COMMISSIONERS MINUTES JULY 6, 2006
The Board of Equalization reconvened on the above date in the basement of the Courthouse, 150 South 4th East Street, Mountain Home 83647.
Present at the meeting were Chairperson Egusquiza, Commissioner Larry Rose, Clerk Gail Best, Chief Appraiser Jody Soboslai, Appraiser Connie Dorr, and Appraiser Michelle Boothe.
An appeal by Terri Carlock on behalf of the Obenchain Family was reviewed by the Board. The property is located in Pine and described as a 1982 Skyline 14x66 mobile home on land in Township 02N, R10E, Section 30. On the appeal form Ms. Carlock wrote “Land is on separate billings. It has all increased but a 73% increase in a 1982 mobile home that has depreciated is out of line. I understand the guide of 90-110% of market but I would like to see these mobile home rosters for market.” Ms. Carlock could not appear, due to a conflicting appointment. Ms. Boothe stated “I spoke with Ms. Carlock on the phone and explained to her the process with which we use to determine the value on manufactured homes. The State requires us to be at market value and every year they run a ratio study to check and see if we are in compliance. Our office feels we have treated the Carlock/Obenchain property fairly and equitably in determining the value.”
Ms. Boothe presented the Board with the 2005 Occupancy on mobile as well as Category 65 sales information. Ms. Boothe presented her figures on how the Local Cost Modifier of 1.30 was arrived at. Motion by Egusquiza, second by Rose to uphold the Assessor’s Office in their valuation of Parcel # MH TR0000152700A.
EGUSQUIZA - AYE
ROSE - AYE
CRUSER - ABSENT Motion carried and so ordered.
An appeal by Faye L. McNamee was reviewed by the Board. On her appeal form Ms. McNamee wrote “Unreasonable taxation, too high for area. Property values being assessed on state standards in an extremely remote, non resort, rural, agricultural community with the barest basic public services (no fire department, no paved roads, no street lighting, no sewer access, police protection 30 miles away, etc).” The property is described as Lot 1, Block 4 Parker Sub and has a manufactured home which has been declared real. Michelle Boothe of the Assessor’s Office stated “The State requires us to be at market value and every year they run a ratio study to check and see if we are in compliance. Our sales indicate that declared real manufactured homes are keeping their value and appreciating. Our office feels we have treated the property fairly and equitably in determining the value.”
Ms. McNamee stated she had checked with her bank, The Bank of America, and manufactured homes don’t appreciate. They would now loan her 80% of the $94,000.00 she paid for her home. Ms. McNamee feels if her property was appraised by a fee appraiser it would be valued at a lot more than the assessed value. Ms. Soboslai of the Assessor’s office stated that the value should be the same. Ms. McNamee stated “No, the assessed value is always lower than appraised value.” There was further discussion and Ms. Boothe presented information of sales of declared real manufactured homes and also sales of manufactured homes and land sold together. Ms. Boothe also presented bare land sales in the Prairie and Fall Creek area. Motion by Rose, second by Egusquiza to uphold the Assessor’s findings on Parcel # RP001500040010A.
EGUSQUIZA - AYE
ROSE - AYE
CRUSER - ABSENT Motion carried and so ordered.
An appeal on two properties by Launie & Kathryn Mashburn was reviewed by the Board. Ms. Mashburn was present. On the form for Lot 6, Block 1 Strawberry Sub the Mashburn’s wrote “Taxes more than doubled with no improvements for the past two years. We live on a fixed income and were concerned what the future holds for us.” On the form for Lot 3, Block 3 Parker Sub the Mashburns wrote “Taxes more than doubled. I would like to know if our house was assessed as finished or unfinished? It is not finished although we are living in it. We are on a fixed income-what’s the future?” Ms. Mashburn stated that she is shocked that the Strawberry property doubled - and they don’t want to be forced to move from Prairie because of the taxes. 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. Mr. and Mrs. Mashburn bought two lots themselves and we are valuing the property at less than what they bought them for.” Ms. Soboslai went on to explain how they must be at market value, about the ratio study, and that the Assessor’s office was out of compliance in two categories for the second year that directly affected Prairie property owners, so they had to get into compliance. Ms. Soboslai produced the bare land sales in Prairie and Fall Creek, which included both of the properties owned by the Mashburns. Motion by Egusquiza, second by Rose to Uphold the value placed by the Assessor on Parcel #RP 002550010060A and RP 001500030030A.
EGUSQUIZA - AYE
ROSE - AYE
CRUSER - ABSENT Motion carried and so ordered.
An appeal on two parcels by Griffin Herren was reviewed by the Board. On the appeal for the 1974 Marlette 19x67 Mr. Herren wrote “No material, substantial improvement to unit by capital investment and/or labor, depreciated due to deterioration, unmarketable due to age and condition. Devalued per assessment from $6,553.00 in 2004 to $3,419.00 for 2005. Current value and condition do not justify doubling assessment previously reduced by successful appeal - 1998?” Mr. Herren wrote on the form of appeal for Tax 4, Section 3, T1S, R4E “No municipal services available, no typically desirable attributes or amenities sought by the public. No material substantial improvement to land by capital investment, and/or labor. No close proximity development “in progress” warranting increased assessment value by 33%.” Ms. Soboslai of the Assessor’s office stated “I spoke with Mr. Herren on the phone and explained to him the process with which we use to determine value on manufactured homes. The State requires us to be at market value and every year they run a ratio study to check and see if we are in compliance. I offered to do an interior inspection but he declined. Our office feels we have treated the property fairly and equitably in determining the value.” Ms. Sobolslai presented the 2005 occupancy information to arrive a the median amount and also the category 65 sales information and Local Cost Modifier statistics. Motion by Egusquiza, second by Rose to uphold the Assessor’s value on Parcel #MH TR0000121700A and RP 01S04E032050A.
EGUSQUIZA - AYE
ROSE - AYE
CRUSER - ABSENT Motion carried and so ordered.
An appeal by the Ludden Restated Family Trust was reviewed by the Board. Mr. & Mrs. Ludden wrote on their appeal form “We do not understand why the estimated evaluation of our Glenns Ferry Lots has increased $4,000.00 this year.” Mr. Ludden who was present asked if his property was being assessed as a commercial? Ms. Soboslai stated that it was not. The property is described as W2 Lot 4 Less Tax 41, Block 2 Northwest Addition. Ms. Sobolslai stated “Mr. Ludden’s parcel located in Northwest Addition was physically reviewed by appraisers on June 6, 2006. The appraisers found no reason for the parcel to be assessed differently then like properties in the area. We in the Elmore County Assessor’s office feel we have used comparable sales to determine the value of like properties based on a market study. We feel we have treated Mr. Ludden fairly and equitably.” Ms. Soboslai then presented Glenns Ferry land sales. Commissioner Rose suggested Mr. Ludden visit with members of the Idaho legislature about property taxes. Motion by Rose, second by Egusquiza to uphold the Assessor’s value on parcel
# RPB0100002004BA.
EGUSQUIZA - AYE
ROSE - AYE
CRUSER - ABSENT Motion carried and so ordered.
An appeal by Frank & Crystal Hegy was reviewed by the Board. The property is in Alpine Meadows in Pine and is described as Lots 2, 3, & 4 in Block 2. On their appeal form the Hegy’s wrote “We purchased 3 lots to build our cabin on. The cabin and deck use 2 lots and our garage uses the 3rd along with the driveway. We have no intention of selling off any of the lots since our structures are on all 3. We inquired about re-platting to a single lot 2 years ago & were told it wouldn’t make any difference. This was the same appr. That told us that if we can’t afford their tax judgements we should sell. Nice talk for a public servant being paid out of tax dollars. Don’t believe anyone would pay $146,087 for a lot on a double frontage and 1/3 of it in large rocks, trees and big dips. Also, win or lose, like I told the girl when I requested the forms, I would be a fool not to do anything with a 60% increase in just one year on the land alone. It is hard to swallow the fact that and uninsulated log home, a metal garage, a falling down car port could be sitting on land worth $37,000.00 more than the dwelling.”
Jody Soboslai of the Assessor’s office stated “Mr. Hegy has appealed the value of his parcels located in Alpine Meadows (RP00680020020A, RP000680020030A, and RP000680020040A). We show with comparative properties that we have treated him in a fair and equitable manner. Idaho code requires us to be at market, we do that by running a ratio study every year using sales reported to us in a specified 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 15/37 for the second year. The State gave us until the State Board of Equalization in August of 2006 to meet compliance or they would step in and make the adjustments needed to comply.” Ms. Soboslai presented the bare land sales in the hills, for both community well properties and individual well properties. Ms. Soboslai also stated that Alpine Meadows supplies water but that Aspen Acres does not. Ms. Soboslai stated that for Lot 2 the Assessor’s office had made an adjustment from $50,375.00 to $45,337.00 - 10% because the lot is rocky. Motion by Egusquiza, second by Rose to uphold the Assessor’s values on RP00680020020A, RP000680020030A, and RP000680020040A.
EGUSQUIZA - AYE
ROSE - AYE
CRUSER - ABSENT Motion carried and so ordered.
An appeal by Elizabeth Powers was reviewed by the Board. Ms. Powers wrote on her first appeal form, a 1980 Sahara 27x48 manufactured home located East of King Hill “Property is in rural, remote area. Minimal rent is collected. No improvements have been made on property in recent years. Property is OLD and DELAPITATED. No permanent foundation. The second property is a 1974 Buddy 14x66 located at Gopher Knoll. Ms. Powers wrote “I have been unable to sell this mobile home. It has no permanent foundation. We have done no improvements. Property is occupied but no rent is collected. Most of the roof blew off in a recent storm which will have to be replaced. Property is more than 30 years old. Property is in remote area.” Ms. Powers also read a prepared statement into the record. “Spoke to firm that handles resale of mobile homes in Boise, he stated that the Buddy is a pre-HUD built mobile and that it would cost several thousand dollars to bring it to present standards. He stated that as it sits now it has no value. We have been unable to sell it and we tried to give it away with no success. It is occupied by a couple at present. They pay no rent to us. We would not have the nerve to ask for rent on such a building. It is not on a foundation and it is in very poor shape. It cost about $6,000.00 when it was new. I don’t view cleaning around it; removing dead trees and brush as an improvement on the building. I did buy a door for the rear of the Buddy because the existing door was unsafe. That’s not an improvement in my opinion. It is simply maintenance and a safeguard for the people who live there - fire wise. The roof will be repaired with used material that we have. Most of the roof’s shingles have blown off in recent windstorms. This is on the front side of the Buddy. It cannot be easily or inexpensively moved so it is, in our opinion, left as is with minimal maintenance. It is not on a foundation and I believe that it has little or no value and should be assessed to reflect it’s lack of value.” Ms. Powers verbally stated both parcels should be put back to the 2005 values.
Michelle Boothe of the Assessor’s office stated “ Mrs. Powers came in the Assessor’s office to protest the values we have on the two manufactured homes she owns. It was explained to her that the State requires us to be at market value and every year we have to run a ratio study to determine if the market needs to go up or needs to be lowered. I told Mrs. Powers I would be happy to come out and look at the interior of the manufactured homes to see if we could lower the value due to wear and tear. She declined my offer. We in the Elmore County Assessor’s Office feel we have used comparable sales to determine the value of like properties based on a market study. We feel that our values are fair and equitable for Mrs. Power’s parcels.” Ms. Boothe then presented the 2005 occupancy figures showing the median, the category 65 sales and the market adjustment figures for 2006. Ms. Boothe also asked again if she could do an interior, in case an adjustment could be made. Mrs. Powers refused saying she has renters in them. Jody Soboslai the Chief Appraiser again offered an interior inspection in case an adjustment could be made. Mrs. Powers stated “no way, we are at an impasse.” Ms. Boothe stated “if you change your mind, we will happy to work with you.” Mrs. Powers stated “I am not changing my mind.”
Motion by Rose, second by Egusquiza to uphold the values by the Assessor on Parcel #MHTR0000200200A and #MHTR0000138100A.
EGUSQUIZA - AYE
ROSE - AYE
CRUSER - ABSENT Motion carried and so ordered.
Motion by Rose, second by Egusquiza to recess for lunch.
EGUSQUIZA - AYE
ROSE - AYE
CRUSER - ABSENT Motion carried and so ordered.
After lunch the meeting was resumed. Present was Chairperson Egusquiza, Commissioner Rose, Deputy Clerk Steele, Chief Appraiser Jody Soboslai and Appraiser Michelle Booth
Eugene and Sheila Botts were next on the schedule. Mrs. Botts and Appraiser Booth discussed the assessment on two parcels. Mrs. Botts explained she has a problem with dogs in the neighborhood and has attempted to get protection from law enforcement and has received none. Her argument was why is her assessment so high, leading to higher tax payments, and she is not receiving any services for her money. Commissioner Rose explained how to file a formal complaint regarding the dog problem. Mrs. Botts also complained about the frequent power outages at her home and that she has filed a complaint with Idaho Power on the issue. Discussion followed on bare land assessments, the one parcel is very rocky and in her opinion not fit to build on. It was also discussed that other parcels in the County that are rocky have been cleared and built upon. Mrs. Botts stated she has horses on the bare ground and why is that not assessed as AG property. The Assessor’s office replied that in order for the land to be categorized as AG income needs to be derived. The horses are not deriving any income so the land cannot be classified as AG. The Circuit Breaker program was discussed with Mr. & Mrs. Botts and the Assessor’s office will put them on the reminder list for next year for that program. The Assessor’s office feels the Bott’s were treated fairly and equitably and they raised the values just enough to be in compliance so the State does not have to step in and do it.
Motion by Rose, second by Egusquiza to uphold the assessment by the Assessor’s office on both parcels #RP05S11E328615A and RP05S11E328605A for Eugene and Sheila Botts.
EGUSQUIZA - AYE
ROSE - AYE
CRUSER - ABSENT Motion carried and so ordered.
Priscilla Cook was next on the schedule. She came forward and handed the Board a prepared letter that she was going to forward on to the State when she takes her appeal to the next level. Chief Appraiser Soboslai explained with current land sales that have been reported to the Assessor’s office the assessments in the Prairie area have increased. Normally there are not very many sales in the area and there have been recently. The Assessor’s office must be at market and a ratio study is done to determine that market. Elmore County has been out of compliance for a second year and that directly affected Prairie property owners. If we do not bring the assessments into compliance the State will. Ms. Cook stated she is very thankful for the services received by the County in the Prairie area such as noxious weed removal, re-addressing to make the County safer, maintaining County roads, etc. Commissioner Rose and Chairperson Egusquiza thanked Ms. Cook for her comments. Ms. Cook’s letter was received and made a part of the record and the Commissioners thanked Ms. Cook for coming. Ms. Cook stated she will be appealing further to the State.
Motion by Egusquiza, second by Rose, to uphold the Assessor’s office assessment on parcel #RP001500030070A for Priscilla Cook.
EGUSQUIZA - AYE
ROSE - AYE
CRUSER - ABSENT Motion carried and so ordered.
Next on the agenda was Luther Cook. The property is in the name of Luther Cook, Clyde Cook and Priscilla Cook Trust. Mr. Cook was not present. Discussion followed on recent sales in the area. Appraiser Soboslai explained that land values raised substantially in the Prairie area due to current land sales received by their office. Twelve land sales were used, normally you see one or two sales a year. Idaho Code requires the County to be at market and a ratio study is done every year using sales reported to the office. The State Tax Commission performs a similar ratio study by category to verify that the County is in compliance based on recent sales. Chairperson Egusquiza stated Mr. Cooks remarks on his appeal stated “To be heard so I can go 1 step further to State hearing.”
Motion by Rose, second by Egusquiza, to uphold the Assessor’s findings on parcel #RP02N07E130035A for Luther Cook, Clyde Cook, Priscilla Trust.
EGUSQUIZA - AYE
ROSE - AYE
CRUSER - ABSENT Motion carried and so ordered.
A brief recess was taken.
Session resumed and the next appeal was done. Betty D. Walker is appealing her assessment on property she owns in the Pine Featherville area. Ms. Walker was not present, she did submit a letter with her appeal basically stating how they built the cabin on the property, that it is not large, approximately 960 square feet, 2 bedrooms, a loft and one small bathroom. It was a dream of her and her husbands and is a place for her family to enjoy. She lives on a limited income and stated there is no way she can possibly accommodate the unfair tax increase of over 67%. She asked to have this assessment reconsidered. Appraiser Soboslai stated all the land in the Pine-Featherville area went up, especially land with river influence. Mrs. Walker owns a river front lot in Riverview Subdivision. River influenced land sales were used in determining the lot value for all river lots in the Pine-Featherville area. One such lot which was used in this year’s ratio study was just a few lots down from Mr. Walker. Once again, Idaho Code requires us to be at Market Value.
Motion by Rose, second by Egusquiza, to uphold the Assessor’s assessment of parcel #RP001520010021AA on Betty D. Walker.
EGUSQUIZA - AYE
ROSE - AYE
CRUSER - ABSENT Motion carried and so ordered.
James E. Jr., & Karen M. Sayko was the next appeal. There are two properties, both in Atlanta, Idaho. Mrs. Sayko appeared before the board and submitted a letter protesting the valuation of their property in Atlanta, Id, one parcel is a vacant lot, the other with a house that is in great need of a paint job. The condition of the main route into Atlanta, the Middle Fork of the Boise River Road, makes it difficult to access their property, the road is currently washed out. She stated that route might not be open until late summer. The only other route is over James Creek. Limited access makes the value of the property considerably lower in the real estate market. She is requesting an adjustment to the valuation due to the above reasons. Discussion followed on how the tax structure was controlled by the Legislature/Idaho Code. Appraiser Soboslai stated they cannot depreciate the value of the property in Atlanta due to road conditions. The road conditions would have to directly reflect land sales in the area.
Motion by Rose, second by Egusquiza, to uphold the assessment of the Assessor’s office on parcel #RP000060040050A and RP000060040070A on James E. Jr. & Karen M. Sayko.
EGUSQUIZA - AYE
ROSE - AYE
CRUSER - ABSENT Motion carried and so ordered.
Mrs. Picotte appeared for Marvin J. Picotte who had been hospitalized earlier in the day. The appeal is on five parcels in Atlanta, Idaho. Discussion followed on the road to Atlanta washing out frequently. Appraiser Soboslai stated road conditions cannot depreciate the value of the property in Atlanta. The road conditions would have to directly reflect land sales in the area. Appraiser Soboslai stated land sales in the area are infrequent, there was one sale in 2005 that was much higher and that raised assessments in the Atlanta area. Therefore Appraiser Soboslai feels Mr. Picotte was treated fair and equitable.
Motion by Rose, second by Egusquiza, to uphold the Assessor’s assessment on parcel #RP000060130020A, Parcel #RP000060130030A, Parcel #RP000060130040A, Parcel #RP000080010060A, and Parcel #RP000080010070A for Marvin J. Picotte.
EGUSQUIZA - AYE
ROSE - AYE
CRUSER - ABSENT Motion carried and so ordered.
Jeffrey Day appeared before the Board on his appeal on Lot 14 & 15, Block 1, Riverview Sub in the Pine-Featherville area. Mr. Day stated his assessment went up 80% while other properties in the same area only went up 20%. He is wondering why? The cabin was built in 1966 and is not insulated and part of the land is the ravine of lower town creek, the other lot has the Riverview Subdivision community well and easement on the property. This restricts building on the lot because of septic tank setbacks. He also stated it is really not river front as the drop off is quite steep. Commissioner Rose stated the law mandates counties to keep up with sales. Mr. Day just wanted to appear to see if the assessment could be changed. Prior to the hearing the Assessor’s office had reduced the assessment from $197,354 to $142,354 due to the gully on lot 15 that had not previously been accounted for.
Motion by Egusquiza, second by Rose, to uphold the adjusted amount of $142,354 on parcel #RP00152001015AA for Jeffrey Day.
EGUSQUIZA - AYE
ROSE - AYE
CRUSER - ABSENT Motion carried and so ordered.
Motion by Egusquiza, second by Rose to recess for the day. The Board of Equalization will resume on July 7, 2006 at the hour of 8:00 a.m.
EGUSQUIZA - AYE
ROSE - AYE
CRUSER - ABSENT Motion carried and so ordered.
/S/ MARY EGUSQUIZA, Chairperson
ATTEST: /S/ GAIL L. BEST, Clerk
