|
Monday,
June 27, 2011,
Commissioners met in regular session with
Chairman Ron Smith, Commissioner Dan Dinning,
Commissioner Walt Kirby, and Deputy Clerk
Michelle Rohrwasser.
Blue Sky Radio Broadcasting
reporter Mike Brown joined the meetings
throughout the day.
9:00 a.m., Commissioners continued
their discussion on graffiti and vandalism.
Chairman Smith said during the prior meeting,
Commissioner Dinning mentioned offering a reward
to entice people to come forward with
information as to who is doing the graffiti. It
was questioned how the reward would be paid and
Chairman Smith said he thought he mentioned the
reward amount could come out of restitution,
however that would have to be guaranteed and he
thought it would be the County to guarantee
that. Commissioners didn’t discuss where those
funds would come from, but Mr. Gutshall had made
the statement he didn’t have a problem with
reward funds coming from his budget as it would
be less than the cost to fix the damage.
Chairman Smith said he thought at that point,
that Commissioners were in agreement to offer
the $2,000 reward and that was discussed in the
presence of the media. Chairman Smith said he
doesn’t recall that decision being in the form
of a motion and Commissioner Dinning said he
doesn’t think it was done. Commissioner Kirby
said he doesn’t disagree with a reward and quite
a few people have thanked him for doing this.
Commissioner Dinning said Commissioners should
make a motion to affirm the guarantee then
discuss where the funds will come from. Chairman
Smith said the County would provide the
guarantee for an arrest and conviction for the
vandalism. Chairman Smith said if the County can
be reimbursed through restitution, than that is
what will be done.
Commissioner Dinning moved
to affirm action from last week that the County
will guarantee a $2,000 reward for the arrest
and conviction associated with the graffiti and
vandalism. Commissioner Kirby second. Motion
passed unanimously.
The meeting ended at 9:15 a.m.
Commissioners tended to
administrative duties.
Commissioner Kirby moved to
authorize the Chairman to sign the Idaho
Association of Counties, Idaho Medical Review,
LLC., Medical Utilization Management Agreement.
Commissioner Dinning second. Motion passed
unanimously.
Commissioner Dinning moved
to sign the letter of support for the Forest
Legacy Program for Stimson Lumber Company.
Commissioner Kirby second. Motion passed
unanimously.
9:30 a.m., Commissioner Dinning moved
to recess as a Board of Commissioners and
convene as the Board of Equalization.
Commissioner Kirby second. Motion passed
unanimously.
Commissioners held a Board
of Equalization appeal hearing for parcel
#RP61N01E088601A by Appellant Fred G. Orzalli.
Present were: Chairman Ron Smith, Commissioner
Dan Dinning, Commissioner Walt Kirby, Deputy
Clerk Michelle Rohrwasser, Assessor Dave Ryals,
Appraiser Les Vetter, and Appellant Fred
Orzalli. The proceedings were recorded.
Chairman Smith reviewed the
appeal procedures and administered the oath to
those giving testimony to include: Mr. Orzalli,
Mr. Vetter, and Assessor Ryals. The Assessor
presented one exhibit marked Assessor’s Exhibit
#1 (consisting of 10 pages). The appellant, Mr.
Orzalli, did not present any exhibits.
Chairman Smith asked the
appellant to give an opening statement. Mr.
Orzalli said being as property values have gone
down, it states in the paperwork that he has two
new buildings, but those buildings have replaced
the buildings that had collapsed. One building
was an equipment shed that had collapsed causing
damages so Mr. Orzalli had it replaced and the
other building was a small storage shed with a
wood shed beside it. Mr. Orzalli said he
replaced those and put new buildings up.
Chairman Smith asked Mr. Vetter if he had any
questions and Mr. Vetter said he did not.
Commissioner Dinning
briefly mentioned the sheds that had been on the
property. Mr. Orzalli said snow had caused the
collapse of one building, which was the
equipment shed that he had replaced, and the
other was a shed that was present when he bought
the property. Mr. Orzalli said this second shed
wasn’t very much, but it was a shed he had with
a wood shed adjacent to it or that connected to
it, and it got so bad that he removed it and
replaced it with the new shed. Commissioner
Dinning asked if the old sheds had been on the
prior appraisal and Mr. Orzalli said the sheds
were on the property when he bought it, but he
had no idea if they were on the Assessor’s
appraised value.
Chairman Smith asked for
statements from the Assessor’s Office. Mr.
Vetter said he would like to address the
outbuilding issue to begin with. Mr. Vetter said
in year 2009, in Category 32, Mr. Orzalli had
$5,550 worth of value on his shed, which did
include the two buildings Mr. Orzalli had spoken
about. Mr. Vetter said the Assessor’s Office
went in during year 2009 and did a revaluation
for that area for the 2010 assessment year and
at that time, he came across the two new
buildings that replaced the buildings that no
longer existed. These buildings were brand new
to the assessment roll and the values of the
buildings increased. Mr. Vetter said one
building has $2,990 worth of value and the other
building has $7,740 worth of value. Mr. Vetter
said on the previous appraisal, one of the
buildings that had been in existence all along
had been entered incorrectly into the valuation
system by being listed as being 3 feet wide
instead of 30 feet wide. That adjustment also
raised the value of the buildings by correcting
an error made on the previous appraisal from the
time Mr. Vetter said he had been on the parcel
prior.
Mr. Vetter said also in
year 2009, the Assessor’s Office, through sales
valuation records the Assessor’s Office keeps,
they recognized the values of everything in
Boundary County was dropping. House values and
homesite values dropped by 13% from year 2009 to
2010, which brought Mr. Orzalli’s house value
down from $123,020 to what it is currently at
$108,730, according to Mr. Vetter. So the
decrease that was put on the total parcel
because of sales data collected, if Mr. Orzalli
had not put the two new buildings on the parcel,
the site would currently be valued at $159,920.
The 15% Mr. Orzalli is talking about may
probably be true as everyone is reading it in
the paper, but with the addition with two new
outbuildings, it took away the reduction that
everyone else received and it raised Mr.
Orzalli’s value to what it was currently. It is
because of the two new outbuildings, even
thought they were replacement buildings to what
had been in place all along. The two old
buildings are no longer on the assessment roll,
but the replacement buildings are and that
brought his assessment up to the current value
of $170,650, according to Mr. Vetter.
Chairman Smith said for
clarification that when the old outbuildings
were on the property that value was $5,550, but
now that those buildings have been replaced, the
new value is $17,840. Mr. Vetter said yes.
Chairman Smith said by the same token, the other
values listed for Categories #6, #10, #31 and #2
had been $8,610, $40,180, and $123,020, and they
have now been decreased to $6,910, $37,170, and
$108,730. Mr. Vetter said that is correct.
Chairman Smith said so this is talking about an
increase of $12,000 for just the outbuildings
and it looks like there was a decrease of more
than $12,000. Mr. Vetter said there was more of
a decrease in total. Mr. Vetter explained the
decrease was taken away because of the increase
in value of the other buildings. Mr. Vetter said
Mr. Orzalli has the same deprecation against his
house, land, and all other things that everyone
else has gotten. Mr. Vetter said the only things
that changed Mr. Orzalli’s assessment is that he
added some things and an error had been found
that he needed to make a correction on. Mr.
Vetter said the value of the outbuildings did
increase from $5,550 to $17,840.
Chairman Smith said in
looking between the two pages (Assessor’s
Exhibit #1), the second page shows Mr. Orzalli’s
house had been valued at $123,020, but on the
fourth page where there is an increase in value
for the outbuildings, the home’s value is now
only $108,730 and he asked if he was reading
this information correctly. Assessor Ryals
responded that this is just normal depreciation.
Mr. Vetter said that was the depreciation
against the house and also at that same time
frame, the value decreased from $123,020 to
$110,140. There was a local cost modifier
against all houses of 25% against the County’s
valuation system. Mr. Vetter said the Assessor’s
Office took 13% of that off due to the County’s
sales data. Chairman Smith said when comparing
the values for Categories #6, #10, #31, #32
between the different years, isn’t there an
overall decrease between year 2005 and 2010? Mr.
Vetter said yes and the values had gone down
even with the addition of the new outbuildings.
Chairman Smith said that was the point he was
trying to make. Mr. Vetter said the values have
decreased even in making the corrections.
Commissioner Dinning asked
Mr. Vetter about the percent of reduction. Mr.
Vetter said the County went from 25% local cost
modifier to 12% local cost modifier between
years 2009 to 2010. Commissioner Dinning said he
thought that included the house and the
homesite. Mr. Vetter said that is correct. The
homesite was originally valued at $40,180 in
year 2009 and now the value is $37,170. Mr.
Vetter said even the exempted properties have
decreased each year. Commissioner Dinning said
for clarification, there has been a decrease in
values across the board for residential in the
County and there were building Mr. Orzalli had
that were, in essence destroyed, and when Mr.
Orzalli built new buildings, they came on as new
buildings with a new value, in addition to the
error found in the square footage figure of an
existing building. Mr. Vetter said that was
correct.
Chairman Smith asked Mr.
Orzalli if he had any questions he would like to
ask and Mr. Orzalli said no. Commissioner
Dinning asked if his portrayal of the situation
was correct and Mr. Orzalli said yes.
Chairman Smith asked Mr.
Orzalli if he would like to offer a rebuttal and
Mr. Orzalli said he didn’t have any figures to
rebut anything on, but he wished he did. Mr.
Orzalli said he just doesn’t see how the
assessed values of those two outbuildings could
be what it is. Chairman Smith said for clarity
that would be referring to the increase from
$5,550 to $17,840.
Commissioner Kirby said he
was thinking the biggest difference in the
assessed value is the square footage as there
was a big change in square footage. Mr. Vetter
said that was part of it.
Chairman Smith closed the
appeal hearing to further public comment and
read aloud the closing procedures and the
procedures to appeal to the Board of Tax
Appeals.
Commissioner Kirby said he
thinks the major difference in the assessment is
from old sheds to new buildings as one thing,
but also to increase the square footage makes it
what it is. Commissioner Kirby said he doesn’t
see anyway out of it. Commissioner Dinning said
if he remembers correctly, Commissioners only
have the ability to adjust the assessment if
there had been an error and if there had been
information presented that would challenge the
valuation method. Chairman Smith said he doesn’t
see any other reason the County would want to
change the value unless there was an error or
that the evidence the Assessor was presenting
was not correct. Chairman Smith said with
everything that was presented, he sees no
choice, but to sustain the Assessor’s valuation.
Commissioner Dinning said he wishes everyone’s
assessment could be lowered, but he doesn’t see
an opportunity here.
Commissioner Dinning moved
to sustain the Assessor’s valuation of parcel
#RP61N01E088601A. Commissioner Kirby second.
Motion passed unanimously.
The appeal hearing for
parcel #RP61N01E088601A by Appellant Fred
Orzalli ended at 9:55 a.m.
Commissioner Dinning moved
to recess as Board of Equalization and reconvene
as the Board of Commissioners. Commissioner
Kirby second. Motion passed unanimously.
Deputy Clerk Nancy Ryals
joined the meeting.
10:00 a.m., Commissioner Dinning
moved to go into closed session under Idaho Code
31-874. Commissioner Kirby second. Motion passed
unanimously. 10:10 a.m., Commissioner Dinning moved to go out of
closed session. Commissioner Kirby second.
Motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner Dinning moved
to deny indigent application 2011-39 as per the
Clerk’s recommendation. Commissioner Kirby
second. Motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner Dinning moved
to accept the assignments as follows to the
Catastrophic Health Care Cost Program: 62.8% on
indigent account 2010-46, 48.9% on indigent
account 2011-13, 37.4% on indigent account
2010-22, 52.1% on indigent account 2011-6, and
67.4% on indigent account 2010-65. Commissioner
Kirby second. Motion passed unanimously.
Deputy Clerk Nancy Ryals
left the meeting at
10:14 am.
Commissioner Dinning moved
to recess as Board of Commissioners and
reconvene as the Board of Equalization.
Commissioner Kirby second. Motion passed
unanimously.
10:15 a.m., Commissioners held a
Board of Equalization appeal hearing for
appellant Gary Zahnow for parcel
#RP61N01E036602A. Present were: Chairman Ron
Smith, Commissioner Dan Dinning, Commissioner
Walt Kirby, Assessor Dave Ryals, Appraiser Les
Vetter, Deputy Clerk Michelle Rohrwasser, and
Appellant Gary Zahnow. The proceedings were
recorded. Chairman Smith administered the oath
to those giving testimony to include: Assessor
Dave Ryals, Appraiser Les Vetter, and Appellant
Gary Zahnow. The Assessor presented two exhibits
marked as follows: Assessor’s Exhibit #1
(consisting of 3 pages) and Assessor’s Exhibit
#2 (consisting of 1 page). The appellant
presented one exhibit marked Appellant’s Exhibit
#1 (consisting of 3 pages).
Chairman Smith reviewed the
appeal procedures and asked the appellant for an
opening statement.
Mr. Zahnow said he thinks
his appraisal came in a little too high. Mr.
Zahnow said he had just sold another piece of
property in Paradise
Valley a few months earlier. This
other property was considerably nicer and
considerably larger at 6.5 acres. Mr. Zahnow
said his exhibit is on this other 6.5 acre piece
of property. That sale was just in September of
last year. Mr. Zahnow said it was tough trying
to sell that other property, but he finally did.
That property had a view and it was 6.5 acres
not just 2.5 acres. This other property has the
same utilities that the parcel in question does,
but this other property also had electrical
service right to it so it was ready to build.
The size of this other property was almost twice
as much, it was a view lot also in
Paradise
Valley, and it was a couple of miles
from the property in question. This other
property was in a good location and had easy
access and all he could get in the sale was
$43,000. Mr. Zahnow said he feels fortunate to
get that amount as there was only one person
interested in it during the period of three to
four years it was listed on the market. Mr.
Zahnow said he would have loved to have sold
this other property for more, but it wasn’t
worth more so there is just no way he could get
$43,000 for this property in question. Mr.
Zahnow said this parcel in question is valued at
$43,470 and there is no way; it is not possible,
but he would love to get $43,000 for it. Mr.
Zahnow said if he had any doubt, having sold the
other property last year for that amount pretty
much proved it to him. Mr. Vetter had no
questions at that time.
Commissioner Dinning asked
Mr. Zahnow where the property with 6.5 acres was
located from this piece in question. Mr. Zahnow
said travel two and one half or three miles down
Kootenai Trail Road and it is off of Kokanee
Road, which is a just a short road off Kootenai
Trail. Mr. Zahnow said the property has very
good access during the winter and summer time
and it is a very nice location. Commissioner
Dinning asked if the other property sold was a
cash sale and if the property had a timber
exemption and Mr. Zahnow said yes to both. Mr.
Zahnow said he couldn’t remember the assessed
value.
Appraiser Vetter Les read
from his exhibit, marked Assessor’s Exhibit #1
as follows: This is a 2.5 acre parcel located in
Paradise Valley.
It is square in shape and heavily timbered.
There is good access to the parcel with
Moose Ridge Lane
running along the entire west boundary line.
There are many upper end homes in the area as
well as other vacant properties. Although this
is not considered a view lot, the parcels across
Moose Ridge Lane
are. The current value of this parcel is $43,470
which is the same as it was in 2010. It is also
the same value as all similar 2.5 acre, Category
12 parcels in the County. The fact that this
parcel was for sale and did not sell does not
change the way it is valued. The values for 2011
were established from sales data collected from
October 2009 to September 2010. The data is
analyzed by category and not by parcel size. The
Idaho State Tax Commission oversees all value
studies and requires the County to be 90% to
110% of actual market value. These requirements
were met for 2011 and no adjustments up or down
were needed.
Mr. Vetter said he would
like to add, as far as the previous sale, Mr.
Zahnow did submit his sales verification back to
the Assessor’s Office and it was included in the
sales study for this year. Chairman Smith said
it is his understanding that all values
decreased this year and Assessor Ryals said
values stayed the same this year for the most
part. Chairman Smith asked if that was for all
properties and Assessor Ryals said that was
correct.
Commissioner Dinning asked Mr. Vetter if
the view properties in this area are assessed
more or less and Mr. Vetter said they are
assessed more. Commissioner Dinning questioned
how much more. Mr. Vetter said if it is a parcel
large enough to have a timber exemption, which
means it is six acres and one acre is extracted,
it is 100 times that value, which makes them
$27,187 multiplied by 100 so whatever that
brings it up to. If it’s not, the Assessor’s
Office takes them by 200%, extract one acre and
multiply it by 200% and give it a view if it
doesn’t qualify for an exemption. Commissioner
Dinning said in this case, the timber exemption
and talking about category, is that done by acre
when they say all Category 12’s… had this been
under five acres, Commissioner Dinning said he
is sensing there is a different mechanism for
timber exemption property than those that do not
qualify and he questioned if that was correct.
Mr. Vetter said that is correct. Commissioner
Dinning asked what a one acre piece with no view
is assessed at today and Mr. Vetter said
approximately $27,180. Commissioner Dinning said
in seeing that this sale information was a part
of the sales verification or the study the State
conducted…how many sales had there been?
Assessor Ryals said there had been 23 sales for
residential. Commissioner Dinning said so this
is the effect of 5% approximately. Commissioner
Dinning said the State has addressed this and
they are satisfied. Assessor Ryals said he could
address that more specifically.
Assessor Ryals presented
information as Assessor’s Exhibit #2 (consisting
of 1 page). Assessor Ryals said this document is
the Primary Category Vacant Residential Study
and it was prepared by Allan Dornfest who is the
Senior Tax Policy Analyst for the Idaho State
Tax Commission. Assessor Ryals said Mr. Dornfest
does this study every year and it is how the
State Tax Commission checks the County levels to
make sure the County is within the required
minimum and maximum ranges, which are the 90% to
110% of the market. Assessor Ryals explained the
document that shows 23 vacant residential land
sales for Boundary
County. Assessor Ryals said the
County is looking for the median ratio, which is
what the State uses as that measure of that 90%
to 110% and you can see that
Boundary
County is at 96%. Assessor Ryals
said the last column titled “Probability of
90/110%” without getting too technical, you will
see 74.08%. Assessor Ryals said what Mr.
Dornfest is saying is of the sales that were
collected and analyzed, 74% of those sales fell
within that 90 to 110% range.
Assessor Ryals explained
where these numbers come from. Assessor Ryals
said when a sale occurs, the measure of a sale
price and assessed value, between those two, the
Assessor’s Office develops a ratio. The State is
measuring the County’s value according to the
sale price so the County is going to be 110% of
the sale price; we’re going to be 90% of the
sale price, but that is the ratio…sale price to
assessed value. The State arrays those in
descending order of lowest to highest. The State
will look at the average, which is the mean to
give them one number, but that is not the number
the State actually uses to determine our levels,
according to Assessor Ryals. The State uses the
actual midpoint so if there are eleven sales,
the State is looking for sale #6 to be the
actual midpoint. Then the State is comparing
where the cluster of sales are to see if they
have enough of them to support that midpoint as
being representative of the market, according to
Assessor Ryals. Assessor Ryals said there will
be sales that will be lower such as Mr. Zahnow’s
and those that are higher and that means Mr.
Zahnow just got stuck. Assessor Ryals said there
are others that really made out like a bandit,
but the majority of the market falls in the
midpoint such as the 74% that did and that
midpoint is 96%. The State is not looking at
parcel size, but is looking at parcel category.
The County does look at parcel size when they
develop the per acre rates that are applied to
everyone evenly, according to Assessor Ryals.
Assessor Ryals said he knows it sounds like it
throws everything into the hopper so to speak,
but that is the only way to get any kind of
equitability. Assessor Ryals said his office
can’t use an actual sale to value an actual
property like California does and we have to use
all of the sale to get a basic level that is
applied to everyone equally and that is what the
purpose of this study is. Assessor Ryals said
this study is to make sure the County did
exactly that and
Boundary County
did.
Commissioner Dinning said
if he understands correctly, vacant residential,
five acres of Mr. Zahnow’s existing sale or
more, did not fall or did it fall, into this
category because the timber exemption is on it.
Assessor Ryals said if the property currently
enjoyed a timber exemption, it would not have
been considered a valid sale…for the purposes of
the study. Assessor Ryals said for the County’s
purposes when setting the level, you bet his
office is looking at that as his office wants to
get it as right as it can. When the State is
testing the County, they can’t because the
County’s assessed value is going to be not
market, it is going to be timber. Commissioner
Dinning said that is what he was asking and so
in essence, the State is grading on the curve in
determining matters. There is the high and the
low and they are thrown out and the middle sets
the value for the Assessor’s Office. Assessor
Ryals said this is in State Code and State Rule
and is something the State does to the County,
the County doesn’t do it to the State.
Chairman Smith asked Mr.
Zahnow if he had any questions and Mr. Zahnow
said no it was well explained. Assessor Ryals
said it can seem grossly unfair and he can
totally understand that.
Chairman Smith closed the
hearing to further public testimony and reviewed
the closing procedures.
Commissioner Dinning said
the information is pretty well laid out and he
understands the data concerns and he has had
them himself over the years. Commissioner
Dinning said sometimes processes don’t make
sense, but the County has to live with what the
State allows the County to do. Commissioner
Dinning said he wishes he could reduce for
everyone, but the County only has the ability to
change the assessment if there is a provable
error or something along those lines.
Commissioner Kirby said he had no comments.
Commissioner Dinning moved
to sustain the Assessor’s valuation for parcel
#RP61N01E036602A. Commissioner Kirby second.
Motion passed unanimously.
Assessor Ryals said this
study worked out this time, but had it come out
differently and the assessment was reduced 50%,
that 50% would have applied to all properties
evenly throughout the County exactly the same
way. Assessor Ryals said when this happens,
these market adjustments up and down that his
Office makes, they have virtually no affect on
the County’s bills because it just drives the
rate up or down. Everybody goes up together and
down together, but the bills stay the same.
Really only the physical attributes of the
property, the size, what you choose to use it
for, those are the main determining factors as
far as what your value will be.
The appeal hearing ended at 10:40 a.m.
Commissioner Dinning moved
to recess as Board of Equalization and reconvene
as the Board of County Commissioners.
Commissioner Kirby second. Motion passed
unanimously.
Clerk Glenda Poston briefly
joined the meeting to review the proposed Public
Defenders’ Contract with Commissioners.
Clerk Poston left the
meeting.
11:05
a.m., Chairman Smith conducted a tour
of the Boundary County Jail. The tour ended at
11:10 a.m.
Commissioners recessed for
lunch at 11:10
p.m.
1:30 p.m., Commissioners
reconvened for the afternoon session with
Chairman Smith, Commissioner Dinning,
Commissioner Kirby, and Deputy Clerk Michelle
Rohrwasser.
1:30 p.m., Rhonda Vogl,
Darrell Kerby with Pace Kerby Insurance,
Bernadette Kirk-Bonner, Jennifer Solt, and
Jessica Tingley joined the meeting to discuss
with Commissioners Idaho’s first Run for the
Fallen Event.
Commissioners gave their
support for the Run for the Fallen Event, which
takes place August 20, 2011, and he explained that
arrangements for use of the fairgrounds need to
be made with the Fair Board. Chairman Smith said
he is confused as to what will need insurance
coverage. Commissioners said they would like to
help, but don’t know where the situation is at.
Ms. Vogl said she and the group involved in this
event wanted to know if they’re required to
provide insurance for use of County roads or use
in City limits. The U.S. Track and Field
Organization provided insurance coverage for the
Kootenai River Run, but that was a race and this
event is not. Ms. Vogl said there are a lot of
questions and she was hoping the County would
provide insurance if it is required. Chairman
Smith said when the
Boundary
Community Hospital
has their riding event, their insurance covers
it. Mr. Kerby said the Hospital is covered by
Idaho Counties Risk Management Program (ICRMP)
so that coverage is already there. Mr. Kerby
said the Fair Board is also insured. Chairman
Smith said those areas are where he sees a need
for insurance, but not for people going up and
down the road. Commissioner Dinning said there
is no insurance required for use of a County
road. Ms. Vogl said the participants of this
event aren’t “sue- happy people”, they are
family members of Idaho’s
fallen military members.
Mr. Kerby explained in
Idaho, the State
Constitution prohibits cities, counties, and
school districts from lending credit other than
to another government entity. The Constitution
has been ruled that if the County insures a
non-government entity, that county violates the
State constitution as that is considered lending
credit. The only way a county can insure is if
another government entity is putting the event
on. The Hospital is covered by ICRMP as it is
quasi-covered under
Boundary
County. When a private,
non-government entity is asking for insurance
such as the Run for the Fallen event, that event
would have to become
Boundary County’s
Run for the Fallen. In order to be covered by
County insurance, you have to be the County or
be a County function and from time to time that
has been done for special interests.
Mr. Kerby said the second
question is why insurance is needed. Mr. Kerby
said he is not aware of any permitting needed
for this event and since there is no permit,
there is probably no government entity that he
is aware of that would require a permit or
authorization. If there is no government
requirement for a permit, then government is not
going to require insurance, and then it becomes
a personal issue for the people putting the
event on. Those present discussed various acts
of negligence that could occur.
Mr. Kerby said from a
personal standpoint, it becomes a personal
decision. Often a homeowner has homeowner’s
insurance and there may be coverage under that
policy. There are statutes in
Idaho
that are trying to encourage State citizens to
volunteer and there are some immunities that go
along with that. If the County doesn’t have a
permitting process, the County is not requiring
insurance so there is no government telling the
Run for the Fallen Organization that insurance
is needed. Chairman Smith asked if everyone’s
homeowner’s insurance would cover this and Mr.
Kerby said no.
Ms. Vogl asked about a
special event policy and Mr. Kerby said there
are special event policies available and he
relayed the costs involved. Mr. Kerby said the
minimum premium for a special event policy is
$550 to $650 in addition to other fees.
Commissioner Dinning asked if the Run for the
Fallen is a non-profit organization. Ms. Tingley
said she was told she couldn’t apply for tax
exempt status until next year as a budget needs
to be submitted. It said the Veterans of Foreign
Wars (VFW) has adopted this event as their
project. Mr. Kerby said the VFW would have
insurance, but the question is if the VFW has
coverage for this type of event. Chairman Smith
asked if the Veterans’ Day parade is covered and
Mr. Kerby said the City of
Bonners Ferry’s Volunteer
Fire Department ends up hosting this parade so
it is covered by the City.
Chairman Smith said the
bottom line is there is nothing the County, as a
government entity, can do for coverage short of
the event becoming a County event. Chairman
Smith said he would be kind of proud for
Boundary County
to be a part of this. Those present contemplated
coverage abilities of the VFW.
Mr. Kerby questioned this
area’s event falling under the main Run for the
Fallen Organization. Ms. Tingley mentioned the
head organization said it was up to each state
and locality. It was said the State of
Maine
operated for many years with no insurance.
Those present discussed a
waiver of fees from the City. Mr. Kerby said
insurance may not be required if the group is
not fully taking the event on. Ms. Vogl said she
feels the City will be open to waiving fees. It
was said the application process has been
daunting. Chairman Smith said the County is not
requiring anything and he felt the group was
good to go. Ms. Vogl informed Commissioners
there will be an Air Force fly over as well. The
total route throughout the County will consist
of 44 kilometers and it will end in the City.
Each soldier is represented by one kilometer.
Ms. Vogl said the Run for the Fallen will be an
amazing event and it is
Idaho’s first.
The meeting ended at 2:00 p.m.
2:00 p.m., Planning and Zoning
Administrator Mike Weland joined the meeting at
Commissioners’ request for the adoption of the
Planning and Zoning Findings and Decision for
the application for a zip line.
Commissioners explained
that Chairman Smith was absent the day of the
hearing to address Lisa Robbe’s application so
he would abstain from the motion.
Commissioner Kirby moved to
adopt the Planning and Zoning Findings and
Decision for Application #11-012, a special use
permit filed by Applicant Lisa Robbe.
Commissioner Dinning second. Commissioners voted
as follows: Chairman Smith “abstained due to
absence”, Commissioner Dinning “yes”, and
Commissioner Kirby “yes”. Motion passed.
Those present discussed
Planning and Zoning process.
Mr. Weland left the
meeting.
Commissioner Kirby moved to
authorize the Chairman to sign the Idaho
Department of Commerce, Rural Economic
Development Professional Program fiscal year
2012 Memorandum of Understanding for an award
amount of $35,000. Commissioner Dinning second.
Motion passed unanimously.
Chairman Smith reviewed the
contract amendment for Inland Forest Management.
The additional amount of the contract amendment
is $12,006 for an overall total of $24,756. The
contract states the amended compensation is
contingent on funding becoming available, and
could be renegotiated if the scope of work
increases or decreases with future grants.
Inland forest Management will not incur costs or
invoice for services under this contract
amendment until details of funding have been
finalized.
Commissioner Dinning moved
to authorize the Chairman to sign the Boundary
County Fire Mitigation Project Management,
Professional Services Contract - Amendment #12,
with Inland Forest Management. Commissioner
Kirby second. Motion passed unanimously.
2:15 p.m., Property owner Donna
Standley met with Commissioners to request
information on the procedures for abandoning a
County right-of-way. Ms. Standley said she has
conflicting information as to whether she is
dealing with a road right-of-way or just a
right-of-way. Ms. Standley said her deed to the
original piece of property mentions there being
an easement, but nothing about rights-of-way.
Those present described how
to get to this property. Ms. Standley explained
that Highway 1 goes to
Porthill Loop Road
and Crescent Loop is off
Porthill Loop Road.
Ms. Standley said the problem is someone has
driven back there and she owns all land around
this right-of-way, but there is a strip in the
middle that is supposedly the County’s. Ms.
Standley questioned how someone will be able to
turn around and come back if they drive back
there. Ms. Standley said there is a 20 foot wide
by 200 feet long strip on the other side of the
same piece, the other south boundary edge.
Ms. Standley said someone
has gone back in here with a CAT or D8 and now
she can’t get off the road to get to her
property. Ms. Standley said she is concerned
because someone sees this as a County road.
Someone last year drove back beyond the Jantz
property, according to Ms. Standley.
The meeting with Ms.
Standley ended at
2:40 p.m.
There being no further
business for the remainder of the afternoon and
for Tuesday, the meeting adjourned at 3:00 p.m.
/s/
RONALD R. SMITH, Chairman
ATTEST:
/s/
GLENDA POSTON, Clerk
By: Michelle Rohrwasser,
Deputy
|
