***Monday, July 1, 2024, at 9:00 a.m., Commissioners met in regular session with Chairman Tim Bertling, Commissioner Wally Cossairt, Commissioner Ben Robertson, Clerk Glenda Poston, and Deputy Clerk Michelle Rohrwasser.

Commissioners said the Pledge of Allegiance.

9:00 a.m., Courthouse Maintenance Squire Fields and Assistant Mike Kralik joined the meeting to give the department report.

Bonners Ferry Herald Staff Writer Emily Bonsant also joined the meeting.

Mr. Fields informed Commissioners that the City of Bonners Ferry is interested in the county’s surplus 1999 Toyota pickup. Mr. Fields said he’s contacted a company out of state that works to determine causes of moisture problems and he’s also left a message with staff at a courthouse in Washington State that was built by the same person/company to see if their courthouse has also had moisture issues and if so, how did they address them.

Mr. Fields said as soon as the countertops in the Assessor’s new office are finished, the builder can put the laminate down and install cabinets. The flooring will come in later this month.

The meeting with Mr. Fields and Mr. Kralik ended at 9:10 a.m.

9:30 a.m., County Civil Attorney Bill Wilson joined the meeting to update Commissioners on various matters. Attorney Wilson discussed draft ordinances pertaining to overnight camping at various county properties and determining what is considered adequate public notice when updating the ordinance for gas powered motors on Robinson Lake.

The meeting with Attorney Wilson ended at 9:45 a.m.

Commissioner Cossairt moved to go out to bid to replace the roof of the former Safeway building. Commissioner Robertson second. Motion passed unanimously.

Commissioner Robertson moved to sign the By-Laws for the Boundary Community Hospital Board of Trustees. Commissioner Cossairt second. Motion passed unanimously.

Commissioner Cossairt moved to sign the Department of Environmental Quality Acknowledgement Letter initiating ARPA funds and associated Task Order for the Boundary County Landfill. Commissioner Robertson second. Motion passed unanimously.

Commissioner Robertson moved to sign the Notice to Proceed to S&L Underground for the Boundary County Airport Slope Stabilization Project, AIP 3-16-0004-023-2023. Commissioner Cossairt second. Motion passed unanimously.

Commissioner Cossairt moved to approve meeting minutes for the weeks of June 17 & 18, 2024 and June 24 & 25, 2024. Commissioner Robertson second. Motion passed unanimously.

10:00 a.m., Solid Waste Department Superintendent Richard Jenkins joined the meeting to give the department report. Mr. Jenkins reviewed his department report and he informed Commissioners that so far, 308 tons of metal have been baled and sent out, which equates to approximately $40,000.00.

Chairman Bertling mentioned that he reached out to Mike McGinnis with 3-Mile Auction to talk about the Link Belt that has still not been picked up by the successful bidder. Mr. McGinnis is going to reach out to the bidder again. Commissioners and Mr. Jenkins discussed applying for a permit to a burn slash, which will consist of the trees from the northeast corner of the landfill.

Those present discussed using wood chips as the daily landfill cover. Mr. Jenkins said he’s going to move forward with that and have it listed in the Operation Plan. A professional engineer is needed to put this in place and the county needs to know what the mixture is. The other two options are either turning the wood into hog material and send it out or the county can incorporate the wood into the waste stream, but that counts against the daily weight. Mr. Jenkins said he thinks the county should just put the wood in the hole since the county is already overweight. Mr. Jenkins added that he will contact an engineering firm about putting a plan together, but knows it will cost approximately $10,000.00 to $20,000.00. Chairman Bertling said he would still like to get a quote for wood chips. Another option is putting the wood into the waste stream, if the county is still having discussions about the Compliance Agreement Schedule. Cannon Hills is to provide a quote. Chairman Bertling wondered if the Department of Environmental Quality will allow grinding the wood and stockpiling it.

The meeting with Mr. Jenkins ended at 10:30 a.m.

10:30 a.m., Chief Probation Officer Alisa Walker joined the meeting to give her department report. Ms. Walker showed Commissioners the new polo shirts for her staff to wear when they’re out in the field. Ms. Walker informed Commissioners that training has been completed with the exception of OC/pepper spray training since she is waiting for the availability of the instructor. Ms. Walker informed Commissioners that there will be approximately 30 home visits to be completed.

Ms. Walker briefly updated Commissioners on her department’s policy for firearms and that it is to be signed by Commissioners. This policy has been cleared by County Prosecutor Andrakay Pluid, County Civil Attorney Bill Wilson and Idaho Counties Risk Management Program (ICRMP).

Commissioner Cossairt moved to sign the Boundary County Community Justice Policies and Procedures Firearms Chapter. Commissioner Robertson second. Motion passed unanimously.

Ms. Walker gave Commissioners a copy of the handbook on drug court. Drug court has had a couple of referrals, so the number of participants will increase to five.

The meeting with Ms. Walker ended at 11:00 a.m.

11:00 a.m., Boundary Economic Development Council (EDC) Director David Sims and county resident Sam Fodge joined the meeting.

Mr. Fodge stopped by Commissioners’ Office to inform them that he’s looking at putting in a recycle yard and he would like information as to what the county pays for wood grinding and if the county is looking to get rid of metal, etc. Commissioners said the metal pile is getting bailed right now and it generates revenue for the county. Wood waste does not go into the daily tonnage unless it’s treated, per Chairman Bertling. Commissioners asked Mr. Fodge if he wants wood waste to grind and Mr. Fodge said he’s trying to find out if it’s worth doing. He would need to know where the wood has been taken, such as Cannon Hills. Commissioners said the county was spending $100,000.00 per year to grind the wood and ship it to St. Maries. The county has applied for a permit for an air curtain incinerator so clean wood waste will go into that to be burned and treated wood would go into the waste stream. Chairman Bertling asked Mr. Fodge about starting a cogeneration plant to create electricity. Commissioners asked Mr. Fodge if he has a solution for tires. Mr. Fodge commented about having the right grinder in order to grind tires to be used in road beds. Commissioner Robertson said if a solution for tires was found, Mr. Fodge would have all of the business he wants. Commissioners will look for the details for Mr. Fodge.

Mr. Fodge left the meeting at 11:11 a.m.

Mr. Sims updated Commissioners on local businesses and residential building projects. The Urban Renewal District will provide Boundary County with $35,000.00 for the new Assessor’s Office building.

Mr. Sims spoke of the Connecting Communities Grant pilot program. This program requires bikes and pedestrians to be a major component of a project, which has a 20% local match. If the grant is awarded, the applicant can request the match be lowered to 7.34%. The ED Pro Grant application won’t be evaluated until Mid-July, according to Mr. Sims. Mr. Sims informed Commissioners that Department of Environmental Quality Brownsfield Specialist Steve Gill is still forging ahead on an application for the former Safeway building.

Regarding broadband, Mr. Sims spoke with EL Internet on a TEAMS meeting with the Idaho Department of Commerce. EL Internet is putting radio equipment on Black Mountain and will be able to show that certain areas can now be served.

The Moyie sewer project is going well, according to Mr. Sims. Mr. Sims said Moyie Springs has received plan approval for their water line. They will have to get the water line in and have it pressure and bacterial tested.

The meeting with Mr. Sims ended at 11:21 a.m.

11:30 a.m., Boundary County Sheriff Dave Kramer, City of Bonners Ferry Administrator/Engineer Mike Klaus and City of Bonners Ferry Mayor Rick Alonzo joined the meeting to discuss the City/County Dispatch Agreement.

Sheriff Kramer provided a background and purpose of the agreement for dispatch services between the city and county. Boundary County is hoping to get a plan in place with the city in order to stage some smaller increases in compensation from the city. Originally, the city was covering the cost of one full dispatcher back when there was a total of six dispatchers, according to Sheriff Kramer. There are now nine dispatchers and the city pays $36,590.00 through the contract, but the estimated cost for one dispatcher is $85,410.00 with benefits. The county is just looking at slowly building up the agreement cost in order to cover the cost of one dispatcher. Sheriff Kramer said when the county checked usage of dispatch one to two years ago, the city was using dispatching services more than the county, but the county has more proactive deputies so it is approximately 50/50 now. Funds coming in from citations would cover the cost of a dispatcher. The city receives the funds from the fines they issue, but they also receive the funds from arrests and tickets issued outside of city limits. The county is not looking at a one-year jump to $85,000.00, but rather looking at building an increase to have more of a partnership going forward.

Commissioner Robertson commented on having a considerable jump the first year with smaller increases following. The increases have been around 3% per year, but there have been some years where there were no increases, according to Clerk Poston. If there had been 5% increases over the years, it would be a little over $60,000.00. Commissioner Bertling said it would be nice to lock into a certain percentage. Mr. Klaus said he wants to be careful with the thoughts of the city, but obviously the city values the relationship with the county. Mr. Klaus said the Police Department and City Council have spoken with him and they definitely have varied ideas for dispatch. There are certainly staff at the city that think any amount paid for police dispatch is double taxation. That is one thought from police, as well as other council members. Mr. Klaus clarified that dispatch is not an area he’s an expert in, but there has been talk that there is a fair bit of money that comes in from a 911 grant to support 911 services.

11:40 a.m., Boundary County Undersheriff Rich Stephens joined the meeting.

It was said that we definitely need to talk this through and find the right course of action. Mayor Alonzo said the city is the only other entity that is charged for dispatching services; Boundary Ambulance Service and the fire districts, water districts, etc. are not charged. The city is the only one paying. If more funding is needed, then maybe distribute it more evenly between the entities. Sheriff Kramer said he thinks the 911 funds goes toward related equipment and upgrades. There is a lot more required of dispatchers now and he spoke of getting integrated for redundancy and upgrading equipment. Sheriff Kramer said the fire departments and electric department do not generate that much use. Sheriff Kramer spoke of the amount of work for one dispatcher on shift when there are multiple calls in the city. Commissioner Robertson asked if there’s a way to break it down based on usage? Sheriff Kramer said he does think the system will allow them to go in and separate the calls. Call usage is now about 50/50, whereas a couple of years ago, approximately 70% was the city’s use. Sheriff Kramer said when we had the agreement to cover the cost of one dispatcher and we now have more dispatchers, without asking for more funding, the thought was the city’s contribution could increase and the county would still be covering the majority of costs. Commissioner Robertson said that was the idea long term of helping each other, so this is to get back on par with helping. Sheriff Kramer said it’s important for this contract that the decision is made between the City Council and Commissioners since the deputies and police officers work together, so he feels the decision makers need to decide. Chairman Bertling said the City could get closer to $60,000.00 and then have a 3% annual increase, but that is just his idea. Commissioner Robertson said we would end up falling behind just based on overall costs, employee wages and insurance. Commissioner Robertson said he would say a 5% annual increase would be more on par. Mr. Klaus said he would take this information back to the City Council.

Clerk Poston said if there had been a 5% annual increase all along, the City would be at $60,000.00. Clerk Poston added that there has been an approximate 8% increase for the cost of labor, a Public Employees Retirement System of Idaho (PERSI) increase and medical insurance costs are increasing by 5%, so the 3% annual increase doesn’t keep up. The City’s portion of the agreement was $38,190.00 last year, but the Idaho Public Safety and Security Information System/Idaho Law Enforcement Telecommunication System (ILETS) costs are in addition to that. Sheriff Kramer explained that the ILETS system is for funding criminal and vehicle checks. The Sheriff’s Office pays the full amount for having this resource and there is a break down on each agency’s use.

Sheriff Kramer discussed the responsibility for an inmate’s medical clearance before the Sheriff’s Office accepts a prisoner and how that can be a large expense. Undersheriff Stephens gave the scenario when a highly intoxicated person is being brought to the jail, the person needs medical clearance before being placed in jail and if the City Police brings in a highly intoxicated person, the cost for the medical clearance was a sticker shock to the City. Mr. Klaus commented on the cost for ILETS and he questioned who pays the medical costs, such as is it based on the arresting agency? It would be nice to have this spelled out in a letter. Sheriff Kramer spoke of wanting to check with Boundary Community Hospital about not needing to run as many tests as they do. The Sheriff’s Office just needs to make sure the person is okay to enter the jail.

Sheriff Kramer spoke of just having a 3% annual increase for the dispatch agreement and then the county can collect a certain amount of the City’s fines that are collected. Mayor Alonzo mentioned that those fines are factored into determining the City’s budget. Commissioner Robertson said the difficult part is that the County doesn’t know the City’s financial situation. Chairman Bertling said he’s curious what other counties of similar size do for their dispatching services.

The meeting to discuss the City/County Dispatch Agreement ended at 12:10 p.m.

Sheriff Kramer remained in Commissioners’ Office.

Commissioner Cossairt moved to sign the Memorandum of Agreement between the Idaho State Department of Agriculture and Sheriff’s Office for the boat check station. Commissioner Robertson second. Motion passed unanimously.

Sheriff Kramer left the meeting at 12:11 a.m.

Commissioners recessed for lunch.

1:30 p.m., Commissioners reconvened for the afternoon session with Chairman Tim Bertling, Commissioner Wally Cossairt, Commissioner Ben Robertson, Clerk Glenda Poston, and Deputy Clerk Michelle Rohrwasser.

1:30 p.m., Road and Bridge Department Superintendent Brad Barton and Assistant Adam Ryals joined the meeting to give the department report. Those present reviewed the written department report.

Commissioner Robertson moved to go into executive session pursuant to Idaho Code 74-206(1)c, to acquire an interest in real property which is not owned by a public agency. Commissioner Cossairt second. Commissioners voted as follows: Chairman Bertling “aye”, Commissioner Cossairt “aye” and Commissioner Robertson “aye”. Motion passed unanimously. The executive session ended at 1:40 p.m. No action was taken.

Chairman Bertling asked about TC Energy repaving the county road when they’re done with their project. Mr. Barton said Maas Loop will be closed July 1st through 3rd and Deep Creek Loop will be closed tomorrow with 30-minute delays. Those present continued reviewing the written department report. Phase two of the Riverside Road Improvement Project has a match that includes building up the parking lot, but the Tribe has chosen a different route.

The meeting with Mr. Barton and Mr. Ryals ended at 2:00 p.m.
Matt Philbrook had called the office to cancel his 2:00 p.m. meeting with Commissioners.

2:30 p.m., Burt Wolff and Sandra Wolff met with Commissioners to discuss Mr. Wolff’s hangars at the airport. Also present were: Airport Manager Dave Parker, Airport Board members Jay Wages and Don Jordan, and Kathy Konek.

Mr. Wolff informed Commissioners that his four-bay hangar is now empty. He added that he feels he’s done nothing wrong to be “booted out’ and having to take the hangar down. Mr. Wolff said he had purchased his hangars, paid taxes on them and kept the electrical up to date. These hangars are still insured and Commissioners and everyone wants them gone. Mr. Wolff commented that this is just doing business, but he feels they shouldn’t just take the hangar without compensation. These buildings have been on the tax records and are valued at a little over $12,000.00. Usually prices are twice as high, which means it could be a $25,000.00 building. Mr. Wolff said he’s willing to work with the County and Airport Board to let the four-bay hangar go, but he hasn’t yet set a price. He has complied with everything and the Board wants the hangar gone and to use that space for other purposes. There should be compensation since they want the space for other purposes and he has been meeting all of the demands.

Chairman Bertling said he would have to have the County’s civil attorney review the agreement to see if there is any language about compensation for the hangar and then find out if the County has funding to do this. Mr. Wolff said he’s not a businessman, but the hangars have been a little business for him. Chairman Bertling asked Mr. Wolff if he had a price thought out for the hangar and Mr. Wolff said people have told him he should ask $10,000.00 for it, but he will take less. Mr. Wolff said if he got $5,000.00, it would pay for the work he put into it and he added that he feels he is being fair. Mr. Parker said he hasn’t talked to the County’s civil council about this, but there have been questions about who would move the hangar and he doesn’t know the answer about compensation. Commissioner Robertson said he read that it was up to the owner to remove the hangar. Mr. Wolff informed Commissioners that he has hired an attorney who told him there is no way the County can take the hangar down.

Mr. Wolff informed Commissioners that he would like a new lease for his eight-bay hangar.

The meeting to discuss Mr. Wolff’s hangars ended at 2:41 p.m.

Commissioner Cossairt moved to sign the Property Tax Cancellation Form for tax year 2023 and to cancel late fees in the amount of $6.41 for parcel #RPB00000347810A and late fees in the amount of $13.81 for parcel #RP62N01E120910A totaling $20.22 because the payments were postmarked on time. Commissioner Robertson second. Motion passed unanimously.

3:00 p.m., Commissioners held a Board of Equalization appeal hearing for parcel #RP002700030380A owned by Nate Eddy. Present were: Chairman Tim Bertling, Commissioner Wally Cossairt, Commissioner Ben Robertson, Deputy Clerk Michelle Rohrwasser, Assessor Olivia Drake, Appraisers Melissa Kramer and Janessa Arceneaux, and Appellant Nate Eddy. The hearing was recorded.

The Assessor’s Office presented one exhibit marked “Assessor’s Exhibit #1” consisting of 8 pages and Mr. Eddy presented one exhibited Marked “Appellant’s Exhibit #1” consisting of 10 pages.

Chairman Bertling administered the oath to those giving testimony then asked Mr. Eddy for his statement.
Mr. Eddy said he feels the taxes are high on his house, because he’s been trying to sell it for the last couple of months. The house is listed for sale below what the tax rate is. He’s received hundreds of saves on the Zillow website and has had over 30 visits physically. Mr. Eddy explained his property as having a unique nature and he said the house is a bit odd as it’s somewhat of an odd layout with one side of the house being a stairwell. People who have come to look at this house did not like the stairs and the amount of acreage is not as usable since it is sitting near railroad tracks. Mr. Eddy referred to his exhibit listing comparables (comps). Mr. Eddy added that he has been aggressive in reducing the asking price to $420,000.00 and there have been no offers. One comp had sold for $404,000.00, but the tax assessment was $296,920. Another comp on Fitzpatrick Road has an assessment of $330,610.00 and there is another comp on Crossport Road that is a similar story, but it has more usable land and the assessment for that property is $170,290.00 for year 2023. Mr. Eddy mentioned that he has looked at survey maps, but he hasn’t surveyed his property himself. It looks like the road is included in the land value, but that is incorrect. Mr. Eddy said his property sits 65 feet above the train tracks, then it becomes very steep so it’s not the most usable property. It does have a neat view and he, himself, can get over the train. Mr. Eddy referred to another comp that is located across the river and it has a smaller amount of usable land, but it is brand new and it sold for $400,000.00, with an assessment of $294,000.00, and next door to that house, also across the river, is a much nicer home on only one acre and it’s a brand-new house assessed for $295,000.00.

Mr. Eddy said his house is on the market for under value and he has not received any offers. Most values are under the listing price. Mr. Eddy said he’s not asking for special treatment, but he thinks it would take a much lower value overall to be more in line. His house has a good view, but it needs a lot of work and the property is weird. Mr. Eddy said he would like an assessment that is more in line. He mentioned he’s lived at this property for three years.

Ms. Kramer reviewed her exhibit into the record as follows: Parcel RP00270003038A is an improved property on 5.75 acres located on 1115 Crossport Road in Bonners Ferry, Idaho. The current assessed value for January 1, 2024 is $427,490.00, which is broken down as follows: $172,350.00 for land and amenities, $16,510.00 for outbuildings, and $238,630.00 for the residential building, for a total of $427,490.00. This parcel has a negative 25% adjustment on the land because of the railroad tracks. It is the only parcel in this area with that adjustment. The value of this parcel was $443,400.00 in year 2023, so it decreased $15,910.00 for year 2024. This property was listed on the market in April for $454,999.00. The price has been lowered twice since it’s been on the market. The first time it was lowered to $440,000.00 in May and then again in June it was lowered to $419,900.00. The value of $365,000.00 that Mr. Eddy is asking for is $54,900.00 less than he currently has it listed for. Ms. Kramer asked the Board of Equalization to sustain the Assessor’s Office values.

Mr. Eddy informed Commissioners that he has logged the property and he wasn’t sure what the view was worth, but it was estimated that he would need to lower his initial asking price.

Assessor Drake spoke of Mr. Eddy using the values listed on the Zillow website as assessed values, since he didn’t have comps, but she didn’t know if Zillow’s estimates were actual assessed values. Assessor Drake explained that her office has to assess parcels as of January 1st, so values are based on that date, but values will fluctuate.

It was said the property doesn’t go down to the Kootenai River. Mr. Eddy requested a reduction in his assessed value to $365,000.00, and he explained using the Zillow website for information.

Commissioner Robertson said the problem lies in needing comps with accurate values, not that he’s saying Zillow is wrong, but he’s also not saying it’s right. Assessor Drake said she would just need to look up that information in her office’s system. Mr. Eddy said if you talk to property owners, they will feel their taxes are under what the value of the house is. Commissioner Robertson reiterated that he’s not saying Mr. Eddy is wrong, but he has to provide evidence that his assessment is incorrect. Mr. Eddy said he’s been trying to sell his house for less than the assessed value. Chairman Bertling commented that Mr. Eddy has five acres that are not all usable. Mr. Eddy agreed.

Assessor Drake asked if this property has a water view and if Mr. Eddy’s comps are also water view. Mr. Eddy said no, a couple of his neighbors’ houses have a water view, but they’re not for sale. Commissioner Robertson said if the house sold for $400,000.00, the next year would it be assessed at the sold price? Assessor Drake said the information gets put into the data base and it depends on how much the median increases or decreases. Mr. Eddy’s assessment has a negative 25% adjustment and the house is rated as “fair”. Ms. Kramer said there is no adjustment for the river view. Mr. Eddy said the property is for sale for less than that amount.

Commissioner Cossairt said the assessment is six months’ old and he doesn’t think it would be far off. Commissioner Cossairt added that this is the problem, in that you can make changes mid-year and our Assessor would be doing everything twice in one year. Mr. Eddy said the market is going down, but he doesn’t think it had gone down when he put his house on the market. Chairman Bertling said personally, he has a hard time with prices for all of the houses, and he listed home prices in comparison to wages. Commissioner Robertson said we need to equalize appraised values and without comps, we can’t do that. There isn’t an accurate figure to run against.

Commissioner Robertson moved to sustain the Assessor’s Office value for parcel #RP002700030380A. Commissioner Cossairt second. Motion passed unanimously.

The Board of Equalization Appeal Hearing regarding parcel RP002700030380A for Nate Eddy ended at 3:30 p.m.

3:30 p.m., Assessor Drake met with Commissioners to review Board of Equalization adjustments to the 2024 assessment roll. Present were: Chairman Tim Bertling, Commissioner Wally Cossairt, Deputy Clerk Michelle Rohrwasser and Assessor Olivia Drake. The discussion was recorded.

Assessor Drake requested adjustments be made under Idaho Code Title 63, Chapter 5. For Parcel RP62N02E144500A, the house was destroyed by fire on April 26th. It is now demolished and cleared to the slab and the new net taxable value is $163,607.00. Parcel RPB0420001007CA, the land value was reduced for contiguous/same owner/same use to the adjoining parcel and the new assessed value for 2024 is $149,980.00. RPB0420001008DA, the land value was reduced for contiguous/same owner/same use to the adjoining parcel and the new assessed value for 2024 is $62,230.00. RP62N01E013761A, 0.2 acres were moved from rural land to agriculture and the new assessed value for 2024 is $76,570.00. RP62N03E044501A, depreciation was added to outbuildings and a small cabin was changed to a shed and the new assessed value for 2024 is $1,257,260.00. RP65N02E340143A, depreciation was added to outbuildings and the new assessed value for 2024 is $236,540.00. RP62N01E358500A, a mobile home, pole building, and two lean-tos to be changed to under 100% complete and the new assessed value for 2024 is $437,490.00. RP61N01W240750A, the homesite/first acre value was removed from land to be forestland for year 2025 and the new assessed value for 2024 is $156,000.00. RP61N01W241804A, value was reduced on a log home for construction quality and the new assessed value is $549,330.00. RPB0440002005BA, value for a shed was removed since it was destroyed by snow and the new assessed value for 2024 is $417,260.00. RP65N01W186300A, Category 12 was removed for 55.58 acres and replaced with Categories 3 and 5 due to an agriculture exemption and the new assessed value for 2024 is $62,220.00. RP65N02W139450A, Category 12 was removed for 22.46 acres and replaced with Categories 3 and 5 due to an agriculture exemption and the new assessed value for 2024 is $33,900.00.

Assessor Drake informed Commissioners that the people who purchased county tax deeded parcels this year did not receive assessment notices as the properties were exempt until they were purchased at the auction. Board of Equalization notification per IC 63-506 may apply unless prior notice of proposed assessed value at tax deed sale is applicable: RP65N01W117811A consisting of 35.53 acres at a Category 12 land value of $370,480.00. RP65N01W140610A consisting of 20.00 acres at a Category 12 land value of $275,200.00. RP61N01W240600A consisting of 10.00 acres at a Category 12 land value of $210,400.00. RP61N01W241050A consisting of 10.00 acres at a Category 12 land value of $218,900.00. RP61N01W240157A consisting of 24.39 acres at a Category 12 land value of $302,400.00. RP65N02E295570A consisting of 0.605 acres at a Category land value of $8,470.00.

Homeowner’s Exemption applications that were received after the appeal deadline, but before the close of the Board of Equalization are to be added to the following parcels: RPB0160001002DA, RP61N01W241804A, RPM00000151962A, RPB0120015003AA, MHB0120015003AA, RP61N01E013400A (50%), and RP62N03E044501A.

Commissioner Robertson moved to approve the above-mentioned adjustments to the 2024 property assessment roll. Commissioner Cossairt second. Motion passed unanimously.

The meeting with Assessor Drake ended at 3:47 p.m.

There being no further business, the meetings recessed until tomorrow at 1:30 p.m.

***Tuesday, July 2, 2024, at 1:30 p.m., Commissioners met in regular session with Chairman Tim Bertling, Commissioner Wally Cossairt, Commissioner Ben Robertson, Clerk Glenda Poston, and Deputy Clerk Michelle Rohrwasser.

1:30 p.m., Commissioners held a public hearing to consider Road and Bridge Variance Application #2-2024 for Applicant Marty Camburn. This is request for a variance to Boundary County Road Standards Ordinance 2020-2 as it pertains to an approach location. The hearing was recorded.

Present were: Chairman Tim Bertling, Commissioner Wally Cossairt, Commissioner Ben Robertson, Deputy Clerk Michelle Rohrwasser, Road and Bridge Department Assistant Adam Ryals, Jim Dyck, and Joyce Blackmore. The hearing was recorded. Chairman Bertling reviewed the hearing procedures and there were no questions of the process. Commissioners cited no conflict of interest.

Mr. Ryals provided a staff report. The approach is for the property at 1122 Homestead Loop. An aerial photo was referred to showing the vicinity of the site with a strip of neighbor Jim Dyck’s property to the north. Homestead Loop is fairly flat, according to Mr. Ryals. Mr. Camburn plans on putting an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) in that location, but we don’t know where. The parcel is 2.5-acres. There is currently no application on file with Planning and Zoning for an ADU. The zone is Rural Residential/Commercial- Light Industrial and there are no special overlays. A traffic count has not yet been done. Road and Bridge would suggest Mr. Camburn use the existing driveway due to his neighbor to the north also having an application for a variance in which there would be four approaches within a 500-yard span. Exhibit 2 shows the existing approach. You can see tracks showing the frontage road is already being used. The approach is 220 feet from a driveway to the proposed approach. Mr. Ryals informed Commissioners of the distance needed for a major collector and he said the proposed approach is 293 feet from Mr. Dyck’s driveway to the north, so it also doesn’t meet standards. The sight distance is good, which is shown in Exhibit 1, according to Mr. Ryals. The proposed approach does meet the 330 feet for sight distance, but it doesn’t meet the distance between approaches, which falls under Section 3.3.B of the Road Standards.

Staff comments were received from Planning and Zoning, the Assessor and Road and Bridge. There is already an established frontage road that could be used in this instance for the ADU. Other concerns that Road and Bridge has pertain to traffic volumes around the county increasing and with more access points there is more danger. The Road Standards are to keep people safe, according to Mr. Ryals. The additional variance request to the north is for Jim Dyck.

The applicant, Mr. Camburn was not present to ask about sharing an approach with Mr. Dyck.

Commissioners asked for public comments in favor of the application. No one spoke. Mr. Dyck, 534 Homestead Loop, spoke uncommitted and said he owns the 40 acres next to Mr. Camburn and he has also applied for a variance. Mr. Dyck added that he’s not against Mr. Camburn having an easement, if he can have an easement as well. Mr. Dyck mentioned that he wondered about sharing an approach with Mr. Camburn, but Mr. Camburn might not want to do that. Mr. Dyck reiterated that he’s not against this application, if he can also have an approach, and the location he would like his approach to be is located right next to Mr. Camburn’s approach, so it would just be a wide approach between the two properties. It was said that Mr. Dyck’s access is just for field access. Chairman Bertling said he knows of roads that consist of two approaches that are side by side. Mr. Dyck said he has a log house, but he would have to go through the yard to access it.

Also speaking uncommitted was Joyce Blackmore. Ms. Blackmore said she will be in favor of Mr. Camburn’s approach if she can also have one to her field at 917 Homestead Loop. Ms. Blackmore informed Commissioners that as far as traffic, there is a lot of traffic that drives down there and she mentioned there is one neighbor who drives fast. Ms. Blackmore said she has no opposition to Mr. Camburn’s application.

Mr. Ryals said Road and Bridge did speak with Mr. Camburn about sharing one access, which is a better idea from Road and Bridge’s standpoint, but Mr. Camburn wanted his own access.

There being no more public comments, the hearing was closed to additional testimony.

Chairman Bertling said he likes the idea of a shared approach better. Commissioner Robertson said if Mr. Camburn was here, Commissioners could ask him why he couldn’t use the current driveway. Commissioner Cossairt said he’s a believer that everyone should have their own driveway, but he can see why another driveway would be good for the ADU. Someone should talk with Mr. Camburn about sharing a driveway, according to Commissioners Cossairt. Chairman Bertling said to either share the access or deny the application, is his thought and Commissioner Cossairt agreed. Commissioner Robertson questioned tabling the hearing in order to ask Mr. Camburn to come to the next hearing in order to answer questions about sharing an approach.

Commissioner Cossairt moved to table the public hearing for Variance Application 2-2024 to Monday, July 8, 2024, at 2:00 p.m.

The public hearing for Variance Application 2-2024 ended at 1:48 p.m.

Commissioners tended to administrative duties.

Commissioner Cossairt moved to deny indigent application 2024-5. Commissioner Robertson second. Motion passed unanimously.

2:30 p.m., Commissioners held a Board of Equalization appeal hearing for Mat and Valerie Surpernant for parcels RPM05450000010A, RPM05450000020A, RPM05450000030A, RPM05450000040A, and RPM05450000050A.

Present were: Chairman Tim Bertling, Commissioner Wally Cossairt, Commissioner Ben Robertson, Deputy Clerk Michelle Rohrwasser, Assessor Olivia Drake, Appraiser Janessa Arceneaux, and Appellants Mat and Valerie Surprenant. The hearing was recorded.

The Assessor presented two exhibits marked as “Assessor’s Exhibit #1” (consisting of 6 pages) and “Assessor’s Exhibit #2” (consisting of 3 pages). The Appellants presented one exhibit marked as “Appellant’s Exhibit #1” (consisting of 4 pages).

Chairman Bertling administered the oath to those giving testimony.

Ms. Surprenant thanked Commissioners for their time. Ms. Surprenant explained they had received their assessments and this was a four-acre parcel that was split into smaller lots, so this is the first time the parcel is being assessed as four individual lots and they felt the assessments were fairly high for these specific lots. When they spoke with the Assessor, they got the impression that small parcels are treated the same, but these parcels are not as nice as other parcels. Ms. Surprenant referred to a map she provided in her exhibit showing the location of parcels. Ms. Surprenant said these lots are located right in the middle of a trailer park and it’s not as nice of an area, but it will be nice to build lower cost starter homes. Ms. Surprenant said when looking at land parcels, she and her husband feel there is a big difference in parcels, such as what is the view, is it in a nice area, what is surrounding the parcel, does it have a road and utilities? These parcels have everything going against them as they’re right in the middle of the trailer court, so they have a view of singlewide trailers all around them. The views not being as nice is something Ms. Surprenant said she feels would make a difference in value when going to buy a parcel or home. Another issue is water, according to Ms. Surprenant. In Moyie Springs, this street no longer has water service. The pipes are not big enough for any more hookups and they cannot buy memberships for these lots. City of Moyie Springs Clerk Donna Wilson-Funkhouser did write a letter confirming this information on page four of their exhibit. Ms. Surprenant said to get water will be a big project since upgrading the pipes totals approximately $100,000.00. When looking at buying land or a lot and if it does or doesn’t have water, affects the value. Ms. Surprenant said she and her husband will probably have to pay $50,000.00 or $60,000.00, plus a membership, so it will end up costing $15,000.00 to $20,000.00 per lot to get water service. The City of Moyie Springs will contribute somewhat. When looking at comparables (comps), these lots will cost another $20,000.00 just to run water to them. Ms. Surprenant said when looking at price, there have been a couple recent sales, Jeff Mellinger has a lot that is very comparable pertaining to location in her eyes, but Mr. Mellinger’s lot is a bit bigger at 1.2 acres and his lot already had a water membership. Mr. Mellinger purchased that lot for $80,000.00. Mr. Surprenant said they look at real estate every day and a good deal is three offers in a 24-hour period. Jim Ball had six lots nearby on Elk Street, Lots 1 through 6, that are .75 acres and he sold them for $50,000.00. Those lots are in a nicer area that has trees and nice homes around them. Those lots all had all of the utilities and a road to them. Ms. Surprenant said her lots don’t have a road. Ms. Surprenant referenced comps being $50,000.00 to $80,000.00 in her mind, but those comps also have water and are in a nicer area. Mr. Surprenant said he’s been asked to put in an eight-inch water line and a hydrant as a lot of this has to do with fire flow. Ms. Surprenant said Assessor Drake explained that the only thing the county has to go by are sales slips that sellers turn into the county when they’ve sold property, but if those slips aren’t turned in, Assessor Drake said she can’t use the other values. The Assessor doesn’t have the tools needed as there should be more than sales slips to reference. Ms. Surprenant discussed working with her realtor, who has a program that can determine what a sale price should be, but the Assessor’s Office doesn’t have that type of program. It seems like there should be more than just the sales slips to go by.

Ms. Navarro read her statement, Exhibit #1, into the record. Parcels RPM05450000010A, RPM05450000020A, RPM05450000030A, and RPM05450000040A are unimproved properties on .75 acres in Moyie Springs. Parcel RPM05450000050A is an unimproved property on 1.22 acres in Moyie Springs. The current assessed value for parcels ending 10-40A is $94,300.00, which is broken down as follows: $92,630.00 for the first 25,000 square feet and $1,670.00 for the excess of 0.1761 acre. The current assessed value for the parcel ending 50A is $98,700.00 and is broken down as $92,630.00 for the first 25,000 square feet and $6,140.00 for the excess of 0.6461 acre. The City of Moyie Springs received a negative 5% adjustment. None of the properties are being valued with water. Ms. Navarro added that value for water is only $5,000.00 through the city. The current values on all listed parcels are in line with current market value according to received sales verifications. Ms. Surprenant had been informed of how the values are calculated. Ms. Navarro said Idaho is a non-disclosure state, so people are not required to disclose what they bought or sold their properties for. Attached in this exhibit are four current comps. One comp is a property of the same size and value sold by the Surprenants in July of 2023, for $120,000.00. Ms. Navarro asked that Commissioners sustain the Assessor’s Office values.

Ms. Navarro said the first comp on Camelot is one of Jim Ball’s properties and she referred to a map provided showing the comps. The comps are highlighted and Mr. Ball’s property is located off of North Division. The other two comps are located just across Roosevelt Street, they are the exact same size and they are valued with no amenities at $94,300.00. The lot that sold for $120,000.00 is just across from the Moyie Store and it’s the same .75-acre size and it also had no amenities and was valued at $94,300.00. This parcel sold for $120,000.00 in 2023. Ms. Surprenant said when Ms. Navarro said the parcels are valued without water, the parcels she mentioned all have water lines adjacent to their lots. Ms. Navarro said, but they don’t have water. Ms. Surprenant said the difference is that her parcels don’t even have the ability to hook on to water. It’s not just a check for $5,000.00, but a check for $20,000.00, because they have to upgrade the line. Ms. Navarro said when the Assessor’s Office does appraisals, they cannot figure in what it is going to cost the property owner to do their own upgrades. The Assessor’s information is based off of sales, but sales verifications are not required in the State of Idaho. Whatever Mr. Mellinger and Mr. Ball said are just words as they didn’t actually turn in a sales verification to state that is what they bought or sold anything for and the Assessor’s Office cannot make them turn those in. Ms. Navarro added that it’s not about the Assessor’s Office having the system, it’s just that the state doesn’t require it. Mr. Surprenant asked how the Assessor’s Office can value the property accurately? Ms. Navarro said they can do it accurately with the information they are given.

Assessor Drake referred to Assessor’s Exhibit #2 and said the five parcels in question were valued at the base city land rate for Moyie Springs. Base values are derived from 2023 sales data and applied as of January 1, 2024. All parcels within the City have the same base rate applied, according to parcel size, and plus or minus adjustments are then applied as necessary. A plus adjustment would be applied for factors, such as a view or water access. A negative adjustment would be applied for factors which reduce the usability of the land or topography. A value for amenities is added to the base rate if they’re present. Assessor Drake said as noted by appraiser Arceneaux, there had been no plus or minus adjustments applied to these parcels besides a city-wide -5% adjustment. There were no added amenity values.

Assessor Drake added that she contacted the City of Moyie Springs and did confirm the City’s policy is that the developer is to front the cost of infrastructure improvements to their development. The City also confirmed that this policy would be applied to any similar development or subdivision requesting new City water services. Until today, the Assessor’s Office had not received any data to suggest that the assessed values were erroneous or otherwise unfairly applied when compared to other vacant land parcels within the City.

Assessor Drake said the question is, is the county’s base rate that is based on sales data that her office receives equal to the base rate for these properties or is it better than these properties? Commissioner Robertson questioned if the numbers have changed since Assessor Drake has better information? Assessor Drake said if you look at the Mellinger property that was referred to, it would be helpful if the Assessor’s Office would’ve had the sales verification. Without the sales verification being turned in, the Assessor’s Office can use these numbers to get to the more accurate valuation, but when her office is tested by the State, we’re going to test low if only the sales verifications that have been turned in are being used. If the county fails the ratio study, everyone in the city will have a value increase. With regard to the letter from Mr. Ball, Assessor Drake said she’s not sure if it was an arm’s length transaction. She’s not sure if Mr. Ball’s property was listed or traded off to friends. Mr. Surprenant said he doesn’t think Mr. Ball went through a realtor, but it was six times. Mr. Surprenant added that he understands that good deals comes up, but do you get six good deals? Assessor Drake said if it’s not an arm’s length transaction, it’s not a valid market value; if you have five good friends who are interested in developing. Ms. Surprenant said it sounded like Mr. Ball was working with investors.

Commissioner Robertson commented that Assessor Drake mentioned there being view lot increases, but she didn’t say anything about a negative view rating. Assessor Drake said with vacant land parcels, for the county’s three appraisers to get through their reval every year, they have to assess 10 vacant land parcels per eight-hour day. That’s spending less than an hour on each parcel. Trying to get the City of Moyie Springs to tell her office how many of these lots have access to water, would be great, but you just can’t do that. Commissioner Robertson asked what the rate is for a negative view? Assessor Drake said there isn’t a set rate and she doesn’t know if she’s ever used a negative view adjustment.

Commissioner Robertson asked about a corner lot. Ms. Navarro said that is the Camelot property and it’s located almost in front of these lots. This lot does have water so it shows the only difference is the value for amenities and other than that, it basically has the same base rate and the same fairly close location to the Suprenants’ properties. Ms. Surprenant asked if that was the appraised value or the amount it was sold for? Ms. Navarro said it is the appraised value. The only parcel that was sold was the one located on Pacific Place. It’s the same size with no amenities. The same sized lots are basically being appraised the same. Ms. Surprenant said it’s hard, because they’re similar properties, but they’re in different areas, so in her mind they’re not the same value, but she can see how the Assessor’s Office is trying to assess similar value.

Assessor Drake said one problem they had is that there were literally no City of Moyie Springs parcels in the ratio study that were above a 60% assessed value. The county was 45% to 60% lower in assessed value compared to the actual sales value and that is why values increased, primarily on city land this year. Commissioner Robertson asked about the property on Camelot and that it had water available. Ms. Navarro said this property has amenities and it is valued for that. Mr. Surprenant said that property has a mobile home on it. Ms. Navarro explained that the home is a separate thing and she is referring to just the comparable for the land as the land size is the same. The only difference is showing what it would be with the amenities. Mr. Surprenant mentioned that Mr. Mellinger’s parcel is assessed for the same amount was well, but when he thought Mr. Mellinger told him it had appraised for $75,000.00.

Mr. Surprenant said he understands what the Assessor is saying, but if the assessed value is not accurate, the other lot the Assessor is comparing to is not accurate either. It’s the same across the board as far as being equal, but he doesn’t think any of the assessed values on those three parcels are accurate, in his opinion. Ms. Navarro explained that the Assessor’s Office has certain guidelines they have to follow with the state. Mr. Surprenant said he’s just saying that if someone had an option to buy a lot in a trailer court or a lot in Pacific Place, they would not buy a lot in a trailer court. He just thinks it’s logical and maybe the Assessor’s Office can’t do anything about it. Chairman Bertling said he would disagree with that in some respect and he explained that if someone’s going to build a house on those lots, they would be looking at Clifty Mountain, not face the trailer court. Mr. Surprenant said there are trailer courts on three sides and only one lot would be looking at Clifty and the other four would be looking at an apartment building.

Assessor Drake said her job is to put a value on it. She understands one lot might not sell as much as another one, but what is the value difference? To them everything is based on cost, so what is the cost of a fence? The Assessor’s Office did do a workup of the Pacific Place lot, which sold for $120,000.00. It was said it’s the same size lot in a better location. Assessor Drake said if it had water, she was told a 500-foot water main would cost $100.00 per foot installed, which is $50,000.00, plus the hydrant for $7,500.00, so approximately $57,000.00, plus 10% for engineering fees gets that up to $60,000.00, which is $12,650.00 per lot. Assessor Drake said if you take the sale price of $120,000.00 for the lot on Pacific Place and subtract $12,650.00 per lot, it’s at $107,000.00. Assessor Drake added that if you do a 10% downgrade for the view due to the vicinity, that is $10,000.00 more per lot, so you end up with $96,000.00 in value. Mr. Surprenant said the lot on Pacific Place also came with a water hook-on and power installed. Ms. Navarro explained that the time the assessment was done on the lot, they didn’t have that, until after when the sales verifications come in, because they’re all dated. So, that lot was sold in July 2023, and the assessment this year was January 1, 2024. They didn’t have the information when the lot was assessed, so it wasn’t valued with power or water. Mr. Surprenant said the Assessor’s Office is trying to use apples to apples comparison, but it’s not. Mr. Surprenant asked if the mention of $100.00 per foot installed also includes the cost of pipe. Assessor Drake said yes, that is the total and this information is from the City of Bonners Ferry engineer.

Commissioners deliberated the information. Chairman Bertling said the water issue is a concern. As far as lot price, there are other lots that have gone higher as well as less, and he sees these lots right in the middle. Commissioner Robertson explained that the county is the Board of Equalization to make it equal. If everyone is appraised too high, the taxes are still the same. Comparable lots, if they’re all the same, taxes stay the same. Commissioner Robertson added that he would concede and say that he would rather have the other lots versus the Surprenants’ lots. Mr. Surprenant said he wouldn’t be here if he planned on selling the lot at the end of the year like Mr. Mellinger is. Mr. Surprenant said everyone is paying the same amount, but is it that people just don’t know or they just don’t want to take the time to come in before the Board of Equalization? He added that it is a process and takes time to get information, so if they didn’t have five lots, he wouldn’t even be in here, because it’s not worth the time. Mr. Surprenant said the other part is, is that it would bother him if he didn’t come here, no matter what the county says. This is flawed whether the county can do anything about it or not. There needs to be some way of fixing it. The realtors can figure it out. Assessor Drake said there is funding in her budget request for the Multiple Listing Service (MLS). Commissioner Robertson said if this is a less desirable location? Assessor Drake asked if it’s less for sale price or current assessed value? Commissioner Robertson said they should go hand in hand. Assessor Drake said the county still hasn’t caught up to the sales price with the base rate. Assessor Drake said that was her office’s main hesitation in addressing these parcels, is because they’re not addressing everyone in the same boat. Mr. Surprenant said he understands that, but everyone has the chance to come in and appeal the value. Ms. Surprenant said maybe not every parcel given this base rate is over-priced. Mr. Surprenant said their realtor won’t list their lots for what they’re assessed at, so to him it says they’re not worth it, even if it had water. Assessor Drake spoke of the lots to be served by the City of Moyie Springs water. Assessor Drake said at the time, her office only had to go off of the plat, which said the lots would be serviced by the City of Moyie Springs water. Assessor Drake said it’s really hard to time the timing of the plat right before you want to sell. The best thing as far as valuation would be to leave it unplatted until the person is ready for full development and sale. Mr. Surprenant said that is a good idea going forward, because last year the valuation was a lot better.

Commissioner Cossairt said he would be willing to lower the assessments for these lots to approximately $80,000.00 due to the water issue and the last lot to about $85,000.00. That should provide for funds to have a line and hydrant installed. That is a value reduction of about 15%, per Assessor Drake.

Commissioner Cossairt moved to reduce values by 15% on parcels #RPM05450000010A, RPM05450000020A, RPM05450000030A, RPM05450000040A, and RPM05450000050A. The motion died due to lack of a second.

Commissioner Robertson explained a potential problem with doing this is for the properties having the same water issues and calculating them in a negative view, we’re not equalizing anything, just lowering value, so we’re not making a fair assessment for everybody. Assessor Drake said a much more typical adjustment for similar vacant land without utilities would be a negative 10% on the first 25,000 square feet. Commissioner Robertson said if that’s good then do it, but it’s not equalizing anything, just lowering someone’s value. You can say it’s an unfair assessment and we’re giving it a 10% reduction, such as other places, and then you have a fair taxation assessment. By making a 15% reduction, it’s more than other people’s reduction for a piece of property with no utilities. Assessor Drake said the 10% is for land with utility issues. Chairman Bertling said a 15% reduction is setting a precedent that would bite Commissioners. Commissioner Robertson said you can do a 10% reduction as well as a view reduction of 5% around a trailer court, it would be a different thing, but then you’d have to do that for everyone around there. Assessor Drake said it’s hard to work with the City to get information on parcels. Mr. Surprenant questioned if it has to be fair and equal across the board any time someone has an issue? Chairman Bertling said we should really think about that in this position. Mr. Surprenant said if those landowners were really concerned, wouldn’t they be here before the Board of Equalization? Mr. Surprenant added that he’s not saying to gouge someone if they don’t know or don’t come before the Board of Equalization, but on the flip side, you feel the value should be here, but you’re willing to raise it because it’s not fair and equal to other people who don’t even want to take the time to come in. So, he’s going to pay more taxes, because nobody else wants to come in. Mr. Surprenant said he’s not ungrateful and appreciates anything Commissioners can do, but it’s just hard. Ms. Surprenant said they’re trying to figure out how to make it fair going forward. Maybe next year there is something that can be done and help equalize lots like this. Commissioner Robertson said that is the purpose of the Board of Equalization.

Assessor Drake said it’s hard to envision getting away from $120,000.00 all of the way down and making adjustments there. Chairman Bertling said he could go with a 10% reduction for the lots having no water. Commissioner Robertson asked about a reduction for the lots being around a trailer court? If the county did a 5% reduction for proximity to the trailer court for the Surprenants, the county would have to do that for all properties, or would that come into play next year? The base rate is a low rate, per Assessor Drake. Chairman Bertling said he can see negative view could open up a can of worms.

Commissioner Robertson moved to assign a 10% reduction on the first 25,000 square feet for parcels #RPM05450000010A, RPM05450000020A, RPM05450000030A, RPM05450000040A, and RPM05450000050A. Commissioner Cossairt second. Motion passed unanimously.

The Board of Equalization appeal hearing for parcels #RPM05450000010A, RPM05450000020A, RPM05450000030A, RPM05450000040A, and RPM05450000050A owned by Mat and Valerie Surprenant ended at 3:12 p.m.

There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 3:12 p.m.

_______________________________________
TIM BERTLING, Chairman

ATTEST:

____________________________________
GLENDA POSTON, Clerk
By: Michelle Rohrwasser, Deputy Clerk