HomeMy WebLinkAboutM122007ok
EQU��
O
William S. Marlow
Richard A. Broders
James A. DeLeo
1820 Jefferson Street
Port Townsend, WA 98368
James A. DeLeo
MINUTES
December 20, 2007
William B. Marlow
Richard A. Broders
Chairman
Vice -Chairman
Member
Chairman William S. Marlow called the meeting to order at 10:30 a.m. in the presence of Vice -Chairman
Richard A. Broders and Member James A. DeLeo.
Delos & Judi Dunn
385 South Bay Lane
Port Ludlow, WA 98365
HEARINGS
BOE: 07 -198 -LO PN: 969 300 005
07-199-R 969 300 004
Delos Dunn was present. Appraiser Maryn Gossell represented the Assessor's office. After explaining
the hearing process Chairman Marlow swore in both parties. Under appeal are two adjacent waterfront
parcels and a residence located at 385 S. Bay Lane, Port Ludlow.
Mr. Dunn discussed the Assessor's comparable properties that were used in the valuation process.
Comparable property #1 which is adjacent to their property. Due to its location on the point it has a
premium view of Ludlow Bay and the mouth of Hood Canal. The house is older than theirs, but, it was
built right on the water's edge which is not even allowed today. He believes the owner paid a premium
price over market value for the property because of his specific need for a dock to moor his custom made
catamaran. The owner of comparable property #1 purchased an adjacent undeveloped parcel for $350,000
which is the Assessor's comparable property #2. Mr. Dunn feels this is a very good comparable for his
undeveloped lot which has almost doubled in value over a short period of time. Comparable property #2
is also superior to their lot in terms of view and yet it is valued significantly less than their property.
Comparable property #3 has a house that is the most comparable to their house although the comparable
property has a better view and the land is more than two times larger with 89 feet of waterfront compared
to their 83 feet. This property sold in 2006 for $975,000 and was featured in Country Home magazine.
The value of this parcel is more in line with their property. The house on comparable property #4 cost $4
million to build and sold at auction for $1.7 million. It is an unbelievable lot and the home is without
compare to any other homes in the area. It should not have been listed as a comparable property. He is
not that familiar with comparable property #5, but, he knows that it sold for $998,500 in September 2006.
Phone (360)385-9100 Fax (360)385-9382 jeffbocc@co.jefferson.wa.us
Board of Equalization Minutes - December 20, 2007 Page: 2
This comparable supports the basis for their appeal that their property value should be more in line with
that sale. Comparable property #6 is located off of Ludlow Bay Road and is one of the most premium lots
in Port Ludlow. The lots in that area are superior in terms of view, and no bank waterfront with a sandy
beach. There were sales of other comparable properties in the area that were not used by the Assessor's
office for determining value. The two exhibits presented by the Assessor's representative are recent sales
of premium properties located off of Ludlow Bay Road. These properties are 72,000 sq. feet in size while
their property is only 14,000 sq. feet. He doesn't think there is much relation between those properties
and their property.
The current assessments and the appellant's estimate of values are listed below:
Parcel No. Assessor's Valuation Appellant's Estimate
969 300 005 $541,720 (land only) $279,592 (land only)
969 300 004 $1,274,265 ($611,760 land/$662,505 imps.) $896,863 (No Breakdown provided)
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
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.
She reviewed the comparable property sales and explained that comparable property 41 sold for
$1,150,000 in July 2006. This property consists of 86 feet of waterfront and is very similar to the
waterfront footage of the appellants' two parcels. It is smaller in depth than the appellants' property, but,
it has a gorgeous view. She feels the view quality versus the lack of depth offsets their respective values.
Comparable property 42 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 about whether or not this property can be developed due to its small size.
Comparable property #3 sold for $975,000 in August 2006. This property which does not have a dock and
is located on the side of the point with a completely different view, is being valued using a base rate of
$450,000. Comparable property #4 sold for $1,700,000 in October 2005. Comparable property #5 sold
for $998,500 in September 2006 and Comparable property #6 sold for $2,195,000 in July 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 valued at $6,500 per front
foot which is 27% below market value as of October 2007.
Board of Equalization Minutes - December 20, 2007 Page: 3
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.
She talked with the appellant about consolidating their two parcels which would allow the Assessor's
office to give a 50% reduction in value to the bare land parcel. She respects that the appellants chose not
to do that, because once lots are consolidated they can never again be separated.
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 appellants' residence is a large home consisting of
approximately 4,000 sq. feet plus an attic and a basement. The property has a dock valued at $75,000.
The parcel with the home is 88 feet of waterfront, although the property is valued as a site and not on a
front foot basis. The bare land parcel is 86 feet of waterfront and is also being valued per site with a 10%
reduction due to depth. Based on all the information she has presented she believes the current
assessment is fair and equitable.
She added that there were a total of 332 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. Data
from the Northwest Multiple List shows that in the month of November the number of homes sold in
Jefferson County has risen by 12%. The market is continuing to grow.
Mr. Dunn presented photographs illustrating the differing views.
Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Marlow closed the hearing. A determination will be made at a
later date.
Mark Lopeman
10233 Rhody Drive
Chimacum, WA 98325
BOE: 07 -219 -LO PN: 978 900 083
Mark Lopeman was not present. Appraiser John Pray represented the Assessor's office and was sworn in
by Chairman Marlow. Under appeal is an undeveloped parcel located at Olympus Beach off of Carey
Court Vemer Avenue, Port Ludlow.
The appellant stated on the petition form the following reason he believes the Assessor's value does not
reflect the true and fair market value of his property: `Because the original one I received August 1" was
valued at $60,810. I don't see how you can send a corrected notice because of some neighbor
complaining about their taxes. I really don't believe you can change the value with a corrected notice.
Maybe the next time around, but, not now. If I complain about my neighbor's taxes are you going to
change them?"
The current assessment of the property is $89,560 (land only). The appellant estimates the value is
$60,810.
Board of Equalization Minutes - December 20, 2007 Page: 4
Mr. Pray stated that an error was made in the valuation of this parcel and this appeal resulted when the
corrected valuation notice was mailed. He explained that at the time of the assessment he did not realize
that the property had water and an installed septic system. Once that was discovered, the 25% reduction
in value was removed and a site improvement value of $10,000 was added.
Two comparable property sales in the area were presented. Both parcels have houses constructed on them
with similar views. Comparable property #1 sold in March 2007 for $337,000 and comparable property
#2 sold in August 2007 for $365,000. He feels the corrected value is fair.
Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Marlow closed the hearing. The Board will make a
determination at a later date.
Bradley Malone BOE: 07-224-R PN: 921 183 022
11705 Silver Way
Everett, WA 98208
Bradley Malone was not present. Appraiser John Pray represented the Assessor's office and was sworn in
by Chairman Marlow. The property under appeal is a residence on a waterfront lot located at 2901 Oak
Bay Road, Port Hadlock.
The appellant stated on the petition form the following reason he believes the Assessor's value does not
reflect the true and fair market value of his property: "Comparative sales of similar property do not reflect
your determination."
The current assessment of the property is $324,415 ($264,160 for the land and $60,255 for the
improvements). The appellant estimates the value is $249,255 ($189,000 for the land and $60,255 for the
improvements).
Mr. Pray stated the appellant's property consists of 2.03 acres and 118 feet of waterfront. He presented three
comparable property sales that support the current assessment. Comparable property #1 is a developed parcel
consisting of 2.56 acres and 125 feet of waterfront located at 3133 Oak Bay Road. It sold in August 2005 for
$975,000. Comparable properties #2 and #3 are sales of undeveloped property. Comparable property #2 is
1.78 acres in size and a water view lot located at 2388 Oak Bay Road. It sold in September 2005 for $282,500.
While comparable property 93 is located on Marrowstone Island, it is a waterfront parcel that has a similar east
facing view. It sold in January 2007 for $289,000.
The appellant's land value was reduced by 25% due to site quality, plus the 18 feet of excess front footage was
reduced in value by 28%.
Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Marlow closed the hearing. The Board will make a
determination at a later date.
Board of Equalization Minutes - December 20, 2007 Page: 5
Penny J. Garrison
P.O. Box 65219
Port Ludlow, WA 98365
BOE: 07-92-R PN: 995 600 016
Penny Garrison was not present. Appraiser Maryn Gossell represented the Assessor's office and was
sworn in by Chairman Marlow. Under appeal is a residence on a lot located at 271 Cameron Drive, Port
Ludlow.
The appellant stated on the petition form the following reasons she believes the Assessor's value does not
reflect the true and fair market value of her property: "1) Comparable sales and listings in Port Ludlow. 2)
Current market prices. 3) House is in need of major upgrades inside. 4) Recent market appraisal."
The current assessment of the property is $462,130 ($147,500 for the land and $314,630 for the
improvements). The appellant's estimate the value is $404,365 ($129,063 for the land and $275,302 for
the improvements).
Ms. Gossell presented a map, photographs and a chart of property sales in the area. She presented two
sales of comparable properties on the same street as the appellant's property. The appellant's house is
2,500 sq. feet in size. It was built in 1981 and remodeled in 2001. Comparable property 41 is located two
lots away from the appellant's property. The house was built in 1993 and is 2,400 sq. feet in size. It sold
in July 2006 for $525,000. It is currently assessed at $505,000. Comparable property #2 is an
undeveloped parcel that is slightly smaller than the appellant's property. It was a "triple sale", meaning it
sold three times within the last four year revaluation period. It sold in October 2004 for $28,000, in May
2005 for $80,000 and then again in November 2006 for $130,000. Based on the sales information she
feels the current assessment reflects fair market value.
Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Marlow closed the hearing. The Board will make a
determination at a later date.
Tracy Nancy Gordy BOE: 07-93-R PN: 969 300 013
52 West Ludlow Point Road
Port Ludlow, WA 98365
Tracy and Nancy Gordy 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 on a waterfront lot located
at 52 West Ludlow Point Road, Port Ludlow.
The appellants stated on the petition form the following reasons they believe the Assessor's value does not
reflect the true and fair market value of their property: "1) Based on recent sales of area property; and 2)
Assessed land values for 2008 of comparable properties with similar amenities."
Currently, the property is assessed at $1,059,020 ($612,160 for the land and $446,860 for the
improvements). The appellants estimate the value is $866,860 ($420,000 for the land and $446,860 for
the improvements).
Board of Equalization Minutes - December 20, 2007 Page: 6
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 no -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 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.
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 appellants' house consists of 2,240 sq. feet with a
2,063 sq. foot basement. The house is spectacular and of excellent quality. The land consists of 108 feet
of waterfront.
She reviewed the comparable property sales and explained that comparable property #I sold for
$1,150,000 in July 2006. This property consists of 86 feet of waterfront and is very similar to the
waterfront footage of the appellants' two parcels. It is smaller in depth than the appellants' property, but,
it has a gorgeous view. She feels the view quality versus the lack of depth offsets their respective values.
Comparable property 42 was the vacant land sale discussed by the appellant that sold for $350,000. It is
located adjacent to comparable property 41 and was purchased by the same individual. There is a
question about whether or not this property can be developed due to its small size.
Comparable property #3 sold for $975,000 in August 2006. This property does not have a dock. It is
located on the side of the point with a completely different view and is being valued using a base rate of
$450,000. Comparable property 44 sold for $1,700,000 in October 2005. Comparable property #5 sold
for $998,500 in September 2006 and Comparable property #6 sold for $2,195,000 in July 2006. The sale
price of comparable property #6 indicates a valuation base rate of $13,500 per front foot. It is currently
valued at $6,500 per front foot which is 27% below market value as of October 2007.
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.
Based on all the information she has presented she believes the current assessment is fair and equitable.
Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Marlow closed the hearing. The Board will make a
determination at a later date. (See also Tracy and Nancy Gordy Hearing later in minutes)
Board of Equalization Minutes - December 20, 2007 Page: 7
John Matthiesen & Rita Kepner BOE: 07-164-R PN: 021294 009
8643 Flagler Road 07 -165 -LO 021294 010
Nordland, WA 98358 07 -166 -LO 021294 011
John Matthiesen and Rita Kepner were present. Appraiser John Pray represented the Assessor's office.
After explaining the hearing process, Chairman Marlow swore in both parties. Under appeal are three
waterfront parcels and two residences located at 8643 Flagler Road, Nordland.
Ms. Kepner stated that their biggest issue is the fact that the County has taken away their low bank beach
access as a result of a road vacation that was approved. Their waterfront parcels are high bank and due to
the vacation of a public road (W. Nolton Road) they no longer have easy access to their privately owned
tidelands. This road vacation was done in error. The law states that all streets which were platted prior to
March 12, 1904, and which were not opened for public use within five (5) years of the date of platting are,
by statute, vacated (section 32, ch. 19, P. 603, Laws of 1889-1890). Ms. Kepner contends that this road
was used by the public and that the road should never have been vacated. The road was statutorily
vacated, so the County's standard road vacation process was not followed and as a result, County staff and
adjacent property owners were never notified this was taking place. While notice of the statutory road
vacation was published, it did not mention "Nolton Road", "Public Beach Access" or any other language
that would identify it to the adjacent property owners, had they even known to look for it. She presented a
lot of information that includes photographs of their land as well as documents showing that the public
road access was given away. In the documentation is a quote from the County's Civil Deputy Prosecuting
Attorney, David Alvarez that says "The fact is, we didn't catch it soon enough." Ms. Kepner continued
that the County did not realize that this road abutted salt water and that it provided public access to the
beach. The road was actually deeded to the County as shown on the Nolton's East Port Townsend
Addition plat. It was deeded "to the public forever". Even though 25 property owners testified that the
road had been used by the public to access the beach, the road was still vacated and the property was
divided and given to the two owners of the property located on both sides of the road. They were also the
owners who initiated the statutory vacation.
There is a big difference between the valuation of waterfront property with a beach that can be easily
accessed versus waterfront property that only has access to the beach from a high bank. Her husband built
stairs down their high bank to access the beach, but, there are 60 steps. Her mother is elderly and cannot
use the stairs down the bank. She had previously accessed the beach using the public road, but, now that
option is gone.
She reviewed the Assessor's comparable property sales in the area which show that low bank waterfront
parcels are worth three times more than the valuation of a high bank parcel. They believe the appraiser
was fair in valuing their property with the exception of the issue that they no longer have low bank
waterfront access. If the County is going to take away their access then it should at least be reflected in
their assessment.
Mr. Matthiesen noted that they have an easement that adjoins the public street granting them access. Now
that access is gone.
Board of Equalization Minutes - December 20, 2007 Page: 8
The current assessments and the appellant's estimate of values are listed below:
Parcel No. Assessor's Valuation Appellant's Estimate
021 294 009 $224,785 ($178,190 land/$46,595 imps.) (No estimate provided)
021 294 010 $359,785 ($178,190 land/$181,595 imps.) (No estimate provided)
021 294 011 $113,710 (land only) (No estimate provided)
Mr. Pray presented two comparable properties. Comparable property #1 consisted of 50' of low bank
waterfront and sold for $370,000. This property was improved and included a house and a garage.
Comparable property #2 was 160' feet of unimproved high bank waterfront property and sold for $350,000
and has no access to the beach. These sales do not indicate that low bank waterfront property sells for
three times as much as high bank waterfront property.
He noted that the base land values of all the appellant's parcels were reduced by 25% due to its small size
and lack of depth. The appellant's well site is located on parcel #021294 011 which is receiving an
additional 25% reduction in value for lack of usability.
While Mr. Pray sympathizes with the appellants about their public access to the beach being blocked, he
pointed out that they do have stairs to the beach. Access exists even if it is difficult for the elderly.
Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Marlow closed the hearing. The Board will make a
determination at a later date.
Tracy Gordy & Nancy Gordy BOE: 07-93-R PN: 969 300 013
52 West Ludlow Point Road
Port Ludlow, WA 98365
Tracy Gordy arrived late and was not present for the hearing which was held earlier today at 2:00 p.m.
Mr. Gordy requested another hearing. With the agreement of Assessor's representative Maryn Gossell,
the Board concurred to hold a second hearing to accept testimony from both parties.
Tracy Gordy was present. Appraiser Maryn Gossell represented the Assessor's office. Chairman Marlow
explained the hearing process and swore in both parties. The property under appeal is a residence on a
waterfront lot located at 52 West Ludlow Point Road, Port Ludlow.
Mr. Gordy thanked the Board for accommodating his request. After getting clarification on the valuation
codes from the Assessor's representative, Mr. Gordy discussed the comparable property sales that were
used in the assessment of his property. Comparable property 46 is valued on a front footage basis while
his property is given a site value. The views from the other comparable properties have a clear view of
the bay while his property overlooks a neighboring dock and trees. He feels the property located directly
across the street from his property is more comparable than those that were used by the Assessor, yet, it is
assessed $264,660 less than his property.
Board of Equalization Minutes - December 20, 2007 Page: 9
Currently, the property is assessed at $1,059,020 ($612,160 for the land and $446,860 for the
improvements). The appellants estimate the value is $866,860 ($420,000 for the land and $446,860 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. She noted that the view from the appellant's property and the other properties located
on the point are substantially different from the views of properties located on either side of the point
which is why there is such a difference in value.
The no -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 community water and community
sewer utilities. The owners of the parcels located outside the MPR boundary are responsible for their own
wells and septic systems. The parcels located outside the MPR boundary are generally 100 feet wide and
are valued at $5,000 per front foot equating to $500,000 per site.
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 $6,500 per front foot ($849,000 and $730,000 respectively). These sales show the
assessed values of these parcels are below the market value.
The appellants are only appealing their land value. Their land is valued as a site and consists of 108 feet
of waterfront. She reviewed the comparable property sales and explained that comparable property #1
sold for $1,150,000 in July 2006. Comparable property #2 is vacant land and sold to the same owner of
comparable property 41 for $350,000. There is a question about whether or not this property can be
developed due to its small size. Comparable property #3 sold for $975,000 in August 2006. This property
is located on the side of the point and has a completely different view from the appellant's view.
Comparable property #4 sold for $1,700,000 in October 2005. Located adjacent to comparable property
#4 is comparable property #5 which sold for $998,500 in September 2006. Comparable property #6 sold
for $2,195,000 in July 2006. The sale price of comparable property #6 indicates a valuation base rate of
$13,500 per front foot. It is currently valued at $6,500 per front foot. This sale was used to show that she
could not reach their market value.
There was not one sale in the Port Ludlow MPR that did not at least double in value. There were a total of
332 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. Data from the Northwest Multiple List
shows that in the month of November sales were up 12% in Jefferson County. While the volume of sales
has dropped, the market is still going strong. Based on all the information she has presented she believes
the current assessment is fair and equitable.
Board of Equalization Minutes - December 20, 2007 Page: 10
Mr. Gordy stated that his property is not located within the NPR. Properties located within the NPR have
community amenities such as membership in the Bay Club. This land was purchased in 1964 prior to the
development of the South Bay area. Furthermore, the view from the property across the street from their
property has a view of the inner harbor, the mountains and the sunsets, which they do not have. If the
value of the lots is arbitrarily assessed based on an opinion of which lots have better views, then he feels
their opinion is just as valid as the opinion of the County.
Vice -Chairman Broders asked if the incorrect MPR designation applies to all the properties in this area?
Mr. Gordy replied no. Their parcel was originally one acre of land. It was divided because the owner was
unable to sell it. They purchased the half that was not improved and built a house on it. He pointed out
on the map the parcels which are not located within the MPR and stated it is based on when the land was
purchased.
Ms. Gossell stated she is not aware of this. She asked Mr. Gordy if he is saying "NPR" or "MRP". He
replied "NPR". She stated she has never heard of "NPR". The "MPR" is the Master Planned Resort. Mr.
Gordy said that maybe he is mistaken. Ms. Gossell stated that she disagrees that there is an `TPR". Mr.
Gordy stated that it may be MPR (Master Planned Resort). It if is, then he stands corrected. Their
property is not located within the Master Planned Resort.
Chairman Marlow asked Ms. Gossell about her testimony on the Northwest Multiple List information and
whether she meant that the number of sales in Jefferson County for the month of November were up 12%
or whether the amount of sales were up 12%? She replied that the amount of sales were up by 12%. The
volume of sales has dropped.
Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Marlow closed the hearing. The Board will make a
determination at a later date. (See also Tracy and Nancy Gordy Hearing earlier in minutes)
Theodore Daniels BOE: 07-189-R PN: 990 300 120
P.O. Box 4902
Seattle, WA 98194
Theodore Daniels was not present. Senior Appraiser Bob Shold represented the Assessor's office and was
sworn in by Chairman Marlow. The property under appeal is condominium unit 420 located in the
Admiralty I Condominiums in Port Ludlow.
The appellant stated on the petition form the following reasons he believes the Assessor's value does not
reflect the true and fair market value of his property: "Have not improved the property at all. Still is in
original condition. Present market conditions."
Currently, the property is assessed at $225,000 ($100,000 for the land and $125,000 for the
improvements). The appellant estimates the value is $175,000 (a breakdown between land and
improvements was not provided).
Mr. Shold stated that the information he presented to the Board explains the valuation. The base land
value is $100,000 after adjustments were made for view and location. The improvement value is
$125,000 based on sales.
Board of Equalization Minutes - December 20, 2007 Page: 11
He presented sales of 11 units that occurred within the last two years. There was a "double" sale of a two-
bedroom unit which means it sold twice since the last revaluation period four years ago. He noted that
this unit was upgraded prior to its sale in November 2005 for $280,000 and then sold again in October
2007 for $350,000. To his knowledge, no further upgrades were made between those two sale dates.
Based on sales, there is no evidence at this time that the market conditions are down.
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 9:30 a.m. Monday, January 7, 2008. Member
DeLeo seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote.
JEFFERSON COUNTY
Attest: BOARD OF EQUALIZATION
Erin undgren, Clerk of the Boat William S. Marlow, Chairman
Richard A. Broders, Vice -Chairman
James A. DeLeo, Member