COMMISSIONERS MINUTES                                     JULY 6, 2005

 

The Elmore County Commissioners met in special session as a Board of Equalization on the above date in the Commissioner’s Room, basement of the Elmore County Courthouse, 150 South 4^th East, Mountain Home, Idaho.

 

Present at the meeting were Chairman Larry Rose and Commissioners Mary Egusquiza and Connie Cruser.  Also present at the meeting were Clerk Gail Best, Prosecutor Kristina Schindele, Assessor Jim Haydon, Chief Deputy Assessor Jo Gridley and various members of the Assessor’s office.

 

Katrina Basye, Property Tax Manager Corporate Tax Department of Idaho Power appeared to discuss an appeal brought by TR2/Idaho Power Company.  Ms. Basye stated the question here is whether the Bennett Mountain Power Plant, Parcel #LRH3S07E197550A, should be locally or centrally assessed.  Ms. Basye stated that as of January 1, 2005 the subject property was in the ownership of TR2 and became the property of Idaho Power on April 1, 2005 upon completion of the construction of the power plant.  During the past session, legislation was enacted to allow an additional taxing budget to offset any problems caused by the power plant.  Ms. Basye stated that Idaho Power maintains the power plant should be centrally assessed as a utility, but the State Tax Commission maintains that for 2005 it should be locally assessed.  The Elmore County Assessor’s office maintains that since the State Tax Commission (STC) has not picked the plant up for 2005 the County must do so.

 

Idaho Power maintains that the plant should be centrally assessed, so they appealed the STC’s position, stating that although the plant was then called TR2, it was still a power plant.  Ms. Basye stated Idaho Power took ownership on April 1^st by means of a contract.  The appeal hearing with the State Board of Equalization is scheduled for August 11^th.  Ms. Basye stated this is an important issue because there will be more power plants coming in Idaho in the future and Idaho Power believes if they were all centrally assessed they would be treated the same, where if they are locally assessed, even for that first year, they could be treated differently by each county.  Ms. Basye stated that Idaho Code 63-401 states that operating property completed or under construction shall be assessed by the STC.  Ms. Basye asked the Board to not make a decision on this matter until the STC could hear the appeal on August 11^th.  Prosecutor Schindele stated that this Board had to make a decision no later than July 11^th and could not wait until the August date.

 

Chief Deputy Assessor Gridley stated that in Idaho Code 63-201(14) leaseholds are included under Personal Property, however the property in question is not personal property.  Prosecutor Schindele stated in Idaho Code 63-201 (11) defines operating property “accompanied by title” and Idaho Power did not have title to the subject property on January 1^st.  There was discussion concerning what the worst case scenario would be when the State Board of Equalization met in August - would it change the assessment on the property?  Ms. Basye stated that the assessed value was not in question, there is agreement on that issue.  Prosecutor Schindele stated that the Board must decide whether the Assessor was correct in locally assessing the property for 2005, and then let it go to the State for further review in August.  Commissioner Cruser recused herself from the vote since her husband is retired from Idaho Power and they hold stock in the Company.

Motion by Egusquiza, second by Rose, to uphold the decision of the Assessor to locally assess parcel #LRH3S07E197550A in the name of TR2 as of January 1, 2005.

ROSE - AYE

EGUSQUIZA - AYE

CRUSER        - RECUSED     Motion carried and so ordered.

 

An appeal brought by J. Reno and Elmina Warkentin on Parcel #RP03S07E300625A, described as Tax 95, Section 30, Township 3 South, Range 7 East, was considered by the Board.  The parcel is a rural commercial tract of bare ground, consisting of 7.250 acres.  Mr. And Mrs. Warkentin were not present at the appeal but did comment in writing that the realtor that sold them the property had stated that the taxes on the parcel would be approximately $1,733.40 and would not increase until the property was improved.  Mr. & Mrs. Warkentin also stated that the lease rate on a parcel across from theirs consisting of 1.53 acres is $1,500 annually for five years with an option to renew.  Chief Deputy Assessor Jo Gridley stated that commercial land along American Legion Blvd, starting at 10^th Street and continuing through the hotel area went up substantially.  The increase was based on verified sales, occurring over a period of several years.  The lowest percentage of increase in the area per year is 11-1/2% and the highest increase per year is 29%.  Ms. Gridley presented 26 verified sales to support the assessment, stating that she felt the Warkentins have been treated fairly and equitably on the assessment.  Motion by Rose, second by Cruser, to uphold the Assessor on RP03S07E300625A.

ROSE - AYE

EGUSQUIZA - AYE

CRUSER        - AYE     Motion carried and so ordered.

 

Appeals brought by Dillon Limited Partnership on parcel RPA01060010050A, and parcel RPA01060010060A, described as Lot 5 and Lot 6, respectively, Block 1, Kmart #1, were considered by the Board.  The parcels are commercial tracts of bare ground located near the Kmart building.  The property was purchased four years ago and the owner maintains that the subject lots would have excessive development costs, including lack of soil depth, excessive rock, and the requirement to develop city street with curb/gutter/sidewalk.  The appellant was not present.  Chief Deputy Assessor Jo Gridley stated that commercial land along American Legion Blvd, starting at 10^th Street and continuing through the hotel area went up substantially.  The increase is based on various sales, occurring over a period of several years.  The increases range from 11-1/2% to 29% and are based on 26 sales.  Motion by Egusquiza, second by Cruser, to uphold the Assessor’s assessment on the two lots held by Dillon Limited Partnership.

ROSE - AYE

EGUSQUIZA - AYE

CRUSER        - AYE     Motion carried and so ordered.

 

An appeal brought by Richard O. and Kathryn L. Suitts on parcel RP03S06E125020A, described as Tax 37, Section 12, Township 3 South, Range 6 East, was considered by the Board.  The appellants were not present.  Appraiser Jody Soboslai stated that Mr. Suitts had called her recently and said there was some vandalism to the subject property and asked if she would go out and take a look, which she did on June 24, 2005. Ms. Soboslai stated that the property had to be assessed as it was on January 1^st, so an adjustment could not be made for 2005 but she could make an adjustment for 2006.  In reviewing the property on June 24^th, Ms. Soboslai and another appraiser from the office found the house on the property almost completely demolished.  The property has been the subject of a civil lawsuit for several years.  For the year 2005 Ms. Soboslai feels the assessment should stand and an adjustment made in 2006.  Motion by Rose, second by Egusquiza, to uphold the assessment.

ROSE - AYE

EGUSQUIZA - AYE

CRUSER        - AYE     Motion carried and so ordered.

 

Leonard and Marsha Hutterman, 11900 East Highway 20, Mountain Home, filed an appeal of the assessment of their property described as Tax 6, Section 1, Township 3 South, Range 7 East, Parcel #RP03S07E010550A.  Mr. Hutterman was present for the appeal, and stated that no change from the previous year evaluation should be allowed because of the restriction on changing the evaluation on a piece of property after an Idaho Board of Tax Appeal Order.  Jody Soboslai of the Assessor’s office stated that in 2004 the conclusion of the Board of Tax Appeals was they upheld the Elmore County Assessor’s office market value but did give the Hutterman’s a full $50,000 homeowner’s exemption.  The changes to the 2005 assessment were the same made across the County based on sales.  The home sites went up $2,000, the remaining acres increased by 5% and the Local Cost Modifier changed from 1.25% to 1.35%.  These changes were applied to parcels in the same category, class and location code.  The Assessor’s office feel they have treated the Hutterman’s fairly and equitably.  Motion by Rose, second by Cruser, to uphold the Assessor’s market value on the Hutterman property Parcel #RP03S07E010550A.

ROSE - AYE

EGUSQUIZA - AYE

CRUSER        - AYE     Motion carried and so ordered.

 

Motion by Egusquiza, second by Rose, to recess for lunch.

ROSE - AYE

EGUSQUIZA - AYE

CRUSER        - AYE     Motion carried and so ordered.

 

The Board of Equalization reconvened after lunch.  Present at the session were the Board, Clerk Best, Assessor Haydon, Jo Gridley and Jody Soboslai of the Assessor’s office and Victoria Grimes, the first appellant.  Ms. Grimes stated that there is no market for an unfinished strawbale home in Tipanuk, where the building effort is suffering a tremendous market value loss because of the rulings of the County to fail to police junkyards in the subdivision.  Ms. Grimes stated she felt she was losing on her investment as is, and if she would finish her home she would lose that investment as well.  Commissioner Cruser asked what a strawbale home was?  Ms. Grimes stated that the inner walls consist of strawbales and inner and outer walls are then attached.  Ms. Grimes added that is it a construction method she has been interested in for a long time and that it is very efficient for heating and cooling purposes.  Ms. Grimes stated she would like to someday finish the project but is so discouraged by conditions out in Tipanuk that she doesn’t think they will ever get their investment out even at the stage the home is in now.  Jody Soboslai stated she had gone out to Grimes’ home because they did not agree with the percent of completion of the home.  While she was there she was able to make some adjustments to the original assessment which added up to $15,793.  She also discussed the strawbale construction, because there is not another one in Elmore County.  Ms. Soboslai called several other counties and found three counties with strawbale homes, which were appraised using Marshall Swift Manuals.  Elmore County uses the 1989 Oregon Manual which does not include strawbale homes so Class 4 stick built was used, which actually comes out to be less per square foot than the Marshall Swift Manual users.  The Assessor’s office feels the Grimes assessment is fair and equitable.

 

Dean and Kolleen Pfost, 672 S. Boise, Glenns Ferry, appeared before the Board to appeal the assessment on RPB0071018001E A described as Tax 87 in Lot 1, Blk 19 Hartman Addition.  Mr. Pfost stated he did not understand why they were taxed at 1.84% of appraised value when most other homes in their neighborhood were taxed from 1% to 1.3%?  Jody Soboslai of the Assessor’s office stated at the Pfosts’ request, she went to re-assess the property in April 2005.  The Pfosts’ had purchased the home for $250,000 in August of 2004 and felt that their assessment was too high.  Ms. Soboslai was able to make some adjustments for wear and tear because the home had been sitting empty for five years, bringing the assessment down to $248,000.  Ms. Soboslai stated there is not a large market in Glenns Ferry for a house of this size.  Mr. Pfost showed the Board several photographs he had taken of residences in his neighborhood and the tax percentage of appraised value they paid.  Ms. Soboslai tried to explain to Mr. Pfost that the percentages were all based on market value, which would be different in each case, as well as any exemptions attached to the property so it was not a real comparison.  There was some discussion about the circuit breaker exemption, but Mr. Pfost stated they did not want to accept any charity.  There was discussion about how the exemption worked and is income based and is a real benefit to those who qualify.  Jim Haydon stated he would personally go down to see Mr. & Mrs. Pfost about the program.  Jodi Soboslai reviewed her comparable property chart with the participants present.

 

Jesse Cochran, 510 North 6^th East, Parcel #A0127001001A, described as W 150 Feet of South Half Block 1, Washington Subdivision appeared before the Board to discuss his appeal.  Mr. Cochran stated in his appeal that he did not think the market value went up enough to increase the value of his property by $11,874 in one year.  Jody Soboslai stated that Mr. Cochran’s assessment raised with the Local Cost Modifier and land changes that were done County wide.  This was done solely due to sales.  The Assessor’s office did go out and do a re-assessment to ensure that their information was correct and did make some adjustments which removed $810 from the assessment.  The comparable sales information was reviewed with the Board and Mr. Cochran.  Ms. Soboslai stated she felt the Assessor’s office treated Mr. Cochran fairly and equitably.  Mr. Cochran stated that in California assessments are limited to a 1% increase, and he felt that is what should be done in Idaho.

 

Motion by Egusquiza, second by Cruser, to uphold the Assessor’s assessment on the Grimes property, Parcel Number RP001220030010A.

ROSE - AYE

EGUSQUIZA - AYE

CRUSER        - AYE     Motion carried and so ordered.