Commissioner's Minutes 07-05-06

COMMISSIONERS MEETING JULY 5, 2006

The Elmore County Commissioners met in special session on the above date in the basement of the Elmore County Courthouse, 150 South 4^th East, Mountain Home, Idaho.

Present at the meeting were Chairperson Mary Egusquiza and Commissioner Larry Rose. Commissioner Connie Cruser was absent due to the death of her Mother. Also present at the meeting were Clerk Gail Best, Chief Deputy Clerk Merrilee Hiler, Assessor Jo Gridley and Chief Appraiser Jody Soboslai.

Motion by Egusquiza, second by Rose to recess as a Board of Commissioners and convene as a Board of Equalization. Both aye MC&SO

EGUSQUIZA - AYE

ROSE - AYE

CRUSER - ABSENT Motion carried and so ordered.

The appeal of Alan John & Melissa M. Wesenberg, 107 Jacobs Ridge Drive, Goldsboro, NC 27534 was reviewed. The property is described as Lot 19, Block 1, Traildust Square and located at 885 Tumbleweed in Mountain Home, Idaho 83647. The Wesenberg’s state in their appeal that they believe the appraised value is a 17% increase from the 2005 assessed value. The other half of the duplex sold for $94,000 in 2005 but they were unable to sell their half for that value so a 5% increase would be more appropriate. Jody Soboslai stated that the Assessor’s office received the appeal form on June 16, 2006. Ms. Soboslai stated “Idaho Code requires us to be at market value, we do that by running a ratio study every year using sales reported to us during a certain period of time. We then adjust similar properties to reflect the new value. The State Tax Commission performs a similar ratio study by category to verify we are in compliance based on recent sales. Elmore County was out of compliance in the category of 20/41 for the second year. The State gave us until State Board of Equalization in August of 2006 to meet compliance or they would step in and make the adjustments needed to comply. The Assessor’s office feels we are treating Mr. Wesenberg in a fair and equitable manner.”

Ms. Sobolslai explained there had been a minus 5% in past years because duplex properties were not selling but now there are comparable sales on which to base the present increase. Commissioner Rose asked if the comparables given are in comparable neighborhoods? Ms. Soboslai stated they were. Motion by Rose, second by Egusquiza to uphold the Assessor’s value on Parcel # RPA02130010190A owned by Alan John & Melissa M. Wesenberg.

EGUSQUIZA - AYE

ROSE - AYE

CRUSER - ABSENT Motion carried and so ordered.

The appeal of John & Florence J. Falk, 425 E. 5^th North, Mountain Home, ID 83647 was reviewed. The property is described as Lots 22-24, Blk 5 Chabots Addition. Ms. Soboslai stated Mr. Falk called to protest the value the Assessor’s office have on his Mother’s parcel A0036005022A. The Assessor’s office explained to Mr. Falk that values are based on market value. They also explained that the reason the taxes increased substantially is because he did not bring his Mother in to apply for the Circuit Breaker program this year. Mrs. Falk has been on the Circuit Breaker program since 1987. The Assessor’s office feel that they have used comparable sales to determine the value of like properties based on a market study. They feel that their values are fair and equitable.

Mr. Falk sent the Board a written statement stating “Please be advised that I am not able to appear to protest my Mother’s increased assessment on her property RPA0036005022A. There is no justification for increased assessment, save GREED! I expect to be informed that the “06" assessment remains same as “05". Thank you.”

The Board reviewed the three comparables. Motion by Rose, second by Egusquiza to uphold the Assessor’s value based on the comparable data provided to them.

EGUSQUIZA - AYE

ROSE - AYE

CRUSER - ABSENT Motion carried and so ordered.

The appeal of Mark Dennis Johnson, 4901 Wareham Drive, Arlington, TX 76017 was reviewed. There are two parcels involved in the appeal, both patented mining claims in Section 8, Township 4 North, Range 10 E, the Cleveland Load and the Laura Jackson. Mr. Johnson writes in both appeal forms “Doubling the Value of the Cleveland Load (and the Laura Jackson) is unwarranted and unjust. There have been no physical improvements of any kind to the land or the Rocky Bar area. A 50-percent increase is reasonable. Thank you for your consideration.”

Mr. Johnson further commented by e-mail “I regret not being able to attend this appeal in person, but appreciate the opportunity to have my comments submitted into record. The Laura Jackson and Cleveland Lode mining claims in Rocky Bar are an important part of my family history. I intend to pass them onto future generations with as little financial burden as possible. I’m well aware the value of private land is on the increase throughout much of Elmore County. Rapid development in Featherville and Pine may justify the Assessor’s need to make significant adjustments in those areas, but Rocky Bar has not experienced any worthy improvements toward development. Until that time, I believe the Assessor’s desire to double the value of the Cleveland Lode and more than double the value of the Laura Jackson is unwarranted and unjust. A fifty percent increase in assessed value is much more reasonable. Thank you for your time and consideration.”

Ms. Soboslai stated that these mines are not working mines, they are patented mines. Jody stated that the Assessor’s office has told Mr. Johnson that he might want to try and get the parcels into a timber category, which is some work but would change the category of the property. Motion by Egusquiza, second by Rose to uphold the Assessor’s values on Parcel # RPM4N10E080230A and Parcel #RPM4N10E080440A based on the information provided by the Assessor’s office on Category 18 Land Sales in the same area.

EGUSQUIZA - AYE

ROSE - AYE

CRUSER - ABSENT Motion carried and so ordered.

The appeal of George P. Evans, 165 S. Davis Road, Hammett, Idaho 83627 was reviewed by the Board. The property is described as N2N2SWSE & S2NWSWSE Section 9, Township 4 South, Range 6 E. Mr. Evan’s appeal stated the appraised value too high (15 acres) Ms. Soboslai stated that Mr. Evans came into the Assessor’s office to protest the value they currently have on his parcel and they explained to him that values are based on market value. They feel they have used comparable sales to determine the value of like properties based on a market study, and Mr. Evans has been treated fairly and equitably. Mr. Evans, who was present, stated that the value has been going up so much over the years but his pay hasn’t kept up with the increases. Commissioner Egusquiza asked Mr. Evans if he is willing to lease the ground for farming? Mr. Evans stated he thinks he will sell the property and move into town. The Board reviewed the sales information from Code 3 sales. Motion by Rose, second by Egusquiza to uphold the Assessor’s values based on the information provided to the Board on Parcel #RP04S06E098490A.

EGUSQUIZA - AYE

ROSE - AYE

CRUSER - ABSENT Motion carried and so ordered.

The appeal of Vicky Hasselbring, 454 Pine Meadows Circle, Pine, Idaho 83647 was reviewed. Commissioner Rose read Ms. Hasselbring’s statement received by fax into the record. “My name is Vicky Hasselbring and I am appealing my tax value on my cabin located in the Pine Meadows Subdivision. My taxes were raised 80% on the value in just one year. I did not get an 80% raise at work nor did I see an 80% raise in services provided to me. I asked a couple of my neighbors how much there taxes raised and one told me their lots raised $10,000. These people also have hot water wells that they heat homes with. This amounts to about a $100.00 savings on the power bill each month plus they are also able to heat there garage without any cost. My lot raised over $55,000 for the lot alone. My lot is on the river which means every spring I get to worry about flooding. I pay around $600.00 a year for flood insurance and had to deal with water in my crawl space this spring. I also am not able to vote on any local issues as I live in Twin Falls, Idaho. I feel this amounts to taxation without representation. We have very few services that I know of provided to us at Pine. I am not sure what all the tax money is used for but I do know that nobody but the ultra rich will be able to own a home if this does not stop somewhere. Many of us are getting to retirement age but are unable to retire because of the escalating costs of living and taxes. I have built my cabin by hand unable to afford to have any professional work done. It has taken me15 years and is still not finished. Now it seems when I am getting close I will lose it to the government as I will never be able to keep up with the taxes. This is Lot 12, Block 1. Thanks for your help on this matter.”

Ms. Soboslai stated “All land in the Pine-Featherville area went up, especially land with river influence. The Hasselbring’s own a riverfront lot in Pine Meadow Subdivision. Land sales, particularly in this case, river influenced sales were used in determining the lot value for all river lots in the Pine-Featherville area. Idaho Code requires us to be at Market Value. The State Tax Commission runs a ratio study by category to verify we are in compliance based on recent sales. Our category 15/37's were out of compliance and we were required by the State to be in compliance before the State Board of Equalization met in August of 2006. Mr. and Mrs. Hasselbring’s property is in this category. We feel we have treated Mr. and Mrs. Hasselbring fairly and equitably.” The Board reviewed the comparables provided by the Assessor’s office, and also bare land sales in that area, both with community wells and individual wells, some with river influence and some without. Motion by Egusquiza, second by Rose to uphold the Assessor’s values on Parcel # RP001030010120A.

An appeal by Gary & Penny Earl, 3255 N 3000 East, Twin Falls, Idaho 83301 was reviewed.

The property is described as Lot 13, Block 1 Pine Meadows Estates. Mr. Earl was present and stated that this is a 20x36 cabin that is 640 square feet on the bottom with small bedrooms on the upper attic level. It is stick built by their family and friends. The property was purchased for $17,500.00 and after the property was paid off they built the cabin. Mr. Earl stated the cabin has vinyl siding - the cheapest siding you can get. Mr. Earl stated there were no sales in Pine Meadows itself, but there were some comparables. Mr. Earl complained about the lack of services from the taxing districts and said it was taxation without representation. Mr. Earl also stated that they have flood problems and have to pay for flood insurance.

Ms. Soboslai stated “In the Pine-Featherville area, land went up substantially, especially land with river influence. Mr. Earl’s property is one of those lots with river influence and as such rose drastically. Idaho Code requires us to be at Market Value. The State Tax Commission runs a ratio study by category to verify we are in compliance based on recent sales. Mr. Earl’s category 15/37 was one that we have been out of compliance and were required to bring in before the State Board of Equalization met in August of 2006. Mr. Earl stated in his appeal letter, the rate of our property value increases is extreme and uncalled for, but at the same time he admits he understands that everyone is paying high prices for their properties. Idaho Code does not distinguish between investment property and property sold to individuals who intend to keep it forever. It is based on Market, what people are paying for like properties and that rate is applied to all parcels in the same category. We raised our values just enough to be in compliance so the State does not step in and have to do it for us. Idaho Code will need to be changed before we can alter the method we use to assess property. We feel we have treated Mr. Earl fairly and equitably.”

The Board reviewed the comparables provided by the Assessor’s office and also the sales of bare land in the area. Motion by Egusquiza, second by Rose to uphold the Assessor’s Office values based on the information provided.

An appeal by Wilma I. Farley was reviewed by the Board. The property is described as Lot 10, Block 2 Parker Sub and Lot 9, Block 2 Parker Sub and is located in Prairie. On her appeal forms Ms. Farley stated “Live on fixed income. Can’t afford higher taxes. Way too high and excessive.” Ms. Soboslai of the Assessor’s Office stated “Land values raised substantially in the Prairie area due to current land sales received by this office. Twelve land sales were used which is a high amount for an area that we normally see one or two sales a year.” She then explained the ratio study process and further stated “Elmore County was out of compliance in two categories for the second year that directly affected Prairie property owners. Categories 15's, 15/37, the State gave us until State Board of Equalization in August of 2006 to meet compliance or they would step in and make the adjustments needed to comply. Elmore County Assessor’s office feels we treated Mrs. Farley fair and equitable.”

The Assessor’s office provided the Board with bare land sales for Prairie and Fall Creek. Motion by Egusquiza, second by Rose to uphold the Assessor’s value for Parcel # RP 001500020090A and #RP 001500020100A.

An appeal by Douglas W. Gross Trust and Sharon J. Ream Trust was reviewed. Sharon J. Ream was in attendance. The property is described as S2SE4 & SW4 Less Tax 6, Section 16, T2N, R7E. On the appeal form Ms. Ream wrote “Excessive increase on 1 acre determined by (whoever) as $13300 - all is farmland at this time & we can’t determine why so much increase.”

Ms. Sobolslai stated “Land values raised substantially in the Prairie area due to current land sales received by this office. Twelve land sales were used which is a high amount for an area that we normally see one or two sales a year.” She then explained the value must be at market and that a ratio study is done. She further stated “Mr. Gross and Ms. Ream stated a concern about their one acre in category 10; this is a one acre tract that we separated out as an improved acre for the building that they are constructing at this time. This accounts for the water, septic, and electricity that will be needed for their improvements. At this time we have adjusted their improved acre to reflect that they did not have water as of the first of this year. We feel we have treated Mr. Gross and Ms. Ream fair and equitable.” Ms. Sobolslai then presented the bare land sales for the Prairie and Fall Creek area. Ms. Ream stated that they had purchased the property on June 17, 2005 for $3,000 per acre and now one acre is valued at $13,300. Ms. Ream stated that the value is high and that they did not receive any services on the Prairie. Ms. Soboslai presented the Board with the bare land sales for the Prairie and Fall Creek areas. Motion by Egusquiza, second by Rose to uphold the assessment by the Assessor’s office on Parcel # RP 02N07E164810A.

It was discovered that Ms. Ream was also involved in another appeal scheduled for the following day, and since she had traveled from Nevada the Board moved that appeal onto the schedule.

An appeal by Quigley, David M. & Judy R. & Hummel, Kenneth J. & Gloria R & Hummel, Kevin S. & Gross, D. & Ream, S. was reviewed. Sharon Ream was present for this appeal on property described as Lot 4, Block 3 Parker Sub and Lot 5, Block 3 Parker Sub. On the appeal forms Ms. Ream wrote “An increase of 265% in one year is excessive for bare ground.” and “Land increase in 1 year is unbelievable. No further improvements have been made to increase value so much.” Ms. Soboslai of the Assessor’s office repeated her explanation of land values increasing due to sales, having to be at market, and having to come into compliance in Category 15 and 15/37. Ms. Soboslai stated she felt they have treated the Quigley, Hummel, Gross and Ream families fair and equitable and again presented the bare land sales for Prairie and Fall Creek area. Motion by Egusquiza, second by Rose to uphold the assessment by the Assessor’s office on Parcel # RP 001500030040A and RP# 001500030050A.

Appeals on five parcels owned by Don R. and Donna Carnahan were reviewed. The parcels are all located in the Glenns Ferry area. Mr. and Mrs. Carnahan were present. The first parcel discussed was MH TR0000376400A, a mobile home, a 1973 Skyline 12x56. On his appeal form Mr. Carnahan wrote “The trailerhouse is 33 years old and has been moved at least once. It is worn out and is of no use anymore.” Michelle Boothe of the Assessor’s office presented the Board with 1973 Storage Manufactured Home Values. Ms. Boothe stated that after speaking with Mr. Carnahan the Assessor’s office had lowered the $6,097.00 value to a storage value of $500.00 and sent a corrected Assessment Notice. Mr. Carnahan agreed he had received the corrected notice but that he wanted to make issue of the $6,097.00 value first put on the mobile home and stated he felt they just put on any value they wanted to use.

The second parcel discussed was #RP 06S10E010010A, described as Lot 1 & Lots 2&3 S2NE4 SE4NW4 Section 1, T6S, R10E. On his appeal form Mr. Carnahan wrote “This is the lot the Skyline trailer is on. It is overgrown with weeds and adjoins farm ground that is valued around $345.00/acre. It is in the eastern part of Elmore County and does not compare to Ada County and Mtn Home.” The Assessor’s office has already adjusted the value from $19,000.00 to $17,000.00. Mr. Carnahan acknowledged the decrease but stated the property was only valued at $15,000.00 the previous year.

The third parcel discussed was Tax 78, Section 32, T5S, R10E - Parcel # RPB5S10E324380A. On his appeal form Mr. Carnahan wrote “This lot and home sets just east of the new City water plant that was build in a hazzard area on a sandy hill. This is causing the adjoining ground to move. You can see the cracks in concrete and sheet rock.” The Assessor’s office stated “On June 22^nd, 2006 two of our appraisers stopped by Mr. Carnahan’s home to inspect the problems stated in his appeal. There was a small crack in the concrete pad and one small crack in the sheet rock between a window and the baseboard heater. In their opinion, it was inconclusive as to whether the damage was caused by construction of the water plant or just due to the age of the home. It was explained to Mr. Carnahan that Idaho Code requires us to be at market value. The State Tax Commission runs a ratio study by category to verify we are in compliance based on recent sales. Category 20/41 was out of compliance and we were required to bring it into compliance before the State Board of Equalization met in August of 2006. We feel we have treated the Carnahans fairly and equitably.”

Mr. Carnahan wrote (Big House) “Eastern Elmore County property values have not increased near as much as Mtn Home and Ada County. We have water treatment plant about 300 ft to the west of our house. It is built in a hazard area subject to sliding. We also have a forest service type out house next to our property. It only gets cleaned once a year and is already full and stinking.”

Ms. Soboslai of the Assessor’s office presented three comparables to the Carnahan property which were sold in 2004 and 2005. She also presented land sales.

The fourth parcel discussed was RP 05S11E316610A described as Lot 4 SE4W4 Section 31, T5S, R11E. On his appeal form Mr. Carnahan wrote “This rural ag homesite value is unreasonable. It is a pie in the sky figure. All values run in even thousand dollar increments and

have no relation to actual value.” At the appeal Mr. Carnahan stated “This is a well built older (1922) house. It was added onto about 1970. It has been well cared for but still got old. This piece of property does not have a well on it, but shares water from the well up the road. The foundation is crumbling in places and the wall outside have no insulation.” Ms. Soloslai of the Assessor’s office stated that the value of this property was increased due to an increase in the Local Cost Modifier (LCM), which was done because of the increase in building costs.

The fifth parcel discussed was RP 05S10E324375A , described as Tax 77 Section 32 T5S, R10E. On his appeal form Mr. Carnahan states “This lot is also affected by the land mass change at the water plant. The last six years it has been affected by man caused river flooding.” Mr. Carnahan stated at the appeal hearing “This is a neat little cabin near the river in the South part of Glenns Ferry. It has been affected by all the hazards as the big house but has also been affected by man made floods of the last 5 years.” Ms. Soboslai of the Assessor’s office stated that this is a very unique property because it is a “boathouse” on the river. There was one comparable which sold in October 2005 that was used, which sold for $138,500, and she provided Glenns Ferry land sales to support the land value.

Motion by Rose, second by Egusquiza to uphold the adjustments made and the values placed on the properties by the Assessor for the following parcels: MHTR0000376400A, RP06S10E010010A, RP05S11E316610A, RPB5S10E324380A and RPB5S10E324375A.

Ms. Soboslai stated that on RPB5S10E324375A an error has been discovered after the fact on the land. The appraiser mistaken listed it as Riverview and it should have been Riverfront, which would have been valued at $40,000.00 rather than $30,000.00. Commissioner Rose asked that the statement made by Ms. Soboslai be put in the minutes of the proceeding.

Motion by Rose, second by Egusquiza to recess the Board of Equalization until 8:30 a.m. on July 6, 2006.