***Monday, July 3, 2023, 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.

Sheriff Dave Kramer joined the meeting.

9:00 a.m., Assessor Olivia Drake joined the meeting at Commissioners’ request. Commissioners asked Assessor Drake about her request to increase title administration fees. Assessor Drake said the Auto License Office does not have as many registrations due to the state pushing online registration. Assessor Drake clarified that the proposed increase is just for title work, because currently either the auto dealer submits the title documents or people have to come to the Department of Motor Vehicle Office since there is no online service for title exchanges. It takes a lot longer to process a title than a registration and the office is not recouping the current $3.00 fee. The counties were given permission to set their own title fees and while some counties’ fees are close in amount, other counties are charging anywhere from $9.00 up to $18.75. Boundary County’s Department of Motor Vehicles is proposing a $5.00 increase at this time. Assessor Drake said after the initial start of the online process, administrative fees dropped 60% and she explained having estimated the time it takes to process title work. Approximately four titles can be processed per hour at 15 minutes each per hour so she based the process on wages and averaged the cost out. The proposed total amount of $8.00 for a title administration fee includes the existing fee of $3.00 the county already receives. Assessor Drake said the verbiage is for $5.00 because the resolution is not to reference the current existing fee.

Commissioner Robertson moved to schedule a public hearing to consider a proposed vehicle title administration fee increase in the amount of $5.00 for the Department of Motor Vehicles title administration fee. Commissioner Cossairt second. Motion passed unanimously.

Ms. Drake left the meeting at 9:11 a.m.

Commissioner Robertson moved to hold a public hearing to consider Planning and Zoning application fee increases. Commissioner Cossairt second. Motion passed unanimously.

Commissioner Robertson moved to hold a public hearing to consider a room and board fee increase for the Boundary Community Restorium. Commissioner Cossairt second. Motion passed unanimously.

Commissioner Robertson moved to hold a public hearing to consider allowing gas motors on Robinson Lake. Commissioner Cossairt second. Motion passed unanimously.

Commissioners and Clerk Poston briefly discussed Restorium room and board fees.

Commissioner Robertson moved to sign the plat map for BV’s Sand Lots. Commissioner Cossairt second. Motion passed unanimously.

Commissioner Cossairt moved to sign the amended plat map of Pine Top Subdivision. Commissioner Robertson second. Motion passed unanimously.

9:32 a.m., County Civil Attorney Tevis Hull contacted Commissioners via telephone to update Commissioners on various matters he’s working on.

Attorney Hull briefly updated Commissioners on having participated in a conference call with the Kootenai Tribe’s Attorney Billy Barquin and Road and Bridge Department Co-Superintendent Renee Nelson pertaining to roads associated with the Kootenai Tribe’s Sturgeon Station. Attorney Hull explained that the engineer’s map shows Sturgeon Loop in red, then where Sturgeon Loop goes into the cul-du-sac on Great Northern Road is shown in green, and where Sturgeon Loop goes to Highway 95 is shown in blue. Attorney Hull said he hasn’t been a part of the planning process so he wanted to discuss costs since he doesn’t know who is paying for what is being done. Attorney Hull said the Kootenai Tribe is paying for the road shown in red in these plans. The road shown in green and the cul-du-sac is ultimately to be county responsibility as Road and Bridge wants this road engineered and tied to the system. The road shown in blue at the section from where Great Northern Road ties into Sturgeon Loop and goes to Highway 95 is the route in question. It shows a right in/right out. If someone is going north, they’re turning right onto Great Northern Road and if someone is coming out of Great Northern Road or Sunrise Road, then they’re turning right onto the highway. Attorney Hull informed Commissioners that Attorney Barquin mentioned to him that was the county’s responsibility. Attorney Hull said he understood that the state requires the county to do a right in / right out at the highway if the Tribe was getting the light north of that to go into the Sturgeon Station. That portion of intersection should be Tribal responsibility, according to Attorney Hull. If the Tribe receives the benefit of the light and the county has to alter that entrance/exit to the highway, that should be the Tribe’s responsibility. Attorney Barquin was going to discuss it with the Tribe so that section is up in the air. Attorney Hull mentioned that he would be speaking with Ms. Nelson this week. Chairman Bertling said he thought the entire loop was the Tribe’s responsibility. Attorney Hull said he thought so with the exception of the spur going into the cul-du-sac, but the Tribe said they hadn’t made that commitment.

With regard to the 129,000-pound trucks and the proposed highway design of Great Northern Road as it approaches the highway, the road does not need to be built up to 129,000-pound truck standards, because signage will be placed that no 129,000-pound trucks will be allowed on that portion of road. Trucks will go on to the Sturgeon Station and loop toward Great Northern Road and there will be an approach on one end of Great Northern Road that will allow trucks to go into the Tribal property to refill. Attorney Hull said that didn’t seem to be an issue for Ms. Nelson. It would be more convenient for 129,000-pound trucks to come in to the Sturgeon Station where the light is. Chairman Bertling said the road should be up to 129,000-pound standards. Attorney Hull said the Sturgeon Station will be built to those standards.

Attorney Hull asked Commissioner Robertson for contact information for the local supervisor with Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad. Attorney Hull commented that he’s working on the Riverside Road Improvement Project relating to the Davidson’s offer. Commissioners should soon receive an Assignment of Hangar Lease.

The call to Attorney Hull ended at 9:50 a.m.

Sheriff Kramer expressed wanting Commissioners to approve the memorandum of understanding with the Boundary County School District pertaining to the school resource officer position (SRO). The School District has committed to two years of funding in the amount of $35,000.00. Sheriff Kramer said he does have someone who can fill this position. The funding is through the School District, National Opioid Settlement fund and some funds will come from the Sheriff’s budget. Clerk Poston asked about the $6,000.00 to the City of Bonners Ferry for the original SRO. Sheriff Kramer said the county is not contributing to that now that the county is providing a new SRO and a canine.

Commissioner Cossairt moved to sign the agreement between the Boundary County Sheriff’s Office and the Boundary County School District for the School Resource Officer (SRO) Program. Commissioner Robertson second. Motion passed unanimously.

Sheriff Kramer left the meeting at 9:59 a.m.

10:00 a.m., Solid Waste Department Office Manager Richard Jenkins joined the meeting to give a department report. Mr. Jenkins said he’s received position applications and holding interviews for employment. The landfill office expansion and exterior are almost complete, with the exception of corner pieces, and then they will wait until the next fiscal year to finish the inside of the building. The depredation permit has been submitted and the county should hear shortly. Mr. Jenkins reported on tonnage at the landfill. Total vehicle count coming to the landfill is 6,881. There are 287 vehicles daily at the main landfill. Mr. Jenkins said he doesn’t have this information on the remote sites at this time. For second quarter tonnage, 23.45 tons per day were received at the main landfill, which includes bringing in all materials. Commissioner Cossairt said nobody realizes the growth we’re getting.

Metal recycling generated $135,460.00. Mr. Jenkins asked Commissioners about debris brought in from a house fire on Brown Creek Road. The invoice for disposing of this debris was transferred to Red Rock Contractors. Commissioners said the charges are to be changed to light demolition and there was no issue in paying that amount. Mr. Jenkins said he will adjust that invoice.

Those present discussed changing the unit of measurement verbiage in the landfill fee schedule from yards to pounds and Mr. Jenkins said this change will be easier for contractors and homeowners. Those present discussed the cost to dispose of the wood pile as well as discussed not allowing people to salvage from the metal pile because it helps offset landfill costs.

10:30 a.m., Chief Probation Officer Stacy Brown joined the meeting.

Commissioners and Mr. Jenkins discussed the process of disposing of the tire pile and addressed tires that are still on rims.

The meeting with Mr. Jenkins ended at 10:35 a.m.

Ms. Brown provided information on the number of people on various forms of probation. Ms. Brown commented that she’s been watering the lawn at the Probation Office, but it doesn’t seem to be enough since the grass is still dying.

Ms. Brown informed Commissioners about the program associated with memorandum of agreement that is on their agenda to sign. Probation works with the Department of Juvenile Corrections each year and she is able to bill the department for various costs associated with treatment and programs for juveniles. Ms. Brown said she is mainly using the funds for sex offender treatment for juveniles.

Commissioner Robertson moved to sign the Memorandum of Agreement to Support the Community Based Alternative Services (CBAS) Program and the Substance Use Disorder Services (SUDS) Program. Commissioner Cossairt second. Motion passed unanimously.
The meeting with Ms. Brown ended at 10:43 a.m.

Commissioner Cossairt moved to sign Commissioner meeting minutes of June 19 & 20, 2023. Commissioner Robertson second. Motion passed unanimously.

Commissioner Cossairt moved to sign the Certificate of Residency for Jeneva Dredge. Commissioner Robertson second. Motion passed unanimously.

The Courthouse Maintenance Department report scheduled for 11:00 a.m. was cancelled.

Commissioners recessed until their next meeting at 11:00 a.m.

11:30 a.m., Boundary Economic Development Council (EDC) Director David Sims joined the meeting to update Commissioners on various EDC business.

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 12:01 p.m. No action was taken.

The meeting with Mr. Sims ended at 12:01 p.m.

Commissioners recessed for lunch at 12:05 p.m.

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 Co-Superintendent Randy Morris joined the meeting to give the departmental report. A written report was provided and Mr. Morris reviewed work being done. Mr. Morris said Road and Bridge might start crushing with one cone next week and they’re also trying to get mag chloride done and with calcium being applied in the bigger areas.

Mr. Morris asked about the ability to amend the Road Standards Ordinance in order to allow polyethylene pipe culverts instead of galvanized metal culverts as polyethylene is less expensive.

The meeting with Mr. Morris ended at 1:50 a.m.

2:00 p.m., Commissioners held a Board of Equalization appeal hearing for parcel #RPB0240039001BA owned by EPU Trust, Cory Bruce Langberg, Trustee. Present were: Chairman Tim Bertling, Commissioner Wally Cossairt, Commissioner Ben Robertson, Deputy Clerk Michelle Rohrwasser, Assessor Olivia Drake, and Appraiser MacKenzie Durette. The appellant was not present and did not call in to the appeal hearing. The appeal hearing was recorded. The Assessor’s Office presented one exhibit marked “County Exhibit #1” consisting of 9 pages.

Chairman Bertling read the oath to those giving testimony. The Assessor’s Office was asked to provide their statement. Ms. Durette read her statement into the record as follows: regarding the Board of Equalization appeal hearing for parcel #RPB0240039001BA, it is an unimproved property on 0.44 acres located at 6900 Oak Street in Bonners Ferry. The current assessed value is $58,030.00, which is broken down as follows: $77,370.00 for the parcel as a whole with a negative 25% adjustment for location and steep terrain. Similar parcels in the same area have the same adjustment. Other than the county-wide property increase for land, no specific value changes were made to this property. Ms. Durette said she spoke with Mr. Langberg on the phone on Monday June 12th, and told him of the county-wide increase that is based on actual sale verifications that are turned in to the Assessor’s Office. The value of the land is based on the 1st of January of the calendar year. Ms. Durette said she also explained to Mr. Langberg that he was already receiving an adjusted value of the land and asked him if he thought he could sell it for what the Assessor’s Office has it valued as. The Assessor’s Office received a sales verification for this parcel in March 2021 from the sellers. On that verification, they stated that the parcel had sold for $30,000.00. Later that year, the market went wild. Currently this parcel is listed for sale for three times the buying price at $95,000.00. Ms. Durette said at this time, she would ask the Board of Equalization to sustain the Assessor’s Office values.

Commissioners reviewed the file provided to them on this parcel. The property is located inside the city limits and utilities can go right to the property. It’s a good flat building spot, according to Ms. Durette. Commissioner Cossairt said he had no problem with sustaining the Assessor’s Office values and Commissioner Robertson said he agrees.

Commissioner Cossairt moved to sustain the Assessor’s Office value for parcel RPB0240039001BA, property owner EPU Trust, Cory Bruce Langberg, Trustee. Commissioner Robertson second. Motion passed unanimously.

The Board of Equalization appeal hearing for parcel RPB0240039001BA ended at 2:15 p.m.

Commissioners recessed until their next meeting at 2:35 p.m.

2:35 p.m., Commissioners held a hearing to consider Board of Equalization Casualty Loss Form Applications. Assessor Drake explained casualty losses and said because they were a little late understanding this part of Idaho Code in that these forms needs to be addressed by the Board of Equalization, she grouped them together, but going forward these applications can be addressed individually.

Assessor Drake presented Commissioners with a document on Casualty Loss Exemptions and said, under the authority granted in Title 63, Chapter 5 of Idaho Code, please order the following adjustments to the 2023 Property Assessment Roll: RPB0120013028BA, the structures were removed due to deterioration on April 15th. Categories 30 and 41: Prorated value reduction of $61,263.00 from total assessed value of $157,650.00 for a new total of $96,387.00 before the homeowner’s exemption. Parcel RP60N02W347810A, the house and attached carport burned down May 20th. Category 34. This is a pro-rated value reduction of $132,806.00 from the total assessed value of $426,570.00 for a new total of $293,764.00. Parcel RP61N01E296161A, the house burned down March 30th. This is Category 34. The prorated value reduction is $145,732.00 from the total assessed value of $392,280.00 equaling a new total of $246,548.00. Parcel MH61N01W356525A, a mobile home, is a complete loss and was removed on May 6th. These are Categories 46 and 47. The pro-rated value reduction is $8,489.00 from the total assessed value of $12,910.00 for a new total of $4,421.00. Parcel RP61N01E194511A, the Fire Marshal burned down the old house approximately April 1st. This is Category 34. The prorated value reduction is $80,968.00 from the total assessed value of $186,880.00 for a new total of $105,912.00.
Assessor Drake explained that this information is before the homeowner’s exemption is applied, if there was a homeowner’s exemption benefit.

Parcel RP61N01E1800790A is a dilapidated old house that was burned/destroyed. The date for proration is unknown; the appraiser reported after the assessment cycle. This is Category 32. The value of $2,000.00 is removed from the total assessed value of $56,280.00 for a new total of $54,280.00. Parcel RP61N03E045110A is a manufactured home that burned down. No application for a casualty loss was submitted, but the fire was heard about on April 24th according to a social media news reporting. This is Category 46 and Category 47. The prorated value reduction of $10,398.00 from the total assessed value of $588,600.00 is a new total of $578,202.00. For parcel RP005000010510A, please sustain the assessed value of $258,950.00. Assessor Drake stated that these applications have been verified.

Commissioner Robertson commented about the mobile home and Assessor Drake said when the parcel number is MH, that is a mobile home being taxed separately from the land. All values are prorated from how long a property owner enjoyed the property until they lost the property.

Commissioner Cossairt moved to approve the Board of Equalization Casualty Loss Applications for 2023 as presented by Assessor Drake. Commissioner Robertson second. Motion passed unanimously.

Commissioners took a short recess until their next Board of Equalization appeal hearing at 3:00 p.m.

3:00 p.m., Commissioners held a Board of Equalization appeal hearing for parcel #RP65N02E268500A for property owner Vance Warden. Present were: Chairman Tim Bertling, Commissioner Wally Cossairt, Commissioner Ben Robertson, Deputy Clerk Michelle Rohrwasser, Assessor Olivia Drake, Appraiser MacKenzie Durette and Appellant Vance Warden. The appeal hearing was recorded. The Assessor’s Office presented one exhibit marked “County Exhibit #1” consisting of seven pages. The appellant did not present an exhibit.

Chairman Bertling administered the oath to those giving testimony. Mr. Warden was asked to provide an opening statement. Mr. Warden said this started when he received his tax appraisal and it had changed quite a lot. There is a camper trailer on the property and he talked to the Appraiser’s Office about the camp trailer actually possibly being considered a manufactured home. Mr. Warden said he was also curious why the storage building on the property was considered a residential building.

Appraiser MacKenzie Durette read her statement into the record as follows: Ms. Durette said parcel RP65N02E268500A is an unimproved property on 10.4 acres located at 798 Old Addie Road in Bonners Ferry. The current assessed value is $154,070.00, which breaks down as follows: $83,970.00 for land and amenities and $70,130.00 for the improvements. Nine acres of this land is in an exemption for grazing and is valued at $4,870.00. The one-acre is taken out for the building site so it cannot be used for grazing and it’s valued at $65,560.00 as is standard for every developed parcel in the county that has a structure on it. There is also power and water to the property, which is valued at $13,500.00. Ms. Durette said this particular parcel was in her area this year for evaluation and she noticed and added the garage and a motorhome with Montana registration that was all skirted in and looked to be in use. Ms. Durette said she also added power, sewer and water to the parcel. One June 16, 2023, Ms. Durette said she spoke to Mr. Warden on the phone. Mr. Warden had stated that there was no septic on this property and that the motorhome was not being lived in and had current registration from Montana. Mr. Warden asked about the value and Ms. Durette stated that once a structure, even if it isn’t being lived in, is added to a property, the Assessor’s Office takes the first acre out of the exemption. This is typical for developed properties. Ms. Durette said she also removed the septic and the motorhome from the parcel and told Mr. Warden that she would send out a corrected notice. Mr. Warden was still concerned about the value. Ms. Durette said she told Mr. Warden that since this is the only property that he owns, he would qualify for the homeowner’s exemption and to get that paperwork filled out as soon as possible. Mr. Warden stated that he doesn’t live there and Ms. Durette reiterated that this is his only property and he would qualify. This would take some of the value off of the land and possibly the structure. Mr. Warden seemed to agree and a new notice was sent to him. On June 22nd, the Assessor’s Office received the appeal paperwork. Ms. Durette said on June 27th, she traveled to the parcel on Addie Road for further inspection and she again noticed that the power and water are directly hooked up to the motorhome and it looks to be in use. There is also a completely separate power and water hook up on site that can be used for another RV hook up. The parcel has 500 feet of river frontage that is accessible from the parcel. Ms. Durette noticed that there are no animals actually grazing and or using water on this parcel. There is 3.5 acres of land actually being used for ag purposes as a gentleman was out checking his hay for moisture in order to bale it. Ms. Durette said she believes that the developed portion of this parcel is actually under market value, because it should have a river frontage adjustment. It’s not known how long the structure has been in place and not put on the tax rolls before being picked up this year for revaluations. Per Idaho Code, a motorhome should be registered in the State of Idaho or it can be put on the property tax roll. Portions of land are not actively devoted to agriculture and should be valued at market value as other rural land. Ms. Durette commented to Commissioners that she did provide an aerial showing where the structure is including power and water. Further down there is another hookup. The greenish spot shown in the middle is where the property is being used for hay. Ms. Durette said at this time she would ask the Board of Equalization to sustain the Assessor’s Office values.

Mr. Warden said there’s an extension cord to the camper and a garden hose connected to a spigot for someone to live in the camper. Mr. Warden spoke of coming to the Auto License Department in order to register and title the camper, but it was during COVID-19 and he wasn’t wearing a mask so he was escorted out and he forgot to come back to license it. Mr. Warden added that he planned on building a cabin at one time, but he never got around to it. The property has power and water, but it won’t perk in that area. A lot of the property is considered flood plain. Mr. Warden said the reason he built the building is for storage purposes and he added that he didn’t understand the rules as to what is considered a residence. The neighbor has cows eating dirt and if they had wanted to put up a fence on his property, they could graze it and cut hay. He would say that part of the land is being used agriculturally. Maybe at one time it will be a place he can retire or be an investment. Mr. Warden said he didn’t understand, because he thought you had to live where you claim the exemption. Ms. Durette said that Mr. Warden should be eligible. Assessor Drake explained that Mr. Warden would have to claim this as his primary residence and he doesn’t have another residence.

Assessor Drake said, in summary, we’re looking at a huge jump in value, but it’s because the one-acre homesite was taken out. The homesite is contiguous, but it’s not actively dedicated to agriculture. Assessor Drake spoke of the property being dedicated as a building site and she said if there was a pole building, she would usually value it as other rural land. The structure values are there no matter what. Mr. Warden asked how the property is valued and Assessor Drake said it’s an included building. Ms. Durette said it’s valued as a garage. Mr. Warden asked if it matters that there are two RV hookups and Ms. Durette said no, and she added that she didn’t add value for the river view or water frontage and the RV was removed.

Commissioner Robertson moved to sustain the Assessor’s Office values for parcel #RP65N02E268500A for appellant Vance Warden. Commissioner Cossairt second. Motion passed unanimously.
The Board of Equalization appeal hearing for parcel #RP65N02E268500A ended at 3:18 p.m.

Commissioners recessed until their next Board of Equalization appeal hearing scheduled for 4:30 p.m.

4:30 p.m., Commissioners held a Board of Equalization appeal hearing for parcel #RPB0600006003AA for property owner Gina Rosengrant. Present were: Chairman Tim Bertling, Commissioner Wally Cossairt, Commissioner Ben Robertson, Deputy Clerk Michelle Rohrwasser, Assessor Olivia Drake, Appraiser MacKenzie Durette and Appellant Gina Rosengrant. The appeal hearing was recorded. The Assessor’s Office presented one exhibit marked “County Exhibit #1” consisting of 11 pages. Ms. Rosengrant chose not to submit an exhibit.

Chairman Bertling administered the oath to those giving testimony and asked the appellant for her opening statement.

Ms. Rosengrant reviewed Assessor’s Exhibit #1 and she commented on the second statement in this exhibit as follows: In June of 2022, Ms. Rosengrant took her property before the Board of Equalization. The Board agreed with the Assessor’s Office value and sustained her value. Ms. Rosengrant said she had been more than willing to meet with the Board of Equalization, but she works in Spokane as a hospital supervisor and she was at work when the registered piece of mail arrived. Ms. Rosengrant continued that when she returned to Bonners Ferry, her appointment had come and gone and she had asked for a hearing, but could not get one. The Board of Equalization sustained the Assessor’s values and that is why she filed an appeal with the State Board of Tax Appeals. She didn’t just decide to go to the State Board, she couldn’t get a hearing. Ms. Rosengrant said she was satisfied with the State Board of Tax Appeals decision. Ms. Rosengrant asked for the names of Assessor Drake and Appraiser MacKenzie Durette. Ms. Rosengrant said the State Board of Tax Appeals approved what she had requested. This year when she saw her assessed value, she filed another appeal to talk to the Board of Equalization.

Ms. Rosengrant commented that she has documentation from the last 12 years pertaining to all of her neighbors’ properties, including her own and she claimed there is favoritism in how land and homes are being valued. Ms. Rosengrant said that she looked at six properties around her and this is also her complaint from last year. Property #2 is directly south from her and this year that property’s land value increased 25% and her land increased 50%. A home that is exactly the same would sell for approximately the same has hers and she clarified that she’s not talking about the outbuildings. The home south of her has a three-door garage attached, which she does not have, and even today that other house is valued at $378,000.00. Ms. Rosengrant said even with a reduction, her value is still $427,950.00. Ms. Rosengrant said this has been going on since 2012 and she has documentation. The neighbor’s home had a major remodel and the three-door garage was added and no substantial tax increase happened over the many years; just minimal increases whereas every year, her value just went up and up and up. Last year her value almost doubled and it was $701,000.00 when her neighbor’s value was still $500,000.00. Ms. Rosengrant said she does have an outbuilding and she agrees with that value. In looking at this assessed value she referred to her file and she found a note to adjust the land value in year 2023. The value on total land was $81,000.00 last year and now it’s $120,000.00, a 50% increase. Ms. Rosengrant said the overall value of properties is down 6% from April to April. Land did increase a little bit, but her house value decreased and her land value significantly increased. Ms. Rosengrant said in looking at property around her’s, she would like the value of her land to increase no more than 25% and she will accept the value of her home and buildings at $427,000, plus the outbuildings. Ms. Rosengrant said If she calculates a 6% decrease in market value, it would bring her property value down to $550,000.00 from $585,000.00 last year. She is willing to accept less than 3% and she will accept a value of $568,342.00. Ms. Rosengrant informed Commissioners that she is very keen on returning to the State Board of Tax Appeals since she feels she has not been treated fairly. Ms. Rosengrant read the Board of Tax Appeals decision from last year under #6 in part as follows, the Board understands that there will always be some variances in assessed values across a neighborhood or between two seemingly identical individual properties, but where a property’s assessed value is drastically inconsistent values of peer properties in the neighborhood, something is amiss. Ms. Rosengrant said she still feels that even though there was an adjustment last year, the value is nowhere near comparable. These are her requests for this year and she doesn’t want some modification done again; she wants this permanent. That is her request and she wants to be assessed at the same rate as everyone else.

Ms. Rosengrant said in looking at these six other properties, the first one she looked at is valued at $101,000.00 per acre. The second property, which is the one she has an issue with is valued at $97,800.00 per acre and the rest of the properties are roughly the same. Ms. Rosengrant explained that she Lives in the McNears Acres Tracts. To the west of the other property is a mobile home with a value of $79,000.00. This is a residential area; not a mobile home park. It’s really amiss in how the law is applied to different people, according to Ms. Rosengrant.

Commissioners asked the Assessor’s Office for their statement. Appraiser MacKenzie Durette read her statement into the record. Parcel #RPB0600006003AA is an improved property on 1.965 acres located at 7596 Mohawk Street in Bonners Ferry, Idaho. The current assessed value is $585,340.00, which breaks down as follows: $80,440.00 for land and amenities and $504,900.00 for improvements for a total of $585,340.00. In June of 2022, Ms. Rosengrant took her property before the Board of Equalization and the Board agreed with the Assessor’s Office value and sustained the value. In November of 2022, Ms. Rosengrant took her appeal before the Board of Tax Appeals and after the hearing, the Appeals Board felt that relief should be granted to Ms. Rosengrant and she was granted $115,000.00 in relief. Ms. Durette said no attempt was made to contact an appraiser to discuss her values and instead, Ms. Rosengrant went straight to an appeal before the Board. After receiving the appeal, our County Assessor contacted Ms. Rosengrant and explained that the Assessor’s Office upheld the Tax Appeal decision and values, and that no changes were made to the property values for the 2023 tax year. As per the order of the Idaho Board of Tax Appeals, the Assessor’s Office values said, property with the numbers supplied to them by the Board of Tax Appeals. The Board ordered a grand total of $585,917.00 and our total is $585,340.00 coming under the order by $577.00. To get to this value the Assessor’s Office had to put a negative adjustment on the land and sound value the residential improvements. This imbalances equalization, which is what we strive for. Ms. Durette said she did a survey of seven neighboring parcels to Ms. Rosengrant and overall there was a 50/50 split on property values increasing and decreasing and no more than a 1% either way. Land values did increase this year and residential improvements did decrease. Ms. Durette said Ms. Rosengrant’s property did not move at all this year; the Assessor’s Office sustained the value and to get there, they had to finagle it. Idaho is a market value state and they go off of actual sales that have been supplied to the Assessor’s Office and we’ve had a sharp increase in the values since 2020, since COVID-19.

Ms. Rosengrant has a big house, beautiful property, a cabin, another cabin and sheds. There are multiple residential structures; not just one structure with an attached garage that she is comparing the neighbor’s house to.

Ms. Durette said according to market software, the parcel is valued way under market value and if it were listed for sale, it would and could sell for more than they have it valued for. Ms. Durette asked the Board of Equalization to sustain the Assessor’s Office values and uphold the Idaho Tax Appeals’ values as well.

Chairman Bertling asked what the value of $585,000 is for. Ms. Durette said that $504,900.00 is the value for all improvements, which includes the house. The main residence is valued at $385,510.00, the cabin’s value is $82,230.00, the shed is valued at $1,930.00, and the secondary cabin that was fixed up to be a VRBO is valued at $35,230.00. Ms. Rosengrant said this cabin is not a VRBO; it’s her studio in the garden. Ms. Rosengrant said there are inconsistencies and everyone’s values in her neighborhood overall have decreased, but her value stayed the same. Ms. Rosengrant said this is such a multiple year problem that she has always felt was done very unfairly. Ms. Rosengrant added that she looks at her one acre that her home sits on and its’ valued at $112,000.00 per acre. Her neighbor’s value is $97,000.00 or $98,000.00. Ms. Rosengrant said she feels she makes a very valid point that for many many years there is inconsistency in how taxes are assessed. Ms. Rosengrant added that while she has a very beautiful property; she works on it daily, she has always paid her taxes. Property values did dramatically increase since 2020, but they’re down 6% over last year and that is why she appealed the Board of Equalization decision last year. She said she did not skip all of these processes; she did try to meet with the Board of Equalization and she couldn’t get in. Ms. Rosengrant stated that Ms. Durette was fairly adversarial on the phone and she wanted to point out today that nobody here would have any salary unless there were tax payers paying them, so she would expect to have some respect from an Assessor when she calls them up to listen to what she has to say and not immediately tell her how it’s going to be.

Chairman Bertling questioned what factors are taken when valuing acreage. Ms. Durette said the Assessor’s Office takes out one acre for the homesite, then adds the amenities of power, septic and water. Since the property is within the city limits, the value for amenities is $10,000.00. All other land, besides one acre, falls under the “other land” category. Commissioners asked if how much a person landscapes affects value and Ms. Durette said no. Commissioner Robertson asked what makes the difference with the one-acre piece, if it was valued at $100,000.00 versus $80,000.00. Ms. Durette said the one acre is valued the same across the board. Where ever you have a building site, it’s valued the same. Other land cannot be taken out for the homesite; it’s just the leftover. It’s a residential city lot valued as other land. And except for the agriculture or timber exemption, the Assessor’s Office doesn’t apply other exemptions on land. Depending on if there is a steep area, the Assessor’s Office can add an adjustment or if the property is next to a river, a bigger adjustment can be applied. Ms. Rosengrant doesn’t have any positive adjustments; it’s just land. Ms. Rosengrant said if you calculate it out acre for acre, the property south of hers is what she maintains is not valued correctly. That other property is valued at .792 acres, 77,480, which puts it at approximately $97,828.00 per acre and her one acre that her house is valued on is $112,000.00. Ms. Durette clarified that Ms. Rosengrant’s land and amenities is valued at $80,440.00, separate from the residential buildings.

Assessor Drake said her office starts with the land rate chart (page 3 of County Exhibit #1). Ms. Rosengrant said that is not what she sees on her tax assessment. It says her total home value of the .97 acres increased to $8,000.00 and her actual one acre is $112,000.00. Assessor Drake asked Ms. Rosengrant if she received a corrected notice after they spoke, which would’ve been a couple weeks ago and before the hearing was scheduled. Ms. Durette said Ms. Rosengrant spoke with Assessor Drake on the phone to explain how she came to this assessed value. Ms. Rosengrant said she remembers that and Assessor Drake was going to call her back, but didn’t. Ms. Rosengrant said when she spoke with Commissioners’ Clerk, she said her file was just brought over. Ms. Durette said that is incorrect. Ms. Rosengrant said that is what happened and Ms. Durette disagreed. Ms. Durette said after Assessor Drake spoke to Ms. Rosengrant and explained the Assessor’s values, the Assessor’s Office took her property and took the exact same numbers that the Board of Tax Appeals wanted. They had to use the values, the same overall total, but had to imbalance to get to the same numbers to match the Board of Tax Appeals. Ms. Durette said Assessor Drake told Ms. Rosengrant that over the phone, then the Assessor’s Office sent Ms. Rosengrant a new corrected notice. It’s the same overall total, but different numbers to match the Board of Tax Appeals numbers.

Ms. Rosengrant said she wanted to go back to what the State Board of Tax Appeals honored. It was for last year to correct issues of many years. Ms. Durette said the Assessor’s Office sustained the same value. Ms. Rosengrant said everybody else’s values decreased. Commissioner Cossairt said his value went way up. Ms. Durette said Ms. Rosengrant’s property didn’t go decrease or increase; the Assessor’s Office sustained the amount, which is what the state asked them to do. Commissioner Robertson said in fact, it’s less than that. Ms. Rosengrant said it’s playing with numbers; increasing the land significantly and decreasing the home value. Assessor Drake said the original statement was a mistake and she asked if Ms. Rosengrant received Ms. Durette’s packet with a letter on the front. Ms. Rosengrant said she didn’t think she received it. Commissioner Robertson said it was sitting on the chair. Ms. Rosengrant said just to go back, she never received a call back after supposedly all of that work was done. Nobody called her back and she had to contact Commissioners’ Office to make an appointment. Assessor Drake said her office mailed out the corrected notice and she said the packet was placed on the chair for Ms. Rosengrant and it starts out with a letter. Assessor Drake referred to the 5th page of the Assessor’s packet in that it shows the correction. The Assessor’s Office did have the land higher because they held the building. In the Assessors’ system it’s tough to adjust both. Assessor Drake said after speaking with Ms. Rosengrant she adjusted both so that they still added up to the exact same $585,000. Ms. Durette said actually it’s $577.00 more. Assessor Drake said the last three numbers were a little bit different. Ms. Durette said you cannot get it to the penny. Assessor Drake said they tried to sustain the Board of Tax Appeals. Ms. Rosengrant said she is not happy with that because it’s not okay to say they will sustain what the state says last year, then increase land by $40,000.00 and decrease the house by so much. Ms. Rosengrant said she would be satisfied with the land total value of $101,000.00 so that she’s on par with other people and their acreage and she believes the home value, but not the other buildings, which are okay and increased. Chairman Bertling said he thinks Ms. Rosengrant is getting one heck of a deal on her other buildings. Ms. Rosengrant said he might think so, but if he were to come look at what she’s telling them, it may seem like she’s getting one heck of a deal, but there’s been neighbors who have been getting a heck of a deal for many many years and she’s paid. She is still upset about it and says it’s not right. Ms. Rosengrant said she’s asking for a correction and for it to be permanent then she won’t be appearing before the Board of Tax Appeals. Commissioner Robertson said permanent is not how it works. Ms. Rosengrant commented that she understands market values change from year to year. Commissioner Robertson said correct, it’s government state law. Ms. Rosengrant said she sees this kind of thing “hold for 2023.” It seems like something will be corrected. That’s why she said permanently. She understands things fluctuate in the real estate market, but she maintains what she is asking for today. Commissioner Robertson said to Ms. Rosengrant that she keeps saying she wants her land valued at $101,000.00, but the Assessor has land and amenities valued at $80,000.00 so he’s not following her math, because the Assessor is assessing her land for less than she is asking for. Assessor Drake said because her office held the values, they held the land from last year and didn’t give it the 25% increase across the board. Assessor Drake said she thinks Ms. Rosengrant is saying she would be okay with a 25% increase if the Assessor’s Office gave more of a reduction to the buildings, but because they held it across the board, they just didn’t touch it so their computer system didn’t mess anything up. Commissioner Robertson said, so the two numbers are to be changed in order to come to the same number of the state. Ms. Rosengrant said in her neighborhood, in general, everyone’s value is slightly lower, roughly 2% lower and she asked why her value isn’t lower. Ms. Rosengrant said she stays at $585,000.00 and that is what she explained as to why she wanted to meet with the Board of Equalization. Other people’s values are not the same as last year; they did decrease. She added that because the state upheld what she requested last year, now she’s staying at the same value, but other people’s values around her have decreased. It’s not just the land. Ms. Rosengrant said they played with the numbers to probably make it work in the computer and she understands that, but that puts her per acre rate for land at $112,000.00 when other people are not there. Commissioner Robertson said he also heard the Assessor say there was a 50/50 split for some. Ms. Durette said it was a 1% adjustment either way. Commissioner Robertson said to call it wash across the neighborhood in that everything stayed the same. Ms. Rosengrant asked what do Commissioners say about the home south of her with the three-door garage and a shop that is valued at $378,000.00 and her actual home is $20,000.00 to $30,000.00 more and she doesn’t have a three-door garage? Ms. Rosengrant added that she is paying separately for all of the other buildings and that’s a separate value and not even in her home value. Assessor Drake said the Assessor’s Office considers square footage, which is the main thing that goes into the system, and quality of construction of the original structure, but it is all based off of the same cost table. Commissioner Robertson said Assessor Drake is saying that the square footage of Ms. Rosengrant’s home is larger than the other home. Assessor Drake said possibly or a different quality. Ms. Rosengrant said she doesn’t think so for the addition, she can tell them that it’s not. Ms. Rosengrant added that in looking at that neighbor and the neighbor west of him, it’s really a dilapidated house and the difference between them; the place is in shambles and it’s $100,000.00 less than the other neighbor. If we’re using the same tables, how can it be so vastly different? This man lives in a beautiful home like her home and has a beautiful yard, and she tries to do the same with hers, but there are these discrepancies. She doesn’t appreciate it and she pays her taxes like everybody else. Ms. Rosengrant said she will maintain what she says today and she will go to the State Board of Tax Appeals again. Ms. Rosengrant added that she will probably have a class action lawsuit, because she feels like it’s been so many years that she has not been treated correctly and that is why she meets before the Board of Equalization to complain. She understands what people do and how they validate what they’re doing, but she has a complaint that she thinks is very valid.

Chairman Bertling asked if the additional cabin is something Ms. Rosengrant can rent out. Ms. Rosengrant said no, there are no utilities and it’s unfinished on the inside; she is storing her kids’ things in it. If she wanted to use it, she would have to finish it and that was her argument last year. Ms. Rosengrant said, let’s say that was her three-door garage that it was assessed at. Chairman Bertling said as far as buildings go, we have the home and the other buildings. Ms. Durette said the main house is $385,000.00, the cabin that was built in 2019 is $82,000.00, the shed is $1,930.00, and the other little cabin is $35,230.00. Chairman Bertling asked if this other cabin has water to it and Ms. Rosengrant said from the house, yes. On assessed value, it’s considered with the house, because it doesn’t have septic or power and water comes from the house. Commissioner Robertson asked for clarification on page 11 of the County Exhibit #1 and asked if on the far right, the total difference, is that the total percentage for this year, 99.9%? Assessor Drake said yes and she added if it’s 99 or under, it went down, but you see a few that are 100, 101, 107. Commissioner Robertson reviewed the percentages. Assessor Drake said all land is different and can have different adjustments. Everything in this neighborhood had a negative 25%. Ms. Rosengrant’s land currently has a negative 33% to hold the Board of Tax Appeals’ values. Assessor Drake said to value it in the future, it would be completely out of the system and be a manual process.

Commissioner Robertson said looking at the polling of the neighbors in the area and saying there was not a majority change, he would agree with the Assessor in maintaining value and a matter of fact, it’s under the State Board of Tax Appeals’ values last year. Commissioner Cossairt said he would agree.
Commissioner Robertson moved to sustain the Assessor’s Office values for parcel #RPB0600006003AA for property owner Gina Rosengrant. Commissioner Cossairt second. Motion passed unanimously.

The Board of Equalization appeal hearing for parcel #RPB0600006003AA ended at 5:01 p.m.

5:01 p.m., Commissioners considered the 2023 County Alcohol Beverage License Application for Lisa Camara doing business as Bonners Ferry Craft Brews, LLC, to sell bottled, canned and draught beer and wine to be consumed on or off premises. Present were: Chairman Tim Bertling, Commissioner Wally Cossairt, Commissioner Ben Robertson, and Deputy Clerk Michelle Rohrwasser. The proceedings were recorded.

The completed county application, applicable fee, 2023 State of Idaho Retail Alcohol Beverage License, and the 2023 City of Bonners Ferry Retail Alcohol Beverage License have been received.

Commissioner Cossairt moved to approve the 2023 County Alcoholic Beverage License for Lisa Camara dba Bonners Ferry Craft Brews, LLC, to sell bottled, canned and draught beer and wine to be consumed on or off premises. Commissioner Robertson second. Motion passed unanimously.

There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 5:02 p.m.

_________________________________________
TIM BERTLING, Chairman
ATTEST:

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