Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />1820 Jefferson Street <br />PO Box 1220 <br />Port Townsend, WA 98368 <br /> <br /> <br />William S, Marlow, District 2 Richard A, Broders, District 3 <br /> <br />William S. Marlow <br />Richard A. Broders <br />James A. DeLeo <br /> <br />Chairman <br />Vice-Chairman <br />Member <br /> <br />Chairman William S. Marlow called the meeting to order at 9:30 a.m. in the presence of Vice-Chairman <br />Richard A. Broders and Member James A DeLeo. <br /> <br />HEARINGS <br /> <br />Julia A. Rouse <br />1607 Sheridan Avenue <br />Port Townsend, W A 98368 <br /> <br />BOE: 99-05-R <br /> <br />PN: 948310603 <br /> <br />Ms. Rouse was present. Appraiser Dennis Pownall represented the Assessor's office. After explaining the <br />hearing process Chairman Marlow swore them in. The property under appeal is a residence on two (2) lots <br />located at 1607 Sheridan Avenue in Port Townsend. Ms. Rouse presented an appraisal prepared in November <br />1998 indicating the property value is $202,000. The current assessment is $212,430 ($36,000 for the land and <br />$176,430 for the improvements). She feels the assessment should reflect the appraisal value. <br /> <br /> <br />Mr. Pownall presented a memorandum to the Board and read it as follows: "The summary appraisal submitted <br />by the appellant shows a refinance value 5% less than the assessed value, which was determined two years <br />prior. This office contends that the difference in value is not significant enough to make a mid-cycle <br />adjustment. This is especia\1y true when considering that the fee appraisal was not designed to identify the <br />property's true and fair market value, but rather to determine whether or not the loan company's interest would <br />be covered for the refinance. With consideration for the above, and in the interest of maintaining equity <br />throughout the affected neighborhood, I recommend that an adjustment not be made. A point to ponder: If the <br />appraisal had shown that the value increased by 5% in the past two years, would an upward adjustment be made <br />out of cycle?" The appraisal may represent the value of the property as of November 1998, however, the issue <br />is that the appraisal was prepared two (2) years after the revaluation date and it only represents a 5% difference. <br />Any appraisal that falls within 5% high or low is considered good. It does not seem appropriate to change the <br />value in mid-cycle, but rather look at it again during the next revaluation. <br /> <br />Ms. Rouse asked for clarification of the term "mid-cycle"? <br /> <br />Phone (360)385-9100! 1-800-831-2678 Fax (360)385-9382 <br />