COMMISSIONERS MINUTES                                       JULY 7, 2006

 

The Board of Equalization reconvened on the above date in the basement of the Elmore County Courthouse, 150 South 4^th East, Mountain Home, Idaho 83647.

 

Present at the meeting were Chairperson Egusquiza, Commissioner Rose, Clerk Gail Best, Chief Appraiser Jody Soboslai, Appraiser Bob Hickerson, and Dr. Neil Adamson.

 

An appeal by Neil and Lisa Adamson was reviewed.  The property in question is Lot 9, Block 17, Bel Air #8 Subdivision.  On their appeal form the Adamson’s wrote “We have compared our property value assessment to similar properties in our neighborhood.  After speaking to our attorney and several builders in the area it appears that our taxes are higher and have been in the past higher than similar properties.”  Dr. Adamson stated that he hopes there is some latitude in their assessment.  Chairperson Egusquiza asked how many square feet was their home?  The Assessor’s office stated 2296 on the first floor and 1560 on the second floor for a total of 3,856 square feet, a large home.  Ms. Soboslai, Chief Appraiser stated that Mr. Adamson believes his residence located at RPA02540170090 is assessed at a higher value than similar properties in his neighborhood.  We show with our comparative properties that we have treated him in a fair and equitable manner.  At the time of occupancy we were at 87% of his purchase price.  The ratio study ran by the State in June indicates that market within city limits is increasing by approximately .008% per month.  Using this calculation Mr. Adamson’s property should have increased to $417,560.  Ms. Soboslai explained that they needed to be at market value and how the ratio study is done annually and that the County was out of compliance in the category of 20/41 for the second year which they needed to correct.  Ms. Soboslai also stated that brick is the most expensive siding for a home and they had to adjust upwards for brick on his home to the comparables, which she presented to Dr. Adamson and the Board.  Dr. Adamson stated that he felt it is important that Mountain Home keep their taxes down to encourage further growth in the community.  Dr. Adamson stated they also have problems with workmanship in their home, there is painting, cabinetry, drywall and some patching that needs to be done to finish the home to their satisfaction.  Ms. Soboslai asked if he would like an appraiser to go out and look at the problems to see if an adjustment could be made?  Dr. Adamson stated he would.  Mr. Hickerson stated he would go out there immediately.

 

A brief recess was taken.

 

An appeal by Ralph & Patti J. McGrath was reviewed by the Board.  The property is described as Tax 37 in Lot 16, Block 2 McGuire Estates Subdivision.  There were no remarks on the appeal form.  The McGraths’ were present at the hearing and Mr. McGrath stated that they have the smallest property up there and $110,000.00 is out of line.  Mr. McGrath said that the lots that he and Don Stevens have only have 61 feet of frontage and his isn’t even accessible because it is straight down over a steep cliff about 40 feet down.  Mr. McGrath said Walkers have twice the size of his lot and a long area of frontage and it is totally accessible, and is valued the same.  Jody Soboslai of the Assessor’s office stated   “ Mr. McGrath sent in an appeal with no remarks as to what he would like the Board of Equalization to review.  Given this, we have prepared comparative residence and land sales to show how we have arrived at his values.  Ms. Soboslai explained that they must be at market value, and how the ratio study is done and that Elmore County was out of compliance in the category of 15/37 for the second year and they had to meet compliance.  Ms. Soboslai presented three comparables for the review of the McGraths and the Board, along with bare land sales up in the hills.  Mr. & Mrs. McGrath stated they do not understand why the locals have to pay and suffer because people are paying so much for property.  Mr. McGrath stated another problem with his property is that the main transmission line for power runs right across his property - right over the cabin so there is no way to expand his cabin if anyone ever wanted to.  Ms Soboslai stated that they could review the layout of the ground and the affect the transmission wire would have on value, if any.  The Board of Equalization tabled their decision until more information is received.

 

An appeal by Joanne Lanham was reviewed.  There are two pieces of property being appealed by Ms. Lanham.  The first property is described as Tax 32 Lot 2, Block 19 Hartman Addition.  On the appeal from Ms. Lanham wrote “Last years land value was 19,000 - you more than doubled it.  I haven’t done any improvements on the land or building.  You raised the building value from 140,149 to 156,320 a total increase of 37,171.00.  The raise in homeowners exemption didn’t help.  I’m retired and draw social security soon I won’t be able to live in my home.”  Ms. Soboslai of the Assessor’s office stated “It was explained to Ms. Lanham 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 and we were required to bring it into compliance before the State Board of Equalization met in August of 2006.  When the property was reviewed there was an error discovered on the value of the land.  The error was corrected and the value of the land decreased by $10,000.00.  We feel we have treated Ms. Lanham fair and equitable” Ms. Lanham and the Board reviewed the comparables to the subject property, along with the Glenns Ferry land sales that were provided.

 

The second property Ms. Lanham was appealing was reviewed.  The property is described as Part N2SW4 SE4SW4 Section 2, Township 5 South, Range 7 East and is bare ground.  On the appeal form Ms. Lanham wrote “This is unbelievable, my 40 acres which is desert sagebrush land went from $9,300 to $31,080.  This land has no water and I have been trying to sell it for the past five years for $15,000.  No takers, may be land locked - a difference of $21,780.”  Ms. Lanham, who was present stated that $8,000 is the highest offer she has ever had on the land.  Ms. Lanham stated her realtor who has been trying to sell it for her has been trying to see if Union Pacific Railroad would have, or would give an easement for access to the land.  Jody Soboslai of the Assessor’s office stated “Two of our appraisers physically inspected this parcel on June 12, 2006.  Ms. Lanham stated the land might be land locked.  I inquired to Union Pacific about the railroad crossing; I spoke to John Jorgenson on June 28, 2006.  Mr. Jorgenson said that the crossing is privately owned and is used for ag purposes.  As long as the owner doesn’t care it can be used by anyone, except for residential purposes.  I called Terry Ketterling, the land owner, and he did not give me the impression he would object to giving her access, he does not use the land on that side of the track.  Ms. Lanham is being given a 25% discount on the value of the land due to the access problem the railroad crossing causes.  We feel we have treated Ms. Lanham fair and equitable.”  Ms. Soboslai presented the location Code 3 sales for review and a portion of the plat map showing the location of the property in question.  The Assessor’s office also encouraged Ms. Lanham to see if she could enter into an agricultural lease with someone for the property.  Ms. Lanham took issue with having someone sign a lease if they were not actually interest in using the property.  Motion by Rose, second by Egusquiza to uphold the Assessor’s corrected value on Parcel # RPB0071019002BA.  The second parcel will be reviewed by the Assessor’s office again and a decision will be made by the Board of Equalization on July 10, 2006.

EGUSQUIZA - AYE

ROSE - AYE

CRUSER        - ABSENT    Motion carried and so ordered.

 

An appeal by Fred and Patty Kennedy was reviewed by the Board.  The property is described as Tax 21, Less Tax 22,29,30,33,and 34 Section 9, Township 3 North, Range 10 East.  On the appeal form the Kennedy’s wrote “This 15.490 acre parcel of land is steep, mountainous property and is completely land-locked.  The only access we have to this property is that it is adjacent to our home cabin on Lot 10, Block 2 Trinity #1 Subdivision.  We have sold off all of the buildable portions of the acreage located on the Trinity Creek Road.”  Fred and Patty Kennedy were present at the hearing and he stated that this land is behind his cabin - he had 52 acres, sold 7 acres and then sold some lots on Trinity Creek Road, and has 15.2 acres left behind the cabin.  Mr. Kennedy stated that the land is extremely steep, which is documented in a letter he produced from Central District Health he had in connection with the four lot split when he split the parcels to sell along Trinity Creek Road.  The letter states clearly that drain fields must be in areas of slopes less than 45% and that septic systems installed where slopes exceed 20% but are less than 45% will be steep slope systems as outlined in the Idaho Technical Guideline Manual.  Mr. Kennedy also produced a surveyor’s map and letter regarding the property and calculating the slopes. 

 

Ms. Soboslai of the Assessor’s office stated “Mr. And Mrs. Kennedy have appealed the value of their property located in Featherville.  Their appeal is based on the fact that the property is steep and mountainous.  After looking at the property, it was changed to Category 18 (Other Land) and also given a 50% reduction due to the steep/mountainous terrain.  Mr. Kennedy stated to me that this property is not able to be built upon, so therefore should not be assessed at market value.  This parcel belonged to a larger parcel at one time, Mr. Kennedy called then and protested the values and we made an adjustment for the steepness and rockiness of the terrain, he again said that it was not buildable and didn’t feel it should be assessed at market.  He has since then split several parcels off and sold them, one of which we show today in our sales study.  I told Mr. Kennedy if he could produce something from Central District Health stating that all 15 acres can never be built on, I would see no reason we couldn’t lower the value, unless I receive the documentation I have no choice but to consider this property at market value.  I also sent him literature on the Forest Designation Plan to see if he would qualify for the Timber Category.”  Ms. Sobolslai stated they had to be at market value and explained the ratio study, and stated that she felt Mr. and Mrs. Kennedy have been treated fairly and equitably. 

 

 

Ms. Soboslai produced Category 18 land sales.  Ms. Soboslai also stated that at the time the split was done she had asked for something from Central District Health but she did not get it.  Ms. Soboslai stated she needed Central District Health to look at the 15 acres behind the cabin.  After reviewing the documents, Chairperson Egusquiza stated the property is actually included in the documents Mr. Kennedy has produced because it included all the property before the split was made for the four lots.  There was discussion.  Ms. Soboslai stated she did not feel she could make a decision on this, but would ask the Assessor and be prepared to finalize this on Monday, July 10^th.

 

An appeal by Dean and Kolleen Pfost was reviewed by the Board.  The property is described as Tax 87 in Lot 1, Block 18 Hartman Addition, and is located in Glenns Ferry.  On their appeal form the Pfosts’ wrote “We paid $250,000.00 you have assessed at at $287,109.00.  We feel that this is unfair, unacceptable, unreasonable.  Please help us.”  Mr. and Mrs. Pfost were present at the hearing and Mr. Pfost stated that their taxes are too high.  Mr. Pfost stated that they live on $1,000.00 a month from Social Security - and now the County wants $500.00 of that - they can’t afford to keep the house.  Commissioner Rose asked if perhaps Mr. and Mrs. Pfost could qualify for the Circuit Breaker Program and Ms. Soboslai stated they did qualify for $100.00 but they refused it.  Ms. Soboslai stated “Mr. Pfost believes the value of his residence located at 762 S. Boise Avenue is unfair.  The ratio study ran by the State in June indicates that market within city limits are increasing by approximately .008% per month.  Mr. Pfost paid $250,000 for his property in August 2004.  Using this calculation Mr. Pfost’s property should have increased to approximately $294,000.  We show with our comparative properties that we have treated him in a fair and equitable manner.”  Ms. Soboslai then explained how they must be at market value, how the ratio study is done, and that the County was out of compliance in the category of 20/41 for the second year and they had to meet compliance.  The comparative properties were reviewed and discussed.  The Board encouraged Mr. Pfost to speak to the Legislators about property values in general and especially the effect they had on our Senior Citizens.  Mr. Pfost indicated he had spoken to Rich Wills and he had told him that the problem is in the Courthouse.  There was general discussion.  Motion by Rose, second by Egusquiza to uphold the values assessed by the Assessor’s office on Parcel # RPB0071018001EA.

EGUSQUIZA - AYE

ROSE - AYE

CRUSER        - ABSENT    Motion carried and so ordered.

 

An appeal by Lawrence Saenger was reviewed by the Board.  The property is described as Tax 110, Block 4 , Hillview Subdivision.  Mr. Saenger was present at the hearing and he had written on his appeal form “1) Property is a duplex - difficult to sell   2)Buildings need repair to include concrete, air conditioners, heating, carpets, wall paper, insulation, and landscaping.”  Jody Soboslai of the Assessor’s office stated “ Mr. Saenger had appealed the value of his duplex located at 1020 E. 13^th North.  We show with our comparative properties that we have treated him in a fair and equitable manner.  He also notes that his duplex is in need of some repairs.  Due to the year of his duplex (1977), we have a -25% market adjustment to allow for normal wear and tear.  After contacting Mr. Saenger on July 5^th he stated the repairs needed are more updating then wear and tear.”  Ms. Soboslai then went on to explain that they had to be at market value, explained the ratio study and that Elmore County was out of compliance in the category of 20/41 for the second year, which they had to meet compliance by August 2006.  Ms. Soboslai produced the comparatives for Mr. Saenger and the Board to review.

 

Mr. Saenger stated he felt a $10,000.00 increase is plenty.  Mr. Saenger stated the roof on the property needs about $4,000.00.  Mr. Saenger stated that the rental side of the duplex was vacant from October 2005 until April 15^th.  Chairperson Egusquiza asked how much the rent was and Mr. Saenger stated $875.00 a month.  Mr. Saenger stated that Deb Hofer would not take it as a rental property.    Ms. Soboslai stated that an inspection could be done and perhaps an adjustment of 10-15% could be made.  Mr. Saenger stated that he does have a renter in there now, and Ms. Soboslai stated that most of the problems are exterior anyway and so Mr. Saenger agreed to the exterior inspection.  The Board tabled their decision until inspection results are known.

 

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

EGUSQUIZA - AYE

ROSE - AYE

CRUSER        - ABSENT    Motion carried and so ordered.

 

After lunch the Board of Equalization was resumed.  Present was Chairperson Egusquiza and Commissioner Rose, Deputy Clerk Steele, Chief Appraiser Jody Soboslai and appraiser Bob Hickerson.

 

A decision on Neil and Lisa Adamson was discussed.  The assessed value was adjusted to 365,722 on City Res Bldg plus the lot $36,905 for a total of 402,627.  Motion by Egusquiza, second by Rose, to uphold the Assessor’s assessment with the adjustment on parcel #RPA02540170090A for Neil and Lisa Adamson.

EGUSQUIZA - AYE

ROSE - AYE

CRUSER        - ABSENT    Motion carried and so ordered.

 

The appeal of Lawrence Saenger was discussed.  The adjusted amount per the Assessor’s office is $185,259.  Motion by Egusquiza, second by Rose, to uphold the Assessor’s office adjusted assessment on parcel #RPA0072004004BA for Lawrence Saenger.

EGUSQUIZA - AYE

ROSE - AYE

CRUSER        - ABSENT    Motion carried and so ordered.

 

Wanda Valeska appeared before the Board regarding her property assessment appeal.  She wanted to make her objections known and will be involving the State on this.   The properties are in Prairie Idaho.  She had been told the Assessor had been targeting subdivisions this year.  Due to this increase, her mortgage payments will increase as her escrow account makes the tax payments on her property.  She is a school teacher in Prairie.  Appraiser Soboslai stated there were three catagories that were out of compliance with the state 1.  Improved Lots 2.  Rural Subs with homes and 3. Rural Sub lots.  If these were not put into compliance the State would do it.  Appraiser Soboslai explained sales in the area determine the market.  Ms. Valeska stated it is not fair that one person selling property, reaping the benefit of their sales, affects the whole neighborhood and that neighborhood takes the hit for it.  She also feels the tax breaks that large companies receive are not fair either.  Discussion followed and she will be taking her appeal to the State.

 

Motion by Egusquiza, second Rose, to uphold the Assessor’s Assessment on parcel #RP001500030120A and parcel #RP0015100030130A for Wanda Elaine Valeski.

EGUSQUIZA - AYE

ROSE - AYE

CRUSER        - ABSENT    Motion carried and so ordered.

 

Albert Exely appeared before the Board regarding his assessment on his 40 acre lot in Anderson Ranch Bluffs Survey.  Mr. Exely asked if the State has all these excess funds why can’t some of that money come back to the tax payer?  Boise has all the amenities while Elmore County has needs also, in particular a new Courthouse.  Commissioner Rose stated the Legislature sets the codes and the County Commissioners get blamed.  Appraiser Soboslai stated the State says we are out of compliance and that is why the County is bringing Elmore County into compliance.  If we didn’t the State would come in and do it.  Things could be worse.  Appraiser Soboslai stated one of the lots in the Survey is being split and the individual lots are being sold for $210,000.  Mr. Exley feels a gradual increase would have been better. 

 

Motion by Rose, second by Egusquiza, to accept the Assessor’s adjusted assessment on RP001700000020A for Albert W. Exley in the amount of $68,589.

EGUSQUIZA - AYE

ROSE - AYE

CRUSER        - ABSENT    Motion carried and so ordered.

 

Mr. George Gabbard and Robert Whittekiend appeared before the Board regarding their assessment on Parcel #20, Anderson Ranch Bluffs Survey.  Mr. Gabbard stated in the year 2000 the assessment went up 29%, 2001 13%, 2002 6%, 2003 he protested and the assessment stayed the same, 2005 it went up 11% and in 2006 went up 94% and was then adjusted to 87%.  He stated Elmore County has raised taxes higher than any County in Idaho in the last 5 years.  Appraiser Soboslai stated they Assessor’s office hasn’t assessed properties even close to what properties are selling for in that area.  Commissioner Rose stated if they take their appeal to the State than it can be raised further.  Discussion followed and Idaho Code was reviewed.  Dry grazing was also discussed.  Mr. Gabbard stated that is their intent with the property and have been getting the property ready for that purpose.  Ms. Soboslai stated they needed a signed lease and a copy of a Schedule F from the people who are leasing it and the property can be reassessed for the year 2007.  Discussion followed and Mr.Gabbard will get the information discussed to the assessors office by Monday, July 10, for review to see if something can be done about the 2006 assessment.

 

Motion by Egusquiza, second by Rose, to hold off on a decision on the appeal until Monday, July 10, 2006.

EGUSQUIZA - AYE

ROSE - AYE

CRUSER        - ABSENT    Motion carried and so ordered.

 

Appraiser Bob Hickerson left and was replaced by Appraiser Michelle Booth.

 

George A. Daft appeared before the Board regarding his property assessment appeal.  His property is located out by Mountain Home Air Base, in between the Air Base and the current 3-G’s building.  He stated the property is in the Airport Hazard Zone and restrictions apply in that area which limits development.  He has owned this land for 25 years and has been watching for development in that area and there has been none.  He also referenced the current environment at the Air Base, they will be losing another squadron and there is no guarantee there will be no more BRAC’s and reductions.  The uncertainty of the base stops any development.  He stated the land only has value if the Air Base were to expand.  Ms. Soboslai stated the land is classified as exterior land values and there are sales in the area.  Mr. Daft stated the property is in the Airport Hazard Zone limiting the marketablility of the property.  Ms. Soboslai asked if Mr. Daft had any documentation regarding the Airport Hazard Zone.  He stated he did not.  Chairperson Egusquiza looked at a map of the Airbase and surrounding areas.  An easement was also discussed for Air Base Road expansion.  Ms. Soboslai made a call to Carol Wood in the Assessor’s office upstairs and that easement does not qualify for a reduction in assessment.  Reductions are made for existing public roads or waterways.  Mr. Daft felt that was wasted land and can not be built upon.  Assessor Booth left to call Bonnie Sharp, Growth & Development Administrator regarding the Airport Hazard Zone and any restrictions.  Mr. Daft left the hearing.  The Planning and Zoning Ordinance was located and the portion regarding the Airport Hazard Zone was reviewed by the Commissioners.   Upon review there would be height restrictions in that area. Ms. Booth returned and stated all these 5 acres parcels on Air Base road are for commercial use, you cannot have a residence on them.  Ms. Soboslai feels the assessment is fair.  Motion by Rose, second by Egusquiza to uphold the Assessor’s assessment on RP04S05E153760A for George A. and Patricia Daft.

EGUSQUIZA - AYE

ROSE - AYE

CRUSER        - ABSENT    Motion carried and so ordered.

 

Oliver Gregerson appeared, appealing several parcels.  Mr. Gregerson explained he had purchased all 14 parcels at the County’s tax deed sales.   He had numbered the appeals one through fourteen and started with the first parcel.  He stated he paid roughly $23,000 for all 14 parcels.  Last year they were assessed at $128,000 and now this year they are assessed at $253,000 which is almost a 1000% increase.  Last year he paid $1600 for taxes and this year the estimate is $3,258.   He said he just wants fair market value applied to his properties. 

 

The first parcel discussed was RP02S04E010710A.  Mr. Gregerson explained this parcel was assessed at $14,356 last year and now $23,700.  His description of the property would be dry land grazing.   Is about a mile and a half from Simco Road.  If you can’t you get power to it is highly unlikely you could develop it.  Why has it doubled?.  Ms. Soboslai explained the assessment of the properties around his property increased.  Ms. Soboslai stated it is assessed as Rural Res Track, and development is taking place close to this property.  The property had been adjusted from $23,700 to $22,000 since a metal building on the property is no longer there.  Ms. Soboslai explained that a 5,200 tract subdivision is coming soon to that area.  Mr. Gregerson stated that in Ada County he had purchased 25 lots in the old Orchard Townsite, he paid $100 a lot in the tax deed sale.  Ada County wanted to assess them at $600 per lot.  He appealed to the state and the assessment is still $100 a lot.  The public auction is what established the value of the property.  Mr. Gregerson introduced retired attorney Jim Lyons that he uses for consulting.  Mr. Gregerson stated he was here to pay his fair share and did not want to be discriminated against.  He feels last years assessment was fair.  Mr. Gregerson said he could not locate this property and that one of the ladies in the Assessor’s office couldn’t help him.  The access to this property is not good.

 

Parcel Number two, RP02S05E172200A was next.  It is a ten acre parcel, out at the end of Cleft Road.  Cleft Road goes right through the property along with the railroad.  It is so far away from power, the last time he checked Idaho Power charged $10,000 a mile and he understands that has gone up.  He feels that fact has got to enter into the value of his and all the properties in that area.  Ms. Soboslai stated that 2.5 acres of waste is already figured into the assessment.       

 

Parcel Number 3 and 4 were discussed together as they are both in Glenns Ferry. Mr. Gregerson stated each lot is 23ft and there is not much activity in Glenns Ferry.  He paid $1,200 for them and now the assessment is at $7,740 for parcel RPB0099017009AA and 8,400 for parcel RPB0107049015A.  Ms. Soboslai stated the $8,400 has been adjusted to $6,450 due to the wrong land rate being used. 

 

Parcel Number 5, MHTR0000406600A is a trailer that has been moved in on one of the above properties and Mr. Gregerson stated he cannot locate the sewer connections and has not received any help from the City of Glenns Ferry.  Ms. Booth stated she talked to a representative of the City of Glenns Ferry and they stated they had showed Mr. Gregerson where the sewer hook up was.  Mr. Gregerson stated he had not been showed.  Mr. Gregerson stated the mobile home is deteriorating since it is not livable  Ms. Booth stated the assessment was lowered from $6,376 to $5,738 as they cannot go inside.  If they can gain access to it that could make a difference.  Arrangements will be made so the Assessor’s office can gain access to the mobile home.

 

Parcel Number 6, RP04S05E153550A is behind the Mormon Church on Airbase Road.  It is a 5 acre lot bought at the tax deed sale for $1,300 and it is now assessed for $20,000.  The Growth and Development said this lot can have a residence on it.  

 

Parcel Number 7, RP02S05E296010A is located off of Cinder Cone Road Mr. Gregerson stated.  He also stated from the legal description he has, he cannot pinpoint the property.  It is a steep hillside with lava rock on it.  He had hoped that one day he could make landscape stone from it. He stated the neighbors are grazing their cattle on it so it should be classified as dry land grazing.  Ms. Soboslai stated if he had a lease from the neighbors, it could be classified as dry land grazing.

 

Parcel Number 8, 9, and 10, #RP001220010130A, #RP001220010120A and #RP001610030080A are all in Tipanuk. Mr. Gregerson stated he put a mobile home on one of the parcels and used it in the summer.  One of the neighbors started a trash fire and burned the mobile home down.  He stated that on a five acre parcel in Tipanuk, you can only water ½  acre from your private well, which when people buy out there they are unaware of that fact and they end up leaving.  Ms. Soboslai explained that Tipanuk has the lowest value in the County for a home site area.