Commissioners minutes

Monday, July 4, 2011, Commissioners did not meet due to the Fourth of July Holiday.

Monday, July 5, 2011, Commissioners met in regular session with Chairman Ron Smith, Commissioner Walt Kirby, and Deputy Clerk Michelle Rohrwasser. Commissioner Dan Dinning was out of the office tending to personal matters.

9:00 a.m., Solid Waste Superintendent Claine Skeen joined the meeting to give the departmental report. Clerk Glenda Poston also joined the meeting.

Mr. Skeen spoke of changes he would like to make to the landfill monitor position. Mr. Skeen said he would like to raise the budget of line item #406 as he would like to put this monitor position on a part time status. This would put the position at 35 hours per week and there are no benefits. Mr. Skeen said he would like to turn this monitor position from a fill in, part time position to a regular part time position. The person filling this position will work at the landfill, except when a rural site monitor is gone for the day.

9:15 a.m., Chief Deputy Clerk Tracie Isaac joined the meeting at Commissioners’ request.

Chairman Smith asked if all of Mr. Skeen’s employees who worked last year are still working at the landfill and Mr. Skeen said no, two people are no longer there and they have not been replaced. It was said the change to the monitor position is only adding hours to a position that was already there. Mr. Skeen said he is asking for approximately 1,020 hours for the next budget. Chairman Smith and Commissioner Kirby said they didn’t see a problem. Mr. Skeen said this position will begin the first of October if there are no issues. Clerk Poston said she would make note on Mr. Skeen’s budget that this position will change.

Those present discussed the process of going through the Job Service for vacant positions.

Mr. Skeen said the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and the Panhandle Health District will conduct their inspections of the landfill soon. Chairman Smith said he spoke to Dale Peck with the Panhandle Health District about processes. The County’s best bet is to keep the recyclables up so the life of the landfill can be extended, according to Chairman Smith.

Mr. Skeen informed Commissioners that he is going to put up more fencing approximately 500 feet along the entire north side that will continue 1,000 feet from north to south along the east line. Commissioners asked Mr. Skeen if there had been any comments from Bill Michalk as there had been complaints of garbage blowing onto Mr. Michalk’s property. Mr. Skeen said fencing has been put up and there have been no comments from Mr. Michalk. Mr. Skeen said garbage is being maintained better.

The meeting with Mr. Skeen, Clerk Poston, and Chief Deputy Clerk Tracie Isaac ended at 9:20 a.m.

9:30 a.m., Restorium Administrator Karlene Magee and Assistant Administrator Cathy Stalcup joined the meeting to give the department report.

Ms. Magee said the Restorium is at capacity with about 20 people on the waiting list. Ms. Magee said Boundary Community Hospital staff have been smoking in an area bordering the Restorium’s property and their cigarettes butts are left on the ground. Residents have actually complained about the smoke wafting upwards toward them. Chairman Smith suggested no smoking signs be posted where smoking is occurring. Chairman Smith asked if any of the Restorium residents smoke and Ms. Magee and Ms. Stalcup said one resident smokes. Ms. Stalcup said there is a specific area where this resident can smoke. Chairman Smith said he thinks now is the time to engage a no smoking campus at the Restorium, but the employees will now have to do the same thing the Hospital employees do, which is to step off the property. Chairman Smith said the Courthouse is not necessarily a no smoking campus, but there is a designated area for smokers. Chairman Smith said Commissioners would contact Attorney Robinson about designating rules for a smoke-free campus with the exception of having a designated area near the storage shed.

Chairman Smith spoke briefly of having a plaque made on behalf of J.T. Osborn who recently passed away and had been a member of the Friends of the Restorium.

Ms. Stalcup informed Commissioners there were approximately 400 people at the Restorium’s barbeque.

The meeting with Ms. Magee and Ms. Stalcup ended at 10:05 a.m.

Commissioner Kirby moved to approve the minutes of June 13 & 14, 2011. Chairman Smith yielded the chair to second. Motion passed unanimously.   

10:00 a.m., Chief Probation Officer Stacy Brown joined the meeting to give the departmental report. Clerk Glenda Poston also joined the meeting.

Ms. Brown informed Commissioners that she has been asked to teach and grade scenarios during the last week at Peace Officers Standards and Training (P.O.S.T.) Academy. Ms. Brown said last Friday she called the parents of every single juvenile on probation that is under the age of 18 to tell them these kids couldn’t be out the night of the Fourth of July unless they were with a parent. Ms. Brown said Boundary County has 30 juveniles on probation with another juvenile coming on board. There are 53 adults on probation, according to Ms. Brown. Most case loads for adult probation officers are well over 100 and Boundary County only has 53.

Ms. Brown discussed the substance abuse funds with Commissioners. Another entity used to handle the funds for substance abuse and this year the Department of Juvenile Corrections decided they didn’t want to go with the Business Psychology Associates (BPA) and they wanted to handle the funds themselves. It was expensive for BPA to go between treatment providers, according to Ms. Brown. Chairman Smith asked if this pertains to juveniles or adults and Ms. Brown said this is just for juveniles. The five northern counties in District I have gotten together to draft a new plan to distribute funds to make sure kids get the treatment they need. Ms. Brown said because this process was done so quickly, she agreed to use a company called Alliance, which is being used right now. Ms. Brown said an Alliance provider will be used, which will put a lot of work on her probation officers. Each juvenile will be screened and their probation officer will take them to treatment without having to wait. Ms. Brown said she wants to hire a provider on a contract-type basis who will work with Boundary County’s juveniles in the Probation Offices. Ms. Brown said she could keep the kids accountable as she won’t have to rely on someone else telling her if the juvenile made it to their treatment or not. There will be nothing handed to the middle man and the costs would be paid out of the funds Ms. Brown is to handle. Whether or not the funds are available is not known and if funds aren’t available, the State has to come up with an entirely new plan. The treatment provider has to be certified under the IDAPA rules, according to Ms. Brown. Ms. Brown said if anyone needed in-patient care, it would only take three participants to wipe out these funds. Ms. Brown said Debbie Stallcup with the Bonner County Detention Center has a treatment professional at her facility at a discounted rate. Ms. Brown said if her juvenile probation officer can screen the kids well enough there won’t be any inpatient care as there will be a more intensive out-patient program. Ms. Brown said the details haven’t been worked out yet. Chairman Smith said Boundary County will not use Bonner County Detention Center for their programs. Clerk Poston asked if these professionals are medically approved and Ms. Brown said the professionals are Health and Welfare approved. Clerk Poston questioned if parents of these juveniles have insurance, would their insurance pay for treatment and Ms. Brown said yes, if they didn’t go through Probation. Clerk Poston mentioned the Pre-existing Condition Insurance Plan (PCIP) and she said in addition to being available for indigent matters, this plan is available to everyone with pre-existing health conditions. Clerk Poston said the question is if the PCIP qualifies for this type of scenario. Ms. Brown said hopefully her juvenile probation officer will be able to get every juvenile onto the Medicaid system if they don’t have insurance.

Chairman Smith discussed matters involving Bonner County in relation to budget issues of the detention facility.

Clerk Poston questioned if the substance abuse funds will come to Boundary County and Ms. Brown said she doesn’t know those details yet.

Ms. Brown informed Commissioners the Idaho Juvenile Justice Association conference will be held in Moscow from September 11, 2011 through September 14, 2011. Ms. Brown said she would like to close her office those days in order for her entire staff to attend the conference.

The meeting with Ms. Brown and Clerk Poston ended at 10:30 a.m.

Commissioner Kirby moved to adopt Resolution 2011-30A. A resolution amending Resolution 2011-30 increasing fiscal year 2010-2011 Parks and Recreation budget due to receipt of unanticipated revenue. Commissioner Dinning second. Motion passed unanimously. Resolution 2011-30A reads as follows:

Resolution 2011-30A

Amending Resolution 2001-30 Increasing Fiscal Year 2010-2011

Parks and Recreation Budget Due to Receipt of Unanticipated Revenue

                WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners, County of Boundary, State of Idaho, did adopt Resolution 2011-30 increasing the fiscal year 2010-2011 Parks and Recreation Budget on June 13, 2011; and

                WHEREAS, said Resolution contained an incorrect expense account number and therefore it is appropriate to amend Resolution 2011-30 to reflect the appropriate expense account number; and

WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners, County of Boundary, State of Idaho, did establish an operating budget for the Parks and Recreation Fund for fiscal year 2010-2011; and

                WHEREAS, two years ago, based on the inactivity of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, the Board of Boundary County Commissioners deemed it in the best interest of the general public of Boundary County to place the Parks and Recreation Summer Youth Program under the oversight of the Boundary County Fair Board. Due to the magnitude of what needed to be done under the limited summer hours, the Fair Board was unable to continue oversight of the Program and the Board of Boundary County Commissioners formed a new Parks and Recreation Advisory Board to assume oversight of the Summer Youth Program; and

                WHEREAS, the Fair Board needs to reimburse the Parks and Recreation Budget $3,976.55 for wages and fringe for the Sports Director, $1,203.43 received from concessions for the 2010 season, and $9,649.00 received as a grant to build the concession stand; and

                WHEREAS, the Boundary County Commissioners deem it in the best interest of the general public of Boundary County to increase the Fiscal Year 2010-2011 Parks and Recreation Budget for those purposes; and

                WHEREAS, the addition of this revenue does not affect the tax levy for Boundary County; and

                WHEREAS, it is appropriate to increase the fiscal year 2010-2011 Parks and Recreation Budget revenue account number 0018-00-0391-0018 in the amount of $5,179.98 and expense account number 18-00-409-00, Salaries – Summer Youth Director, in the amount of $3,976.55 and expense account number 18-00-725-00, Summer Youth Program, in the amount of $1,203.43; and to increase the fiscal year 2010-2011 Parks and Recreation Budget revenue account number 0018-00-0324-0010 and expense account number 18-00-709-00, Grants Expenditures, in the amount of $9,649.00; and

NOW THEREFORE, upon motion duly made, seconded and unanimously carried,

                IT IS RESOLVED that the increase to the fiscal year 2010-2011 Parks and Recreation Budget revenue account number 0018-00-0391-0018 in the amount of $5,179.98 and expense account number 18-00-409-00, Salaries – Summer Youth Director, in the amount of $3,976.55 and expense account number 18-00-725-00, Summer Youth Program, in the amount of $1,203.43; and to increase the fiscal year 2010-2011 Parks and Recreation Budget revenue account number 0018-00-0324-0010 and expense account number 18-00-709-00, Grants Expenditures, in the amount of $9,649.00 is hereby authorized and ordered; and  

                IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED that the Clerk is instructed to deliver certified copies of this resolution to the Boundary County Treasurer and the Boundary County Auditor.

DATED this 5th day of July, 2011

                                                                                COUNTY OF BOUNDARY               

                                                                BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

                                                                                s/________________________________

                                                                                RONALD R. SMITH, Chairman

                                                                                s/________________________________

                                                                                                DAN R. DINNING, Commissioner

                                                                                                s/________________________________

                                                                                                WALT KIRBY, Commissioner

ATTEST:

s/___________________________________________________

GLENDA POSTON, Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners

By: Michelle Rohrwasser, Deputy

Recorded as instrument #251173

10:35 a.m., Clerk Glenda Poston and Chief Deputy Clerk Tracie Isaac joined the meeting.   

Those present discussed and reviewed the new Public Defenders’ Contract prior to Commissioners adoption.

Commissioner Kirby moved to sign the Contract for Public Services for Public Defenders. Chairman Smith yielded the chair to second. Motion passed unanimously.

Chairman Smith addressed the requested changes to the new Senior Center Bus Agreement, which is to remove a sentence pertaining to Medicaid reimbursement. Chairman Smith said if Commissioners cross out the sentence in question and sign their initials by this change on the agreement that should take care of the changes. Commissioners will also notify Attorney Robinson of the changes.

Clerk Poston presented Commissioners with a map of the current Commissioner districts as they are currently as well as a proposed map for new district boundaries since receiving information from the new census. The new map will better identify the boundaries as they line up with the highway and river, according to Clerk Poston. Chairman Smith said he thinks the new map and boundaries are perfect. Chairman Smith and Commissioner Kirby said they absolutely support the new map.

The meeting ended at 10:55 a.m.

11:00 a.m., Waterways Board member Mike Naumann joined the meeting to discuss going out for quotes for the addition to the Waterways Building. Clerk Glenda Poston was also present.

Mr. Naumann said two grants were awarded, one for the improvements to the Rock Point Restroom and one to build an addition to the Waterways Building. Mr. Naumann said he needs to have a contractor for improvements to the building. Mr. Naumann said he expects the addition to be a $32,000 project and this additional space will house Search and Rescue equipment as well as the marine equipment.

Road and Bridge Superintendent Jeff Gutshall joined the meeting.

Commissioners contacted Attorney Phil Robinson to inquire about the process for seeking proposals. Mr. Naumann said he would prefer to put a notice in the newspaper rather than seek quotes in order to notify as many people as possible. The project is under $50,000 so the County can seek requests for proposals in order to coincide with grant requirements. Those present questioned the process if the quotes come in at too high a price. Attorney Robinson said if all bids are above the funding allowance, Commissioners can reject all quotes and then can negotiate with anyone. It was decided to publish notice in the newspaper twice.

The meeting with Mr. Naumann ended at 11:25 a.m.

Mr. Gutshall met with Commissioners to provide a departmental report. Commissioners and Mr. Gutshall discussed what areas to check out on the road tour. Chairman Smith said he would like to travel Cow Creek to check out reports of potholes that need work as well as the top of Paradise Valley Hill. Mr. Gutshall said he would like to take a look at Fawn Lane and discuss what will happen next. Mr. Gutshall said he could also show Chairman Smith the work done to the Moyie River Road involving the placement of a larger culvert near the Marlow and Nagel residences. Mr. Gutshall said he thinks he fixed the drainage problem for good near Channing Nagel’s as there is now a channel and a very large pipe to address the creek flows.  

Mr. Gutshall said a representative from the Idaho Transportation Department (ITD) attended the Boundary Area Transportation Team (BATT) meeting and this was the person who was going to engineer the project to attach a trail to the trail at the North Hill. ITD has asked to get everything in compliance with Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards. There is an issue about not wanting to move the barriers and the ITD representative has been asked to get the specifics to see what is needed to bring matters into ADA compliancy.

Those present discussed a possible drainage issue on Kent’s Gulch Road, the legal description for Hewitt Road for abandonment, and water over the roadway at Rock Creek.     

1:00 p.m., Chairman Smith conducted a road tour of the various projects Road and Bridge are working on and to check out areas that have had issues. Those present were Chairman Smith, Road and Bridge Superintendent Jeff Gutshall, and Deputy Clerk Michelle Rohrwasser. Those areas include: the junction of Shamrock Road and Blue Sky Road to look at improving visibility, the new drainage on the Moyie River Road located near the Marlow and Nagel properties, reports of potholes on Cow Creek Road near Katka Road, and the work of grinding Fawn Lane.

The road tour ended at 4:00 p.m.

There being no further business, the meeting recessed until tomorrow at 9:00 a.m.

***Wednesday, July 6, 2011, Commissioners met in special session with Chairman Ron Smith, Commissioner Dan Dinning, Commissioner Walt Kirby, and Deputy Clerk Michelle Rohrwasser. Commissioners met for the purpose of conducting Board of Equalization appeal hearings.  

9:00 a.m., Commissioner Dinning moved to recess as Board of County Commissioners and reconvene as the Board of Equalization. Commissioner Kirby second. Motion passed unanimously.

Commissioners considered a Board of Equalization appeal hearing for Appellant Robert Truppe for parcel #RPM0540001008CA. Present were: Chairman Ron Smith, Commissioner Dan Dinning, Commissioner Walt Kirby, Assessor Dave Ryals, Appraiser Les Vetter, Deputy Clerk Michelle Rohrwasser, and Appellant Robert Truppe. The appeal hearing was recorded. Chairman Smith reviewed the appeal hearing procedures and administered the oath to those giving testimony to include: Assessor Ryals, Appraiser Vetter, and Appellant Robert Truppe. The Assessor’s Office submitted one exhibited marked Assessor’s Exhibit #1 (consisting of 6 pages). The appellant did not submit any exhibits.

Chairman Smith asked for Mr. Truppe to give an opening statement.

Mr. Truppe said he understands trying to get taxes firm and equal in value for everyone. Mr. Truppe said if you look at his recent valuation of his property, he noticed the current value of the mobile home itself increased to $15,000, but last year it was only valued at approximately $8,000. Mr. Truppe said his addition has decreased to $4,300 and last year it had been approximately $11,000. Mr. Truppe said he built his pole barn for $8,000, but the County has it valued at $11,000. Mr. Truppe said at the same time his neighbor just sold his property for $21,000 without having railroad tracks in the backyard like he does. Mr. Truppe said if his neighbor can sell his whole lot, building, and house for $21,000, he doesn’t see how his value can possibly come close to being valued at a whole lot more than that, especially with railroad tracks in his back yard. Mr. Truppe said after years of living there you get accustomed to the railroad.  

Mr. Truppe said two years ago when the housing market was doing quite well he went to the local realty outfit and asked them if they would take on his house to sell it and that he was asking $50,000. Mr. Truppe said this company laughed at him and told him they wouldn’t get $39,000 for it. Mr. Truppe said right now he is sure the housing market is not any better than it was two years ago. Two years ago there was quite a boom in this area as far as building and construction, which is a trade he is in at this time and he is hopefully trying to get back to work. Mr. Truppe said he can’t see where his value should have gone up at any point in the last two years and yet it has. Mr. Truppe questioned how his value can be going up when the market is so depressed that he couldn’t possibly get that kind of money or recover that kind of money as far as tax purposes for what he can possibly get on the market today.

Mr. Truppe said he doesn’t know how the pole building was valued, but is it valued as just a structure or valued as a structure with electricity, insulation, etc., because none of that is currently there. Mr. Truppe said the pole building is only a structure he can put stuff in to get it out of the rain, to work on a vehicle, to run an extension cord out from his house to out there so he can put a trouble light on, etc. At this time it is unfinished and as an unfinished building, it shouldn’t be valued as a finished product, according to Mr. Truppe.    

Mr. Truppe said that is pretty much where he stands on this right now. Mr. Truppe said he feels his property value is too inflated for today’s market, especially when his neighbor can sell his whole place and property for $21,000 while he just has one third of an acre with railroad tracks in his back yard and the Assessor has given him a $25,000 value placed on it. Mr. Truppe said he doesn’t see anyway to recover that kind of money in today’s market.  

Chairman Smith said Mr. Truppe feels the value should be…and Mr. Truppe said $38,000. Chairman Smith said he sees $56,450 and he asked if that is what the Assessor’s Office has the property valued at. Chairman Smith said for clarification that the Assessor’s Office has the property valued at $56,450, but Mr. Truppe feels the value should be $38,000. Mr. Truppe said yes. Chairman Smith said that is about an $18,000 difference.

Commissioner Dinning asked if the new pole building has sides and concrete and Mr. Truppe said yes. The concrete had already been there as he had a building collapse and he just put up another structure. Commissioner Dinning said so a building was replaced and Mr. Truppe said that was correct. Commissioner Dinning asked if there was a new building and Mr. Truppe said that is the one he reconstructed. Commissioner Dinning said Mr. Truppe had talked about his mobile home being valued at $8,000 and he questioned what year that was. Mr. Truppe said that was last year’s assessment for 2010. Commissioner Dinning asked Mr. Truppe if anything new had been done to the mobile home or if any improvements had been made. Mr. Truppe said no, that would be impossible. The value was increased to $15,000, according to Mr. Truppe. Commissioner Dinning said for clarification that Mr. Truppe’s lot is one third of an acre and he asked how large the neighbor’s property that sold was. Mr. Truppe said he thought the neighbor’s property was a little smaller at one quarter of an acre and it included a house and a shop. Commissioner Dinning said the other values added to it, it appears as though there was an increase and he asked how much over last year’s assessment. Mr. Truppe said it was only a little over $2,000. Mr. Truppe said he wasn’t sure and he forgot to bring those papers with him this morning. Commissioners asked Mr. Vetter was asked if he had questions and he said he did not.   

Mr. Vetter said he could address comments made by Mr. Truppe. Mr. Vetter informed Commissioners that he and Mr. Truppe had a discussion in the Assessor’s Office prior to this appeal, but couldn’t come to a resolve. Mr. Vetter said he could address Mr. Truppe’s concerns about the outbuilding to begin with. Mr. Vetter said Mr. Truppe mentioned having approximately $8,300 in the building by building it himself and it is common in Boundary County for people to build their own structures. Unfortunately, the way the assessment process works is that buildings are valued as if they had been contracted out to a local builder to do the building for the property owner. Mr. Vetter said the County doesn’t deduct for being home-built and there are a lot of home built outbuildings in Boundary County that are in the same situation. Chairman Smith asked if that pertains to any building including a house and Mr. Vetter said yes. Mr. Vetter said as far as the building itself, it is 30 foot by 39 foot and it did replace a structure that had fallen down several years ago and the Assessor’s Office had taken that off the assessment roll at the time it collapsed. The slab was still there, according to Mr. Vetter. Mr. Vetter said he did not add anything extra to the building and the only thing extra was the slab itself, which already existed. If the building didn’t have the slab underneath it, the value would have dropped $2,048 for the slab that is there. Mr. Vetter said it is just an average class pole building, there is nothing special about it, and it is a nice building. Mr. Vetter reiterated it is an average class pole building with nothing extra added to it. There is no electric, no finish, no anything, according to Mr. Vetter. Mr. Vetter said as far as the extra value that Mr.  Truppe is talking about, the outbuilding itself comes into the fact that the way it is valued is as if Mr. Truppe had it contracted out. Mr. Vetter said that is the outbuilding portion of it. Chairman Smith asked if the slab was on it last year. Mr. Vetter said he didn’t bring the previous Proval appraisals so he couldn’t say yes or no to that. Chairman Smith said Mr. Vetter had mentioned he had added value to it so he was curious if that same value was last year or if it was even there last year. Mr. Vetter said as far as he knows the slab has been there for a number of years and may have been there even before Mr. Truppe bought the place. Chairman Smith asked if the value was shown last year by the Assessor’s Office and Mr. Vetter said he didn’t know about that as he didn’t bring the Proval sheet that would have showed the value he had on it last year.     

Mr. Vetter said to address the concerns about the mobile home, the way the Assessor’s Office values can be confusing, he knows. When the house was originally assessed with additions on it, the additions were valued as three-wall additions. This is a descriptive used within Proval and it is valued as a stick built house and the values on those are huge because they are like house values. Mr. Vetter said most three-wall additions are extra bedrooms, living rooms, or can many things. Mr. Vetter reiterated that the values of three-wall additions are high. Mr. Vetter said this year when he looked at Mr. Truppe’s house, as it was a part of his re-valuation, he decided that the fairest thing on this addition was to value it as part of the mobile home. Mr. Vetter said he changed the designation from three-wall addition to mobile home room extensions, which gives a value as part of the mobile home itself. Mr. Vetter said that is what raised the value of the mobile home from $9,220 to $15,010 that it is currently. In doing so for year 2010, Mr. Vetter said Mr. Truppe’s additions portion was $18,470 and by reconfiguring that to three-wall additions, it took the additions down to $4,360, which also encompasses Mr. Truppe’s wood decks, porches, lean-to, and the mobile home roof cover that has been added. Mr. Vetter added that all these things were there when Mr. Truppe bought this property. Mr. Vetter said these things were valued over the course of time, they were just valued in a different manner. Mr. Vetter said this year the overall value would have dropped to $45,010 had Mr. Truppe not added the new pole building. The pole building, being valued at $11,440 raised the overall assessment this year to $56,450.

Mr. Vetter said there are some issues in Moyie Springs, but Moyie Springs has things selling out there. The Assessor’s Office receives a lot of data from Moyie Springs for things that are selling out there. Mr. Vetter said in the future the County may see that values on lots may need to drop, but for the values this year and the ratio studies that were performed by the Assessor’s Office with the State Tax Commissions’ help, it shows that the Assessor’s Office did not need to drop land values in the city limits of Moyie Springs or Bonners Ferry, so they stayed the same. The lot value is $15,640 and the extra $10,000 on top of that to bring the total to $25,640 is the amenity the Assessor’s Office adds to a lot after a lot has been developed with power, septic, and water. Mr. Vetter said that is where the $25,640 comes for the lot, that is why the value went up, and that is the reason the values changed from the way they looked the previous year. Everything was there the previous year, but it was described differently. Everything except for the pole building, according to Mr. Vetter. Chairman Smith said for clarification the land is $25,640 and the $11,440 is the building and Mr. Vetter said that was correct. Chairman Smith asked what is valued at $4,360 and Mr. Vetter said those are the additions to the home other than the living quarter addition. It is the decking, roof cover, and the lean-to on the one end. Chairman Smith asked if those additions were there last year and Mr. Vetter said yes. Chairman Smith asked if that value was higher this year than last year. Mr. Vetter said no. Mr. Vetter said the $15,010 is the mobile home that now includes the room addition…it adds the room addition in with the mobile home instead of segregating them the way the Assessor’s Office used to by calling the living quarter additions three wall additions.

Chairman Smith said in regards to values, he would like to see which ones increased since last year. The value of $25,640 was the same as last year, according to Mr. Vetter. The value of $11,440 would have been zero as the building was not here last year. Chairman Smith said so that is new and Mr. Vetter said correct. Mr. Vetter said the current value of $4,360 was $18,470 last year due to the way the system values three wall additions as opposed to the way it values mobile home room additions. Chairman Smith said so Mr. Truppe is $3,000 to the good so far on value and Mr. Vetter said that was correct. Mr. Vetter said the current value of $15,010 was $9,210 last year and the reason it increased was because of the way he had described the living additions as three-wall additions, which are now called mobile home room extensions and they are valued less than the three wall additions.

Commissioner Dinning said the value of $15,010 was valued at $9,210 last year and he said for clarification that by changing the way it was described caused the increase of $6,000. Mr. Vetter said the $9,210 last year was just the value of the mobile home and did not include decking, the additions, or the roof. The value of the additions, which had been described as three-wall additions, as well as the decking and the roof, were Category 47 last year and they had been valued at $18,470. Mr. Vetter said when calling a three-wall addition a mobile home room extension, it adds the value into the mobile home instead of segregating it separately and valuing it independently. Commissioner Dinning said for clarity that Category 47, last year was valued at $18,470 and Category 48 was $9,210. Mr. Vetter said that was correct. Commissioner Dinning said when Mr. Vetter changed his description, Category 47 dropped by approximately $14,000. Mr. Vetter said that was correct. Commissioner Dinning said Category 48 increased by $6,000 so then there was a net reduction of $8,000. Mr. Vetter said that was correct. Chairman Smith said all together there was an increase of $3,000. Commissioner Dinning said had not the new building been put on this year, Mr. Truppe’s assessed value would have dropped to $37,000. Mr. Vetter said no, Mr. Truppe’s assessed value would have dropped to $45,010 from the previous year of $53,320. Mr. Vetter said he thinks the room issues are what are confusing everyone so if you were to look at the drawing or sketch that is attached, you will see the mobile home that is 12 feet by 60 feet, and listed on the bottom is a mobile home room extension. Mr. Vetter said there are two mobile home room extensions; one is 13 feet by 19 feet and the other one is 13 feet by 32 feet and in the past these were valued as three-wall additions, which give a huge increase in value because of the way the system says they are built.

Commissioner Dinning said excluding the building of $11,440, the land value stayed the same as last year, and there was a reduction in Category 47 from $18,470 to $4,360 so that is a $14,000 reduction right there. Commissioner Dinning said this year by combining the way Mr. Vetter assessed it, the mobile home increased by $6,000 and Mr. Truppe actually saved $14,000 because of the way it was assessed. Commissioner Dinning said because of the way Category 47 and Category 48 were assessed this year compared to last year, there is an approximate $8,000 reduction in assessed value between those two. Assessor Ryals nodded in agreement. Mr. Vetter said the total last year of Category 47 and Category 48, which are all of the dwellings portion, would have been $27,080 and this year the total value of those same items dropped to $19,370. Commissioner Dinning said that is about $8,000. Commissioner Dinning said by changing this, in essence, reduced Mr. Truppe’s assessment already. Commissioner Dinning said the only issue or two that he is looking at is for the $11,000 and the Assessor’s Office has a guideline that is given to the County through its system of what that value is per square foot and Mr. Vetter said that is correct. Commissioner Dinning said as he understands it, the County doesn’t have the ability to go less or more than that. Commissioner Dinning asked Mr. Vetter if the property was valued at the lowest quality. Mr. Vetter said he called the pole building average, which most of them are. Commissioner Dinning said Mr. Truppe indicated the property across the street sold for $21,000 for the house and everything and he asked if the Assessor’s Office knew anything about that sale. The property was Larry Boatman’s and Mr. Vetter said he spoke to Mr. Boatman as to why he sold that property. Mr. Vetter said that sale was not an arm’s length sale and there were extenuating circumstances for Mr. Boatman to move. Mr. Vetter said he understands Mr. Truppe is using that other property as a comparable, but for the County it really isn’t a comparable. Mr. Vetter said that sale was something Mr. Boatman did to move out in a hurry and he has since spoken to the new owners and they knew they got a good deal on that property. Mr. Vetter said he didn’t know that property was going to come up and he doesn’t know what it is assessed at otherwise he would’ve brought information on that. Mr. Vetter said he doesn’t think that other sale is a good comparable to Mr. Truppe’s property. Mr. Vetter said as far as the best comparables he could come up with, and the one is three year’s old, but the lot Mr. Truppe sold for $58,000 in year 2008 and it is about one third the size of his lot and it has a 23 foot by 40 foot double wide of the same vintage (1973) and the buyers paid $58,000 for it three years ago. Mr. Vetter said with things deflating in value, he still feels the assessment is in line with what things are selling for out in the area.

Commissioner Dinning asked if the system allows for the County to put in all sales, whether or not it was a distressed sale as it is still a sale. Assessor Ryals said if the sale has been disclosed the information is there. Assessor Ryals said he didn’t know offhand if the sale had been disclosed, but it would be entered if his office received it.

Chairman Smith asked Mr. Truppe if he would like to respond. Mr. Truppe said as far as the mobile home next door and the $58,000 three years ago, the market was in much better shape at that time. Mr. Truppe said that other mobile home is a 1973 and is 20 foot by 40 foot and what he has is a 1976 and is 12 feet by 60 feet. Mr. Truppe said he doesn’t see how the County can come up with it valued at $9,000 as you can go out and buy an older mobile home of that nature for $4,000 or $5,000 and you just have to get it to your property. Mr. Truppe said as far as Mr. Boatman’s sale of $21,000, Mr. Boatman had his place for sale for $39,000, but it wasn’t selling and that is because the market is so depressed so he believes that with the market so depressed, his value is too inflated at this point.

Chairman Smith offered Mr. Truppe and Mr. Vetter an opportunity to make rebuttals, but neither Mr. Truppe nor Mr. Vetter did. Commissioners had no questions for Mr. Truppe, Mr. Vetter, or Assessor Ryals.

Chairman Smith closed the appeal hearing to further public comment and reviewed the closing procedures and the procedures for appealing to the State Board of Tax Appeals.  

Commissioners discussed the matter amongst themselves and Chairman Smith said he gets confused as to what is done this year versus last year as far as values and changes. The County can only go with what Idaho Code calls for and that is the way it is supposed to be done. There was talk of changes from the three sided addition to a mobile home room extension and it sounds like there was an advantage there as the value could have been a lot higher. Chairman Smith said he could get confused as to “why and if”, but that is what the process is, that is State law is and that is what the County has to go by.

Commissioner Dinning said this is a quandary to him. Commissioner Dinning said he can understand Mr. Truppe looking across the street and selling a property sell for $21,000 and no matter the circumstances, if that sale is not in the County’s system, the County is only able to use what is in the system. The County only has the ability to make a change if there has been an error found or miscalculations. Chairman Smith said after hearing this testimony, if in the County’s opinion after hearing the testimony, the value was to be excessive or not, he wouldn’t know if that would be called an error as it would be just an opinion made after hearing information and as to if that is an error, it is just an opinion. Chairman Smith said when the Board of Equalization hears, in their opinion, the values are where they should be, than he doesn’t think there is the ability to reduce it, however if the Board of Equalization feels the value is high, he feels they do have the ability to reduce it.   

Commissioner Kirby said the Assessor did look at the overall picture as he changed the assessment process on the three-wall additions, which dropped the value and then he sees the pole building in the back yard so that has to be assessed. Had that new building not been there, the value would have gone down, according to Commissioner Kirby. Commissioner Kirby said because the Assessor looked at the previous assessment and adjusted it, which caused value to go down, it is pretty hard to argue with what is here because it is a reduction in value on the mobile home and its an increase overall on the pole building. Commissioner Kirby said had the Assessor stayed with the three-wall addition, the value would have been higher even yet.

Commissioner Dinning said Mr. Vetter did the proper thing in changing how he valued the three-all extension. Commissioner Dinning said in looking at this everyone is paying the same, in essence, land value in the whole City of Moyie Springs. Commissioner Dinning said Mr. Truppe said $18,000 is the land value and in this case, the County is looking at $25,640 and that is fair. Commissioner Dinning said the Assessor’s Office has no way to say the land value is appropriate within the study guides. Commissioner Dinning said the only thing the County has to deal with is whether or not a distressed sale is a sale as far as the property across the street and he is still trying to get a handle on that. Commissioner Dinning said as far as these values, he doesn’t see any error. As far as the sale across the street, if it was reported, the County would be able to use it, but if it wasn’t reported, the County cannot.

Commissioner Dinning moved to take the Board of Equalization decision for parcel #RPM0540001008CA under advisement until July 11, 2011. Commissioner Kirby second. Motion passed unanimously.

Chairman Smith reviewed the procedures for taking the decision under advisement. Chairman Smith said Commissioners will make a decision on everything heard today and will not gather any additional information. Mr. Truppe nodded in understanding. Commissioner Dinning said his thought is if the Assessor’s Office can check to see if that other sale was in their system and if it is or isn’t that is fine. Assessor Ryals said he doesn’t know if that sale was reported, but he can check.

The Board of Equalization appeal hearing for parcel #RPM0540001008CA ended at 9:45 a.m.

9:45 a.m., Commissioners held a Board of Equalization appeal hearing for appellants Andy and Crystal Bliss for parcel #RP61N02E077050A. Present were: Chairman Ron Smith, Commissioner Dan Dinning, Commissioner Walt Kirby, Deputy Clerk Michelle Rohrwasser, Assessor Dave Ryals, Appraiser Ken Carpenter, and Appellant Crystal Bliss. The proceedings were recorded. Chairman Smith reviewed the appeal hearing procedures and administered the oath to those giving testimony to include: Assessor Ryals, Mr. Carpenter, and Ms. Bliss. The Assessor provided one exhibit marked Assessor’s Exhibit #1 (consisting of six pages) and the Appellant presented two exhibits marked as Appellant Exhibit #1 (consisting of one page) and Appellant Exhibit #2 (consisting of one page).

Chairman Smith asked Ms. Bliss to give an opening statement. Ms. Bliss said her husband and she feel their five acres has a market value of equally one half of the County’s assessment and this is due to the deed restriction, which prohibits selling the land on the open market. The County has the house assessed at $156,410. Ms. Bliss said the final home mortgage totaled $150,000, but actual home costs were $135,000. Ms. Bliss said she and her husband included other personal debt that had nothing to do with the house value. Ms. Bliss said she feels the house should be assessed at $150,000 and the land should be $20,000. Ms. Bliss said the deed restrictions are on the warranty deed (Appellant Exhibit #1).  

Chairman Smith said he doesn’t understand, but he probably will in a minutes when the Assessor has a chance to speak, but she mentioned a deed restriction and he doesn’t know if that is Idaho Code that allows that. Chairman Smith asked Ms. Bliss if any of this value has anything to do with that fact they did a lot of the building themselves and Ms. Bliss said she and her husband did all of the building themselves. Chairman Smith asked Ms. Bliss if the value that is put on would be the value if an outsider were to have built the building or would the value be less, in her mind, because they built it themselves. Ms. Bliss said she feels the value would be less because they built it themselves.

Commissioner Dinning asked Ms. Bliss if she had a bank appraisal on the parcel and if so does she know what that came out at. Ms. Bliss said she had, but she didn’t know what the result was. Commissioner Dinning said usually bank appraisals are 80% of the appraised value. Ms. Bliss referred to the Truth-in-Lending Disclosure (Appellant Exhibit #1). Commissioner Dinning said he understands that, but the bank would have ordered an appraisal before they loaned on it and if it was 80% of the value, that would mean the bank valued it higher. Ms. Bliss said ok. Commissioner Dinning said he doesn’t know how deed restrictions affect value. Commissioner Dinning said in this case, Mr. Carpenter could address that later, but he doesn’t know as he has never dealt with this. Chairman Smith asked Mr. Carpenter if he had any questions. Mr. Carpenter said the deed says if the property is to be sold, it has to be sold to Lonnie Merrifield or his kids and he asked if the property has to be sold at market value or a different value other than market value.  Ms. Bliss said if selling to family members, it would probably be a little bit lower, but they haven’t discussed that and it wasn’t in the terms as far as she knows.

Chairman Smith asked Mr. Carpenter for his statement and Mr. Carpenter read from his letter, marked as Assessor Exhibit #1. Mr. Carpenter said he did not have a chance to discuss the value of the property belonging to Crystal Bliss at 5831 Kootenai Trail Road. From the notes on the BOE appeal application, he sees that Ms. Bliss believes the value of the land and house is too high because of deed restrictions. The Bliss house is classed as an Average, which means that the construction, materials and design are all in the mid-low range of house classing. There are eight classes of house and the Average class is number four. When the house was measured nobody was home and Mr. Carpenter never did see the inside, nor did he get interior information from the owner. Mr. Carpenter said he assumed the inside to be comparable to the outside, and he did not add anything extra to it. The square footage is 1,632 on the main floor with 816 square feet in the attic. The subject property has 3.76 acres in an Agriculture category because of nursery stock, with a value of $3,930. The Ag land is leased to Lonnie Merrifield. One acre of land is valued the same as any other standard home site acre in Boundary County, if it accompanies exempted land. The acre is valued at $27,170 with $10,000 added for power, septic, and water, a total of $37,170. The complicated nature of the Warranty Deed, which does include restrictions concerning who can purchase this property, presents a challenge. It seems to eliminate any marketing possibilities if the owner decides to sell, but it brings several questions in mind. There is no mention in the deed about whether or not the property would sell back to the Grantors for current market value. It would seem to be unfair to the owner that it would not. There is also no mention of how to address tax delinquency. Would Boundary County be unable to auction off this property to recoup lost revenue if for some reason the Grantors were unable to meet the obligation? Perhaps these are questions for a lawyer. The Assessor has the land and house valued according to Idaho Code, which states that comparable sales categories should have an assessed value between 90-110% of market value. If was determined by the Idaho State Tax Commission that the Boundary County Assessor did meet those guidelines for 2011 values, based on 2010 sales. From the information available, Mr. Carpenter said he doesn’t see that the Bliss property is valued any differently than any other comparable house or land in Boundary County. Mr. Carpenter said since he has never had the opportunity to discuss this property with the owner, he leaves it to the Board to determine if any adjustments should be made because of deed restrictions.

Mr. Carpenter said he would like to add that base costs for houses the way he values them, the base cost is as if a contractor had built the house from the ground up. On top of that is a local cost modifier of 12%, which creates the 12% over construction value. Mr. Carpenter said that is how the values are reached, but it doesn’t come out exact as certain things such as heating systems or decks could add extra money. 

Chairman Smith asked Mr. Carpenter if the County has ever had a deed restriction involved and Mr. Carpenter said no. Chairman Smith questioned if there have been allowances for deed restrictions and Mr. Carpenter said he did not know if allowances have been made as this has never come up. Mr. Carpenter said he felt there should have been something in the contract that would address whether they sell at market value, back to the grantors or sell it at a different level. Chairman Smith said for clarification that Mr. Carpenter did not go into the house and Mr. Carpenter said no. Chairman Smith questioned if he understood correctly that had Mr. Carpenter been able to go inside the home that the value could possibly change. Mr. Carpenter responded that he honestly didn’t think it would change anything as he didn’t add anything and an Average class house is basically on the low side.  Mr. Carpenter said it would be a little bit below what is average on the market. Chairman Smith said if Mr. Carpenter was given approval to look inside the house, the results could work both ways and actually raise the value. Chairman Smith said he personally doesn’t feel comfortable making a decision right now because of the unknown of that deed restriction. Chairman Smith said he would hate to make a decision and have it be the wrong decision because he didn’t have the information. Chairman Smith said once this appeal hearing is through and if a decision is postponed until the last day, the Board of Equalization cannot gather additional information. Chairman Smith said if the decision is postponed, he would like it part of the record that the Board of Equalization will contact the attorney to get some advice as to whether the deed restriction has an affect on value.

Commissioner Dinning said for clarity, in contacting the State Tax Commission, have they ever come across something like this or has the Assessor’s Office ever contacted them. Mr. Carpenter said he has not contacted them about this. Assessor Ryals said the Assessor’s obligation is to develop a mass market and apply to all properties in his jurisdiction equitably and he has done that. The deed restriction applies only to that individual sale and does not apply to the market. One could not guess what that would possibly do because it is not written into the contract what the terms of that are. Assessor Ryals said that is down the road and he is sure Ms. Bliss has no intentions of selling the property and they intend to live there so it really isn’t relevant in his mind.

Commissioner Dinning said if in fact this is what happened on the loan, there is usually an 80% loan to value, which can be up or down and puts it somewhere in that 190 to 200 category where it appraised and he is sure the bank was well aware of the deed restrictions on the title report.  

Assessor Ryals said he was going to make one last closing comment in order to help the Board evaluate. There are two components to this property, being the land and the property. The structure was valued based on simple facts that the cost sets the value and that doesn’t have anything to do with the market, according to Assessor Ryals. It costs a certain amount to build the building and if one were to build across the street, it will still cost the same to build that building regardless of where. It still adds that much value to your property. For the land, part of it is not valued at market because it is in an exempted category so the land itself is already not at market value. So you have those two components.      

Chairman Smith asked Ms. Bliss is she would like to make a rebuttal and she said no.

Commissioners closed the appeal hearing to further public comment and he reviewed the closing procedures and the appeal procedures for the State Board of Tax Appeals. The Board held discussion amongst themselves. Commissioner Dinning said he has not run into the situation before and neither has Mr. Carpenter.  Commissioner Dinning began to make a motion to postpone the decision until July 11, 2011 and said he hoped the Assessor’s Office would get more information in the meantime. Chairman Smith questioned if it was going to be the Assessor or Commissioners that would get more information and Assessor Ryals said it would not be him. Commissioner Dinning said the information he was referring to was if the Tax Commission has ever dealt with this situation before. Assessor Ryals said the Tax Commission doesn’t deal with this.

Commissioners discussed what would take place by postponing the discussion. Commissioner Dinning said he would like to withdraw the motion he started. Commissioner Dinning said what he is sensing is for the Board of Equalization to go properly through this process in order to allow the State Tax Commission to do their review to make a determination. Chairman Smith said there are two different entities in that there is the Idaho Tax Commission and there is the Board of Tax Appeals. Commissioner Dinning said if the Board of Equalization upholds the Assessor’s valuation, the next step is to go to the Board of Tax Appeals if Ms. Bliss chooses to in order to allow the Board of Tax Appeals to determine value. That step would be required by the appellant who would be provided the information.  

Commissioner Dinning moved to sustain the Assessor’s valuation for parcel #RP61N02E077050A. Commissioner Kirby second. Motion passed unanimously.

The appeal hearing ended at 10:10 a.m.

Commissioner Dinning moved to recess as the Board of Equalization and reconvene as the Board of County Commissioners. Commissioner Kirby second. Motion passed unanimously.

Commissioner Kirby moved to grant an extension of time to receive property taxes for year 2010 on parcel #MH61N03E041362A until September 15, 2011. Commissioner Dinning second. Motion passed unanimously.  

10:14 a.m., Park and Recreation Board Member Rob Tompkins briefly joined the meeting to clarify matters pertaining to Park and Recreation matters.  

There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:30 a.m.

                                                           /s/

                                                            RONALD R. SMITH, Chairman

ATTEST:

/s/

GLENDA POSTON, Clerk

By: Michelle Rohrwasser, Deputy