagging database. We base this recommendation on the following: I) The nest tree that contained Tala Shores Nest #1 is no longer a viable nest tree. The nest was destroyed in 1991. The tree has since died and has broken off. This tree is no longer capable of supporting a bald eagle nest. 2) The WDFW must allow "reasonable use" of all property. We have no authority to tell a landowner that they cannot develop their property. 3) Due to the presence of a steep high bank slope and wetland area on the eastern portion of the property, the only suitable building area is on the previously cleared level portions ofthe property west of the top of the bank. The WDFW conducted a site visit to the Tourville property on 1119/07. An adult bald eagle was observed perched on a grand fir tree located within the wetland on the Tourville property. It is essential to protect this known perch tree and other significant trees on the property that provide bald eagle habitat. It is important to note that although the tree that had contained Nest #1 is no longer able to support a nest, there are two alternate bald eagle nest trees that are located near the Tourville property. Both of these nests were observed during the site visit conducted on 11/9/07. Neighbors have reported to WDFW that the Tala Shores bald eagle pair have been seen in territorial disputes with a pair of osprey that have also attempted to nest within the territory. However, the eagle pair has continued to actively be present within the territory. Since there are presently two bald eagle nest trees within 800 feet of the Tourville property, a Bald Eagle Management Plan is still required for the Tourville property. This plan is required prior to any tree cutting, clearing, or further development of the property. It is essential to minimize tree removal and disturbance to nesting eagles on the parcel. Mr. Tourville and his Real Estate agent have been advised to notify any potential buyers ofthe property that a management plan will be required. The landowner has expressed his full cooperation with addressing the need to develop a plan and protect the Tala Shore eagle pair. The Jefferson County Department of Community Development GIS map layer does contain the location of these documented bald eagle nest trees..." The current assessment of the property is $236,800 (land only). The appellant did not provide an estimate of value. Ms. Gossell reviewed Mr. Tourville's comment that the assessed value of the property or the County's website needs to be corrected. He says the property is either improvable or is recreational and should be taxed accordingly. He also says he has invested huge amounts of money installing an onsite sewage system, drilling a well, and getting power to the property. His statement that the permit process was followed for each of these upgrades, shows that there are utilities on the property for which the property is being assessed. She explained that it is valued as a vacant residential parcel and noted that it has been listed for sale for $312,050. According to the appellant's information he wants the County to remove the tag stating that his property is not buildable because of an eagle's nest. No documented evidence was presented showing the property cannot be developed. She is unable to assess the property as a recreational lot because of the eagle's nest. The appellant provided a letter dated December 10, 2007 from Shelly Ament with the Washington State Department ofFish and Wildlife that states the parcel may be developed with a single-family residence, but, a Bald Eagle Management Plan is required. She presented a comparable property sale which is located in the same plat and sold for $319,000 in June 2007. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Marlow closed the hearing. The Board will make a determination at a later date. Board of Equalization Minutes - December 18, 2007 Paj(e: 6 Rupert & Dolores Dorn 1656 Interlaken PI. E. Seattle, W A 98112 BOE: 07-131-LO PN: 984000106 Rupert Dom 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 an undeveloped parcel located off of Paradise Bay Road, Port Ludlow. Mr. Dom stated that they own two adjacent parcels, but, are only appealing the value of one. He purchased the property in 1984 for $10,800 and over the years the taxes on this property have continued to increase. This made him happy because his property was more valuable. However, when he received this most recent revaluation he was shocked to see the value had increased nearly 100%. Later he learned that the property cannot be developed due to a stream located on the property which requires building setbacks and buffer zones. Regulations require a buffer zone of 50' on either side of the stream, plus another 5' building setback from both the buffer zone and the northern property boundary line. This totals 60' and his property is only 55' wide. He could apply for a variance from the setbacks, but, the maximum variance that can be granted is 25% of the buffer zone. In this case, the maximum variance he could be granted is 12 y,'. Even if he was granted a variance, it still will not provide sufficient space for building. No vegetation can be cut within the buffer zone. It cannot even be used as a garden. The property is high- bank waterfront, but, the trees and vegetation block the view of the water. In addition, this property is adjacent to Paradise Bay Road and is subject to road noise. The Assessor's guidelines state that property must be valued at its highest and best use. His property cannot be developed and should not be valued as ifit can be. Although personal hardship is not considered by the Board, he added that he is retired and living on a fixed income. The current assessment of the property is $126,000 (land only). The appellants did not provide an estimate of value. Ms. Gossell presented a map outlining the appellant's property (lot 6 under appeal and lot 7) and a comparable property sale located off of Shore Drive. She understands Mr. Dorn's situation and she spoke with him prior to the hearing to try to reach an agreement on the value. One option presented to Mr. Dorn was if he consolidated his two lots, it may provide enough space to allow for development, and because it would be a two-lot building site, one of the lots would receive a 50% reduction in value. The second option was a 50% reduction in value due to the costs of developing the property. She has asked Mr. Dom several times for documented evidence regarding the impact on the development of his property caused by the creek and resulting buffer zone and setback requirements. Nothing has been received. When the appeal was initially filed, she visited the property and spoke with the owner of the adjacent lots 3, 4, & 5 who showed her where the creek is located. The creek, which was basically a little trickle of water running out of a culvert drainage ditch, borders Mr. Dorn's property (lot 6), but, is primarily located on the neighbor's property (lot 5). She noted that there are several creeks and wet properties in this area. Her visit to the property was during September, when the weather is dryer. Board of Equalization Minutes - December 18,2007 Paj(e: 7 She reviewed the comparable property sale and explained that the high-bank properties in the area are being valued on a site basis rather than a front foot basis. Mr. Dorn's property is located adjacent to a busy road and is receiving a 10% reduction in value on both lots for this issue. Without additional documentation from Mr. Dorn, she is unable to make any further reduction to the value. Mr. Dom has a letter dated August 28th from the Jefferson County Department of Community Development which states that a Type 5 stream is located on his property. If it is thought that the stream is located primarily on lot 5, than perhaps this needs to be verified with a survey. He noted that the stream is mostly dry during the summer months, but, it is still classified as a Type 5 stream with regulated buffer zones. He doesn't want to combine the lots because once they are consolidated they can never be separated again. He may need to sell one and he would like to keep the other for his family. However, any attempt to sell lot 6 for the current assessed value of$126,000 would be impossible if it cannot be developed. Even ifhe took the option of the Assessor to reduce the value by 50% based on costs to develop thereby lowering the value to around $60,000, he still would not be able to sell an unbuildable lot for that amount. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Marlow closed the hearing. The Board will make a determination at a later date. Donald & Lynne Andrews P.O. Box 65177 Port Ludlow, WA 98365 BOE: 07-186-R PN: 821104005 Donald Andrews was present. Appraiser Maryn Gossell represented the Assessor's office. Chairman Marlow explained the hearing process and swore in both parties. Under appeal is a residence and approximately 4 acres located at 1110 E. Ludlow Ridge Road, Port Ludlow. Mr. Andrews stated he feels the 55% increase in their property assessment is unrealistic. Property values should be based on comparable property sales. Instead, what he received from the Assessor's office was one comparable property sale and two "Exhibits" which are property listings and not actual sales. These two properties are currently listed for sale at very high prices and have been on the market for quite some time. He questions the methodology used to value the property at Tala Point. Six ofthe sixteen parcels on Tala Point have land assessments of$510,000, yet, all six are radically different in terms of dimensions, water frontage, elevation and views. With all six properties having the same value it appears as though they were just "rubber stamped". There is no basis for those assessments. Tala Point was first surveyed for the development of Tala Point Estates in 1987. At that time the plot plan for his parcel indicated its size was 3.75 acres plus tidelands. The Assessor's records now show his property is 4.45 acres in size. He also takes issue with the properties on Tala Point being considered more valuable because it is a gated community. The gate was initially installed to satisfY an easement granted by Pope and Talbot (now Pope Resources) in 1988 to protect its tree farm. There was an ugly manual gate in place until 1995 when the community of property owners installed a more convenient gate. Many residents wish there were no gate. The gate is not in place for the benefit of the property owners and is not an attribute that should increase property values. Board of Equalization Minutes - December 18, 2007 Paj(e:8 In addition, the road was first paved in 1988 when the properties were developed. But, since that time it has been the responsibility of the property owners to maintain this private road for which they paid $68,000. At the same time he personally paid $10,554.25 to have his driveway paved, but, yet it is assessed at $13,500. The current assessment of the property is $1,016,495 ($510,000 for the land and $506,495 for the improvements). The appellants estimate the value is $847,000 ($405,000 for the land and $442,000 for the improvements). Ms. Gossell presented an aerial photograph of the area as well as a map outlining the appellant's property; a comparable property sale; 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 $1 ,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 I, 2007. The market listings that were presented as exhibits 1 and 2 are not considered comparable and were provided for informational purposes only. 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. The County's records show the appellant's property is 4.45 acres in size. The property is located at Tala Point in a private gated community off of Paradise Bay Road. The appellant's long asphalted driveway is also gated at the entrance to his property. 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. She did not add value for the fact that these properties are gated, however, the value ofthe gate itself is assessed at $3,500 and the asphalt driveway is assessed at $10,000 which is basically the same amount the appellant paid for it. Based on market values, she feels the current assessment is fair and equitable. Mr. Andrews stated that the gate at the entrance to his property was installed several years ago and did not cost $3,500. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Marlow closed the hearing. The Board will make a determination at a later date. Member DeLeo was not present for the following hearings. Lisa & Christopher Ferenz P.O. Box 813 Port Hadlock, W A 98339 BOE: 07-183-R 07-184-R PN: 942903008 942 903 004 Lisa Ferenz was present. Appraiser Dennis Pownall represented the Assessor's office. After explaining the hearing process, Chairman Marlow swore in both parties. Under appeal are two separate parcels. Parcel #942 903 008 is improved with a modular home located at 123 Margaret Way, Port Hadlock. Parcel #942 903 004 is improved with a single-wide mobile home located at 51 Margaret Way, Port Board of Equalization Minutes - December 18, 2007 Hadlock. Paj(e: 9 Ms. Ferenz began with testimony on parcel #942 903 008 stating they purchased it about 11 years ago. The majority ofthe property has a steep slope dO"TI to a wetland and is very difficult to walk on. Attempts to plant a garden and fruit trees have been unsuccessful. There is also poor drainage on the upper portion ofthe property. With regard to the house she admits they have not maintained it very well. There is work that needs to be done on the house due to damage caused by their dog suffering from "stress syndrome" which was diagnosed by a veterinarian. The interior of the home has never been painted. The exterior was resided because of a manufacturer's defect, however, not all of it was replaced. If they were ever to sell their house there would be a lot of work to complete. The current assessment of parcel #942 903 008 is $110,205 ($49,400 for the land and $60,805 for the improvements). The appellants estimate the value is $85,000 ($40,000 for the land and $45,000 for the improvements). Mr. Pownall explained that the property slopes up one side and slopes down on the other with the house on a plateau in the middle. He was not aware of the poor interior condition of the house at the time of his assessment inspection. He did notice that it looked pretty rough, and if the property was a rental he would have reduced the value further. The difference between rental houses and owner occupied houses is that the degree of maintenance can change quickly if the ownership changes. A can of paint and a dump truck can make a big improvement. While the house is in a temporary state of disrepair, he doesn't know to what degree that affects the value. The land is currently valued as a two-lot site at $33,000 which is comparable to other properties in the area. The other two lots are valued at $3,200 each due to their poor topography. The site improvements for utilities is valued at $10,000 for a total land value of $49,400. The overall value doesn't seem to be out ofline. If the appellants were to put the property up for sale he thinks it would sell for the current assessed value of$11O,205. Discussion ensued regarding the topography noted in the Assessor's records. Ms. Ferenz then testified on parcel #942 903 004 which is property she rents to her parents. There is a 1966 mobile home on the property along with some other shed type structures that have a combined total value of$16,840. Due to the poor condition of the mobile home it should have no value. In fact, at the time of purchase, her bank would not even give her a loan on it. She doesn't dispute the land value, although, it does slope a bit. The current assessment of parcel #942 903 004 is $66,240 ($49,400 for the land and $16,840 for the improvements). The appellants estimate the value is $42,000 ($40,000 for the land and $2,000 for the improvements). Mr. Pownall stated that the mobile home does have some value due to the fact that people are living in it and it is income producing rental property. The value of all the "out buildings" have a combined value of $5,000. The value of the mobile home is $11,840 which he feels is fair considering it is a rentable structure. He agrees that the condition of the mobile home is not good. This property is hanging on marginally and who knows how long it will last. The value is already low, so it is difficult to determine Board of Equalization Minutes - December 18,2007 whether a further reduction is warranted. Paj(e: 10 Ms. Ferenz stated that her parents are helping her out by staying there. They pay $300.00 a month in rent. Nobody other than her parents would live there. There should not be much dispute over the land value. It is being valued as one building site for the amount of $33,000 with two excess lots valued at $3,200 each. There is also a site improvement value for utilities in the amount of $1 0,000. In response to a questioned posed by Chairman Marlow about the depreciation of the mobile home on parcel #942 903 008, Mr. Pownall explained that the effective age generates the percentage figure for physical depreciation. The 1995 mobile home is not very old, however, due to its poor condition because of the lack of maintenance, the physical depreciation figure of 5% is probably low. Chairman Marlow asked Ms. Ferenz if she has any information on the cost to make repairs to the property? Ms. Ferenz replied no, but stated that there is a problem with rotting boards on the exterior walls and a problem with carpenter ants in the walls and roof that they have not been able to eradicate. To repair the property to the extent that it could be saleable would require new carpets, vinyl, countertops, a dishwasher, exterior siding, porch steps, window trim, a couple of windows, an entrance door, and landscaping. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Marlow closed the hearing. The Board will make a determination at a later date. Patricia O'Meara 3430 West Valley Road Chimacum, W A 98325 BOE: 07-167-R 07-168-LO 07-169-LO 07-170-LO 07-171-LO 07-172-LO 07-173-LO 07-174-R 07-175-LO 07-176-LO 07-177-LO 07-178-LO 07-179-R 07-180-LO 07-181-R PN: 961805410 972 000 034 962 111 802 962 112 201 962 112 202 962 112 205 962 112212 942 901 502 942 901 605 942 901 606 942901607 942 901 608 961 800610 961805409 973500110 Patricia O'Meara was present. Appraiser Dennis Pownall represented the Assessor's office. After explaining the hearing process, Chairman Marlow swore in both parties. Under appeal are several properties located in the Port Hadlock and Chimacum areas. Vice-Chairman Broders disclosed that while he does not have any [mancial interest in parcel #972 000 034, he does have personal knowledge of plat issues with that parcel. Chairman Marlow added that he Board of Equalization Minutes - December 18, 2007 also has knowledge of that information. Paj(e: 11 Parcel #961805409: Ms. O'Meara stated she purchased this property at a tax sale for $1,200. Now it is assessed at $14,000. The lot is 25' x 100' and cannot be developed. It is located in a horrible neighborhood off of Moore Street in Port Hadlock. There is no way she could sell it for $14,000. She only purchased it because she and her brother together own an adjacent lot which was initially purchased by her mother. She estimates the value is $3,000. Mr. Pownall explained that the parcel is valued at $4,000 with a site improvement value of $1 0,000 for utilities. There is a utility value placed on the property because there had been a mobile home on it. Ms. O'Meara stated that her brother had let someone store a mobile home on the property but it was never hooked up to septic or power. Parcel #961805410: This is the adjacent parcel which she and her brother own together. Also located off of Moore Street in Port Hadlock, it has a 1965 mobile home on it that is in such poor condition it is almost unliveable. She is only renting it to a friend because he has nowhere else to go. The mobile home should be depreciating in value not increasing in value. The property is currently valued at $54,605 ($44,000 for the land and $10,605 for the improvements). Ms. O'Meara estimates the value to be $26,000 ($25,000 for the land and $1,000 for the improvements). Mr. Pownall stated that this is rental property. The mobile home, separate from the land, has no value. But, being on the land and connected to utilities it has value because it is liveable and usable as income producing property. The mobile home is valued using a 56% depreciation factor. Even in its poor condition, he believes the property could easily sell for $55,000 because it is an affordable place to live. Parcel #972 000 034: Ms. O'Meara stated that she is confused about the issues with this lot which is located off of Ann Kively Drive in Port Hadlock. She is not sure how she wants to proceed. It is currently valued at $77,500 (land only). She estimates the value is $21,500. Mr. Pownall explained that this property is receiving a $10,000 reduction in value for the cost of a septic system. Ms. O'Meara stated that a septic system has been installed on the property. Due to the plat issues possibly rendering this property unbuildable, Mr. Pownall recommends that the value be reduced by 50%. Chairman Marlow stated the Board will take that into consideration and asked Ms. O'Meara if she had any objections to the Assessor's recommendation? Ms. O'Meara asked if the value could be reduced to the amount that it was previously assessed? She thought she had a building permit and that the septic was finalized, but now it is unclear if the property can be developed. Chairman Marlow explained that she can accept the Assessor's recommendation at this time and then if the property can be developed at some point in the future the value will be reassessed at that time. Ms. O'Meara replied ok. Parcel #962111 802: This parcel is located off of Prospect Avenue, Port Townsend. Ms. O'Meara stated that she lost 20% of this property because the County road was platted wrong. She thinks the assessment has doubled since the last revaluation. It is currently valued at $9,000 (land only). She estimates the value is $4,500. Mr. Pownall stated that this parcel consists of three lots which are each valued at $3,000 per lot. These Board of Equalization Minutes - December 18, 2007 lots are slightly bigger than 25' x 100' which is why they are valued a little higher. Paj(e: 12 Parcels #962112201; #962 112 202; #962 112205; and #962112212: These parcels are also located off of Prospect Avenue, Port Townsend. Ms. O'Meara stated that a septic system was installed on parcel #962 112 202 and now the County is telling her that she cannot use the septic system because the drainfield is in the County right-of-way because the County Road was platted in the wrong spot. The adjacent parcel #962 112201 cannot be developed either. If she can't use the property, it should not increase in value. Chairman Marlow asked Ms. O'Meara if she has written documentation from the County denying any further development of her property? Ms. O'Meara stated that she was sent back and forth between the Planning Department and the Health Department and was told that she can't use it and that the septic system needs to be moved. She tried to work with them and then just stopped doing everything. The current assessments and the appellant's estimate of values are listed below: Parcel No. 962112201 962 112202 Assessor's Valuation $9,500 (land only) $9,500 (land only) Appellant's Estimate $3,000 (land only) $4,500 (land only) Mr. Pownall stated that the values of parcels #962 112201 and #962 112202 have been reduced in value by 50% and the utility value was removed to reflect the fact that it cannot be developed. He realizes there are issues with the property, but he believes the two parcels consisting of 6 lots would sell for $18,000 whether they can be developed or not. She may want to research if she can get a portion of the county right-of-way vacated. An alley located directly behind these two parcels separates them from parcels #962 112 205 and #962 112 212. Ms. O'Meara said these parcels are on a slope and she does not think their value is fair. The current assessments and the appellant's estimate of values are listed below: Parcel No. 962 112205 962 112212 Assessor's Valuation $4,000 (land only) $6,000 (land only) Appellant's Estimate $2,000 (land only) $3,000 (land only) Mr. Pownall explained that these two parcels are not valued as building sites, but rather as excess lots. These four lots together probably make up two building sites, but until the road is vacated and the issues with the septic system are cleared up it is only being valued as one undeveloped building site with excess lots. The total valuation is very conservative. Parcels #942 901 502; #942 901 605; #942 901 606; #942 901 607; and #942 901 608: These parcels are located off of Kennedy Road, Port Hadlock. Ms. O'Meara stated that parcels #942 901 605, #942 901 606, #942901 607 and #942901 608 consist of a of big hole that fronts State Highway 19. This property is not usable and yet the value keeps increasing. A portion of parcel #942 901 502 located at 20 Kennedy Road slopes into a wetland area. Here again, this parcel is adversely affected because the County road was not platted properly. In fact, the mobile home is not even physically located on this parcel. The mobile home is installed in the County Right-of-Way outside the boundary of this parcel. She tried to put in a second Board of Equalization Minutes - December 18, 2007 mobile home which the County did not allow because of the wetland area. Page: 13 Chairman Marlow asked if she received a written denial from the County? Ms. O'Meara replied that she thinks she had a perc test done in 1991 or 1992. Chairman Marlow asked if she has a copy of the County's written denial? Ms. O'Meara replied that she had a flood two or three years ago and lost a lot of paperwork. She probably doesn't have the letter anymore, but, there may be a copy in the County's records. The current assessments and the appellant's estimate of values are listed below: Parcel No. 942901 502 942901 605 942901 606 942901 607 942901 608 Assessor's Valuation $69,050 ($46,400 land/$22,650 imps.) $1,000 (land only) $2,000 (land only) $3,200 (land only) $3,200 (land only) Annellant's Estimate $27,700 ($26,200 land/$1,500 imps.) $500 $1,000 $1,600 $1,600 Mr. Pownall stated that this is the most bizarre situation he has ever come across. The mobile home that is valued with this parcel is not even physically located on the legal parcel. The mobile home is phycially located in the platted street identified as Kennedy Road, and Kennedy Road is physically located within the boundaries of the parcels across the street. He noted that the City owns the parcels across the street so it is not a problem for other property owners. However, the issue with this property still remains. The mobile home is a rental that produces income, but is located on land that Ms. O'Meara doesn't own, yet she has the use of. She is probably unable to move the mobile home onto her property due to the surrounding wetlands and due to the poor condition of the mobile home is it probably not worth moving to another property. Based on the circumstances with this property the value is unknown. He assessed it similar to mobile homes that are located in mobile home parks where property owners own the mobile homes, but do not own the land. The mobile home has value even though it is not attached to the land. He doesn't know what the ramifications would be for having the street vacated in order to get the mobile home on a legal parcel. But, Ms. O'Meara may want to look into it. Ms. O'Meara commented that the property is worthless and she would have a hard time selling it, yet the County continues to increase the value. Parcel #961800 610: This parcel is located at 231 6th Avenue, Port Hadlock. Located on the property is a single-wide mobile home with additions. Ms. O'Meara stated that her insurance company would not insure the property for the amount it is assessed. The house is only insured for $109,000 and yet it is assessed for $127,830. She does not feel that is fair. The total assessment is $171,830 ($44,000 for the land and $127,830 for the improvements). She estimates the value is $110,000 ($25,000 for the land and $85,000 for the improvements). Mr. Pownall stated that this property has been remodeled and upgraded. Ms. O'Meara noted that there was $8,000 in damage to the property caused by the last renters which she is still working to repair. Mr. Pownall explained that the property value is based on comparable property sales. He did not present a lot of comparable sales information to the Board due to the volume of properties he was working with. He Board of Equalization Minutes - December 18, 2007 believes the property would easily sell for the current assessment based on the sales in the area. Page: 14 Parcel #973 500 110: This parcel is located at 91 Blanche Avenue, Port Hadlock. Ms. O'Meara stated that she is only contesting the value of the two mobile homes on this property. She feels the value of mobile homes depreciate, not appreciate. The assessment is $67,575 ($27,500 for the land and $40,075 for the improvements). She estimates the value is $40,000 ($27,500 for the land and $12,500 for the improvements). Mr. Pownall stated that the two mobile homes on this property produce rental income. The mobile homes are valued similar to mobile homes located in mobile home parks where property owners own their mobile homes, but do not own the land that they sit on. He presented sales of comparable mobile homes located at B & R Mobile Home Park. They show the amount of older mobile home sales transactions that occur without the land being included. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Marlow closed the hearing. The Board wilI make a determination at a later date. Vice-Chairman Broders moved to adjourn the meeting until 9:30 a.m. Wednesday, December 19, 2007. Chairman Marlow seconded the motion. The motion carried. Attest: t~(j ':1., M~ JUA-V Erin Lundgren~'a~~; of th(lB~ard JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF EQUALIZATION t WilIiam S. ~~w, Chairman ~1ts, . e-Chairman (-IQuu<14 eA! ) James A. DeLeo, Member