County commissioner's minutes, July 9-10 |
| August 3, 2012 |
|
*** Attorney Phil Robinson, county residents Dan Meeker and Connie DeCoe-Munier joined the meeting. Blue Sky Broadcasting Reporter Mike Brown was in attendance of meetings throughout the day. Mr. Gutshall said the Mr. Gutshall said Fred
Bowers with the Forest Service will lead a
tri-agency tour involving the Forest Service,
County and Mr. Gutshall said he should
have a final design on Mr. Gutshall said Road and Bridge will begin oiling for chipsealing in the next week or so. Chairman Smith brought up
the issue involving signage near Attorney Robinson said nothing has been done about this issue since November 2011 as far as he recalled. Attorney Robinson said one of two things or both have to happen and one is to file a petition to vacate and document this into the into road system. It was said there are concerns of impacting other property owners. Mr. Meeker said one
stipulation of this was that he would offer
rights-of-way. Attorney Robinson said the title
company is still showing Attorney Robinson said when
there is a road verification document the road
is on the County’s list so Mr. Meeker mentioned how
property owners on each side of It was said if the sign matter was resolved, there would be no issues. Chairman Smith spoke of the portion of road to be abandoned and if that was done, it still would not help Mr. Meeker in this situation. Commissioner Dinning asked if an easement would suffice to allow for a business sign. Mr. Meeker spoke of other homemade signs that have been placed alongside the highway that can be seen when heading to Sandpoint. Mr. Meeker said his sign was professionally made. Commissioner Dinning said for the sign issue, Mr. Meeker has to own the property contiguous to the highway. Mr. Gutshall said the Highway Transportation Department (ITD) is very hardnosed about this issue. Mr. Meeker asked why the restrictions were lifted only to a certain point on the highway. Commissioner Dinning discussed how David Jurgensen’s issue with his business sign brought this subject to light and the restrictions lifted for signage had been in areas zoned commercial whereas the area near Mr. Meeker is not zoned commercial. It was said signage was the issue, but it was not specifically Mr. Jurgensen. Commissioner Dinning said we just need to follow up with ITD’s Scenic Byway representative. Mr. Meeker said he asked the Byway Representative, Ms. Flowers, about the junk yards along the highways that, according to federal law, are supposed to be boxed in so they’re not visible. Ms. Flowers had informed Mr. Meeker said she couldn’t do anything about that. The meeting with Mr.
Gutshall and Mr. Meeker ended at Chairman Smith said Ms.
DeCoe-Munier had stopped in to inquire about
ambulance service in Ms. DeCoe-Munier left the meeting. Commissioners held a Board of Equalization appeal hearing for parcel #RP006520000150A by Appellant Larry Kennell. Present were: Chairman Ron Smith, Commissioner Dan Dinning, Commissioner Walt Kirby, Deputy Clerk Michelle Rohrwasser, Assessor Dave Ryals, Chief Deputy Assessor Ken Carpenter, Attorney Phil Robinson, and Mike Brown. Appellant Larry Kennell was not present. The proceedings were recorded. Chairman Smith reviewed the appeal hearing procedures and administrated the oath to those giving to testimony include Assessor Ryals and Chief Deputy Assessor Ken Carpenter. The Assessor presented one exhibit marked Assessors’ Exhibit #1 (consisting of 6 pages). Chairman Smith read Mr. Kennell’s reason for his appeal as Mr. Kennell was not present. Mr. Kennell wrote the following on his appeal form: “A lot in this subdivision for $75,000 has not sold in two years. The lot above is in foreclosure. This is not a personal house; it is a spec and has been on the market for two years.” Mr. Kennell wrote that he is being “forced to borrow more money just to pay his taxes and as prices have fallen the County increased his taxes four out of the last five.” Mr. Carpenter read his
testimony into the record. Lot 15 of Meadow
Creek Estates-Phase 1 was one of the
Mr. Carpenter said in the appellant’s appeal, Mr. Kennell mentioned the home is a spec home, but they have been receiving the homeowner’s exemption on it since 2008 so it is an occupied home that is getting the exemptions that it deserves for an occupied home. Chairman Smith said for a couple years the home was valued at 77% complete so in all reality, value probably should have been higher for the last couple years anyhow. Commissioner Dinning asked if Mr. Kennell could’ve been referring to the lot above as a spec home. Mr. Carpenter said there are no other homes in the subdivision that he is aware of. Mr. Carpenter said there are about six homes that are occupied and there are no spec homes out there that he knows of. Commissioner Dinning said a person could still live in the spec home. Mr. Carpenter said in the real estate ad he believes it does mention something like that. Commissioner Dinning said page 2 of the Assessor’s Exhibit mentioned $10,000 for amenities and Mr. Carpenter said that includes power, septic and water. Commissioner Dinning said for clarity that is beyond the base value for the one acre and asked if that is how the state has asked the County to show this. Mr. Carpenter said yes, the utilities are on top of the base rate. Commissioner Dinning said there are five acres to this parcel and it is not enough to get the exemption. Mr. Carpenter said this property could have an agriculture exemption if the property was fenced with cows or something on it, but Mr. Kennell does not have that. The barn is basically a shop, according to Mr. Carpenter. The home is assessed at 3,308 square feet finished. Just the house is a value of $236,100. Mr. Carpenter said $253,960 includes the garage, which has a value of $15,130. Assessor Ryals said that equates to almost $7.20 per square foot. The basis for Mr. Kennell’s appeal is the value keeps increasing. Commissioner Dinning said that the value is increasing because the home is now finished. It was said the house is finished and a barn has been added. Commissioner Dinning asked if the prior assessments were the same for the one acre and improvements. Mr. Carpenter said yes and in fact, they decreased this year. Chairman Smith said how he is reading Mr. Kennell’s appeal is that he is talking about the lot. Mr. Kennell mentions a lot in the subdivision for $77,000 that hasn’t sold for two years and another lot is in foreclosure. Chairman Smith said Mr. Kennell also writes that this house is not his personal house, but a spec house so what he understands is that Mr. Kennell is living in the home while he is trying to sell it. Mr. Carpenter said yes. Commissioner Dinning asked if there had been any other sales in that area within the last two years. Mr. Carpenter said there have not been any sales, but that $73,000 mentioned for a lot happens to be an undeveloped lot that is also five acres. Mr. Carpenter said the fact that Mr. Kennell’s lot is $97,600 is adding $24,000 or $25,000 to develop with a homesite with sewer, water, etc. Mr. Carpenter had no further testimony. Chairman Smith closed the hearing to further public testimony and read aloud the closing procedures and procedures to appeal the Board of Equalization decision to the Board of Tax Appeals. Chairman Smith called for discussion amongst the Board of Equalization. Commissioner Dinning said he sees no basis for the Board of Equalization to overturn the Assessor’s valuation. There is nothing that has been presented that would not allow the Board to sustain the Assessor. Commissioner Dinning moved to sustain the Assessors’ valuation of parcel #RP006520000150A by Appellant Larry Kennell. Commissioner Kirby second. Motion passed unanimously. The Board of Equalization
appeal hearing for parcel #RP006520000150A by
Appellant Larry Kennell ended at 10:00 a.m., Commissioners held a Board of Equalization appeal hearing for the following parcels included in the appeal against the City of Bonners Ferry as it relates to annexation (Case No. CV #2012-2): Parcels #RPB00000346170A, RP62N01E346160A, MH01700000007TA & MH01700000001TA by Appellant Douglas W. Ladely Sr. Family Trust; Parcel #RPB11300010040A by Appellant Loretta Hunsaker; Parcel #RPB11300020050A by Appellants Robert Karlac and Kendra Scarlett; Parcel #RPB00000040520A by Appellant Dale Simpson; Parcel #RPB00000040400A by Appellants Lynda & Phillip Lowman, Parcel #RPB00000040021A by Appellant Sandaker Living Trust; and Parcels #RPB00000040480A & RPB00000040500A by Appellant Shayne Fallis. Present were: Chairman Ron Smith, Commissioner Dan Dinning, Commissioner Walt Kirby, Deputy Clerk Michelle Rohrwasser, Attorney Phil Robinson, Assessor Dave Ryals, Appraiser Les Vetter, Doug Ladely Sr., Barbara Ladely, Loretta Hunsaker, Dale Simpson, and Alice Sundaker. The proceedings were recorded. Chairman Smith reviewed the appeal hearing procedures and administered the oath to those giving testimony. Douglas Ladely Sr. presented two exhibits marked as Appellant Exhibit #1/Ladely (consisting of 2 pages) and Appellant Exhibit #2/Ladely (consisting of 2 pages). The Assessor presented two exhibits marked “Assessor Exhibit #1 (consisting of 3 pages) and Assessor Exhibit #2 (consisting of 2 pages). No other appellant presented exhibits. Chairman Smith read into
the record each appellant’s comments as listed
on their appeal forms as follows: Douglas Ladely
Sr. Family Trust, “Case appeal CV2012-002
opposed to city property tax before appeal is
settled”, Loretta Hunsaker “Annexation of the
property into the city is in appeal status”,
Robert Karlac & Kendra Scarlett “Annexation
under judicial review CV 2012-002. We agree with
the Assessor’s appraised value, but we shouldn’t
have to pay anything to the city”, Dale Simpson
“I do not have a problem with the County’s
property assessment. The problem is that the
city’s annexation is under judicial review, case
#2012-002”, Lynda & Phillip Lowman “We do not
have a problem with the County’s assessment. The
problem is that the city’s annexation is under
judicial review, Case #2012-002”, Chairman Smith asked those present if there is anything else they’re appealing other than the reason they’ve listed. Mr. Ladely asked why the valuation of his trailer park increased $17,000 when nothing has been added or taken away. Mr. Simpson said according
to their lawyer, the City of Attorney Robinson said the Board of Equalization addresses questions like Mr. Ladely’s such as costs, values, etc., and Mr. Simpson is making a record of an objection to the absolute basis. Mr. Robinson said he knows that Mr. Simpson is saying the certification of property to the County for tax roles is improper and there are two reasons that is. The reason is the property is under judicial review or appeal. Attorney Robinson said if the matter is under judicial review or appeal, the only way the County can block the property from being on the tax roll, is to either have a restraining order or a stay order and he would check with the Clerk’s Office to see what the status is. If a property owner brought action to overturn annexation and the judge said no, then the person can appeal to get a stay order or a restraining order against the city restraining them to certify the property to the tax roll. The other option is for a restraining order for the County not to collect. Mr. Simpson said this matter is supposed to be on a stay order and nothing is supposed to be done until the matter is settled. Attorney Robinson said if there is a stay order in place, it really isn’t an issue for the Board of Equalization or the Assessor, but it is still our problem. Attorney Robinson said the second thing Mr. Simpson mentioned about meeting the statutory deadline to get the tax roll prepared is a crucial point. If the annexation is not finished in time, you can’t meet the deadline and if don’t meet the deadline you can adopt anything you want to and it doesn’t mean anything. That is a legal issue. Attorney Robinson said there is a statutory deadline for entities to do their tax roll. Mr. Simpson said the city was supposed to have the annexation done by the end of December. Attorney Robinson said he would look into that, but he won’t be giving legal advice. Attorney Robison said he is glad the property owners are making a record as that is what they should do, but to challenge the Board of Equalization to not collect the tax is really not the Board of Equalization’s matter. The Board of Equalization deals with valuations. Mr. Simpson said his valuation is increasing because of this annexation. The Board of Equalization is not here to rule on whether the property is in or not within the County tax roll legally or not, according to Attorney Robinson. Attorney Robinson gave an example of a similar dispute involving a school district. Chairman Smith asked what was the purpose of addressing this matter because what is happening is these property owners received their valuation notice and is the Board of Equalization supposed to decide if the valuation is correct. Attorney Robinson said these property owners should raise the issue about not belonging on the tax roll at all. Mr. Ladely’s questions are the more appropriate reason. Chairman Smith clarified the Board of Equalization deals with value, not whether the taxes are on the roll. Attorney Robinson said the Board of Equalization cannot grant removal from the tax roll until the court tells the County to stop doing what they’re doing or rules that the property or properties should be on the tax roll. The County has a duty to add taxing entities until someone tells them not to, according to Attorney Robinson. Chairman Smith said the Board of Equalization can either sustain the Assessor’s valuation or can change the value and he asked if those are the two things to address or can the Board of Equalization go completely away from that. Attorney Robinson said the Board of Equalization cannot go completely away from that as they don’t have the jurisdiction to do that. Commissioner Dinning said looking at values, if in fact there is a stay order, will that be considered in this hearing. Attorney Robinson said if there is a stay order, the Board of Equalization should report it in their record, but the actual action if a stay order is in place that says the city should’ve never certified the property at all, is not for the Board of Equalization, but they can make record of it. Commissioner Dinning asked if the County has the ability to reduce the assessment if the stay order says the properties should not have been certified. Attorney Robinson said no. Mr. Ladely said what he doesn’t understand is that he’s had the trailer park for 20 to 30 years, but all of a sudden he is getting assessed $17,000 more. Chairman Smith asked if any of the other property owners present would like to give comments on this. No one offered any comments. Attorney Robinson temporarily left the meeting to research the court case. Assessor Ryals said generally when a taxing district is created or annexation happens a legal description of the area that is affected is submitted to State Tax Commission who prepares new maps directing the Assessor as to which properties fall in those areas. Assessor Ryals said at the first of the year a new map was submitted to him reflecting the city’s annexation so he had no choice, but to follow through. Assessor Ryals said we’re now looking at two totally different markets as the rural market is different from a city market. The buildings don’t change, but the land does change. City land is typically smaller in size and valued according to square foot and rural land is valued according to acreage. City rates are typically higher. Some of the property owners caught up in the annexation did see their land values increase as their land now has to be valued as other city lands. Assessor Ryals said this is an equability thing as far as he is concerned and although he can understand the shock, he has no choice. These properties are annexed according to his records and he’s been directed to value these lands at the city rates. Mr. Simpson said the Assessor is saying these properties are in the city and the property owners are saying they’re not and that’s the point he’s trying to make. Until the judge says yes or no; its no, according to Mr. Simpson. Chairman Smith said as it pertains to Mr. Ladely, the reason for his increase of $17,000 is because the Assessor now has to value the property as a city lot. Assessor Ryals said that was correct and that he is directed by the State Tax Commission to apply these properties. Chairman Smith said if the appeal goes through it would be a mute point and Assessor Ryals added the values would be reversed. Commissioner Dinning said for clarity that Mr. Ladely asked about his $17,000 increase and that was done because the Assessor was directed to do that by the State Tax Commission unless a judge has decided these properties are not included. Assessor Ryals said that was correct. The Assessor has to do as directed by the State Tax Commission otherwise he is in violation. Ms. Ladely said she doesn’t believe the land portion of the trailer property had decreased and it seems comparable in acreage. As far as land it is not that much bigger than the other parcels, according to Ms. Ladely. Ms. Ladely said as far the trailer park, there are two trailers she and her husband are assessed for, but the land also has water, sewer and electricity they put in. Commissioner Dinning referred to “Appellant Exhibit #2/Ladely” and said 2011 assessment for the .840 acres was $32,800 and this year the assessment $43,300 so that is a bit over $10,000. The other parcel “Appellant Exhibit #1/Ladely” was $20,310 and now the value is $22,950. Commissioner Dinning referred to parcel #RP62N01E346160A and said it looks like the commercial lots had a different category. It looks like the assessment increased $16,850 for year 2012 and that seems to be due to Category 21, which was not in place last year. Assessor Ryals said the classifications would change because of the annexation. Mr. Ladely said the biggest increase is due to the commercial lots and Commissioner Dinning said that is due to the annexation. Chairman Smith asked about the increase of value for Category 12 from $32,820 to $43,330 for parcel #RP62N01E346170A. Assessor Ryals explained that parcel sizes are different from rural land to city land. Barely half of an acre is 25,000 square feet and considered a maximum in the city so if there is a bigger piece it is valued at a greatly reduced rate. Larger parcels saw less of a change in value unlike smaller parcels. 10:30 a.m., Commissioner Dinning moved to pause the appeal hearing until Attorney Robinson returns with information on the city annexation court case. Commissioner Kirby second. Motion passed unanimously. Attorney Phil Robinson
returned to the meeting at Commissioner Kirby moved to resume the appeal hearing. Commissioner Dinning second. Motion passed unanimously. Chairman Smith said BOE is at the point of making a decision to uphold or amend values. Attorney Robinson said he made copies of the Assessor’s Exhibits #1 and #2 for each of the files. Attorney Robinson said
historically there is a petition for judicial
review and in this case the City of According to Attorney
Robinson, the next thing is Judge Verby will
send this off to our administrative judge who
sends it off to the administrative judge of the
second district who then gives it to Judge
Verby. Judge Verby is assigned on Everyone is alert there is
a taxation issue, but then nothing was decided,
according to Attorney Robinson. There is no stay
order that kept the City of Commissioner Dinning said as far as today, the County has no ability to do anything. Attorney Robinson said the Board of Equalization cannot under the city’s annexation or taxation effort. Commissioner Dinning said the Board of Equalization can only address value and the increase in value to Mr. and Ms. Ladely has been documented that it is due to annexation. The annexation is in place legally today. Attorney Robinson said if something fails in the annexation, the County can always go back and grant a tax relief. Chairman Smith said for clarification that if the County sustains the Assessor’s valuation, it will not hurt these property owners’ annexation situation. Attorney Robinson said if there is a text book reason for this re-valuation based on what was certified through the State Tax Commission, the Board of Equalization really has no basis not to accept the Assessor’s valuation. Attorney Robinson said there is an issue about whether or not the city completed their property certification on time. Ms. Hunsaker asked if the County is placed in legal jeopardy in certifying the properties to the tax roll if the city did not submit their certification in a timely matter. Attorney Robinson said no, separate from the annexation issue, if the court rules on the property certification issue date not being met, the matter is delayed for a year, etc. Attorney Robinson said if the court rules that way, the County, being an interested party, will get served only because of being a tax collector. The Assessor is a certified tax assessor and Treasurer Fessler is a tax collector. Assessor Ryals said Ms. Hunsaker had made a point. The property values that had been annexed from the County into the city do affect the County to a great length. There will be a slightly higher rate for county residents because of this. Attorney Robinson said there will be impacts. There are no legal issues for the County as this just involves administrative functions. Chairman Smith closed the hearing to further public comments and reviewed the appeal closing procedures and procedures to appeal to the State Board of Tax Appeals. Commissioner Dinning said the County is somewhat stuck with the values until the court says something different. There is no choice, but to sustain the Assessor’s values and let the court process take place. Chairman Smith said he feels for Mr. Ladely’s situation, but the County has its hands tied due to the rules for appraising property and this could all be undone depending on what goes on with the city. Commissioner Kirby moved to sustain the Assessor’s valuation for the following properties: Parcels #RPB00000346170A, RP62N01E346160A, MH01700000007TA & MH01700000001TA by Appellant Douglas W. Ladely Sr. Family Trust; Parcel #RPB11300010040A by Appellant Loretta Hunsaker; Parcel #RPB11300020050A by Appellants Robert Karlac and Kendra Scarlett; Parcel #RPB00000040520A by Appellant Dale Simpson; Parcel #RPB00000040400A by Appellants Lynda & Phillip Lowman, Parcel #RPB00000040021A by Appellant Sandaker Living Trust; and Parcels #RPB00000040480A & RPB00000040500A by Appellant Shayne Fallis. Commissioner Dinning second. Motion passed unanimously. The Board of Equalization
appeal hearing pertaining to the properties
involved in the City of Commissioner Dinning moved to recess as Board of Equalization and reconvene as the Board of Commissioners. Commissioner Kirby second. Motion passed unanimously. Commissioners reviewed claims for payment. Fund totals are as follows: Current Expense $37,517.04 Road & Bridge 72,828.80 Airport 2,286.88 District Court 17,102.18 County Fair 36,336.00 Justice Fund 14,811.77 911 Funds 6,793.66 Health District 12,639.00 Indigent & Charity 10,369.25 Parks and Recreation 3,955.25 Revaluation 1,689.58 Solid Waste 21,159.88 Tort 89,690.50 Veterans Memorial 73.75 Weeds 6,562.34 Restorium 23,553.14 Waterways 43.31 Juvenile Probation, Lottery 977.79 Grant, Fire Mitigation 5,320.00
TOTAL
$363,710.12 Citizens are invited to inspect detailed records on file in the Courthouse (individual claims & Commissioners’ allowance & warrant register record 2012). Commissioner Dinning moved to recess as the Board of Commissioners and reconvene as the Board of Equalization. Commissioner Kirby second. Motion passed unanimously. 11:00 a.m., Commissioners held a Board of Equalization appeal hearing for parcels #PPB0160002009BA (Mr. Suds Car Wash), and #RP62N01E262450A and #RP62N01E270010A (Panhandle Brewing Co. by Appellant Richard Villelli. Present were: Chairman Ron Smith, Commissioner Dan Dinning, Commissioner Walt Kirby, Deputy Clerk Michelle Rohrwasser, Assessor Dave Ryals, Chief Deputy Assessor Ken Carpenter, Appraiser Les Vetter, Appraiser Teri Cushman, and Appellant Richard Villelli. The proceedings were recorded. Chairman Smith administered the oath to those giving testimony. The Assessor presented one exhibit marked “Assessor’s Exhibit #2” (consisting of 10 pages). The Appellant submitted one exhibit marked “Appellant’s Exhibit #1” (consisting of 3 pages). Mr. Villelli said for
parcel #PPB0160002009BA, the car wash property,
he did not prepare a lot of elaborate
information as he did for the Panhandle Brewing
parcels. Mr. Villelli said he contacted the
state, federal government and State of Mr. Villelli reiterated that he had contacted the state and rather than hitting the Board of Equalization with sections of the Internal Revenue Service and state depreciation schedule, he felt the Board of Equalization would understand those schedules are fairly accurate and he noticed in the Assessor’s Exhibit #2 there had been an attachment with different schedules of valuations. Mr. Villelli said like the brewery land he understands the County is under strains relative to making ends meet in budgets, but to increase the value of the equipment, most of which is over 25 years old, he could honestly say it is of very little value. The car wash has gone ten years without breaking even. Minor increases whether it’s property taxes, personal property taxes, utilities, etc., is a killer. Mr. Villelli said he has owned the car wash for 26 years and this June was the second worst June in history for him. Mr. Villelli said he understands that is not the County’s concern, but he doesn’t believe it is fair or equitable to have car wash equipment and a sign that is 28 years old actually go up in value. It isn’t a lot of money, but every little bit is of value. Chairman Smith said for clarity the value the County has put on the equipment is $7,267, but Mr. Villelli’s feeling is the value should be $5,865. Mr. Villelli said he feels the equipment shouldn’t increase over the last year and he can’t justify that. Chairman Smith said the last year’s value was $5,865 and Mr. Villelli said yes. Commissioner Dinning said all that equipment has been assessed for all those 27 years for some value, but the value increased this year. Mr. Villelli said yes. The increase in value was $1,402. Assessor Ryals did not have any questions. Chairman Smith asked Ms. Cushman to provide her statement. Ms. Cushman said her exhibit shows how the values were arrived at. Personal property is not the same in depreciation as the federal depreciation schedules. Personal property has a value and it never depreciates out. Personal property has a value to the business, according to Ms. Cushman. When the economy is poor the used equipment actually has a greater value than when the economy is good because people would rather pay for something used rather than spend all of that money for something new as they’re trying to conserve and end up buying used. Ms. Cushman explained that the first two pages of Assessor’s Exhibit #2 are the comparisons for the two values of year 2011 and 2012. Chairman Smith said for clarity, if a vacuum purchased for the car wash costs $100, what Ms. Cushman is saying is that is not necessarily the value the vacuum has toward the operation of the car wash. Such as it is actually worth more than what was paid for the vacuum. Ms. Cushman said no, the equipment does depreciate to a point and caps out. Ms. Cushman said the third page of Assessor’s Exhibit #2 is the personal property declaration received in March 2011. March 2011 was indeed the first year the County has ever had equipment declared for this car wash in 25 years. Ms. Cushman said the only thing the County had listed had been the sign. Ms. Cushman said the personal property declaration shows the year things were purchased and amount the property owner states they paid for the equipment and that is where the depreciation starts. The next page shows the subsystem for the Assessor’s Office that shows the schedules, functions, categories, and factors involved in creating values. Those things will make sense when referring to the next two pages consisting of the function code list and schedules. The code list and schedules correspond with the equipment listed on the previous page. Ms. Cushman referred to the Personal Property Valuation Schedules and explained using a specific schedule for the equipment with the exception of the sign. Used in the equation is the year the equipment was purchased and deprecation used for that equipment. Commissioner Dinning said Line 15 shows the number 29 so does that mean 29% of the original and Ms. Cushman said yes. Ms. Cushman said the last
two pages are the real clue to what is going on.
The last page is for year 2011 and information
is highlighted. The depreciation capped out at
seven years, which is one year past the economic
life for that piece of equipment and is it at
25%. Ms. Cushman said the value of 25% shows all
the way through, but for year 2012, the schedule
capped out at the seven year level, but values
crept back up as the economy has gotten worse.
Ms. Cushman said that sounds odd, but it does
make sense that used equipment is worth more
than when the economy is bad. This is not like
the federal government schedule as this is a
schedule developed by the State of Commissioner Dinning asked if Ms. Cushman has the ability to adjust from this schedule staying within the guidelines from the state. Ms. Cushman said yes; however, given the equipment that we’re dealing with having no unusual aspects to it. This equipment has its age just like everything else in that category would have at that age, it would make sense to follow along with the state list. Ms. Cushman said when she received this year’s schedules; she spent three hours on the phone with the person who developed the list in order to make sense of this. Ms. Cushman said this is not just based on the economy as there are other factors that are involved. Ms. Cushman said for example, if someone had a lawnmower for 25 years and they’re still using it, it’s been upgraded and fixed so its value isn’t like it was 25 years old. It now has an economic life and is worth a little bit more. Chairman Smith said the value shown last year was $5,865 and this year the value increased to $7,267, which is an increase of $1,402. Ms. Cushman said yes. Commissioner Dinning asked
if the state indicated whether or not the
figures they are using are from the Chairman Smith closed the hearing to further public comments as Mr. Villelli nor anyone else had any questions, and he read the closing procedures and procedures for appealing the Board of Equalization’s decision to the State Board of Tax Appeals. Commissioner Dinning said
Ms. Cushman did her job well, but he disagrees
with the state. Commissioner Dinning said with
the area’s unemployment rate it’s ridiculous to
use the state’s processes. Commissioner Dinning
said it’s his feeling to take this back to where
it used to be as we have a car wash that is not
even functioning. Commissioner Dinning said he
doesn’t even know what the market would be, but
no one from Commissioner Kirby said he is in complete agreement with Commissioner Dinning. Commissioner Kirby said the Assessor’s Office has done a good job and he’s never seen such research for $6,000 worth of equipment in a while. The owner of this used equipment has continued to pour money into it so he doesn’t have to buy new and now he’s being punished for it almost as much as he would be punished for buying new. The whole thing is a mess and the taxes should be the same or dropped, according to Commissioner Kirby. Chairman Smith clarified that we’re talking about value. Commissioner Kirby said the last thing we can do as a citizen is to leave Mr. Villelli alone for the value that we all have a feeling is a legitimate value for a bunch of used equipment that is liable to go “poof” in the morning. Commissioner Dinning asked Ms. Cushman about the sales not being applicable to the area and what the reaction was from the state representative she spoke to on the phone. Ms. Cushman said she has not ever seen this before and the conversation wasn’t about the area, but more so how can the state explain it to her so she can explain it to the personal property owners. Ms. Cushman said it was very hard to get a straight answer and it was a three hour conversation. Ms. Cushman said this community didn’t play a part of the matter as all communities are hurting. Chairman Smith said by looking at the information from the state in order to place the value Ms. Cushman had no choice, but to go by the best information that she had. Ms. Cushman said there are certainly choices, as they could lock all of the values down, but when do you unlock them. Ms. Cushman said there is validity to it as someone will probably get more money for the equipment this year than they would’ve gotten had they sold it last year, even if it was an old piece of equipment. Chairman Smith asked Ms. Cushman if it’s still her opinion the value of the equipment should still be $7,267 after reviewing the state’s information. Ms. Cushman said she agrees with the validity that the equipment could be sold for more this year. Commissioner Kirby moved to amend the value of parcel #PPB016002009B back to $5,865. Commissioner Dinning second. Motion passed unanimously. Ms. Cushman left the
meeting at Commissioners held a Board of Equalization appeal hearing for parcels #RP62N01E262450A and #RP62N01E270010A, in the name of Panhandle Brewing Co., Richard Villelli, President. Present were: Chairman Ron Smith, Commissioner Dan Dinning, Commissioner Walt Kirby, Deputy Clerk Michelle Rohrwasser, Assessor Dave Ryals, and Appraiser Les Vetter. The proceedings were recorded. The Assessor’s Office presented one Exhibit marked “Assessor’s Exhibit #1 (consisting of 8 pages) and Mr. Villelli presented one exhibited marked “Appellant Exhibit #1 (consisting of 3 pages). Chairman Smith stated that Commissioners have already reviewed the hearing procedures and administered the oath to those giving testimony during the prior appeal hearing for Mr. Villelli and this is just a continuation of the appeal process for Mr. Villelli’s remaining two parcels. Mr. Villelli referred to his exhibit and said for the first parcel #RP62N01E270010A, the first assessment he received was for 1.5 acres of “other land” and that category did not exist the year before so it was categorized differently in the first assessment. Mr. Villelli said this change increased the value three times the value of dry agriculture or $3,112 per acre, which is obviously why he first contacted the Assessor. Mr. Villelli said initially on the first assessment there was 1.04 acres of waste and there were 2.91 acres of dry agriculture valued at $1,144 per acre. Mr. Villelli said that is up slightly from last year, which he thinks is in keeping with the value of farm ground in the area. Mr. Villelli said his second assessment was for 4.2 acres of dry agriculture at $1,204 per acre and 1.04 aces of waste, which is the same, but somehow .22 acres was lost and he doesn’t know what happened. Mr. Villelli said his question is the same for both parcels in that he finds it difficult to comprehend how the dike can become dry agriculture and increase in value so much. Mr. Villelli said in his notes that half of that dike had water up more than half way. Mr. Villelli said for the second parcel it is basically the same situation except there is more acreage. The first assessment had 50.79 acres at $1,144 and that is up slightly from last year, which Mr. Villelli felt was fair. There was “other land” on the first assessment of 7.84 acres now valued at $3,456 per acre. Mr. Villelli said how dike land in parcel #RP62N01E26450A is more than 10% than dike land in parcel #RP62N01E270010A he is not sure and how it is worth $2,300 more an acre than agriculture land he is also not sure, and how it went from $441 per acre to $3,456 per acres, or a 783% increase, he was totally befuddled. The homesite is down slightly, which is in keeping with the market and the one acre of waste was the same, according to Mr. Villelli. The rural residential was valued at $69,830, which is down, but in current keeping with the market in this community. Mr. Villelli said the rural improvements on agriculture, which were valued at $7,160 is an increase of 942%. This is a concrete slab and a chicken coop made of lath board siding, no interior lights or anything and how it increased $6,400 Mr. Villelli said he could not comprehend. Mr. Villelli said he talked to the Assessor’s Office, but couldn’t come to an agreement. In the second assessment for parcel #RP62N01E26450A, there is now 58.630 acres of dry Agriculture. The dike went from 3,456 per acre to 1,144 even though there is a road on top of the dike and 45 degree sides. Mr. Villelli said the Assessor’s Office told him he could graze this and he does have a good size cattle operation, but to graze seven acres is not worth it. It won’t work to bring cattle in and try to graze on a hillside like there is and a road on top. The one acre homesite, one acre waste and rural residential building site are all the same. The outbuildings were changed to rural improvements, but they’re still worth 942% more than last year and all it is is a concrete slab and a 10 by 10 chicken coop. Mr. Villelli said he felt the correct assessment should be what he laid out on the bottom of the second page of his exhibit. Mr. Villelli said he took last year’s assessment on the dike, increased assessment of the land, and the decreased assessment of rural land and totaled it. Mr. Villelli said yes it is a decrease, but he believes rural residential building has decreased. The last page consists of Mr. Villelli’s arguments that are applicable to both parcels. Residential values have decreased. Farm ground has increased. The dike that has a road on top and 45 degree sides is simply not agriculture land or grazing land. The only thing growing on the dike in that area is brush as it is basically rock. Mr. Villelli said the theory that the dike is worth $3,456 per acre, he cannot accept. The argument is that the dike creates value for the farm ground and he understands that as that is how the County can assess that farm ground otherwise it would be “other land” that is flooded. If anyone builds a development and brings in water and a road, land increases in value. You don’t say the land increased in value so we’re going to assess the road as triple the value of the land. Mr. Villelli said he believes where the County makes its money is when people do things to increase value. Mr. Villelli said he fails to see how the dike has increased in value 400 and some percent. Mr. Villelli stated the Assessor’s Office said they would reduce the value and he felt like it was a bait and switch because it was valued at $440 per acre; it increased to $1,144 per acre. That is a 259% increase. The Assessor’s Office did reduce it from the 760% down to 259%, but Mr. Villelli said he still has a difficult time rationalizing in his mind that dike increased over 250%. The coop and slab certainly could not have increased 942%, according to Mr. Villelli. Chairman Smith said it sounds like the bottom line is the value for land for parcel #RP62N01E270010A is $8,030, but Mr. Villelli feels the value should be $3,991, which is a difference of $5,039. The other parcel #RP62N01E262450A is valued at $196,640 and Mr. Villelli feels the value should be $166,600, which is a difference of $30,000. Mr. Villelli said that was correct and all of that with the exception of the chicken coop comes out of the house. Mr. Villelli said for parcel #RP62N01E270010A he felt it should be valued at $3,991, which is up 30% over last year. Mr. Villelli said he thinks farm ground has increased and he doesn’t know if it increased that much, but he is willing to say let it increase 30%. Chairman Smith asked for questions of Mr. Villelli. Commissioner Dinning said the coop and slab are not on both properties. Mr. Villelli said they are not. Commissioner Dinning said as he understands the value of the agriculture land is acceptable so we’re looking at the dike area. Mr. Villelli said we’re looking at the dike area and the chicken coop. Commissioner Dinning asked about the dike increase. Mr. Villelli said the dike area increased over last year from $441 to $3,456 originally. Now it is valued from $441 to $1,144. The chicken coop on parcel #RP62N01E262450A increased from $760 to $7,160. Mr. Villelli said that is a $5,400 increase at 958%. Mr. Vetter gave a brief description of what was included in his Assessor’s Exhibit #1 to include: cover letter, description of categories, 2012 Assessment Notice that was sent to Mr. Villelli for parcel #RP62N01E270010A, 2012 Assessment Notice for parcel #RP62N01E262450A, 2011 values for the parcel ending in #270010, 2012 values for the same parcel, the 2011 values for parcel ending #262450A, and the last page is the 2012 value for that same parcel. Mr. Vetter stated the issue with these two parcels is the area that is between the farm ground and the river itself. A portion of this area is the river dike and the rest is in between the dike and the area that is farmed. In previous years 4.84 acres of parcel #RP62N01E262450A and 2.55 acres of parcel #RP62N01E270010A were categorized as Category 19-Waste. A portion of each parcel is deemed to be river erosion and remains Category 19. The remainder of land in question does not meet the definitions of Category 19 (see definitions) and was turned into Category 3-Farm Ground as the only other choice is to value it at Category 18, which is full market value. The question of land being waste or unusable is common. The fact is however that all land has some use. The river dike itself has been used for many reasons. It is turned into picnic areas, swimming or boating sites, grazing areas for livestock or in this case, protection from the river itself as these parcels would be under water a portion of each year without it. Mr. Vetter said in closing he would add that even with the changes made to these two parcels, the overall value dropped from $186,650 in year 2011 to $183,570 for year 2012. Mr. Vetter said for parcel #RP62N01E270010A as it pertains to the loss of acreage, he realized he made a mistake on that and it is to be corrected to bring the amount of acreage to what is was last year. Category 19-Waste is pretty explicit as to what this category really is. Mr. Vetter said this area to him is not waste land. In looking at properties throughout the County very little is categorized as waste anymore, and those properties that are categorized as waste are being turned into something other than waste. Chairman Smith asked if it means there is no value to the acreage categorized as waste. Mr. Vetter said that was correct. Chairman Smith said when pulling this acreage out of Category 19, it had to be placed in Category 3 or Category 18. Mr. Vetter said that was correct and that originally he had it in Category 18, which is full market value. Mr. Vetter said Mr. Villelli contacted him about that and he felt Mr. Villelli’s debate was valid, but he still had to put some value on the acreage. Mr. Vetter said even though this land wasn’t being farmed, it still has some value and protects the farm ground from the river itself and that is why it is in Category 3. Mr. Vetter said a lot of what he’s doing here is the same thing the County does throughout the farm ground. Mr. Vetter said he researched several river farm grounds along the valley. There is a Category 19 along the river, but it’s usually that area that’s been washed away by the river itself. The remaining portion of this area, a lot of the farmers have a grazing category along that piece of the dike or the County has it in farm ground itself just to protect the remainder of the farm ground that is out there. Even though that portion of ground is not actively being farmed, which he’s not saying these pieces are, but to have it in Category 3 is a much lesser value than full market value that Mr. Vetter said he started out with. Mr. Vetter said the slab that has been discussed hasn’t even been on the assessment roll until this year. Mr. Vetter said he dropped the value of the chicken coop, which he didn’t know was a coop until just now as he thought it was a storage shed so he had a site value of $500 on that. Mr. Vetter said he added the slab for the first time ever even though it has been there for years and he put a built date on it as the same time the house was built and depreciated that 25% so that is where the increase for the outbuildings came from. That was not from something done to the house or the land, according to Mr. Vetter. Chairman Smith said of the ground that used to be in Category 19 was 4.84 acres in parcel #RP62N01E262450A and 2.55 acres in parcel #RP62N01E270010A it appears on one parcel 1.04 acres was taken off and 1 acre was taken from the other parcel. That is approximately two acres so the remaining six to seven acres goes into Category 3. Mr. Vetter said that was correct. Commissioner Dinning asked what the dry grazing value is and if it’s different than the agriculture value. Mr. Vetter said values are different, but he didn’t have that information with him. Commissioner Dinning said to him, that dike belongs to the district even though whatever documentation is there that allows it to be there so does that play into this matter in any fashion. Commissioner Dinning said if someone gives an easement to the County and puts a road on it, are those individuals still paying for that value of land. Assessor Ryals said under
Idaho Code everything is taxable unless
something is specifically exempted. Category 19
is defined as waste or irrigation canals and
ditches, and public rights-of-way. If it’s
there, there is a road on it and it’s gated, it
is not waste. Regardless of who created the dike
the ownership is in the name of the individual.
Regardless of restrictions the person still owns
the land and has an obligation to that. Such as
with a lease, easement, power line, gas line,
etc., you still own the land and will still pay
property taxes on it regardless. Assessor Ryals
said this is the same situation. Category 19 is
created largely for the southern counties and
this is something Commissioner Dinning questioned if the southern counties consider irrigation ditches as waste. Assessor Ryals said yes if the owner chooses to stop the property from being a public right-of-way. Mr. Vetter said he looked at this file and thinks that was about the agricultural ground. The agriculture ground in that area is categorized as good agriculture ground as based on the County’s soil survey used to value agriculture and timber ground. Mr. Vetter said for parcel #RP62N01E270010A he has the dry agriculture valued at $1,144 per acre and on the piece with the house, parcel #RP62N01E262450A, he has 58.63 acres also valued at $1,144. Commissioner Dinning asked what “poor agriculture” is assessed at or is there a difference. Mr. Vetter said there is a difference. Commissioner Dinning asked if it would be unreasonable to consider that dike area as “poor agriculture”. Mr. Vetter said it would not be unreasonable to him. Chairman Smith asked if when we’re talking about agriculture land, we’re not looking at it as crops; we’re looking at it for grazing cows. Mr. Vetter said not necessarily. Mr. Vetter said when Mr. Villelli contacted him the first time and he described to him what other areas with farm ground are doing with that type of ground, Mr. Vetter said he mentioned it could be used as grazing, but it was a poor example on his part for what it can be used as. Mr. Vetter said he wasn’t trying to say he should graze on that land and he was trying to relay that this was not waste land. Commissioner Dinning said for clarification the issue is Mr. Vetter has taken the acreage out of waste where it had been before and then added the slab that had not been covered. Mr. Vetter said that was correct. Assessor Ryals said the Assessor’s Offices tries to look at one end of the County to the other and maintain a sense of equitability. Assessor Ryals said fact is if you’re the person with farm ground along the river, you’re going to call it agriculture or something else, but if you’re going to sell the house or the lot there, you’re going to call it riverfront. Assessor Ryals said his office doesn’t feel in their minds and interpretation of the law that this land is waste, but are willing to see there is merit in the agriculture and are willing to allow that to be factored in. Assessor Ryals said it is something, it is not full market value, it is a break and his office is trying to be reasonable, but doesn’t feel the land is waste. Assessor Ryals said using soil maps from the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) site, if the soil is good, the value is $1,144 per acre, medium soil is valued at $875 per acre and poor soil is valued at $796 per acre so there is a difference. Mr. Vetter said this entire area fell into the good category. Assessor Ryals and Mr. Vetter said they don’t have a problem in changing that to poor ground. Mr. Vetter said Mr. Villelli stated a couple things that makes him think Mr. Villelli is thinking the County is going out and placing values in order to just raise or lower his or someone else’s tax, but that has never been his purpose and he’s been doing this for 15 years. Mr. Vetter said the only thing he does is value the property the way he was taught and the tax issue never enters his mind regardless of ownership. Mr. Villelli said that was not his insinuation as he knows the Assessor’s Office is trying to make things equitable. The dike property should maybe be considered something else, according to Mr. Villelli. At the end of his property there is a gate with grazing land on the other side and that is because those property owners can graze the dike as there is land on both sides of the dike. Mr. Villelli said his property drops right down into the river and is washing away even more so it is not something he can say he’s going to graze it. The neighbor is able to farm the inside of the dike and graze on the outside, but Mr. Vetter said he doesn’t have the physical ability to do that. Mr. Villelli said maybe it is poor grazing or hillside, who knows, but there was an increase and that is why he is here before the Board of Equalization. Mr. Villelli said as far as the slab situation, he said he understands it had not been seen before. That used to be the Tucker’s barn, but it collapsed so all that is left is a barn floor so that is what the slab is. This slab is not buildable for anything structural and it is a slab with a bunch of sections with buckles and cracks. Mr. Villelli said he doubts it is worth $7,000, but it must be worth something because his grandson rides his tricycle on it. Commissioner Dinning asked if the classification of poor soil is okay. Mr. Villelli said he is not sure why it isn’t wasteland as it had been in the past. It is a public roadway to District 2 and the canals which are adjacent are waste and that is District 2’s property also. District 2 has their pumps on Mr. Villelli’s property and it pumps through the dike and all of that is considered waste so there is still argument to say it is still wasteland. Mr. Villelli asked if there is another designation that would make it a little more reasonable as what do you do with a cliff that you can’t grow trees on. Mr. Vetter said he did have a cliff on a person’s property and this property owner convinced him it was worthless, but then the property went on the market and one of the selling points was the beautiful rock bluff. Mr. Vetter said the point is people want the County to call something waste when it really isn’t waste any longer. Mr. Vetter said he isn’t opposed to reducing value to meet a compromise on this, but waste and zero value doesn’t fit for him for anything in the County at this point. Commissioner Dinning said what is happening is when the areas come up for the County’s revaluation, the appraisers are picking up all of the waste categories. Mr. Vetter said the appraisers are researching them even further and finding out exactly what is on these properties and putting the property back into a category based on what the code says. Commissioner Dinning said so the rest of the district went to either dry grazing or dry agriculture, it is not just Mr. Villelli’s piece. Mr. Vetter said no. Chairman Smith said this is talking about seven acres total and all but two acres have to be taken out of the waste category, that being approximately five acres. Those five acres either have to be placed in Category 3 or Category 18. Chairman Smith asked if the property is categorized as Category 3, poor, what does that do to the value. Mr. Vetter said the value drops to $796 per acre from $1,144 per acre. Chairman Smith closed the hearing to further public comment and explained the process to appeal to the Board of Tax Appeals. Chairman Smith said he thinks the hearing should be tabled in order to give the Assessor’s Office time to consider changes in value. Commissioner Dinning moved
to table the Board of Equalization decision on
parcels #RP62N01E262450A and #RP62N01E270010A
until this afternoon at The Board of Equalization
appeal hearing was tabled at Commissioners recessed for
lunch at 1:30 p.m., Commissioners reconvened as the Board of Equalization for the afternoon session with Chairman Ron Smith, Commissioner Dan Dinning, Commissioner Walt Kirby and Deputy Clerk Michelle Rohrwasser. 1:30 p.m., Commissioners considered the Board of Equalization appeal hearing for parcels #RPB00000346631A & RPB00000346640A by Appellant Charles Spence. Present were: Chairman Ron Smith, Commissioner Dan Dinning, Commissioner Walt Kirby, Deputy Clerk Michelle Rohrwasser, Assessor Dave Ryals, Chief Deputy Assessor Ken Carpenter and Blue Sky Broadcasting Reporter Mike Brown. The proceedings were recorded. Chairman Smith reviewed the appeal procedures and administered the oath to those giving testimony to include Assessor Ryals and Chief Deputy Assessor Ken Carpenter. No exhibits were presented. Chairman Smith said the appellant lives out of town and he read the appellant’s reason for appeal into the record as follows: “land is and has been in Agricultural conditions. Feed crop is grown and cultivated yearly for cattle. It is mowed each year.” Chairman Smith said there is no ability to ask any questions of Mr. Spence as he is not present. Mr. Carpenter said he feels Mr. Spence misunderstood the process and didn’t have to complete an appeal form. Mr. Carpenter said he sent Mr. Spence an agriculture form and parcel #RPB00000346631A now has 3.060 acres of agriculture and parcel #RPB00000346640A now has 1.30 acres of agriculture so the issue has been taken care of. Chairman Smith reviewed the information listed on Mr. Spence’s appeal form. Chairman Smith said there is only one appeal form completed by Mr. Spence and it doesn’t list a parcel number. The form lists Tax 174, Section 34 Township 62 North Range 1 East, B & D Mini Storage. Mr. Spence’s appeal form lists his opinion of what the land cost should be, which is $50,000. Mr. Carpenter said he had documentation of what he had done, but the value was substantially more than $50,000. Mr. Carpenter said the value on parcel #RPB00000346631A is approximately $137,000 including commercial and agriculture and parcel #RPB00000346640A is valued at $187,000 for commercial and agriculture. Commissioner Dinning asked how much the value was reduced by in going to agriculture. Mr. Carpenter said the commercial rates went to the city’s commercial value on the land so the value was kept as low as it could be, but it did not reduce values. County resident Glen Fodge
joined the meeting at Chairman Smith said he felt there should be a form for each parcel showing the value the Assessor’s Office had for those properties and if there were to be changes in value, what that change would be. Assessor Ryals said the changes had already been made. Mr. Carpenter said he had been incorrect as the value of one lot did decrease $30,000 and the other lot increased $10,000. Chairman Smith questioned what the Board of equalization is sustaining and Commissioner Dinning said the Board of Equalization is sustaining the Assessor’s valuation. Commissioner Dinning clarified the market value has already changed from when Mr. Spence initially submitted his appeal form. Mr. Carpenter said that was correct. Mr. Carpenter confirmed the new value for parcel #RPB0000046631A is $214,850 and the new value for parcel #RPB00000346640A is $538,770. Chairman Smith said this is the motion Commissioners will make. Commissioner Kirby moved to change the value of parcel #RPB0000044631A to $214,850 and change the value of parcel #RPB00000346640A to $538,770. Commissioner Dinning second. Motion passed unanimously. The Board of Equalization
appeal hearing for parcels #RPB0000044631A and
#RPB00000346640A by Appellant Charles Spence
ended at Commissioner Dinning moved to recess as the Board of Equalization and reconvene as the Board of Commissioners. Commissioner Kirby second. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Fodge asked Commissioners if there are any measures that can be taken to treat for mosquitoes. Chairman Smith said Commissioners had planned on talking about that as they had received another call from someone else about the same issue. Commissioner Kirby moved to
amend the agenda for tomorrow at Mr. Fodge left the meeting
at Commissioner Dinning moved to recess as Board of Commissioners and reconvene as the Board of Equalization. Commissioner Kirby second. Motion passed unanimously. 2:00 p.m., The Board of Equalization appeal hearing for parcels #RP62N01E262450A and #RP62N01E270010A owned by Richard Villelli reconvened for the conclusions of Mr. Villelli’s appeal. Present were: Chairman Ron Smith, Commissioner Dan Dinning, Commissioner Walt Kirby, Deputy Clerk Michelle Rohrwasser, Assessor Dave Ryals, and Appraiser Les Vetter. The proceedings were recorded. Chairman Smith said the reason to table this appeal was to allow the Assessor’s Office the time to look at making adjustments from wasteland to Category 3. Mr. Vetter said he went back to previous acreage as originally listed in Category 3 and he left one acre in Category 19, which is river erosion. Mr. Vetter said on the dry Agriculture, the dike area, he took 1.5098 acres of very poor, Category 3, which is $706 per acre and that dropped the new total value on #RP62N01E270010A to $4,400 from $5,060. Mr. Vetter said the parcel ending #270010 is the parcel that he discussed with Mr. Villelli having the acreage mistake so that will be corrected to reflect 5.46 acres from 5.24 acres. Mr. Vetter said in year 2011 the value was $3,040 because the Assessor’s Office had 2.55 acres in the waste category. Chairman Smith said the category of other land was $4,700. Mr. Vetter said when Mr. Villelli sent in his request, he used the original assessment notice the Assessor’s Office had sent him, but after Mr. Villelli spoke to the Assessor’s Office, the acreage was taken out of Category 18 and put into Category 3. Chairman Smith asked for clarification on showing the amended values. Those present reviewed the amended values. The values for parcel #RP62N01E270010A will decrease to $4,400 from $5,060. For parcel ending #24050A, the original total value was $196,640, but after adjustments have been made the total value will be $175,080. The land value is $98,090, the building, outbuilding and slab combine for a total of $69,830 for a total of $175,080. Mr. Vetter mentioned there is another $7,160 for the outbuilding and slab. Commissioner Kirby moved to amend the Assessor’s valuation of parcel #RP62N01E262450A as follows: $98,090 for land, $69,830 for buildings, and $7,160 for the category of “other” for a total of $175,080. Commissioner Dinning second. Motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Kirby moved to amend the Assessor’s valuation for the land category for parcel #RP62N01E270010A to $4,400. Commissioner Dinning second. Motion passed unanimously. The Board of Equalization
appeal hearing for parcel # RP62N01E262450A and
parcel #RP62N01E270010A by Appellant Richard
Villelli ended at 2:15 p.m., Commissioners held a Board of Equalization appeal hearing for parcel #RP62N02E037210A and parcel #RP62N02E030012A by appellant Bruce Behrman. Present were: Chairman Ron Smith, Commissioner Dan Dinning, Commissioner Walt Kirby, Deputy Clerk Michelle Rohrwasser, Assessor Dave Ryals, Appraiser Les Vetter, and Appellant Bruce Behrman. The proceedings were recorded. Chairman Smith reviewed the Board of Equalization appeal hearing procedures and administered the oath to those giving testimony. The Assessors’ Office submitted one exhibit marked “Assessor’s Exhibit #1 (consisting of 12 pages) and the Appellant presented one exhibit marked “Appellant’s Exhibit #1 (consisting of 1 page). Chairman Smith asked the appellant to give an opening statement. Mr. Behrman said for parcel #RP62N02E037210A, the category of “other land” increased from $13,860 to $61,700. Mr. Behrman said he also doesn’t understand the increases for categories 18, 31 and 32. Mr. Behrman said he built a deck off the house so it raised the taxes more than the cost to build. For the category of other land if you refer to the pictures, the mud pit is not worth anything, according to Mr. Behrman. If someone were to drive out to that site today, the grass is knee high and there are sheep pens out around the property. Mr. Behrman held up a book and explained it was Lou Maring’s book and it shows what type of fence Mr. Maring brings to the property. It is a portable, electric fence that Mr. Maring moves around all of the time. Mr. Behrman said this ground is all pasture, but it is also used for the mud bog so he doesn’t know why it would jump that high. Chairman Smith said the value for Category 18 for 3.8 acres is $13,860 and it is increasing to $61,700. Mr. Vetter said the 2011 valuation summary sheet is where Category 18 has 3.800 acres and for year 2012 Category 18 is showing at 18.8 acres. Mr. Behrman referred to the rural residential category and improvements, but said his biggest concern is the amount of $61,700. Mr. Behrman said he didn’t think there was anything on his land worth taxing. Mr. Behrman said parcel #RP62N02E030012A had in increase in Category 18 from $6,870 to $33,590. Mr. Behrman said if you had ever been in the house, you would know it is not worth that. Commissioner Dinning reiterated that Mr. Behrman’s concerns pertain to the increase of Category 18 for both parcels. The house is on parcel #RP62N02E030012A and Mr. Behrman said his issues are with categories 18 and 32 and for parcel #RP62N02E037210A the concerns are for Category 18. Mr. Behrman said that was correct. Commissioner Dinning clarified that the rock pit area’s value is included in category 18. Mr. Behrman said yes, the category increased from $6,000 to $33,000. Mr. Vetter explained what is listed in his exhibit to include: cover sheet, the current year and last year’s assessments for parcel ending #030012A, this year and last year’s assessments for parcel ending #037210A, pictures taken of truck trailers and the grounds, aerial photograph of parcel #RP62N02E030012A with circles showing the rock pit, blueberry patch, and a portion of the mud bog pit, another aerial showing a 2004 and 2011 progression of the mud bog area, administrative rules describing what can be classified as dry grazing, and the last pages are statutes for the same things. Mr. Vetter read his cover
page into the record as follows:
These
parcels were inspected on The area of the mud bog and the rock pit were reviewed and measured using the most current aerial photos available to the Assessor’s Office. This area was then removed from the grazing category as it is no longer “land actively devoted to agriculture” as defined by Idaho Code. Since the land no longer qualifies for an exemption it is placed in a full market category. Attached aerial and ground photos also show that this acreage is not dedicated to agriculture. Mr. Vetter referred to his notes that he didn’t submit as exhibits for parcel #62N02E037210A, which is the mud bog property. Mr. Vetter reviewed changes as follows: square footage of the house was changed to 969 from 632, square footage of the attic was changed to 423 from 200, a deck was added, and 15 acres were changed from category 5 to category 18. This is where the Moyie Mud Bog is held. There has been no grazing in this section for many years, according to Mr. Vetter. There is also a 3.8 acre category 18 that is a former rock pit; outbuildings associated with the Mud Bog were added as well. Chairman Smith said for clarification there is a rock pit on the property with the blueberry patch, but there is also a rock pit on the other property. Mr. Vetter said there used to be. Mr. Vetter said on parcel #RP62N02E030012A, he added for year 2012 a coverage deck on the front of the house, changed 8.8 acres from category 5 acres to category 18, 7.71 acres of this is an active rock pit and the other 1.19 acres is a part of the mud bog, primarily which is located on parcel #RP62N02E037210A. There are two acres of category 18 dedicated to a blueberry operation. Also added as a 7 by 16 truck trailer used in the blueberry operation as an office. Mr. Vetter said that in a nutshell is what happened this year. The mud bog takes place on this property twice per year and Idaho Code states if land is actively dedicated to agriculture, then that is what has to be; dedicated to agriculture and not a multipurpose use. Mr. Vetter said there had been a question and he couldn’t prove it otherwise, but if you look at the aerial map, all of the forested area on these parcels is also in the grazing category. Animals are put on this property to keep weeds down, etc. Chairman Smith asked if this is by the blueberry patch. Chairman Smith and Mr. Vetter reviewed the aerial maps to point out these areas. Mr. Vetter pointed out an area to the left and also mentioned an area on the property with the rock pit as being to the south and east end of that parcel with timber ground all around. Mr. Vetter said all of the timber area is in grazing and he has never touched grazing there because he couldn’t prove Mr. Behrman wasn’t grazing there and from what Mr. Behrman told him, it made sense. Mr. Vetter said his questions pertain to the rock pit and the mud bog areas not being able to maintain agriculture as defined in Idaho Code. Chairman Smith clarified that Mr. Vetter is saying this area is not being used for agriculture. Mr. Vetter said he feels that is what the issue is. That is what caused the category 18 values to rise as the acreage on both increased, according to Mr. Vetter. Mr. Vetter said this acreage had previously been in category 5. For parcel #RP62N02E030012A, 8.8 acres went from category 5 to category 18 and 7.71 acres of that is the rock pit. For parcel #RP62N02E037210A, 15 acres of grazing went to category 18, which shows a large increase in land value on the other land. Commissioner Dinning said the house that Mr. Behrman lives in increased in value due to size adjustments. Mr. Vetter said he ran a tape measure and found an error in the prior square footage. On Mr. Behrman’s dad’s old house, a large covered deck was added and that is what caused the increase. Mr. Vetter said the category 32’s that Mr. Behrman is talking about are the outbuildings and most of them are in support of the mud bog or berry patch. Commissioner Dinning asked if the rock pit had been in category 18 before. Mr. Vetter said no. Commissioner Dinning said so there had not been anything in category 18 before. Mr. Vetter said there had been another rock pit located down by the house that is no longer active although it had been in the past. Mr. Vetter said the rock pit was moved to the other parcel and this is the first time he has addressed it as a rock pit. Commissioner Dinning asked if the old pit dropped off into another category and Mr. Vetter said no it is still in category 18 as the pit is still sitting there as open, as it used to be a rock pit. It has been filled in a little bit so it’s not a deep hole in the ground, but you can see that it had something on it at one time. Commissioner Dinning said the majority is looking at about 23 acres moved from dry grazing to category 18. Mr. Vetter said that was correct. Mr. Behrman asked if the trailers were moved off the property, could he go back to grazing because he could move them. Mr. Vetter said if the trailers are movable or not is not the problem. Mr. Behrman said so if he leaves the trailers there for two weeks out of the year, his taxes will raise. Mr. Vetter responded to Mr. Behrman that he is not actively devoting the property to grazing as the code defines. Mr. Behrman said he does devote his property to grazing and he mentioned moving the fences. Mr. Vetter said by Mr. Behrman’s own admission, those fences are temporary which also doesn’t mean the property is dedicated to grazing for the year. Mr. Behrman asked if the lower pit on the property listed as Marilyn Hall’s (RP62N02E037210A) is a deleted pit. Mr. Behrman said he tried to plant grass on this property, but he couldn’t get anything to grow. Mr. Behrman said around the van bodies, the grass is so high now. Lou Maring has brought the sheep fencing in because he cannot afford to build a fence on every property that he brings his sheep to so he has portable fences. Mr. Behrman said he could also not afford to build a fence himself. Chairman Smith asked for Mr. Vetter’s comments on categories if fences are used. Mr. Vetter said it is not dedicated for agriculture; it is temporary. Mr. Vetter said it is temporary dedication, but the way the code reads, the property should be dedicated to agriculture. Chairman Smith read the title of Idaho Code 63-604 as “land actively devoted to agriculture defined”. Mr. Vetter said yes and that this is also found in the administrative rules. Chairman Smith said it can also be found in the Idaho Code section. Chairman Smith briefly read the definitions. Commissioner Dinning asked what the speculative value is. Assessor Ryals said full market; if the property is in full market value, it is considered to be speculative.
Chairman Smith asked about the sheep. Mr. Behrman explained that he doesn’t pay that much attention and that Mr. Maring just brings his sheep in when he wants and takes them out. Chairman Smith mentioned fencing and Mr. Vetter said certainly before or after the mud bog, but there was no fencing at all the day he visited the property. Mr. Behrman mentioned that mud boggers would’ve run over the fences. Mr. Behrman said what this is saying is if someone was sheep herding and had dogs, they couldn’t classify their land as ranching as they have no fences. Assessor Ryals said he may not always like or understand the way the laws are written, but that is what it says. The State is giving the property owner the opportunity to obtain a partial exemption on the land if the property is actively devoted to that. Mr. Behrman said the land is actively devoted for the animals to graze more than for the mud bog and the only difference is there is no money for grazing for him, but it keeps the grass down. Mr. Behrman mentioned Mr. Maring is working out an arrangement with the Idaho Transportation Department’s land nearby because of the weeds on that property. Commissioner Kirby mentioned the Idaho Code statute in which Mr. Vetter is drawing his conclusions from. Mr. Vetter said in addition to that is the definition of category 5, the dry grazing listed in the administrative rules. Mr. Vetter said between the administrative rules and Idaho Code, that is his basis. Commissioner Dinning asked if the blueberry patch is considered agriculture. Mr. Vetter said yes and it has been for quite some time. Commissioner Dinning said the part under Idaho Code 63-604(b), talks about if land is devoted to agriculture for the last three growing seasons. Commissioner Dinning said the code section states the requirements of both 1 and 2 have to be met, but Mr. Behrman said it doesn’t meet those. Commissioner Dinning referred to Idaho Code 63-604(b)i, it has to produce 15% or more of the owner’s or lessee’s annual gross income or produces revenues of more than $1,000. Commissioner Dinning asked Mr. Behrman if he has ever filed any paperwork with the county stating the land will be devoted to agriculture. Mr. Behrman said no. Commissioner Dinning said the land doesn’t meet Idaho Code for grazing. Commissioner Dinning asked how much the upper rock pit increased. The upper rock pit increased to 7.17 acres. Mr. Vetter said actually it was 3.8 acres for the parcel that it is not on, but on the parcel below it. This is new, according to Mr. Vetter. Commissioner Dinning said if he were to graze his land and in two weeks out of year or so, he allowed people to target shoot, would that disqualify that area for agriculture use because of those two weeks. Assessor Ryals said if you stick to the letter of the law then yes, which is what he tries to do. Mr. Behrman said if he had a church group come out, he could be tax exempt then. Assessor Ryals explained that is true if he held church and or religious education on his property, then yes he would qualify. Mr. Behrman said for the upper gravel pit, to the southeast, it was cleared off and the rock is no good. Mr. Behrman said this pit is not going to get any bigger so he will have them use the lower pit. Commissioner Dinning asked for value of the pit itself and Mr. Vetter said it is grouped together. Commissioner Dinning said he’s referring to the upper pit. Mr. Vetter said there are 7.71 acres on parcel #RP62N02E030012A valued at $3,110 per acre, full market value since it is over 50 acres. Mr. Vetter said it doesn’t matter if that’s the mud bog or rock pit or anything else if it’s category 18 and on this parcel, that’s how much it is valued for. Commissioner Dinning said on that parcel increase for category 18 because of the rock pit, it increased from 2 acres to 10.8 acres. Mr. Vetter said that was correct. Commissioner Dinning said the value for category 18 for parcel #RP62N02E030012A increased from $6,800 to $33,590 because of the size of the pit. Mr. Vetter said that was correct. Commissioner Dinning said in looking at parcel #RP62N02E037210A, that value increased due to loss of the dry grazing category. The value for category 18 increased from $13,800 to $61,700 and that is due to the reclassification. Mr. Vetter said that was correct. That is the mud bog and the other old pit, according to Mr. Vetter and Commissioner Dinning. Mr. Behrman said the mud bog hasn’t gotten bigger, but it has gotten deeper. Commissioner Dinning said the old gravel pit is going to carry over for years. Mr. Vetter said that was correct. Mr. Vetter said with the old pit and the mud bog, it added 15 acres. Mr. Behrman said the mud bog is still on the same piece of property and hasn’t gotten any bigger. Mr. Behrman said on the gravel pit, if you clear land off above the pit, he guessed it has gotten several acres larger. Mr. Behrman said he wished Mr. Vetter would have come to him when he conducted his assessment so he could’ve walked him through to show what was good gravel and sand and what wasn’t. Mr. Vetter said he had no further comments. Chairman Smith closed hearing to further public comment and read the closing procedures and procedures to appeal to the State Board of Tax Appeals. Commissioner Dinning said what we’re dealing with is the upper pit should be added in. The old pit on the lower piece has been on tax rolls as “other” already. The real concern is the 15 acres for the mud bog and whether that should be classed other or dry grazing. Chairman Smith said there are two parcels listed on the Notice of Appeal form with the value of “other” at $61,700 and $33,590 and beneath that is Mr. Behrman’s opinion that the values should be $13,860 and $6,870. Chairman Smith said the Assessor’s Office is saying the value should be $95,000 and Mr. Behrman’s figure is $14,000 plus. Chairman Smith said for parcel #RP62N02E030012A the entire value as shown by the Assessor’s Office is $101,050. The prior year’s value was $74,900. Chairman Smith asked Mr. Behrman if he is asking for that figure to be reduced. Mr. Behrman said he wants to know why there was an increase from $6,870 to $33,590. Commissioner Kirby said the increase is due to the change in category and the acreage had increased by eight acres. Chairman Smith asked if Mr. Behrman only wanted to know why and Mr. Behrman mentioned no, he thought it was too much and should be cut back down. It was said a few categories increased. Mr. Behrman said a few of them did increase a little bit and he does believe in paying his fair share. Commissioner Kirby said the only way to change the value for that parcel is to reduce the amount of market value and put the acreage back into grazing again. Commissioner Kirby said Commissioners can hardly do that and could only monkey with the square footage, but really can’t even do that. Commissioner Kirby said the County is between a rock and a hard place. Mr. Behrman said he didn’t realize if he cleared the land around the pit, then that land is considered a gravel pit. Chairman Smith said after what has been talked about, does Mr. Vetter see anything that would change the values or do the values need to be changed. Mr. Vetter said he is standing by his rational for valuations on this matter. Commissioner Dinning said the only place he could see values being reduced is what Commissioner Kirby said about the upper pit. It is cleared and not being used as a pit. Commissioner Dinning said he doesn’t know how to define “pit”, but that is the only thing he could see adjusted. Commissioner Dinning said on the lower piece that old pit has been on the rolls for years. It just boils down to the use is the only thing the Board of Equalization has to deal with at this point. Commissioner Kirby said he doesn’t think there is anything that can be done due to what is written on the last page, the Idaho Code section. It is very clear. Commissioner Dinning said
there may be an opportunity to look at the size
of the upper pit again as that is the only place
he could see any adjustment because Idaho Code
states what criteria the Assessor’s Office has
to use to base their assessments on. Chairman
Smith said if Commissioner Dinning wanted the
Assessor’s Office to take another look at the
pit that has to be done today as a decision has
to be made by Commissioner Dinning asked if there is opportunity to cancel tax later if there are adjustments. Chairman Smith said Commissioners can cancel tax anytime. Commissioner Dinning said he feels the Board of Equalization is stuck. Commissioner Dinning said if the Assessor’s Office finds reason to make an adjustment, Commissioners could cancel tax later on, but if the value can’t change then we’re still okay. Commissioner Kirby moved to sustain the Assessor’s valuation for parcel #RP62N02E037210A and #RP62N02E030012A by Appellant Bruce Behrman. Commissioner Dinning second. Motion passed unanimously. The Board of Equalization
appeal hearing for parcels #RP62N02E037210A and
#RP62N02E030012A ended at 3: Chairman Smith reviewed the appeal hearing procedures and administered the oath to those giving testimony to include Assessor Ryals and Mr. Vetter. The Assessor presented one exhibit marked “Assessor’s Exhibit #1 (consisting of 5 pages).
Chairman Smith read the
Beck’s reason for appealing their property value
as follows: “The annexation of this property is
currently under judicial review, Case #2012-002
and we are appealing the classification of this
property as a #20 Residential Lot instead of a
#12 Rural Residential Tract until judicial
review is completed. Also, as the #30 Mr. Vetter explained the first page of his exhibit is a brief letter regarding the matter. Mr. Vetter said the next page is the 2012 Assessment Notice that the Beck’s would have received. Mr. Vetter said the notice indicates lands going into the city limits. Mr. Vetter said Mr. Beck is talking about Category 30 and there used to be a Category 32. Chairman Smith said the outbuilding falls under Category 30 and that shows as $2,320 and Mr. Beck feels the building has no value. Mr. Vetter said that was correct. Mr. Vetter said the rest of his exhibit consists of Idaho Code and definitions of what comes with having improvements. Mr. Vetter said covered improvements are supposed to be taken into account. Mr. Vetter said the outbuildings on this parcel are being treated the same as any other outbuilding in the county whether inside or outside the city limits. The guidelines for assessment are quite clear. Idaho Property Tax Statutes 63-203, 63-204 and 63-205 describe what property is assessed for taxation. Statute 63-201 gives the definition of improvement. Property Tax Administrative Rule 205 also gives definitions and guidelines for assessment of property. Rule 205c is the definition of improvement. Copies of the statutes and rule have been enclosed in the Assessor’s Exhibit #1. Chairman Smith said the Beck’s appeal form states the non-resident building has no foundation so they ask that it be removed from taxation. Chairman Smith reiterated the Assessor’s Office states that has nothing to do with it as values are shown for any types of outbuildings whether inside or outside city limits. Mr. Vetter said that was correct. Chairman Smith reiterated that not having a foundation has no part in this.
Chairman Smith closed the hearing to further comments as no one wished to speak and he reviewed the appeal hearing’s closing procedures and the procedures to appeal the Board of Equalization’s decision to the State Board of Tax Appeals. Commissioner Kirby read aloud the definition of improvements as provided in the Assessor’s Exhibit #1 as follows: Improvements are buildings, structures, fences, and similar property that are built upon land. Improvements are real property regardless of whether or not such improvements are owned separately from the ownership of the land upon or to which the same may be erected, affixed, or attached. Commissioner Kirby said fruit trees are also considered improvements. Chairman Smith said on the Beck’s appeal form under the section “other” is written “nontaxable” and he didn’t know what that is based on other than having no foundation. Commissioner Dinning said as discussed in the prior appeal hearings with the court case for annexation, this issue has nothing to do with what is being discussed today so he doesn’t see the ability to change anything. Commissioner Kirby moved to sustain the Assessor’s valuation for parcel #RP00000040420A by Appellants Richard and Sharon Beck. Commissioner Dinning second. Motion passed unanimously. Chairman Smith said for clarity, the values sustained are $41,870 for land, $82,580 for buildings and $2,320 for other for a total of $126,770. Mr. Vetter said that was correct. The Board of Equalization
appeal hearing for parcel #RP00000040420A by
Appellants Richard and Sharon Beck ended at Commissioner Kirby moved, for Tax Year 2012 and under authority granted in Title 63, Chapter 5 of Idaho code, to order the following adjustments to the 2012 property Assessment Roll: to reduce Category 34 value from $101,930 to $41,960 for parcel #RP60N01E050750A; to change Category 3 acreage from 4.200 to 4.420 with no change in value for parcel #RP62N01E270010A; to add the Homeowner Exemption for parcel #RP60N01W106600A; and to remove the Homeowner Exemption for parcel #RP00270002015CA. Commissioner Dinning second. Motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Kirby moved to adjourn as Board of Equalization and to reconvene as the Board of Commissioners. Commissioner Dinning second. Motion passed unanimously. Chairman Smith said his concern is adding the homeowner’s exemption. Assessor Ryals said in this case the homeowner’s exemption was in place, but then was lost because the address had changed. After it was too late the property owner contacted the Assessor’s Office to say they received the information. Assessor Ryals said there was another parcel where the exemption shouldn’t have been on the property. Chairman Smith discussed
how many Board of Equalization appeal hearings
other counties have had whereas County resident Gary Leonard stopped by Commissioners’ Office. Assessor Ryals left the
meeting at Chairman Smith told Mr. Leonard that he has only heard good things about the fireworks display Mr. Leonard had put together. Mr. Leonard said he stopped by to thank Commissioners for their support. Mr. Leonard left the
meeting at There being no further
business, the meeting recessed until tomorrow at
*** Those present met to discuss filling the Planning and Zoning Administrator position and to discuss filling a Planning and Zoning Commission position. Chairman Smith said the Planning and Zoning Administrator position will be reduced to a part-time position. The County currently has a volunteer filling in for the Administrator position and Commissioners questioned the hiring process. Chief Deputy Clerk Isaac said she could post the job notification in-house for three days as the notice does not have to go to the Job Service. Commissioner Dinning mentioned Resolution #2012-30 wherein Commissioners appointed two volunteers to fill in. Chief Deputy Clerk Isaac said she would contact Attorney Robinson to see if the County can appoint the person who has been volunteering their time up to this point. Those present discussed the process for hiring due to an emergency situation. Commissioner Dinning said the Planning and Zoning Administrator job description will remain the same, but at what hourly wage. It was said this adjusted position will be for an amount of hours not to exceed a set number. Chairman Smith said the County will need to budget for more than the three days per week as the Planning and Zoning Commission hearings are in addition to these three days. 9: Commissioners spoke to Yvonne Dingman with the Idaho Transportation Department regarding signage along Highway 95. Commissioner Dinning mentioned Dan Meeker’s on-premise business sign. Ms. Dingman said the sign would be allowed providing it is on the Meeker’s property on which the business is being conducted. The Meeker’s would not be able to advertise for anyone else as well and can only have one direction of travel, according to Ms. Dingman. The Meeker’s would also have to meet local ordinances as well. The Idaho Transportation Department (ITD) has only a few things to regulate on premises and as long as the sign is in the right-of-way and there are no flashing lights, etc., then the Meeker’s should be okay. Commissioner Dinning said the Meeker’s are looking to buy an area that runs to the highway and put their business sign on it. Ms. Dingman said she thinks the Meeker’s will be fine as long as the land they buy connects to the same property. The call with Ms. Dingman
ended at Prosecutor Jack Douglas
joined the meeting at Commissioners informed
Prosecutor Douglas they’ve been informed that
court cases dealing with road weight limits are
being thrown out as the verbiage as to what
constitutes a load it too vague. Commissioners
provided Prosecutor Douglas with both Mr. Gutshall said he has
seen where trucks are weighed on state highways.
Prosecutor Mr. Gutshall mentioned that there are truck loads that are essential to haul such as garbage, fuel and milk. These items can be hauled at one half the gross vehicle weight, so when you divide that number, even Frederickson’s garage trucks being 10,000 to 12,000 pounds empty are still heavier than that. Commissioner Dinning suggested verbiage for the hauling exceptions. Mr. Gutshall said the idea if those roads are closed and once they’re closed, hauling is only authorized by permit for the conditions listed on that permit. Road and Bridge could issue a permit and route the truck to mitigate affects. Those present discussed
types of loads and Commissioners Dinning said
even a load of hay in a pickup will cause
damage. Mr. Gutshall said he would like to see a
rule that basically closes a road and someone
then has to apply for a permit that tells the
driver what conditions are allowed per the
permit. Prosecutor Mr. Gutshall said he would be concerned about affects to garbage and propane haulers. Prosecutor The meeting with Mr.
Gutshall and Prosecutor Douglas ended at Deputy Clerk Nancy Ryals
joined the meeting at Commissioner Dinning moved to deny indigent application #2012-23 as per the Clerk’s recommendation. Commissioner Kirby second. Motion passed unanimously. Deputy Clerk Nancy Ryals
left the meeting at Chief Deputy Clerk Tracie
Isaac joined the meeting at Chief Deputy Clerk Isaac said she has heard back from Attorney Robinson who said the County can post the Planning and Zoning Administrator job vacancy in-house. Commissioner Dinning suggested speaking with the current volunteer about the pay scale to get his opinion. Commissioner Dinning said this position could be a part-time salaried position. Chief Deputy Clerk Isaac suggested Commissioners review the pay grades. Chief Deputy Clerk Isaac
left the meeting at 10:00 a.m., The following Parks and Recreation Board members joined the meeting to discuss new by-laws and the Field Use Agreement: Brandon Glaza, Tim Dougherty, Pam Copeland, Lisa Carle, Angela Hittle, and Rob Tompkins. Ms. Copeland mentioned the Parks and Recreation By-Laws had been updated and those present reviewed them. Mr. Dougherty referred to Article 4, Board Member Officers, and informed Commissioners the Board has allowed themselves no more than 60 days to elect its officers. The terms for officers is for a one year period or until their successors are elected. It was mentioned that the Parks and Recreation Board is appointed by County Commissioners and the terms for the current members expire at the same time and Commissioner Dinning said in the amended By-Laws the terms can be staggered. Chairman Smith said the idea is to get away from everyone’s term expiring at the same time. Chairman Smith said Commissioners will set the three year terms as it states in the By-Laws and it was suggested to include in the By-Laws the sentence that states this change is per Commissioners. Chairman Smith reviewed the Planning and Zoning Ordinance for verbiage on board member terms for reference. Mr. Dougherty said the Parks and Recreation Board felt it’s better to have more than three board members, but not more than seven and that odd numbers are better in order to avoid a tie vote. Chairman Smith reviewed aloud the Planning and Zoning verbiage. There are six board members on the Parks and Recreation Board. Ms. Carle said the reason the Board is requesting between five and seven board members is because when a previous Board member left, the discussion was who is going to fill the position. If someone does want to be a part of the Parks and Recreation Board, they would like to have that spot open to someone who truly wants to be a part and not “have” to find someone. It was said the terminology can also say “no more than six or so”. Commissioner Dinning explained reasons it is better to have a specific number. Ms. Copeland mentioned the problem with too many board members is that it creates extra long meetings. Mr. Dougherty stated for the record that the By-Laws will be amended to include the verbiage that there will be no more than seven Parks and Recreation Board members and those terms will be staggered so that no more than five terms expire within a two year period.
Mr. Dougherty explained how the terms expired on the Pawsitive Works Board and the Second Chance Animal Adoption Board in that each board position is assigned a number for termination, which rotates. It was said for
clarification the Parks and Recreation Board
Chairperson will be the liaison to the Commissioner Dinning asked about posting the meeting schedules as per Idaho Code rules. Commissioner Dinning added that in addition to the two-thirds vote of the sitting board members who are present at any monthly meeting, Commissioners also need to approve any amendments to the By-Laws. Commissioner Kirby moved to
adopt the Those present discussed
changes to the Field Use Agreement after review
by Attorney Robinson and Mr. Dougherty pointed
out that the Liability and Release Section of
the Agreement states the City of Following the Parks and Recreation meeting last night, aside form renting the slab, what the Board’s concern is, is just having a damage waiver from a large rental group. It was explained that a deposit can be returned upon clean up, etc. Ms. Copeland said this isn’t about making money. Commissioner Dinning asked where the Agreement refers to Little League and it was said if Little League was charged, the Parks and Recreation Board would have to provide extra services. Ms. Copeland said this is just the Field Use Agreement and has nothing to do with fees. Ms. Copeland said fees have not yet been established. Commissioners recommended changing the term “2012 Field Use Contract” to “2012 Field Use Agreement”. Commissioner Kirby moved to
approve the
Ms. Copeland said at first each Board member came in with their own visions and purpose, but they have not been given much guidance from Commissioners as far as purpose. Chairman Smith said he has said from the beginning that he felt the Parks and Recreation Board was great, that he advised them to make Parks and Recreation the best they can and to provide the activities for youth to the best ability they can. Commissioner Kirby said he echoed Chairman Smith’s comments and the only time direction or advisement may be needed is if someone approached Commissioners saying they’ve been mistreated. Commissioner Dinning said his only caution is to be careful and not take on too much. Chairman Smith said he doesn’t want the Parks and Recreation Board to assume Commissioners feel they’ve done something wrong if someone reports an issue to Commissioners. Mr. Dougherty said he appreciates the backing from this current Board of Commissioners and he asked Commissioners to realize there is a very competent Board. Ms. Hittle said it is not just activities, but also the facilities in managing and improving them. Chairman Smith said one thing involves Courthouse Maintenance Jerry Kothe. Mr. Kothe spends six months working at the Courthouse and the other six months working for the Parks and Recreation Department and he explained that there will be times when Mr. Kothe is needed at the Courthouse. Commissioner Dinning spoke of the ability to bring in sports tournaments and how that helps the local economy. Commissioner Dinning said we have local sports teams who are involved in tournaments and he suggested having these teams sponsor a tournament. The meeting with the Parks
and Recreation Board ended at Chairman Smith said an
email was received from Mr. Baker pertaining to
support for the City of Mr. Baker said the NRCS doesn’t necessarily deal with the Bureau of Homeland Security as they would deal with the Department of Agriculture and he thought there had been some contact. Commissioner Dinning asked if Mr. Baker could look into that as there could be something in place preventively for this issue. Mr. Baker said the Governor did declare an emergency for District #4, but the Bureau of Homeland Security would not have provided support for this. Commissioner Dinning said Ms. Brannon mentioned there is a possibility of funding for the dikes. Mr. Graham said he’s asked all farmers to report their damages to NRCS and this will help realize the significance of the damages. It was said Bob Olsen and Roger Myers flew over the valley two or three times and estimated there to be over 5,000 acres under water at that time. Commissioner Dinning said a gentleman flew the valley some time ago and took aerial photos for another project, but that could be done again. Mr. Baker said the formal request for assistance for District #4 has not been received yet, but he will work with Mr. Kramer to get the request into the Bureau of Homeland Security system. Mr. Baker recommended Commissioners, Clerk Glenda Poston, Dave Kramer and Bob Graham participate in the conference call to seek this reimbursement. Mr. Graham said there is so much grief and paperwork involved with the State’s assistance that the County may not want to pursue it. The meeting with Mr. Baker
and Mr. Graham ended at Ms. Reno met with
Commissioners to give Commissioners a heads up
as to what she is doing in regards to naming a
mountain after her husband who had passed away
five years ago. Ms. Reno explained she had to
obtain a permit to hold a memorial service for
her husband in that area and how hikers had
dedicated their hike to Mr. Reno and erected a
monument of some type. People are now calling
this area The meeting with Ms. Reno
ended at Mr. Allegretti presented Commissioners with a small baggy filled with mosquitoes caught from his traps. Mr. Allegretti said he has five years worth of testing done and none of the mosquitoes have been diseased. Mr. Allegretti spoke of the large number of mosquitoes he has caught near the Marx subdivision. Mr. Allegretti said there are a lot of flood water mosquitoes and there is a certain species that lay rafts of eggs on top of the water. Mr. Allegretti said as far as we know, West Nile Virus is a remote possibility. Those present discussed spraying for mosquitoes and Mr. Allegretti said the cost is $30 to $50 per acres to treat mosquitoes from the air. Mr. Myers would charge approximately $10 per acre to spray larvicide, according to Mr. Allegretti. Mr. Allegretti said when people keep cultivating and spraying for weed control on fields, he doesn’t think there is a chance for mosquitoes to lay eggs in the soil. Mr. Allegretti said if there is a 50 acre pond, the issue is in the grass around the pond itself. Mr. Allegretti said the Culex species are here and they stay throughout the summer. This species carry the West Nile Virus and encephalitis. These mosquitoes can be found near old troughs, tires and standing water. Commissioner Dinning asked if the County should be spraying at all if there is no health risk today. Mr. Allegretti said treatment costs a lot of money and is not needed unless there is a health risk. Mr. Allegretti listed the locations of traps he has set and he said it is too late to treat now as they’re all adults now. Mr. Allegretti said there is no equipment to treat adult mosquitoes. The meeting with Mr.
Allegretti and Mr. Guthrie ended at There being no further
business, the meeting adjourned at /s/ RONALD R. SMITH, Chairman ATTEST: /s/ GLENDA POSTON, Clerk By: Michelle Rohrwasser, Deputy |