The York County Board of Commissioners, ex-officio the York County Board of Equalization, met on Tuesday, July 8, 2014 at 1:00 p.m. as per notice in the York News Times on July 3, 2014 with Chairman Bill Bamesberger presiding, with Tom Shellington, Kurt Bulgrin and Paul Buller; Jack Sikes absent. Also present was Ann Charlton, County Assessor.

 

The agenda of the meeting was posted on the bulletin board in the County Clerk’s office and a copy of the agenda was made available to each Commissioner.

 

Bamesberger announced that the open meetings law would be in effect and that a copy was posted outside the door and available on the table in the back of the room.  Proof of publication was also available.

 

Moved by Shellington, seconded by Bulgrin to approve the minutes of the June 24, 2014, Board of Equalization meeting as presented; roll call: yeas, Shellington, Bulgrin, Buller and Bamesberger; Sikes absent,  nays, none; motion carried.

 

Moved by Bulgrin, seconded by Shellington,  to adopt the agenda for the York County Board of Equalization meeting for Tuesday, July 8, 2014 with amending the agenda to add Catherine Ochs at 2:00 to meet with the Board; roll call: yeas,  Bulgrin, Shellington, Buller and Bamesberger; Sikes absent, nays, none; motion carried.

 

Following is a listing of the evidence used by the County Assessor in determining valuations:

1.     Public Notice of Value Completion

2.     Equalization findings by Nebraska Tax Equalization and Review Commission

3.     2013 Level of Value as determined by TERC

4.     Calculation of value

5.     Materials and Manuals list

6.     Valuation Process for all Property, Real, Ag and Commercial

7.     Valuation for Rural Residential Properties

8.     Soil Conversion Table

9.     2013 Land Valuation Groups and values

10.  Data used to determine Special Use Area (Greenbelt)

11.  How Market Areas are determined in the City of York

12.  Neighborhood numbers for the County

13.  Commercial cost tables

14.  Site improvement tables

 

Property Valuation Protests:

 

#3        Larry Klingsborn, (Lt 22 Parkview Heights City of York)

Reason for requested valuation change: This property is not worth over $125,000 and we could not even get that much for it if we tried to sell it as is, the siding on the west side of the house is rotted out and needs replacing, carpet throughout the house has not been replaced since 1981, patio doors and most of the windows need replaced, bathroom fixtures are all original from when the house was built in 1980/81, driveway is desperately need of repair and house and shed need paint.   Requested Valuation: Land $125,000.00 Buildings $125,000.00

 

Charlton recommended that the value represents area with the information that I have.

 

Moved by Sikes, seconded by Buller, recommendation to change from $164,212.00 to $143,357.00; roll call: yeas, Sikes, Buller, Shellington, Bulgrin and Bamesberger; nays, none; motion carried

.

#5        Brian C & Linda Koehler, (Irr Tr #5 SE ¼ NE ¼ 17-11-2 11.06 Acres)  Reason for requested valuation change: The 2014 notice of valuation change is based off of sales of larger dry land tracts like 40,80,or 160 acre properties.  The tract that I am protesting is a small dry land piece that does not connect to a larger piece of farm ground and is certainly less efficient to farm than large partials.  I believe that this type of tract has a significantly lower value as compared to larger dry land tracts in this county.  Requested Valuation:  Land $37,869.00

Charlton recommended that the value established using the soil conversion table land valuation groups and comparable sales. No change.

Moved by Shellington, no second, to recommend accepting the requested valuation of $37,869, motion failed,

Moved by Bulgrin, seconded by Sikes, to accept the Assessors recommendation of value established using the soil conversion table, land valuation groups and comparable sales, roll call: yeas, Bulgrin, Sikes, Buller and Bamesberger; nays, Shellington; motion carried.

 

#6        Brian C & Linda Koehler, (Irr Tr #5 SE ¼ NE ¼ 17-11-2 11.06 Acres)  Reason for requested valuation change: The 2014 notice of valuation change is based off of sales of larger dry land tracts like 40,80,or 160 acre properties.  The tract that I am protesting is a small dry land piece that does not connect to a larger piece of farm ground and is certainly less efficient to farm than large partials.  I believe that this type of tract has a significantly lower value as compared to larger dry land tracts in this county.  Requested Valuation: Land $34,333.00

Charlton recommended no change.  Value established using the soil conversion table, land valuation groups and usage.

Moved by Bamesberger , seconded by Bulgrin to accept the Assessors recommendation of value established using the soil conversion table, land valuation groups and usage; roll call: yeas, Bamesberger, Bulgrin, Buller and Sikes; nays, Shellington;  motion carried.

 

#7        ACB Enterprises Inc, (N1/2 SW ¼ EXC Tracts & Hwy 20-10-1 51.18 AC) Reason for requested valuation change:  Sandy Meadows Golf Course is not a Country Club, but yet paying as much or more as Golf Courses in the same County and surrounding area’s this is not fair and need to be changed. Requested Valuation: Land $140,000.00 Building 65,000.00

Charlton’s recommendation: value was established using the Marshall Swift Costing Manual for development on golf greens and outbuildings. No change

Moved by Bulgrin, seconded by Sikes, to accept the Assessors recommendation of value was established using the Marshall Swift Costing Manual for development on golf greens and outbuildings, and leave the buildings the same and change the land to $2,000.00 an acre, roll call: yeas, Bulgrin, Sikes, Buller, Shellington and Bamesberger; nays, none; motion carried.

 

 

#23      Midwest Farms Inc., Carl C. Buller(S 57.2’ of N 237.2’ of E 441.3’ Irr Tract #39 6-9-4 City of Henderson) Reason for requested valuation: Based on two lot sales, land is worth .10 per square foot. Building is 60 years old & not in good shape. It has rent income of $20,640 annual. Replacement insurance based on $173,000.  Requested Valuation:   Land 2,534 Building $120,000

Charlton’s recommendation: value was set using the sales in the commercial area of Henderson as comparables and information available to me at the time of assessment. No change.

Moved by Shellington, seconded by Bulgrin, recommendation to keep land valuation the same at $17,658 and the building valuation reduced to $180,000; roll call: yeas, Shellington, Bulgrin, Sikes and Bamesberger; Buller abstained, nays, none; motion carried.

 

#24      Midwest Farms Inc., Carl C. Buller, (Lot 1 and Sub lots 1&2 of Lot 2 Midwest Addition City of York) Reason for requested valuation: Based on two lot sales, land is worth .10 per square foot.  Building is 60 years old and used for storage. It brings in $420.00 per month as rental. Replacement insurance based on $45,000.00.  Requested Valuation:   Land 7,808.00 Building $30,000.00

Charlton’s recommendation: value was set using the sales in the commercial area of Henderson as comparables and information available to me at the time of assessment. No change.

Moved by Bamesberger, seconded by Sikes to accept the Assessors recommendation value which was set using the sales in the commercial area of Henderson as comparables and information available to me at the time of assessment, to leave the land and building the same as the Assessor recommended; roll call: yeas, Bamesberger, Sikes, Shellington, and Bulgrin; Buller abstained, nays, none; motion carried.

 

#25      Midwest Farms Inc., Carl C. Buller, (Part of Irr Tract #42 6-9-4 City of Henderson) Reason for requested valuation: Property was sold 2 weeks ago for #6,948.00. It brings in no income, Requested Valuation:   Land 6,948.00

Charlton’s recommendation: value was set using the sales in the commercial area of Henderson as comparable and information available to me at the time of assessment

Moved by Bulgrin, seconded by Sikes; to change the value of the property to $6,948, roll call: yeas, Bulgrin, Sikes, Shellington and Bamesberger; Buller abstained, nays, none; motion carried.

 

#26      Midwest Farms Inc., Carl C. Buller, (Part of Irr Tract #39, Excluding Irr. Tract #46 6-9-4 City of Henderson) Reason for requested valuation: Property was sold two weeks ago for $3,052.00 it brings in no income, due to odd shape, could never be developed.  Requested Valuation:   Land $3,052.00

Charlton’s recommendation: value was set using the sales in the commercial area of Henderson as comparables and information available to me at the time of assessment. No change.

Moved by Bamesberger, seconded by Sikes; to change property to sale price of $3,052.00 roll call: yeas, Bamesberger, Sikes, Shellington and Bulgrin; Buller abstained, nays, none; motion carried.

 

#33      Maynard E. & Catherine Ochs, (Lot 2 Karashow Ridge 1st Sub, City of York) Reason for requested valuation:  This lot is not developed or arable. It is part of a natural draw so is susceptible to flooding but has no well or access. Requested Valuation Land $4,500.00

Charlton’s recommendation: the lot was purchased to eliminate any construction behind the house, however highest and best use would be residential not vacant land, no change.

Moved by Bamesberger, seconded by Sikes to accept the Assessor’s recommendation of the lot was purchased to eliminate any construction  behind the house, however highest and best use be residential not vacant land, protest valuation remains the same; roll call: yeas, Bamesberger, Sikes, Buller, Shellington and Bulgrin; nays, none; motion carried.

 

#4        Steven K Spady and Elaine M Spady, (Lot 1 Block 50 Cheney’s Addition to City of York)

Reason for requested valuation change:   The neighborhood in which our home is located continues to deteriorate primarily due to the change from owner occupied home to homes owned by a landlord but occupied by tenants.  We have not completed any major improvement in over ten years. Although we have diligently tried to maintain our home its age too, is beginning to show.  There are issues that decrease its current value mostly interior cosmetic but the foundation continues to be a source of some concern.  Landscaping and yard issues also present a growing need for remediation   Requested Valuation: Land $87,491

Charlton’s recommendation: as I have no sales in the area that would represent market value should be lower because of condition of neighborhood and the house is comparable to properties sold. No change

Moved by Shellington, seconded by Buller to accept the Assessor’s recommendation as I have no sales in the area that would represent market value should be lower because of condition of neighborhood and the house is comparable.  To leave the same as the Assessor’s recommendation; roll call: yeas, Shellington, Buller, Sikes, Bulgrin and Bamesberger; nays, none; motion carried.

 

#8        Janet K. Strong, (Lot 26 Fairview Drive 2nd Sub Div City of York) Reason for requested valuation change: I disagree with the evaluation because there is only a single car garage, windows are the original and need replaced, there is no master bathroom, house next door has a two stall garage and another building and is valued at less than mine and I have not made any improvements for the past 20 years. Requested Valuation: Land $120,000.00

Charlton’s recommendation: no evidence presented and value was set according to market, no change.

Moved by Bulgrin, seconded by Sikes to accept the Assessor’s recommendation as no evidence presented and value was set according to market. Due to lack of information leave the valuation as the Assessor’s recommendation; roll call: yeas, Bulgrin, Sikes, Buller, Shellington and Bamesberger; nays, none; motion carried.

 

#9        John W. Leif and Karen R. Leif, (SW ¼ 34-9-1 160 Acres) Reason for requested valuation change: The value of the property should be reduced because of the electrical power lines located on the property.  Those lines are positioned on the property in such a way that standard center pivot irrigation techniques cannot be used.  Instead of a single center pivot that would irrigate approximately 130 acres a set of two smaller center pivot must be used that only irrigate 108 acres.  Not having the ability to irrigate 22 acres reduces the economic productivity of the property, which in turn reduces the value of the property.  The recent tornado in southern York County caused the electrical power lines to break.  Repairs to the support poles and resetting the power lines have caused severe soil compaction and soil erosion where the repairs are being made.  That will reduce the productivity of the soil for several years, further reducing the value of the property Requested Valuation: Land $772,032.00.

Charlton’s recommendation: value was set using the comparable sales in York County, the land valuation groups and the soil types along with use.  No change.

Moved by Buller, seconded by Sikes to accept Assessor’s recommendation value was set using the comparable sales in York County, the land valuation groups and the soil types along with use.  To leave as the Assessor’s recommendation; roll call: yeas, Buller, Sikes, Shellington, Bulgrin and Bamesberger; nays, none; motion carried.

 

#10      Jerry and Zenaida Olson, (556 W 5th Lot 13 & W5’ Lot Blk 4 Academy Add, City of York) Reason for requested valuation change There’s a lot of repairs to do in this place, garage needs new roof, hole in the roof, basement wall is bad, tenants trash & damage inside of house and left without paying months of rent and utilities bills. Requested Valuation: Land $27,993.00

Charlton’s recommendation: value set using Marshall & Swift and comparable sales. No evidence presented with protest. No change.

Moved by Sikes, seconded by Buller to accept the Assessor’s recommendation, value set using Marshall & Swift and comparable sales. No evidence presented with protest.   To leave as the Assessor’s recommendation; roll call: yeas, Sikes, Buller, Bulgrin, Shellington and Bamesberger; nays, none; motion carried.

 

#11      Jerry Olson, (1627 York Ave Lot 3 Blk 22 New York Add City of York) Reason for requested valuation change: There’s termites in the ground very expensive to get rid of. Requested Valuation: Land 20,398.00

Charlton’s recommendation: value set using Marshall & Swift and comparable sales. No evidence presented with protest. No change.

Moved by Bulgrin, seconded by Buller to accept the Assessor’s recommendation value set using comparables and Marshall & Swift Costing Manuals, no evidence presented with protest.  To leave as the Assessor recommended; roll call: yeas, Bulgrin, Buller, Shellington, Sikes and Bamesberger; nays, none; motion carried.

 

#12      Jerry Olson, (917 Division Ave Lots 3-5 Blk 2 Brewers Add City of York) Reason for requested valuation:  The house is only used as a storage building non-profit place, no renovations just a warehouse. Requested Valuation: Land $26,443.00

Charlton’s recommendation: house is beside storage lot for roofing company and represents value of storage building. Value is only $8,761. No change.

Moved by Shellington, seconded by Bulgrin to accept the Assessor’s recommendation; house is beside storage lot for roofing company and represents value of storage building, building value is only $8,761. To leave as the Assessor’s recommendation; roll call: yeas, Shellington, Bulgrin, Buller, Sikes and Bamesberger; nays, none; motion carried.

 

#13      Jerry Olson, (520 Academy Ave S1/2 Lots 11&12 Blk 4 Academy Add City of York) Reason for requested valuation: The property is just a ½ lot and on the alley gravel road, small 2 bedroom house. Requested Valuation: Land $16,673

Charlton’s recommendation: house was valued using comparable sales and Marshall & Swift Costing manual.  House is actually on Academy Ave. No change.

Moved by Shellington, seconded by Sikes to accept the Assessor’s recommendation; house was valued using comparable sales and Marshall & Swift Costing Manual. House is actually on Academy Ave. To leave as the Assessor’s recommendation; roll call: yeas, Shellington, Sikes, Buller, Bulgrin and Bamesberger; nays, none; motion carried.

 

#14      Jerry & Zenaida Olson, (78 S. Nebraska Ave Lot Blk 3 Meads Add City of York) Reason for requested valuation:  It has the small lot, in the flood zone gravel road. Requested Valuation: Land $19,184.00

Charlton recommended no change; house valued using comparable sales in Original town and Marshall & Swift Costing Service Manuals.

Moved by Bamesberger, seconded by Bulgrin to accept the Assessor’s recommendation; house valued using comparable sales in Original Town and Marshall & Swift Costing Service Manual. To leave as the Assessor’s recommendation; roll call: yeas, Bamesberger, Bulgrin, Sikes, Buller and Shellington; nays, none; motion carried.

 

#15      Jerry & Zenaida Olson, (216 E 1st St W ½ Lots 1-2 Blk 105 OT City of York) Reason for requested valuation: Small Lot in the alley =flood zone $12,077 more? Requested Valuation: Land $20,363.00

Charlton recommended no change. Property has been updated and cleaned up, represents value of comparable sales.

Moved by Shellington, seconded by Sikes to accept the Assessor’s recommendation, property has been updated and cleaned up represent value of comparable sales.  To leave as the Assessor’s recommendation roll call: yeas, Shellington, Sikes, Buller, Bulgrin and Bamesberger; nays, none; motion carried.

 

#16      Jerry & Zenaida Olson, (99 S Nebraska E ½ Lots 1&2 Blk 105 OT City of York) Reason for requested valuation: It has a small lot, gravel road and in the flood zone. Requested Valuation: Land $16,896.00

Charlton recommended no change. Value set by comparable sales and using the costing manual; property has been cleaned up.

Moved by Sikes, seconded by Shellington to accept the Assessor’s recommendation value set by comparable sales and using the costing manual property; has been cleaned up. To leave as the Assessor’s recommendation; roll call: yeas, Sikes, Shellington, Buller, Bulgrin and Bamesberger; nays, none; motion carried.

 

#17      Jerry Olson, (626 W 5th Lot 19 Blk 5 Academy Add City of York) Reason for requested valuation: We’re trying to sell the property for years now nobody takes offers are too low neighboring property are selling for $12,000 to $15,000 only we used it for storage building now. Requested Valuation: Land $11,647.00

Charlton recommended house is valued as $13,164; remainder value is lot, already as minimum value.

Moved by Bamesberger, seconded by Bulgrin to accept the Assessor’s recommendation, house is valued at $13,164; remainder value is lot, already as minimum value. To leave as the Assessor’s recommendation; roll call: yeas, Bamesberger, Bulgrin, Buller, Shellington and Sikes; nays, none; motion carried.

 

#18      Jerry Olson, (402 E 16th St Lot 2 in sub Lot 1 Blk 29 New York Add City of York) Reason for requested valuation: Lot is infested with termites, neighbors also have them in theirs cannot get rid of it because of the railroad tracks, expensive curing all year round. Requested Valuation: Land $24,285.00

Charlton’s recommendation: property has been painted and cleaned up, looks like some external update. No change.

Moved by Sikes, seconded by Shellington to accept the Assessor’s recommendation; property has been painted and cleaned up, looks like some external update. To leave as the Assessor’s recommendation; roll call: yeas, Sikes, Shellington, Buller, Bulgrin and Bamesberger; nays, none; motion carried.

 

#19      Jerry Olson, (620 W 6th St Lot 18 Blk 2 Harlan Sub City of York) Reason for requested valuation: Need new sewer line and waterline shouldn’t be $4,407 tax more.  Requested Valuation:  Land $11,067

Charlton’s recommendation: house is occupied; value of house is $7,966 which is already minimum value, no change.

Moved by Shellington, seconded by Bulgrin to accept the Assessor’s recommendation; house is occupied, value of house is $7,966 which is already minimum value.  To leave as the Assessor recommended; roll call: yeas, Shellington, Bulgrin, Buller, Sikes and Bamesberger; nays, none; motion carried.

 

#20      Jerry & Zenaida Olson, (929 Division Ave Lots 1-2 Blk 2 Brewer’s Add City of York) Reason for requested valuation: House inside needs lots of repairs, renters not taking care of the house, left without paying rents too, thousands of dollars no recourse small garage needs repair too. Requested Valuation:  Land $18,716.00

Charlton recommended no change; house is occupied, value of house represents sales of comparable properties.

Moved by Bamesberger, seconded by Bulgrin to accept the Assessor’s recommendation, house is occupied, value of house represents sales of comparable properties.  To leave as the Assessor’s recommendation; roll call: yeas, Bamesberger, Bulgrin, Shellington, Buller and Sikes; nays, none; motion carried.

 

#21      Jerry Olson, (534 W 5th St Lot 18 Blk 4 Academy Add City of York) Reason for requested valuation: Just a lot and a garage, no house behind is an alley $10,119 more is too much Requested Valuation:   Land $7,455.00

Charlton recommended lot value is $7,455 and garage is $10,119.  No change

Moved by Bulgrin, seconded by Sikes to accept the Assessor’s recommendation, lot value is $7,455 and garage is $10,119.  To leave as the Assessor’s recommendation; roll call: yeas, Bulgrin, Sikes, Buller, Shellington and Bamesberger; nays, none; motion carried.

 

#22      Donald D & Sharon A Nunnenkamp, (SW ¼ 20-12-3 160 AC-2011 GIS Acres 159.17)  Reason for requested valuation: Our farm ground is not fertile bottom soil and will not sell as well nor produce in comparison to prime property. Requested Valuation:   Land $821,184.00

Charlton’s recommendation: value determined by using soil table for York County, land valuation groups and use represents value of comparable sales. No change

Moved by Bulgrin, seconded by Sikes to accept the Assessor’s recommendation value determined by using soil table for York County, land valuation groups and use, represents value of comparable sales.  To leave as the Assessor’s recommendation; roll call: yeas, Bulgrin, Sikes, Buller, Shellington and Bamesberger; nays, none; motion carried.

 

#27      Michael S & Vivian Mountjoy, (Lot 1 Blk 44 OT, City of York) Reason for requested valuation: We are protesting the increase in valuation for the following reasons: The notice stated “MARKET UPDATE DUE TO SALES” but market sales in our neighborhood are virtually non-existent as there are currently 3 houses in the 700 block on N Beaver alone that are sitting empty. Given number of empty houses on our block, we believe that if an adjustment is to be made to the valuation, it should be lowered rather than raised.  Requested Valuation:   Land $65,143.00

Charlton recommended as I have no sales showing that the neighborhood conditions would affect the sale of the property, I can recommend no change in the value.

Moved by Bulgrin, seconded by Sikes to accept the Assessor’s recommendation as I have no sales showing that the neighborhood conditions would affect the sale of the property.  Leave the valuation at $76,031; roll call: yeas, Bulgrin, Sikes, Buller, Shellington and Bamesberger; nays, none; motion carried.

 

#28      Ag County Partners, Inc., (Lots 7-8, Block 17 OT Village of Gresham, York County, Ne) Reason for requested valuation: Valuation should be lowered to a range of $20,000.00 to $25,000.00 Requested Valuation:   None given

Charlton’s recommendation: property value was set using the comparable sales the Gresham-Benedict-Bradshaw area. The house is in good repair.

Moved by Bamesberger, seconded by Sikes  to accept the Assessor’s recommendation, property value was set using the comparable sales in the Gresham-Benedict-Bradshaw area.  The house is in good repair.  There is no requested valuation on form.  Leave the current value at $38,925; roll call: yeas, Bamesberger, Sikes, Buller, Shellington and Bulgrin; nays, none; motion carried.

 

#29      Craig Jeffery, (NE1/4 31-12-3 160 AC 2011 GIS Acres 160.20) Reason for requested valuation: Proposed valuation is 22% for one year, gross income form parcel was down 26% in 2012 vs 2011 and 21% in 2013=net of 0.  Yet tax rates are escalating wildly.  Requested Valuation: Land $815,000.00

Charlton recommended no change, value set by using the comparable sales, soil table for York County, land valuation groups and use.

Moved by Sikes, seconded by Bulgrin to accept the Assessor’s recommendation value set by using the comparable sales, soil table for York County, Land valuation groups and use.  To leave as recommended by the County Assessor; roll call: yeas, Sikes, Bulgrin, Buller, Shellington and Bamesberger; nays, none; motion carried.

 

#30      William Craig Jeffery, (SW ¼ 17-12-3 AC 2011 GIS Acres 161.53) Reason for requested valuation: Proposed valuation is 20% for on year gross income from parcel was up 21% in 2012 vs 2011 and 24% in 2013.  Taxes will outstrip income gains.  Requested Valuation: Land $850,000.00

Charlton recommended no change, value was set using the sales in the county, soil types for the farm, land valuation groups and use.

Moved by Bamesberger, seconded by Sikes to accept the Assessor’s recommendation, value was set using the sales in the county, soil types for the farms, land valuation groups and uses.  To leave as the Assessor recommended; roll call: yeas, Bamesberger, Sikes, Buller, Shellington and Bulgrin; nays, none; motion carried.

 

#31      John R. Chittick Sr. Rev Trust, (S1/2 SW ¼ 32-12-4 80 AC) Reason for requested valuation:  My request is to retain the 2012 value of $305,234.00.  Requested Valuation: Land $305,234.00

Charlton’s recommendation: Nebraska laws require that market value be used to determine assessed value for all real estate in Nebraska.  Value was set using the sales in the county, soil types, land valuation groups and use.

Moved by Bulgrin, seconded by Sikes to accept the Assessor’s recommendation, Nebraska law required that market value be used to determine assessed value for all real estate in Nebraska.  Value was set using the sale in the county, soil types, land valuation group and use.  Value remains as is $490,953; roll call: yeas, Bulgrin, Sikes, Buller, Shellington and Bamesberger; nays, none; motion carried.

 

#32      Leroy Johnson Jr., (Lot 5 Blk 4 East Lawn Plaza 1st Add, City of York) Reason for requested valuation:   We are on fix retirement income if this valuation holds up; we will be forced to see and move. Requested Valuation: Land $11,461.00 Building $88,539.00.

Charlton recommended property could be reduced to $11,461 for land and $84,480 for the house.  This would put the property closer to comparable properties in neighborhood.

Moved by Sikes, seconded by Buller to accept the Assessor’s recommendation, land $11,461 and building $83,480 for total land and building of $94,941.00.  To reduce the valuation from $115,569 to $94,941.00; roll call: yeas, Sikes, Buller, Bulgrin, Shellington and Bamesberger; nays, none; motion carried.

 

#34      William F. Dunavan, (W1/2 SE ¼ 6-9-2 W 80 AC 2011 GIS Acres 78.23)  Reason for requested valuation:  Pasture values should reflect pasture use not pivot.  Area used for statistical comparison could be overlay influenced by metro area. Requested Valuation: Land $100,917.00 Building $98,500.00.

Charlton’s recommendation: land values are set using York County sales, properties are valued using soil types for York County, land valuation groups and use. No change.

Moved by Bulgrin, seconded by Bamesberger to accept the Assessor’s recommendation, land values are set using York County sales.  Properties are valued using soil types for York County, land valuation groups and use.  Leave the valuation the same as the County Assessor recommended; roll call: yeas, Bulgrin, Bamesberger, Sikes, Shellington and Buller; nays, none; motion carried.

 

#35      Mark & Rose Miller, (No Legal) Reason for requested valuation:  According to Nebraska State Statue Evaluations, valuation must be 95-100% of Actual Value which is defined as a willing buyer and seller is willing to pay.  Our home is now approaching 15 years old for which no depreciation in its value is recognized.  Home bordering our property at either side are valued at $254,751 and $169,201.  Review of other nearby York properties seem inconsistent as well.  To cite but one example, the property which is reasonable comp to ours was sold in 2013 for $245,500 and is presently assessed at $234,978. Requested Valuation: Land $234,978.00

Charlton’s recommendation: value was determined using the comparable sales in the City of York. This would be houses like yours, not a two story or a split level. No change.

Moved by Buller, seconded by Sikes to accept the Assessor’s recommendation value was determined using the comparable sales in the City of York.  This would be houses like yours, not a two story or a split level.  To leave as the County Assessor’s recommendation; roll call: yeas, Buller, Sikes, Bulgrin, Shellington and Bamesberger; nays, none; motion carried.

 

#36      VOID WITHDREW PROTEST

 

#37      Michael L. & Angela M Wright, (Irr Tr #1 in SW 1/4NW ¼ 35-12-1 8.5 AC with 3 bedroom + 2 bath house, detached shop and approximately 6 Acreas used for agricultural purposes to pasture cattle) Reason for requested valuation:   In 2013 the total value was $395,613.  The only improvement was to nearly finish the siding.  An appraisal was completed on 6-24-2014 and indicated the sale value of the entire property is $410,000.  We shouldn’t be taxed for more than the appraised value of property.  Requested Valuation: Land and Building $410,000.00

Charlton’s recommendation: property was valued using the Marshall & Swift Costing Manual and information provided by owner. My value of $470,750 was set.

Moved by Bulgrin, seconded by Sikes to accept the recommendation of the Assessor to accept the appraisal of $410,000.00 Sikes; roll call: yeas, Bulgrin, Sikes, Buller, Shellington and Bamesberger; nays, none; motion carried.

 

#38      Mark & Becky Stamp, (Lots 13-15 & S 11’ lot 16 Blk 7, Village of Bradshaw) Reason for requested valuation:   They had to put a price to buy business. This is not just building we bought. Requested Valuation: Total Land and Building $45,000.00

Charlton recommended no change, value set using existing information on file and the Marshall Swift Costing Service manual.  There was no allocation of value to the different buildings.

Moved by Bulgrin, seconded by Sikes, to deny the valuation request due to the fact that the paper work was not filled out correctly.  The Assessor’s recommendation, value set using existing information on file and the Marshall Swift Costing service Manual.  There was no allocation of value to the different buildings; roll call: yeas, Bulgrin, Sikes, Buller, Shellington and Bamesberger; nays, none; motion carried.

 

#39      Karen Kayton, (1914 East Ave, Irr Tr’s 39,40,41 Exc 33’ thereof 31-11-2, City of York) Reason for requested valuation:    These lots are across the street to railroad tracks(extremely close) The noise makes them not anymore valuable in 2014 than 2013. Requested Valuation:  Total Land and Building $12,500.00.

Charlton recommended this property could be developed with some work value was set using the date of comparable property.  Land by First Christian Church sold and will be selling lots for $39,900 each no change

Moved by Bulgrin, seconded by Sikes to deny based on insufficient comparable to justify change of valuation.  The Assessor recommended this property could be developed with some work and expense.  Value was set using the sale of comparable property.  Land by First Christian Church sold and will be selling for $39,900 each.  roll call: yeas, Bulgrin, Sikes, Buller, Shellington and Bamesberger; nays, none; motion carried.

 

#40      Marsha Ellis Ward, (E1/2 SW1/4 & SW1/4 SE 26-9-3, and 120 AC – 2011 GIS AC 120.97) Reason for requested valuation:   We cannot produce enough off land to pay land taxes. Grain prices have dropped and we have to find other sources to pay taxes.  Requested Valuation: Total Land $415,921.00.

Charlton’s recommendation: value was set using comparable sales in county not just Hays Township. The soil types, land valuation groups and use determine value. No change.

Moved by Bulgrin, seconded by Sikes to accept the Assessor’s recommendation, value was set using comparable sales in county not just Hayes Township.  The soil types, land valuation groups and use determine value.  Protest valuation to remain the same as the Assessor recommended, that the property was assessed in correct market and soil classification; roll call: yeas, Bulgrin, Sikes, Buller, Shellington and Bamesberger; nays, none; motion carried.

 

#41       Marsha Ellis Ward, (No Legal) Reason for requested valuation:   40 acres of land with irrigation.  Other land sold 2013 for over $6500.00 and acre.  Have been able to get crop off land to pay taxes, but with grain prices under $4.00 a bushels we cannot pay taxes. Also 3 acres is swamp and will raise no crops this year.  Corn was hailed, but did survive but expect yield to go down.   Requested Valuation: Total Land $200,916.00.

Charlton’s recommendation: value was set using comparable sales in the county, not just Hayes Township.  The soil types, land valuation groups and use determine value.  No change.

Moved by Bulgrin, seconded by Bamesberger to accept the Assessor’s recommendation, value was set using comparable sales in the county, not just Hayes Township.  The soil types, land valuation groups and uses, determine value.  The valuation stays the same as the Assessor’s recommendation; roll call: yeas, Bulgrin, Bamesberger, Shellington, Buller and Sikes; nays, none; motion carried.

 

#46      Ken Keber, (West 60.6’ of Lot 10, Block 60, Original Town, city of York), Reason for requested valuation:  I have tried selling building with land and have had no offers over $100,000.  Based on this I believe $150,000 is a more realistic value. Requested Valuation:  Total Land and Building $150,000.00.

Charlton’s recommendation: value was set using Marshall & Swift Costing Manual and condition of building.  I have no information concerning, the possible sale of property.  No change.

Moved by Bulgrin, seconded by Sikes to deny based on insufficient comparable, roll call: yeas, Bulgrin, Sikes, Buller, Shellington and Bamesberger; nays, none; motion carried.

 

#47      Lesa Christiancy, (Blue Crappie Resort LLC, NE ¼ 29-9-4, 160 AC, Parcel #930018141, Map #3523-29-1-00000-000-0001), Reason for requested valuation:  Taxes for the Trailers located on the sandpit have been paid for by us (and my father) for years.  Their value has been included in the outbuilding portion of our taxes.  We have discussed transferring those taxes to the individual owners of said trailers.  This has not happened yet, but do not understand how the value of these trailers increased up to $100,000.  Only 65 acres of the land is crop ground.  I understand the increase in valuation of this portion which is fueled by comparison sales, but the rest of the land (mostly waste – does not have a comparable marker to justify an increase.) Requested Valuation:  Land $425,000.00, Building $36,034.00, Total Land & Building $461,034.00.

Charlton’s recommendation: value was set using the information available to me at valuation time; Ag land is comparable to other land in the county as is the waste (lake and surrounding area). No change.

Moved by Sikes, seconded by Bulgrin to accept the Assessor’s recommendation, value was set using the information available to me at valuation time, Ag land is comparable to other land in County as is the waste (lake and surrounding area).  To take the valuation of the Assessor, due to lack of cooperation from the property owner to make any other changes; roll call: yeas, Sikes, Bulgrin, Buller, Shellington and Bamesberger; nays, none; motion carried.

 

#48      Robert A Potter, (N 246.34’ Lot 3, 6.47 AC, Potter’s Sub, City of York) Reason for requested valuation:  No direct access to property except through adjacent lots, no improvements to property.  Requested Valuation: Total Land & Building $25,880.00.

Charlton’s recommendation: value set as residential as the property is in the city limits and has a highest and best use as residential.  Carries a 75% ratio as the property is farmed inside the city limits.   No change.

Moved by Bulgrin, seconded by Sikes to maintain the valuation at $66,920.00 with no evidence to justify the decrease.  The Assessor’s recommendation value set as residential as property is in the city limits and has a highest and best use as residential.  Carries a 75% ratio as the property is farmed inside the city limits. roll call: yeas, Bulgrin, Sikes, Buller, Shellington and Bamesberger; nays, none; motion carried.

 

#49      Robert A Potter, (S 200.02’ Lot 3, 5.34 AC, Potter’s Sub, City of York) Reason for requested valuation:  No direct access to property except through adjacent lots, no improvements to property.  Requested Valuation: Total Land & Building $21,360.00.

Charlton’s recommendation: value set as residential as the property is in the city limits and has a highest and best use as residential.  Carries a 75% ratio as the property is farmed inside the city limits.  No change

Moved by Bulgrin, seconded by Sikes to deny based on no evidence to support any changes (decrease); roll call: yeas, Bulgrin, Sikes, Buller, Shellington and Bamesberger; nays, none; motion carried.

 

#50      Northern Utilities, LLC, (NE1/4 N of RR EXC Hwy & EXC TR 2 & A 3 AC TR 35-11-4, 106.75 AC-2011, GIS AC 103.66) Reason for requested valuation:  I request my land valuation be $450,000.00   Requested Valuation:  Land $450,000.00

Charlton’s recommendation: property is valued comparable to other farm ground in the county using the sales, soil types, land valuation groups and use.  No change. (we have no referees in York County)

Moved by Bamesberger, seconded by Bulgrin to deny protest due to lack of information and to leave the valuation at $660,053.00; roll call: yeas, Bamesberger, Bulgrin, Sikes, Buller and Shellington; nays, none; motion carried.

 

#1        John P. Kohl, (Lt 1 Blk 1 Broadwell Sub Div City of York)

Reason for requested valuation change: Economy, no County or City support. Lucky sellers of their property   Requested Valuation: Land $300.000 Buildings $600,000.00

Charlton’s recommendation: value represents property after remodel according to Marshall & Swift Cost manual.

Moved by Bulgrin, seconded by Shellington to not accept the changes based on the valuation presented by the County Assessor with correct comparison and market.  The Assessor’s recommendation of value represents property after remodel according to Marshall& Swift Cost Manual; roll call: yeas, Bulgrin, Shellington, Sikes, Buller and Bamesberger; nays, none; motion carried.

 

#2        David & Deanna Reetz, (S1/2 SW ¼ EXC TR #2 30-12-1 75.01 AC-2011 GIS AC 74.72)

Reason for requested valuation change:   Irrigated farm across the road sold for $81,000 ACR. Small field I own is only irrigated from creek when it rains   Requested Valuation: Land $200,000.

Charlton’s recommendation: value represents assessment after application of correct land value groups and soil classification and comparable sales.

Moved by Bamesberger, seconded by Buller to accept the Assessor’s recommendation of value, represents assessment after application of correct land value groups and soil classification and comparable sales.  Based on the valuation of the County Assessor to leave the protest valuation as stated; roll call: yeas, Bamesberger, Buller,  Bulgrin, Shellington, and Sikes, nays, none; motion carried.

 

 

#42      Clarence Hoffman, (Lot 2, Blk 1 H & R Addition City of York, Section 19, Township 10 North, Range 2, West of the 6th PM – York County Nebraska) Reason for requested valuation:  It’s dry land, farm ground, I really don’t understand, & it makes no sense, because it don’t come close to even paying the taxes.       Requested Valuation:  None listed.

Charlton recommendation property is in city limits and is commercial however is being farmed.  Commercial value with ag ration of 75%.

Moved by Bulgrin, seconded by Sikes to accept the Assessors recommendation property is in city limits and is commercial however is being farmed.  Commercial value with Ag ratio 75%.  Accept recommendation from County Assessor; roll call: yeas, Bulgrin, Sikes and Bamesberger; nays, Shellington, Buller; motion carried.

 

#43      Clarence Hoffman, (Lot 3, Blk 1 H & R Addition City of York, Section 19, Township 10 North, Range 2, West of the 6th PM – York County Nebraska) Reason for requested valuation:  (1) it’s dry land farm ground, (2) I really don’t understand??, (3) it makes no sense because it won’t even come close to paying the taxes.          Requested Valuation:  None Listed.

Charlton’s recommendation: property is in city limits, however is being farmed, carries a commercial value with Ag ratio of 75%.

Moved by Bamesberger, seconded by Sikes to accept the Assessor’s recommendation, property is in city limits, however is being farmed, and carries a commercial value with Ag ratio of 75%. To accept recommendation of the County Assessor; roll call: yeas, Bamesberger Sikes and Bulgrin; nays, Shellington and Buller; motion carried.

 

#44      Clarence Hoffman, (Lot 4, Blk 1 H & R Addition City of York, Section 19, Township 10 North, Range 2, West of the 6th PM – York County Nebraska) Reason for requested valuation:  (1) it’s dry land farm ground, (2) I really don’t understand, (3) it makes no sense, as it won’t even pay the taxes. Requested Valuation:  None Listed.

Charlton’s recommendation: property is in city limits however is being farmed, carried a commercial value with an ad ratio of 75%.

Moved by Bulgrin, seconded by Sikes to accept the Assessor’s recommendation, property is in city limits, however is being farmed, carries a commercial value with an Ag ratio of 75%.  Maintain valuation on correct tools used by the County Assessor; roll call: yeas, Bulgrin, Sikes and Bamesberger; nays, Shellington and Buller; motion carried.

 

#45      Clarence Hoffman, (Pt IRR TR #11, EXC H & R Addition, Section 19, Township 10 North, Range 2, West of the 6th PM – York County Nebraska)            Reason for requested valuation:  (1) it’s dry land farm ground, (2) I really don’t understand, (3) it makes no sense as it won’t come close to paying the taxes. Requested Valuation:   None Listed.

Charlton recommended due to a late filing of a city annexation being rescinded, property was put in city limits by error, should be ag land (outside of city limits).

Moved by Bulgrin, seconded by Sikes to accept the Assessor’s recommendation, due to a late filing of a city annexation being  recended,  property was put in city limits by error, should be Ag land (outside of city limits).   Change property valuation to $107,376 based on recommendation; roll call: yeas, Bulgrin, Sikes, Buller and Bamesberger; nays, Shellington, motion carried.

 

Moved by Sikes, seconded by Shellington to approve the exemption to Mosaic for a 2014 Passenger  Van VIN #1GAZGZFA6E1167643 roll call: yeas, Sikes, Shellington, Buller, Bulgrin and Bamesberger; nays, none; motion carried.

 

There being no further business, the Board adjourned at 4:07 p.m.

 

 

___________________________________                          _____________________________________

Bill Bamesberger, Chairman                                                 Kelly Turner, County Clerk

York County Board of Commissioners                                 York County, Nebraska