Commissioners minutes, July 11 |
| July 30, 2011 |
|
Commissioner Kirby spoke of an area south of Gold Bar Ranch that has a large bump in the road. Mr. Gutshall said the
sloughing that occurred on Deep Creek Loop is
not part of the Phase II Project. Paving won’t
happen for a couple of weeks now and Phase II
ends around Mr. Gutshall said he has an employee that is leaving. This employee has been real instrumental in getting the new unit for the crusher and the crusher’s production has literally doubled. Mr. Gutshall said he obtained the list of previous job applicants that he has interviewed and he has hired the next preferred applicant. Mr. Gutshall said City of Mr. Flory said he wanted to talk about the ability for him to clear along county roads. Mr. Gutshall said for the River Project, Mr. Flory needs trees with root balls attached and both Mr. Flory and Mr. Gutshall think it would be a win-win situation to get rid of trees in the County’s ditch lines and “day light” the county roads a bit. Mr. Gutshall said since the ruling on the right-of-ways, it establishes 50 feet and there is a better handle on right-of-ways. It was said the trees that Mr. Flory needs for the project will have value. Mr. Gutshall explained that Mr. Flory took a tour east where Road and Bridge has not had a lot of time for brushing and there are areas where there is a lot of brush and an occasional tree. Mr. Flory said he could clear that right-of-way and the trees would pay for the cost. Commissioner Dinning said this has come up before and Mr. Gutshall had felt it was good for the County. Mr. Flory said he would do the leg work as it relates to private property owners. Commissioners asked Mr. Gutshall to contact Attorney Phil Robinson to inform him of this and to have him draft an agreement. This is not going to be a situation where money changes hands and it will be good as it will free Road and Bridge up to do other things, according to Mr. Gutshall. The meeting with Mr.
Gutshall and Mr. Flory ended at Commissioner Kirby moved to approve minutes of June 20 & 21, 2011. Commissioner Dinning second. Motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Dinning moved to recess as Board of County Commissioners and reconvene as the Board of Equalization. Commissioner Kirby second. Motion passed unanimously. Chairman Smith asked the appellant to give an opening statement. Mr. Cowart said his case is the appraisal. Mr. Cowart said ever since he has been here he feels he has been charged too much. Mr. Cowart said when he first built this house, Norvin Skrivseth built it for $350,000 and then right away he was assessed for a $500,000 house. Mr. Cowart said he asked why he was charged for a $500,000 house and was told because he could sell it for that amount. Mr. Cowart said he responded that he doesn’t plan on selling it and until he did sell it, he doesn’t know what he could sell it for. Mr. Cowart said as far as he is concerned, his taxes have been way too high ever since he built it. Mr. Cowart said he didn’t have the appraisal done to reduce his taxes, he had the appraisal done because he is starting to think about giving the house off to his daughter and granddaughter. Mr. Cowart said when he got the appraisal back he felt he should do some checking on the appraisal because he feels he is getting charged way more in taxes than what this other person appraised his house for. Chairman Smith asked Mr. Cowart if he had any more testimony to offer. Mr. Cowart said Commissioners have the appraisal. Chairman Smith asked if the appraisal was an independent appraisal and Mr. Cowart said yes, that he contacted the bank and asked for the name of an appraiser. Chairman Smith asked Mr. Cowart, when he built his home for $350,000, but was told he could sell it for $500,000, who told him that. Mr. Cowart said someone from the Assessor’s Office. Chairman Smith asked if the employee from the Assessor’s Office told him that is what the value is based on. Mr. Cowart said he was told his value was based on what he could sell his house for and he doesn’t see how anybody could do that. Chairman Smith said he has seen a lot of times in the past where an appraisal will be, for an example, $200,000 on a piece of property and the property owner will feel that is too high, but when the property owner is asked if they would sell their house for that amount, they say they would “no” because it is worth more. Mr. Cowart said he probably wouldn’t sell the house if he could get $500,000 for it because he likes the house and anyone who would pay that amount would be crazy. Mr. Cowart said he didn’t build the house to sell it, but to live in it. Commissioner Dinning said for clarification, this appraisal was for five acres and the house. Mr. Cowart said yes. Commissioner Dinning said the five acres valued that Mr. Cowart is being assessed on is just the raw land and he questioned if there is contention with that figure. Mr. Cowart said he had a question and he asked what is a rural improvement on “Ag” in relation to that five acre piece as he doesn’t understand what that is. Commissioner Dinning said the appraiser or Assessor will probably explain what that is in a minute. Commissioner Dinning said for clarity that the appraisal is on five acres and that is all Mr. Cowart is dealing with as far as what is being appealed. Mr. Cowart said that has nothing to do with it. Commissioner Dinning said what he is asking is, the rest of the property, the value on it is not included in what Mr. Cowart is stating today. Mr. Cowart said that was correct and that those acres are not even in his name, but in his daughter’s name. Commissioner Dinning said really what we’re dealing with today are the structures on those five acres. Mr. Cowart nodded. Commissioner Dinning asked if the Assessor’s Office had an opportunity to go in and look at the house. Mr. Cowart said yes, he had been in completely through the house and measured everything. Commissioner Dinning said for clarification that he meant if the Assessor had an opportunity, not Mr. Cowart’s appraiser. Mr. Cowart said no. Commissioner Dinning asked how much the Assessor’s Office had the property appraised at and he and Chairman Smith noted the amount of $446,040. Commissioner Dinning asked if Mr. Cowart is contending the amount should be $280,000. Mr. Cowart said that is what the appraiser valued the property at. Chairman Smith said to Mr. Cowart that the Assessor’s Office valued the property at $446,040, but Mr. Cowart is saying the value is $280,000. Chairman Smith said the value of $446,040 includes acreage, homesite, and rural building and he asked if the amount of $280,000 is a part of the $446,040 total or is Mr. Cowart saying the entire total should be $280,000. Chairman Smith reviewed the breakdown as follows: the total for land is $40,320, buildings are valued at $403,630, and “other” is valued at $2,090 for a total of $446,040. Chairman Smith asked if all of those areas are included in Mr. Cowart’s figure of $280,000. Mr. Cowart said no, just the house, just the barn, rural buildings. Mr. Cowart said the rural building is what he is looking at. Chairman Smith asked if that is the $403,630 figure and Mr. Cowart said yes. Chairman Smith said so the difference is between $403,000 and $280,000. Chairman Smith asked if anyone had any questions. Mr. Mayo said he was just going to clarify what Mr. Cowart had asked about. Mr. Mayo said the “32” is an outbuilding such as a shed. Mr. Cowart mentioned the building he has his generator in and Mr. Mayo said yes. Mr. Mayo asked if there was a slab out there in front of the house. Mr. Cowart mentioned a sidewalk. Commissioner Dinning asked Mr. Cowart if the only thing he owns currently is the house and five acres and Mr. Cowart said yes. Commissioner Dinning said Mr. Cowart has four acres in Dry Ag and a one acre house site, rural residential house site, or rural site. Commissioner Kirby said for clarification that Mr. Cowart has no quarrel with the value of $40, 320 for the property. Commissioner Dinning said that is correct. Chairman Smith asked about property being in someone else’s name. Commissioner Dinning said he knows that Mr. Cowart had more land and now he only owns is the house and five acres. Chairman Smith asked Mr. Mayo to present his testimony. Mr. Mayo said basically everything he has to say is in his letter and that he went through some discrepancies he found. Chairman Smith said everything Mr. Cowart stated is a part of the record and he would like Mr. Mayo to read his letter aloud so it is in the recording. Mr. Mayo read his letter into the record. Mr. Mayo said Mr. Cowart came to his office with a fee appraisal compiled by Vogel Appraisal and asked that it be considered as a basis for lowering his valuation. Mr. Mayo said he had visited the property in 2004 and at the time it was only a finished basement. In 2006, the County’s new construction appraiser picked up the completed house. The appraiser measured and classed the house from the outside, but was not allowed to inspect the interior. Mr. Mayo began to speak of the 2009 reval cycle and explained that County Appraiser Ken Carpenter had done the original work and this is when he took over the appraisal of the house. Mr. Mayo said during the 2009 reval cycle, he approached Mr. Cowart and was denied access to his property. Mr. Mayo said he told Mr. Cowart that one of several issues he had with the fee appraisal was that Mr. Cowart had given full access to Vogel Appraisal, but had not allowed him the same opportunity. Mr. Mayo said although he is uncomfortable reducing values of properties of which he has not been allowed access, he looked at Mr. Cowart’s appraisal. Mr. Mayo said the photos of the interior, which aren’t included in his copies here, seem to indicate a lower class than what had been placed on the home originally. Mr. Mayo said as a courtesy to Mr. Cowart, he lowered the class and revalued the parcel. This resulted in a decrease from $510,390 to $446,040. Mr. Mayo said the County values properties using cost with a local modifier. Vogel’s approach is based on Sales Comparison Approach and, in his words, supported by the Cost Approach. Originally Vogel’s Sales Comparison Approach value was $280,000 and the Cost Approach was $301,661; less than an 8% increase. Mr. Mayo said he told Mr. Cowart he could find nothing that indicated value for the finished basement. Mr. Cowart asked Vogel about this and was sent a revision that added $57,240 for the basement, for a depreciated total of $359,995 on the Cost Approach. Mr. Mayo said Vogel also deducted $30,000 for the water source which is not on this parcel. Mr. Cowart is intending to gift the property to family members who have title to surrounding parcels where the well is located. The water would be an issue only if Mr. Cowart wanted to sell the house in an arm’s length transaction. Removing the $30,000 deduction for the water source brings the value to $389,995. Vogel’s contributory values on his Cost Approach of the driveway and other improvements are listed at $7,500, but the driveway alone probably cost over $12,000 with the County’s value being $9,860. Mr. Mayo said the County’s value for those improvements of decks, balconies, pavement, concrete slabs, and outbuildings is $38,670. This would bring the value to $421,165. Depreciation is a subjective process used to account for aging. Vogel used 3.3% and the Assessor’s Office uses 2% for a home of this age for a $4,600 difference. Mr. Mayo said Vogel states he uses Marshall and Swift for his cost data and rated the home as Average quality. Mr. Mayo referred to the photo in the exhibit marked as Assessor’s Exhibit #1 and he said when Mr. Cowart brought the fee appraisal to him, it had several other photos that would have given a better idea of the house, but they weren’t included it here. Mr. Mayo said he thinks it is clear from the photo taken from the County road in the Assessor’s Exhibit #1 and Marshall and Swift’s own description of an Average quality residence (included in the Assessor’s Exhibit #1, page 5), that Mr. Cowart’s home is strikingly more than an average house. Raising the class only one grade to a Good would result in more than a 25% increase in the square foot rate used to determine value. Conservatively, this would be $83,000 and bring the total to $504,165. Mr. Mayo said he has already started out being 8% within Vogel’s Sale Comparison value and that puts the County up to 180% of what Vogel came out with in his Sale Comparison. To say that the Cost Approach supports the $280,000 value is whimsical at best, according to Mr. Mayo. Mr. Mayo said as far a the comparable sales: comp #1 was a distressed sale, comp #2 was sold outside of the time frame the Assessors’ office is allowed to use, and comp #3 seems to have been part of a divorce settlement and is likely to have been listed for a quick sale. Comps #4 through #6 are properties that were listed for sale when the fee appraisal was made. Mr. Mayo said fee appraisals are done for a particular reason on a particular property and should have little bearing on county property values. The County uses mass appraisal techniques to obtain values. The County values like properties the same and adjusts its Local Cost Modifier depending on sales information that the County receives. Although Vogel stated he had 39 comparable “offered for sale” properties and 15 comparable sales at his disposal, the ones he chose to use had to be adjusted from 24.6% to 38.5% to reach his conclusions. Mr. Mayo questioned, are these really “like” properties? Mr. Mayo said the fifth page back of Assessor’s Exhibit #1 is a list Vogel used under the heading of BARNS or SHOP/STORAGE and he had a value of $9,000 on each of them. Mr. Mayo said this page shows what the value on these buildings should be. Mr. Mayo said it is hard to
come up with the reasoning behind some of
Vogel’s values on things. If things had been
added like they should’ve been, Mr. Mayo said he
thinks Vogel’s costs is nowhere close to what he
came up with for comparables. Mr. Mayo said Commissioner Dinning said for clarity, the cost approach came up with approximately $357,000 as it is listed in the appellant’s appraisal marked Appellant Exhibit #1, fourth page. Mr. Mayo said this is a revision of the original. Commissioner Dinning said in that $357,000, Vogel deducted $30,000 for the water source not being on the property. Commissioner Dinning asked if the $357,000 included all of the buildings shown here. Mr. Mayo said Vogel lists all of that information under “contributory values”. Commissioner Dinning asked if that is in the cost approach and Mr. Mayo said no. Mr. Mayo said that is why he added that when he went through it to add the thing that had been left out of either cost approach. Commissioner Dinning asked if the garage was counted in the $357,000 figure and Mr. Mayo said he believed the garage was in there and it was valued at $13,500 on Vogel’s appraisal. Commissioner Dinning said Mr. Mayo has the garage valued at $54,000. Mr. Mayo said the garage is included and it’s like a basement property. Commissioner Dinning referred to information six pages back in the Assessor’s Exhibit #1 and Mr. Mayo said these figures are off of the comps that Vogel used and had valued at $9,000 each. These are off the comps and are to show the discrepancy, according to Mr. Mayo. Mr. Mayo said Vogel valued every one of those buildings at $9,000 and there is a huge difference in how much they are worth. Commissioner Dinning said the garage is listed at $13,500 and the other buildings are somewhere else. Mr. Mayo read from Vogel’s appraisal, marked as Appellant Exhibit #1, fourth page back. Site value includes contributory value of the utilities. Land to improvement ratio is typical of the area. The contributory value of the driveway and other improvements was included in the cost estimate under site improvements. Commissioner Dinning said so site improvements of $7,500 include the driveway, the garage, and the buildings. Mr. Mayo said it is the driveway, decks, and the porches. Mr. Mayo said when he broke them down they came to $38,670 while Vogel had them at $9,860. Commissioner Dinning said there is a huge discrepancy between the two values between the appraisal and what the Assessor’s standards say they have to do to comply with the State. Mr. Cowart said the barn and all of that has nothing to do with the house and he asked what the purpose was. Mr. Mayo said the information they had just discussed are Vogel’s comps. When talking about comparable sales that Vogel used to work up Mr. Cowart’s appraisal, Mr. Vogel listed the barns and such and on each piece of property that Vogel used as a comp, he said they each had a $9,000 value. Mr. Mayo said this is used to show there is a big discrepancy on the comps and what those values actually are. Chairman Smith said there is a value there for the barns. Commissioner Dinning and Mr. Mayo said the barn is not on the five acres. These are part of the outbuildings that were included in the values of the comparable sales, according to Commissioner Dinning. Chairman Smith offered Mr. Cowart a chance to make a rebuttal. Mr. Cowart said all he has is the appraisal and that is what he can go by. Chairman Smith said for clarity that Mr. Cowart is asking the County to go by Vogel’s appraisal versus the County appraisal. Mr. Cowart said by the way, the Assessor’s Office started off by charging what they did on the house to start with and it was way off because it didn’t cost him that much to build. Chairman Smith asked if Mr. Cowart came before the Board of Equalization at that point and Mr. Cowart said he just went to the Assessor’s Office. Chairman Smith asked if anyone from the Assessor’s Office would like to offer a rebuttal and Mr. Mayo and Assessor Ryals declined. Chairman Smith closed the hearing to further public testimony and he reviewed the closing procedures and procedures to appeal the decision to the State Board of Tax Appeals. Commissioner Dinning said this issue between what the Vogel appraisal says and the Assessor says, at this point because he has never been either place, he has nothing at this point to be able to base a decision on because of the disparity. Commissioner Dinning said Mr. Cowart’s appraiser did their job based on what he thought was appropriate and the Assessor’s Office did their job based on what is appropriate and he is not discounting either one. Commissioner Dinning said he has never run into this situation in the 10 years where there was an appraisal that said “X” was this far apart. Commissioner Dinning said he knows that real estate has reduced and we’re about one year behind in catching that with the County’s process and the way it works. Commissioner Dinning said his thinking is to allow Mr. Cowart to take this matter to the Board of Tax Appeals and by the Board of Equalization’s decision let the State determine this. Commissioner Dinning said if this was an obvious error somewhere he would sure fix that, but there is nothing that he sees here and he just sees two values that are too far apart and to be fair to everybody, that might be the way. Chairman Smith said he wanted to go back to where the $500,000 was mentioned as that would’ve been the time to come before the Board of Equalization if the valuation was that much off. Chairman Smith said to take whether or not $500,000 was the proper value to be put on and now does the County take what Mr. Cowart’s appraiser came up with, which he knows will favor Mr. Cowart as that is what he was hired to do, or do Commissioners take the Assessor’s value who is trying to make things as close to what is actually out there as they can. Chairman Smith said he can’t see enough here that would make him want to go with what Mr. Cowart’s appraiser has versus what the Assessor’s Office has said. Chairman Smith said if the vote was to sustain the Assessor that is the opportunity for Mr. Cowart to see if the Idaho State Tax Appeal Board has a different idea. Commissioner Kirby said he is in agreement with Commissioner Dinning as it begs to go to the State Board of Tax Appeals. Commissioner Dinning said he has said all he needs to say to allow Mr. Cowart to go to the next step if that is what he chooses. Commissioner Kirby said in order to get to the State Tax Appeals, Commissioners have to move to sustain the Assessor’s valuation. Commissioner Kirby moved to sustain the Assessor’s valuation on parcel #RP61N01E190961A owned by Carl and Ann Cowart. Commissioner Dinning second. Motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Dinning moved to recess as Board of Equalization and reconvene as the Board of County Commissioners. Commissioner Kirby second. Motion passed unanimously. 10: 10: Commissioner Dinning moved to deny indigent applications #2011-40 and #2011-47 based on the Clerk’s recommendation. Commissioner Kirby second. Motion passed unanimously. Deputy Clerk Nancy Ryals left the meeting. Commissioner Dinning moved to recess as Board of County Commissioners and reconvene as the Board of Equalization. Commissioner Kirby second. Motion passed unanimously. 10:30 a.m., Commissioners held a Board of Equalization appeal hearing for parcel #RPM00000150751A owned by James and Lisa Angle. Present were: Chairman Ron Smith, Commissioner Dan Dinning, Commissioner Walt Kirby, Deputy Clerk Michelle Rohrwasser, Assessor Dave Ryals, Appraiser Les Vetter, and Appellant James Angle. The proceedings were recorded. The Assessor’s Office presented one exhibit marked Assessor Exhibit #1 (consisting of 8 pages) and the appellant presented three exhibits marked Appellant Exhibit #1 (consisting of 8 pages), Appellant Exhibit #2 (consisting of 1 page) and Appellant Exhibit #3 (consisting of 1 page). Chairman Smith read aloud the appeal hearing procedures and administered the oath to those giving testimony to include Mr. Angle, Assessor Ryals, and Appraiser Les Vetter. Chairman Smith asked Mr. Angle to provide his testimony. Mr. Angle said he received a handout from Mr. Vetter that stated recently Moyie Springs was in turn for assessments. Mr. Vetter came out and now he has a $115,000 increase on his property from what it was last year. Mr. Angle said he assumed the assessment would have stayed the same as it was last year for the improvements he made to his property. Mr. Angle said the improvements are still not totally complete referring to the unfinished siding, but said basically the inside is done. Mr. Angle said his letter says the garage with a room/kitchen upstairs could easily be used as a house and was assessed as a dwelling for 2011. Mr. Angle said when he bought this property it had a foundation, power, water, and a slab all just sitting there. Mr. Angle said he had the stem walls and all he had to do was frame in the rest of the stem walls. Mr. Angle said he could’ve added a roof, but he put a dwelling on top. Mr. Angle said by a dwelling, it is basically a bonus room that consists of one room and a bathroom. There are no closets or bedrooms. There is a kitchen facility, but it is of commercial-type so it just sits there. Mr. Angle said there are no countertops and it is all stainless steel that could be removed today so he is not sure why Mr. Vetter is looking at this as a dwelling. Mr. Angle said the majority of the $115,000 value is the garage, which is unheated, with a building on top. Mr. Angle said it just made sense at the time to go ahead and make it a living space instead of just putting a roof on it. Mr. Angle said he has a domed shaped house and he couldn’t go with a regular pitched roof so he went with a “goofy” roof to match a “goofy” house. Mr. Angle said since he was going to look for storage, he just decided to expand the structure. As far as living space, Mr. Angle said he guesses this area could be a mother-in-law apartment, but it is open except for the bathroom. Mr. Angle said if he wanted to purchase a home in town, he could buy a decent home on a piece of property for $110,000 that could include a garage and the whole nine yards, but he is getting assessed for another $115,000 for a garage with a bonus room on top. Mr. Angle said it is true that he has decking which connects the two buildings. Mr. Angle referred to Assessor Exhibit #1, (four pages back) and said there is an unheated mudroom that is attached to the house that is on pillars as it has no foundation so basically it is a covered deck that was made into a mudroom. Mr. Angle said he thinks he is getting charged even for the porch on the front of that building. Mr. Angle said there had been a porch on the house and when they made the mud room it needed a porch so they threw the old one away, but used the same stairs that were there. Mr. Angle said he doesn’t see where Mr. Vetter is saying the value on that mudroom is $17,000. Mr. Angle said in a way it is a fancy porch as there is no heat and again it had to fit the house so that is why it looks like it does. Mr. Angle said he is confused on the diagram (Assessor Exhibit #1, fourth page) that shows the house with the main deck of 1,038 square feet and he is not sure where the dwelling itself, the new addition portion, is drawn out as he didn’t see it. Mr. Angle referred to his exhibit marked Appellant Exhibit #3 and said the top two pictures show the structure in its current condition with no siding and you can tell the walls aren’t perpendicular on the outside. Mr. Angle said they actually are perpendicular on the inside for a little while before they come up. Mr. Angle said he is not sure of the specific value on that structure as he only has the total of $115,000. Mr. Angle referred to the middle picture (labeled #6) on the left and said this structure is valued at $1,280 and has been on the property for quite awhile and behind that is a little lean-to made of scrap tin for $530. Mr. Angle said he could contest the value of the little lean-to. Mr. Angle referred to picture #1 to the left of #6 and said the smaller shed is listed as $630 and you can buy those brand new at that size for $999 out of Kalispell and at Ziggy’s. This structure has been on the property since 1989. The tin one in front on picture #1 is valued at $1,010 and there are no sides to this, just a roof. Mr. Angle said he bought that at an auction for $800. Mr. Angle said the structure in picture #7 where the boat is, he literally bought the tin at a yard sale and the tin is probably as old as he is. This was mainly added for a wood shed and Mr. Vetter has it valued at $910. The very bottom picture is mislabeled as it is an 8 foot by 12 foot structure, not 8 feet by 16 feet. Mr. Angle said this structure is just a chicken coop and always has been a chicken coop. Mr. Angle said the highest price he has found on those is $1,450 brand new and delivered. Mr. Angle said the back of his has been cut out for ventilation and for chickens to get in and out. Mr. Angle said his son built it for him four years ago and he is 18 years old now. Overall these are minor things, but they all are a little overpriced and it all adds up to the $115,000, according to Mr. Angle. Mr. Angle referred to
Assessor Exhibit #1 where it states had items
not been added to the assessment roll, the value
of this parcel for year 2011 would have been
$247,530, which is down $2,000 from last year.
Mr. Angle said people are asking for $16,000 for
one acre lots and there are all kinds of lots in
the subdivision near him so there is no
advantage to subdivide and sell. Mr. Angle said
he paid $310,000 for his property in year 2007
and his market value was $336,830. Mr. Angle
said he complained to the Assessor and was told
Commissioners or the State was allowed to be 10%
above what the going rate is. Mr. Angle said he
didn’t make a formal complaint. Even though the
market was turning down, he paid another $31,000
of value immediately and then the market really
went down. Chairman Smith said for clarification
that it was the Tax Commission, maybe for that
10%. Mr. Angle said he was told by someone in
the Assessor’s Office that they were allowed up
to 10% above fair market value. Chairman Smith
said that wouldn’t be something the Mr. Angle explained that one side of his property in Moyie Springs is Highway 2 and a large corner of his property is commercial. This area is the Moyie Store, which is a growing concern because of the nursery, backhoes, and chainsaws cutting wood. If someone is going to buy a home for $365,000, they will find something nicer, according to Mr. Angle. Mr. Angle mentioned the noise from the train and the lumber mill. Mr. Angle said the mill is a large portion of his property so it is industrial and the mill has been pretty active. Mr. Angle said if someone bought their home for $300,000 and a gravel pit went in right next to them, their property probably won’t be as valuable and he doesn’t think you can just go by the numbers’ game. Mr. Angle side for some reason his little unfinished addition is the value of a home on property someplace else. Commissioner Dinning said Mr. Angle submitted an appraisal as an exhibit (Appellant Exhibit #1) and he sees $262,000 and that will be a part of the record. Commissioner Dinning said in 2009, the assessed value dropped to almost 2006 values. Then there was an increase that occurred in 2010 and 2011. Mr. Angle said from 2009 to 2010 value decreased and Commissioner Dinning said there was an increase from 2010 to 2011. Commissioner Dinning said the amount of $365,000 was after the Assessor’s Office came out and viewed the property. The contention is the valuation of the commercial kitchen area and the valuation in regards to square footage. Mr. Angle said he assumed the square footage is correct although he doesn’t have a picture of the building in question. Mr. Angle said he didn’t speak specifics to the Assessor, but he did speak to Mr. Vetter who explained the process of coming to discuss the valuation as well as the process of the Board of Equalization. Mr. Vetter said Mr. Angle referred to his garage and he said there is an additional drawing of the garage and the upstairs. Chairman Smith asked Mr.
Vetter to provide his testimony. Mr. Vetter said
Mr. Angle’s property is a 15.199 acre parcel
located in Moyie springs. Of this 14.199 acres
are dedicated to timber with 1 acre dedicated to
a home site (Category 20). There is a large dome
house and a second dwelling over a detached
garage (Category 41). There are also several
outbuildings of various descriptions and
dimensions (Category 30). This parcel was
visited by Mr. Vetter on Mr. Vetter said he wanted to discuss the second buildings, which is garage with kitchen. Mr. Vetter said Mr. Angle was home the day he was there and was kind enough to show him the upstairs and at the time. The property owners were planning a commercial kitchen in order to make baked goods to sell in town, but that didn’t happen. Mr. Vetter said at that time, because of the area being commercial in nature, he turned it over to the County’s commercial appraiser, Ken Carpenter. Mr. Vetter said Mr. Angle called and spoke to Mr. Carpenter about what the values were going to be. Mr. Carpenter had asked Mr. Angle about the kitchen and was told the space wasn’t going to be a commercial unit after all. Mr. Vetter said Mr. Angle is correct in that it is a wide open space with a kitchen that is commercial in nature, a bathroom, and the rest was wide open. Mr. Vetter said he felt this space could easily be used as an apartment or second dwelling for a relative or kids. Mr. Vetter said there was no choice, but to value it as something as it was no longer a commercial kitchen over a garage. Mr. Vetter said he called it a dwelling over a garage and the rest of the house deck and the other thing could go along with the homeowner’s exemption to help. Mr. Vetter said the homeowner’s exemption didn’t help because the house and land was valued so high. Mr. Vetter said he valued the garage/kitchen at a percent complete as it wasn’t finished at the time he was at the property. Chairman Smith asked if there are two houses side by side and Mr. Vetter said at the way he has it classified at the moment it is. Mr. Vetter said on the drawing he provided, the deck comes off of the dome-shaped home and the deck connects them. Mr. Vetter said there is a house and a deck that connects to a garage with living quarters over the top. Mr. Vetter said he separated the value on the detached garage and the living area because it was new to the Assessor’s Office. Mr. Vetter said there are now two different values and if he didn’t value it that way, the property owner would’ve been assessed an additional solid waste fee. Mr. Vetter said the Assessor’s Office normally calls those a secondary guest house so not to have additional solid waste and translator fees. Chairman Smith said next year, will there be a value on this property as one parcel? Mr. Vetter said he did that already for this year and that is why we’re meeting before the Board of Equalization. Mr. Vetter explained how he classed the mud room as a three wall addition as it is new and wasn’t complete at the time he was there. Mr. Vetter showed Commissioners where the new deck is located off of the house and explained how the garage attaches (Assessor Exhibit #1, fourth page back). Mr. Vetter said the house value is $197,560, the addition is valued at $16,620, the small deck is valued at $2,010, and the large deck is valued at $9,490. Mr. Vetter explained the deck was listed at being 87% complete and explained he subtracted for the items that weren’t complete when he was onsite. Mr. Vetter said the next page shows the issue that is being discussed today. There was an original slab and this slab had been valued as parking space by the County. There is a one story frame (second floor) over a framed garage over a slab, according to Mr. Vetter. Mr. Vetter reviewed a summary of improvements. The dwelling is at 78% complete with a value of $61,510, attached garage is 92% complete with a value of $15,360, the concrete slab is valued at $1,310, and both decks are valued at $4,480 each. Chairman Smith said all of this is attached to the other structure by a deck and Mr. Vetter said yes. Chairman Smith said in the future these won’t be shown as improvements? Mr. Vetter explained how the system adds value to the house. Mr. Vetter referred to Appellant Exhibit #3 (top two pictures) in order to show Commissioners there is no common wall attaching the two buildings. Commissioner Dinning said by attaching the two buildings as one unit, there has been benefit for the property owner as opposed to two structures. Mr. Vetter said yes. Commissioner Dinning asked if values for other structures came up. Mr. Vetter said no and if he has mistakes on those, he would be more than happy to fix that. Commissioner Dinning said it appears from the pictures, the garage portion is somewhat unfinished and the upper portion is at 92% complete and he asked if that was accurate. Mr. Angle said the interior of the upstairs room is finished and the exterior is missing. Commissioner Dinning said the increase in assessed value is the new two-car garage with the structure on top. Mr. Angle nodded. Commissioner Dinning mentioned the upstairs consisting of 840 square feet and the garage portion consists of 1,080 square feet. Mr. Vetter explained that each side the upstairs portion is an overhang that consists of extra wall room. Commissioner Dinning asked if there is any other category to place the upstairs in to indicate a reduction in assessed value. Mr. Vetter said he feels this area is appropriately categorized. Mr. Vetter said if there was an attic area or if the walls were pinched in rather than being expanded. He could call it an attic, but it doesn’t fit the attic category. Mr. Vetter mentioned he counted the addition where the mudroom is as a three-wall addition and that Mr. Angle described it as an enclosed framed porch more than a three-wall addition. Mr. Vetter said he cannot say how much that reduction would be off the top of his head, but he would not have an issue with changing that to an enclosed framed porch for an approximate reduction of $10,000 down to an approximate total of $6,000. Chairman Smith asked if Mr. Vetter said the values could be reduced. Mr. Vetter referred to the three-wall addition on the main house that was a part of the increase of the overall assessment. This value was $16,620 and then the decks were $11,000, but the decks were there so he can’t see that value changing. Mr. Vetter said unless something was changed on the secondary house, he doesn’t see that he made a huge error on these so that needs to stand. Mr. Vetter said in listening to Mr. Angle he can see where he probably misinterpreted what the mudroom was. Chairman Smith offered Mr. Angle the chance to rebut. Mr. Angle said the focus is on the kitchen above the garage. The Assessor’s Office has the upper portion valued at $61,510 and he mentioned the bottom portion where the foundation was already supplied. Mr. Angle said this foundation was not just a slab as it already had four foot stem walls and it was valued at $15,360. Mr. Angle said these two areas are sharing the same roof and the same foundation so it seems extreme to him for that little top portion to be valued at $61,000. Mr. Angle said maybe there is a formula for decking, but that seems to be premium as this deck is not made of Trex brand decking, just standard lumber. Mr. Angle said the overall value comes to $87,140 on a foundation that was already there and water and power had already been supplied by the previous owner. Mr. Angle said he had no idea this multi-purpose room would be valued at the price close to a new home. Chairman Smith closed the hearing to further comment after no rebuttals were offered and reviewed closing and appeal procedures. Commissioners called for
discussion amongst themselves. Chairman Smith
said one thing that caught his attention is it
sounds like there is willingness on the part of
the Appraiser to revisit some of these issues
and possibly reduce the value somewhat. Chairman
Smith questioned if the Board of Equalization
wants to sustain the Assessor, look into
possible adjustments, or take the decision under
advisement until Commissioner Kirby moved to
take the decision pertaining to the valuation of
parcel #RPM00000150751A under advisement until Commissioner Dinning said no matter what Commissioners do, it still allows Mr. Angle to the opportunity to appeal to the State Board of Tax Appeals. The appeal hearing was
tabled at The Board of Equalization addressed additional matters for tax year 2011 under authority granted under Title 63, Chapter 5, Idaho Code, as follows: Commissioner Kirby moved to change Category 34 to Category 32 with no change in value for parcel #RP61N01E211953A. Chairman Smith yielded the chair to second. Motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Kirby moved to change Category 46 to Category 48 with no change in value for parcel #RP60N01W023011A. Chairman Smith yielded the chair to second. Motion passed unanimously. 11:25 a.m., Commissioners opened the Board of Equalization appeal hearing for parcel #RPM0540001008CA by property Robert W. Truppe for the purpose of making a decision. Present were: Chairman Ron Smith, Commissioner Dinning, Commissioner Kirby, Deputy Clerk Michelle Rohrwasser, and Assessor Dave Ryals. The proceedings were recorded.
Commissioner Dinning moved to sustain the Assessor’s valuation for parcel #RPM0540001008CA owned by Robert W. Truppe. Commissioner Kirby second. Motion passed unanimously. The Board of Equalization
appeal hearing for parcel #RPM0540001008CA ended
at Commissioner Dinning moved to recess as Board of Equalization and reconvene as the Board of County Commissioners. Commissioner Dinning moved to sign the letter regarding de-designating a portion of the International Selkirk Loop known as the Wild Horse Scenic Byway. Commissioner Kirby second. Motion passed unanimously. Commissioners reviewed claims for processing. Fund totals are as follows: Current Expense $31,746.65 Road & Bridge 36,827.99 Airport 4,110.60 District Court 4,954.31 Justice Fund 39,993.59 911 Funds 4,029.58 Health District 12,433.50 Indigent & Charity 1,833.58 Parks and Recreation 6,147.55 Revaluation 273.28 Solid Waste 3,569.59 Tort 88,688.48 Veterans Memorial 719.85 Weeds 861.17 Restorium 16,438.04 Waterways 720.10 Boat Safety Grant 18.77
TOTAL
$253,366.63 Citizens are invited to inspect detailed records on file in the Courthouse (individual claims & Commissioners’ allowance & warrant register record 2011). Commissioner Dinning moved to approve the minutes of June 27 & 28, 2011. Commissioner Kirby second. Motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Dinning moved to sign the City/County Dispatch Agreement for fiscal year 2011-2012. Commissioner Kirby second. Motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Dinning moved
to go out for request for proposals for the
construction of an addition to the Ms. Brown and Mr. Crowley
left the meeting at Commissioner Dinning moved
to reconvene as the Board of Equalization at Commissioners recessed for
lunch at Commissioner Kirby moved to uphold the Treasurer’s Office in the decision to deny waiving late fees and interest for parcel #RP62N01E145992A for year 2010 taxes that are due. Chairman Smith yielded the chair to second. Motion passed unanimously. The meeting with Mr.
Skrivseth and Ms. Larson ended at Commissioner Kirby moved to
grant an extension of time to receive 2010 taxes
for parcel #MH61N03E04091CA until Commissioners tended to administrative duties. Commissioner Kirby moved to recess as the Board of County Commissioners and reconvene as the Board of Equalization. Chairman Smith yielded the chair to second. Motion passed unanimously. 2:00 p.m., Commissioners held a Board of Equalization appeal hearing continuation for parcel #RPM00000150751A owned by James and Lisa Angle. Present were: Chairman Ron Smith, Commissioner Walt Kirby, Deputy Clerk Michelle Rohrwasser, Appraiser Les Vetter, and Assessor Dave Ryals. The proceedings were recorded. Chairman Smith said when the decision was taken under advisement it was to allow the appraiser to speak with the property owner about new information learned in the hearing. Mr. Vetter said he and Mr. Angle met in his office to review the new information brought up during this morning’s Board of Equalization appeal hearing that caught his attention. Mr. Vetter said he did make changes to include the kitchen-garage building, which was the biggest concern. Mr. Vetter said the land values will remain the same at $40,490; the outbuildings will remain the same at $11,900. Mr. Vetter said the change in value for the section marked as “other” on the Notice of Appeal Form was reduced from $324,720 to $294,120 for a new overall total of $334,610, which was originally $365,210. The value was $365,210 and Mr. Angle was requesting $262,000, which is a difference of approximately $103,000. Chairman Smith explained the form will show a reduction in “other” of $294,120 and the overall total changed to $334,640. Chairman Smith explained that even though the Notice of Appeal will show a change in value, it doesn’t mean Commissioners aren’t supporting the Assessor’s valuation, but the changes have been made by the Assessor’s office. Chairman Smith said the original total value of $365,210 and it has been reduced by $30,600 after meeting with the property owner for a new value of $334,610. Mr. Vetter said that was correct. Commissioner Kirby moved to adjust the market value for parcel #RPM00000150751A owned by James and Lisa Angle to $334,610. Chairman Smith yielded the chair to second. Motion passed unanimously. The Board of Equalization
appeal hearing for parcel #RPM00000150751A ended
at Commissioner Kirby moved to adjourn as the Board of Equalization and reconvene as the Board of County Commissioners. Chairman Smith yielded the chair to second. Motion passed unanimously. Commissioners met to consider an application for a 2011 Alcoholic Beverage License for Michael Naumann doing business as the Kootenai River Brewing Company LLC. Present were: Chairman Smith, Commissioner Kirby, and Deputy Clerk Michelle Rohrwasser. The proceedings were recorded. The application and
applicable fees have been received.
Commissioners have yet to receive the 2011 State
of Commissioner Kirby moved to approve the 2011 County Alcoholic Beverage License for Michael Naumann doing business as the Kootenai River Brewing Company LLC., to sell wine by the drink and canned, bottled, and/or draft beer pending receipt of the 2011 State of Idaho Retail Alcohol Beverage License, the 2011 City of Bonners Ferry Alcohol Beverage License, and the Panhandle Health District Permit when prepared food is to be served. Chairman Smith yielded the chair to second. Motion passed unanimously.
There being no further
business for the remainder of the day and as
there are no meetings scheduled for tomorrow,
the meeting adjourned at /s/ RONALD R. SMITH, Chairman ATTEST:
GLENDA POSTON, Clerk By: Michelle Rohrwasser, Deputy Clerk |