|
Monday, July 11, 2011,
Commissioners met in regular session with
Chairman Ron Smith, Commissioner Dan Dinning,
Commissioner Walt Kirby, and Deputy Clerk
Michelle Rohrwasser.
9:00 a.m., Road and Bridge
Superintendent Jeff Gutshall joined the meeting
to give the departmental report. Mr. Gutshall
presented a written report. Alan Flory also
joined the meeting. Mr. Gutshall said he is
working on Deep Creek Phase II and in general he
is finishing that up. Mr. Gutshall said he is
getting the culverts in and repairing the
slough. Mr. Gutshall said he will check the
culverts for mitigation at the bottom of the
slope.
Commissioner Kirby spoke of
an area south of Gold Bar Ranch that has a large
bump in the road.
Mr. Gutshall said the
sloughing that occurred on Deep Creek Loop is
not part of the Phase II Project. Paving won’t
happen for a couple of weeks now and Phase II
ends around Moravia.
Next week Road and Bridge crew will work on dust
abatement and the following week will be focused
on asphalt grading and patching repairs. Mr.
Gutshall said Road and Bridge is doing pretty
good, but there are still areas to repair. Chip
sealing will start in August, according to Mr.
Gutshall.
Mr. Gutshall said he has an
employee that is leaving. This employee has been
real instrumental in getting the new unit for
the crusher and the crusher’s production has
literally doubled. Mr. Gutshall said he obtained
the list of previous job applicants that he has
interviewed and he has hired the next preferred
applicant.
Mr. Gutshall said City of
Bonners Ferry Administrator Stephen Boorman
is requesting information on rock production
costs. Mr. Gutshall presented Commissioners with
a draft proposal to work towards a new agreement
with the City of Bonners
Ferry. Mr. Gutshall said
he estimated the County’s costs to operate its
equipment for snow plowing and he did the same
with rock as well. The second page of his report
consists of information to incorporate into a
new agreement. The City does not get that much
rock, according to Mr. Gutshall. Mr. Gutshall
said he produced a par rate for materials for
trade and he is pretty comfortable with what he
has drafted.
Mr. Flory said he wanted to
talk about the ability for him to clear along
county roads. Mr. Gutshall said for the River
Project, Mr. Flory needs trees with root balls
attached and both Mr. Flory and Mr. Gutshall
think it would be a win-win situation to get rid
of
trees in the County’s ditch lines and “day
light” the county roads a bit. Mr. Gutshall said
since the ruling on the right-of-ways, it
establishes 50 feet and there is a better handle
on right-of-ways. It was said the trees that Mr.
Flory needs for the project will have value. Mr.
Gutshall explained that Mr. Flory took a tour
east where Road and Bridge has not had a lot of
time for brushing and there are areas where
there is a lot of brush and an occasional tree.
Mr. Flory said he could clear that right-of-way
and the trees would pay for the cost.
Commissioner Dinning said this has come up
before and Mr. Gutshall had felt it was good for
the County. Mr. Flory said he would do the leg
work as it relates to private property owners.
Commissioners asked Mr. Gutshall to contact
Attorney Phil Robinson to inform him of this and
to have him draft an agreement. This is not
going to be a situation where money changes
hands and it will be good as it will free Road
and Bridge up to do other things, according to
Mr. Gutshall.
The meeting with Mr.
Gutshall and Mr. Flory ended at
9:20 a.m.
Commissioner Kirby moved to
approve minutes of June 20 & 21, 2011.
Commissioner Dinning second. Motion passed
unanimously.
Commissioner Dinning moved
to recess as Board of County Commissioners and
reconvene as the Board of Equalization.
Commissioner Kirby second. Motion passed
unanimously.
9:30 a.m., Commissioners held a Board
of Equalization appeal hearing on parcel
#RP61N01E190961A by appellant Carl Cowart.
Present were: Chairman Ron Smith, Commissioner
Dan Dinning, Commissioner Walt Kirby, Deputy
Clerk Michelle Rohrwasser, Assessor Dave Ryals,
Appraiser Tom Mayo, and Appellant Carl Cowart.
The proceedings were recorded. The Assessor’s
Office presented one exhibit marked Assessor
Exhibit #1 (consisting of 10 pages) and the
Appellant presented one exhibit marked Appellant
Exhibit #1 (consisting of 7 pages). Chairman
Smith administered the oath to those giving
testimony to include: Assessor Ryals, Mr. Mayo,
and Mr. Cowart.
Chairman Smith asked the
appellant to give an opening statement. Mr.
Cowart said his case is the appraisal. Mr.
Cowart said ever since he has been here he feels
he has been charged too much. Mr. Cowart said
when he first built this house, Norvin Skrivseth
built it for $350,000 and then right away he was
assessed for a $500,000 house. Mr. Cowart said
he asked why he was charged for a $500,000 house
and was told because he could sell it for that
amount. Mr. Cowart said he responded that he
doesn’t plan on selling it and until he did sell
it, he doesn’t know what he could sell it for.
Mr. Cowart said as far as he is concerned, his
taxes have been way too high ever since he built
it. Mr. Cowart said he didn’t have the appraisal
done to reduce his taxes, he had the appraisal
done because he is starting to think about
giving the house off to his daughter and
granddaughter. Mr. Cowart said when he got the
appraisal back he felt he should do some
checking on the appraisal because he feels he is
getting charged way more in taxes than what this
other person appraised his house for.
Chairman Smith asked Mr.
Cowart if he had any more testimony to offer.
Mr. Cowart said Commissioners have the
appraisal. Chairman Smith asked if the appraisal
was an independent appraisal and Mr. Cowart said
yes, that he contacted the bank and asked for
the name of an appraiser. Chairman Smith asked
Mr. Cowart, when he built his home for $350,000,
but was told he could sell it for $500,000, who
told him that. Mr. Cowart said someone from the
Assessor’s Office. Chairman Smith asked if the
employee from the Assessor’s Office told him
that is what the value is based on. Mr. Cowart
said he was told his value was based on what he
could sell his house for and he doesn’t see how
anybody could do that. Chairman Smith said he
has seen a lot of times in the past where an
appraisal will be, for an example, $200,000 on a
piece of property and the property owner will
feel that is too high, but when the property
owner is asked if they would sell their house
for that amount, they say they would “no”
because it is worth more. Mr. Cowart said he
probably wouldn’t sell the house if he could get
$500,000 for it because he likes the house and
anyone who would pay that amount would be crazy.
Mr. Cowart said he didn’t build the house to
sell it, but to live in it.
Commissioner Dinning said
for clarification, this appraisal was for five
acres and the house. Mr. Cowart said yes.
Commissioner Dinning said the five acres valued
that Mr. Cowart is being assessed on is just the
raw land and he questioned if there is
contention with that figure. Mr. Cowart said he
had a question and he asked what is a rural
improvement on “Ag” in relation to that five
acre piece as he doesn’t understand what that
is. Commissioner Dinning said the appraiser or
Assessor will probably explain what that is in a
minute. Commissioner Dinning said for clarity
that the appraisal is on five acres and that is
all Mr. Cowart is dealing with as far as what is
being appealed. Mr. Cowart said that has nothing
to do with it. Commissioner Dinning said what he
is asking is, the rest of the property, the
value on it is not included in what Mr. Cowart
is stating today. Mr. Cowart said that was
correct and that those acres are not even in his
name, but in his daughter’s name. Commissioner
Dinning said really what we’re dealing with
today are the structures on those five acres.
Mr. Cowart nodded. Commissioner Dinning asked if
the Assessor’s Office had an opportunity to go
in and look at the house. Mr. Cowart said yes,
he had been in completely through the house and
measured everything. Commissioner Dinning said
for clarification that he meant if the Assessor
had an opportunity, not Mr. Cowart’s appraiser.
Mr. Cowart said no. Commissioner Dinning asked
how much the Assessor’s Office had the property
appraised at and he and Chairman Smith noted the
amount of $446,040. Commissioner Dinning asked
if Mr. Cowart is contending the amount should be
$280,000. Mr. Cowart said that is what the
appraiser valued the property at. Chairman Smith
said to Mr. Cowart that the Assessor’s Office
valued the property at $446,040, but Mr. Cowart
is saying the value is $280,000. Chairman Smith
said the value of $446,040 includes acreage,
homesite, and rural building and he asked if the
amount of $280,000 is a part of the $446,040
total or is Mr. Cowart saying the entire total
should be $280,000. Chairman Smith reviewed the
breakdown as follows: the total for land is
$40,320, buildings are valued at $403,630, and
“other” is valued at $2,090 for a total of
$446,040. Chairman Smith asked if all of those
areas are included in Mr. Cowart’s figure of
$280,000. Mr. Cowart said no, just the house,
just the barn, rural buildings. Mr. Cowart said
the rural building is what he is looking at.
Chairman Smith asked if that is the $403,630
figure and Mr. Cowart said yes. Chairman Smith
said so the difference is between $403,000 and
$280,000.
Chairman Smith asked if
anyone had any questions. Mr. Mayo said he was
just going to clarify what Mr. Cowart had asked
about. Mr. Mayo said the “32” is an outbuilding
such as a shed. Mr. Cowart mentioned the
building he has his generator in and Mr. Mayo
said yes. Mr. Mayo asked if there was a slab out
there in front of the house. Mr. Cowart
mentioned a sidewalk.
Commissioner Dinning asked
Mr. Cowart if the only thing he owns currently
is the house and five acres and Mr. Cowart said
yes. Commissioner Dinning said Mr. Cowart has
four acres in Dry Ag and a one acre house site,
rural residential house site, or rural site.
Commissioner Kirby said for clarification that
Mr. Cowart has no quarrel with the value of $40,
320 for the property. Commissioner Dinning said
that is correct. Chairman Smith asked about
property being in someone else’s name.
Commissioner Dinning said he knows that Mr.
Cowart had more land and now he only owns is the
house and five acres.
Chairman Smith asked Mr.
Mayo to present his testimony. Mr. Mayo said
basically everything he has to say is in his
letter and that he went through some
discrepancies he found. Chairman Smith said
everything Mr. Cowart stated is a part of the
record and he would like Mr. Mayo to read his
letter aloud so it is in the recording. Mr. Mayo
read his letter into the record.
Mr. Mayo said Mr. Cowart
came to his office with a fee appraisal compiled
by Vogel Appraisal and asked that it be
considered as a basis for lowering his
valuation. Mr. Mayo said he had visited the
property in 2004 and at the time it was only a
finished basement. In 2006, the County’s new
construction appraiser picked up the completed
house. The appraiser measured and classed the
house from the outside, but was not allowed to
inspect the interior. Mr. Mayo began to speak of
the 2009 reval cycle and explained that County
Appraiser Ken Carpenter had done the original
work and this is when he took over the appraisal
of the house. Mr. Mayo said during the 2009
reval cycle, he approached Mr. Cowart and was
denied access to his property.
Mr. Mayo said he told Mr.
Cowart that one of several issues he had with
the fee appraisal was that Mr. Cowart had given
full access to Vogel Appraisal, but had not
allowed him the same opportunity. Mr. Mayo said
although he is uncomfortable reducing values of
properties of which he has not been allowed
access, he looked at Mr. Cowart’s appraisal. Mr.
Mayo said the photos of the interior, which
aren’t included in his copies here, seem to
indicate a lower class than what had been placed
on the home originally. Mr. Mayo said as a
courtesy to Mr. Cowart, he lowered the class and
revalued the parcel. This resulted in a decrease
from $510,390 to $446,040. Mr. Mayo said the
County values properties using cost with a local
modifier. Vogel’s approach is based on Sales
Comparison Approach and, in his words, supported
by the Cost Approach. Originally Vogel’s Sales
Comparison Approach value was $280,000 and the
Cost Approach was $301,661; less than an 8%
increase. Mr. Mayo said he told Mr. Cowart he
could find nothing that indicated value for the
finished basement. Mr. Cowart asked Vogel about
this and was sent a revision that added $57,240
for the basement, for a depreciated total of
$359,995 on the Cost Approach. Mr. Mayo said
Vogel also deducted $30,000 for the water source
which is not on this parcel. Mr. Cowart is
intending to gift the property to family members
who have title to surrounding parcels where the
well is located. The water would be an issue
only if Mr. Cowart wanted to sell the house in
an arm’s length transaction. Removing the
$30,000 deduction for the water source brings
the value to $389,995. Vogel’s contributory
values on his Cost Approach of the driveway and
other improvements are listed at $7,500, but the
driveway alone probably cost over $12,000 with
the County’s value being $9,860. Mr. Mayo said
the County’s value for those improvements of
decks, balconies, pavement, concrete slabs, and
outbuildings is $38,670. This would bring the
value to $421,165. Depreciation is a subjective
process used to account for aging. Vogel used
3.3% and the Assessor’s Office uses 2% for a
home of this age for a $4,600 difference. Mr.
Mayo said Vogel states he uses Marshall and
Swift for his cost data and rated the home as
Average quality. Mr. Mayo referred to the photo
in the exhibit marked as Assessor’s Exhibit #1
and he said when Mr. Cowart brought the fee
appraisal to him, it had several other photos
that would have given a better idea of the
house, but they weren’t included it here. Mr.
Mayo said he thinks it is clear from the photo
taken from the County road
in the Assessor’s Exhibit #1 and Marshall
and Swift’s own description of an Average
quality residence (included in the Assessor’s
Exhibit #1, page 5), that Mr. Cowart’s home is
strikingly more than an average house. Raising
the class only one grade to a Good would result
in more than a 25% increase in the square foot
rate used to determine value. Conservatively,
this would be $83,000 and bring the total to
$504,165. Mr. Mayo said he has already started
out being 8% within Vogel’s Sale Comparison
value and that puts the County up to 180% of
what Vogel came out with in his Sale Comparison.
To say that the Cost Approach supports the
$280,000 value is whimsical at best, according
to Mr. Mayo. Mr. Mayo said as far a the
comparable sales: comp #1 was a distressed sale,
comp #2 was sold outside of the time frame the
Assessors’ office is allowed to use, and comp #3
seems to have been part of a divorce settlement
and is likely to have been listed for a quick
sale. Comps #4 through #6 are properties that
were listed for sale when the fee appraisal was
made. Mr. Mayo said fee appraisals are done for
a particular reason on a particular property and
should have little bearing on county property
values. The County uses mass appraisal
techniques to obtain values. The County values
like properties the same and adjusts its Local
Cost Modifier depending on sales information
that the County receives. Although Vogel stated
he had 39 comparable “offered for sale”
properties and 15 comparable sales at his
disposal, the ones he chose to use had to be
adjusted from 24.6% to 38.5% to reach his
conclusions. Mr. Mayo questioned, are these
really “like” properties? Mr. Mayo said the
fifth page back of Assessor’s Exhibit #1 is a
list Vogel used under the heading of BARNS or
SHOP/STORAGE and he had a value of $9,000 on
each of them. Mr. Mayo said this page shows what
the value on these buildings should be.
Mr. Mayo said it is hard to
come up with the reasoning behind some of
Vogel’s values on things. If things had been
added like they should’ve been, Mr. Mayo said he
thinks Vogel’s costs is nowhere close to what he
came up with for comparables. Mr. Mayo said
Boundary
County has a community where a lot
of people come here to be left alone and when
people bother them, they won’t want to have
anything do to with them. Mr. Mayo said
personally he has no problem with that and if
the property owner doesn’t want him coming out
to the property, that is fine and the Assessor’s
Office will do what they can do. Mr. Mayo said
if that is the case and Mr. Cowart won’t let the
Assessor’s Office come onto his property, the
property owner shouldn’t be allowed to get the
timber exemptions, the Ag exemptions, the
circuit breaker, or the homeowner’s exemption.
Mr. Mayo said it is hard for the Assessor’s
Office to do anything on property where the
appraisers are not allowed access. Mr. Mayo said
as a courtesy, he did lower the class as it may
have been a little too high, but having not gone
out there, that is all he is willing to do.
Chairman Smith said that is without looking
inside and Mr. Mayo said yes. Mr. Mayo said in
looking at the original pictures in the original
appraisal that Mr. Cowart brought him, it was of
the interior and other pictures of the outside,
but they are not included in Mr. Cowart’s
exhibit today.
Commissioner Dinning said
for clarity, the cost approach came up with
approximately $357,000 as it is listed in the
appellant’s appraisal marked Appellant Exhibit
#1, fourth page. Mr. Mayo said this is a
revision of the original. Commissioner Dinning
said in that $357,000, Vogel deducted $30,000
for the water source not being on the property.
Commissioner Dinning asked if the $357,000
included all of the buildings shown here. Mr.
Mayo said Vogel lists all of that information
under “contributory values”.
Commissioner
Dinning asked if that is in the cost approach
and Mr. Mayo said no. Mr. Mayo said that is why
he added that when he went through it to add the
thing that had been left out of either cost
approach. Commissioner Dinning asked if the
garage was counted in the $357,000 figure and
Mr. Mayo said he believed the garage was in
there and it was valued at $13,500 on Vogel’s
appraisal. Commissioner Dinning said Mr. Mayo
has the garage valued at $54,000. Mr. Mayo said
the garage is included and it’s like a basement
property. Commissioner Dinning referred to
information six pages back in the Assessor’s
Exhibit #1 and Mr. Mayo said these figures are
off of the comps that Vogel used and had valued
at $9,000 each. These are off the comps and are
to show the discrepancy, according to Mr. Mayo.
Mr. Mayo said Vogel valued every one of those
buildings at $9,000 and there is a huge
difference in how much they are worth.
Commissioner Dinning said the garage is listed
at $13,500 and the other buildings are somewhere
else. Mr. Mayo read from Vogel’s appraisal,
marked as Appellant Exhibit #1, fourth page
back. Site value includes contributory value of
the utilities. Land to improvement ratio is
typical of the area. The contributory value of
the driveway and other improvements was included
in the cost estimate under site improvements.
Commissioner Dinning said so site improvements
of $7,500 include the driveway, the garage, and
the buildings. Mr. Mayo said it is the driveway,
decks, and the porches. Mr. Mayo said when he
broke them down they came to $38,670 while Vogel
had them at $9,860. Commissioner Dinning said
there is a huge discrepancy between the two
values between the appraisal and what the
Assessor’s standards say they have to do to
comply with the State. Mr. Cowart said the barn
and all of that has nothing to do with the house
and he asked what the purpose was. Mr. Mayo said
the information they had just discussed are
Vogel’s comps. When talking about comparable
sales that Vogel used to work up Mr. Cowart’s
appraisal, Mr. Vogel listed the barns and such
and on each piece of property that Vogel used as
a comp, he said they each had a $9,000 value.
Mr. Mayo said this is used to show there is a
big discrepancy on the comps and what those
values actually are. Chairman Smith said there
is a value there for the barns. Commissioner
Dinning and Mr. Mayo said the barn is not on the
five acres. These are part of the outbuildings
that were included in the values of the
comparable sales, according to Commissioner
Dinning.
Chairman Smith offered Mr.
Cowart a chance to make a rebuttal. Mr. Cowart
said all he has is the appraisal and that is
what he can go by. Chairman Smith said for
clarity that Mr. Cowart is asking the County to
go by Vogel’s appraisal versus the County
appraisal. Mr. Cowart said by the way, the
Assessor’s Office started off by charging what
they did on the house to start with and it was
way off because it didn’t cost him that much to
build. Chairman Smith asked if Mr. Cowart came
before the Board of Equalization at that point
and Mr. Cowart said he just went to the
Assessor’s Office.
Chairman Smith asked if
anyone from the Assessor’s Office would like to
offer a rebuttal and Mr. Mayo and Assessor Ryals
declined.
Chairman Smith closed the
hearing to further public testimony and he
reviewed the closing procedures and procedures
to appeal the decision to the State Board of Tax
Appeals.
Commissioner Dinning said
this issue between what the Vogel appraisal says
and the Assessor says, at this point because he
has never been either place, he has nothing at
this point to be able to base a decision on
because of the disparity. Commissioner Dinning
said Mr. Cowart’s appraiser did their job based
on what he thought was appropriate and the
Assessor’s Office did their job based on what is
appropriate and he is not discounting either
one. Commissioner Dinning said he has never run
into this situation in the 10 years where there
was an appraisal that said “X” was this far
apart. Commissioner Dinning said he knows that
real estate has reduced and we’re about one year
behind in catching that with the County’s
process and the way it works. Commissioner
Dinning said his thinking is to allow Mr. Cowart
to take this matter to the Board of Tax Appeals
and by the Board of Equalization’s decision let
the State determine this. Commissioner Dinning
said if this was an obvious error somewhere he
would sure fix that, but there is nothing that
he sees here and he just sees two values that
are too far apart and to be fair to everybody,
that might be the way. Chairman Smith said he
wanted to go back to where the $500,000 was
mentioned as that would’ve been the time to come
before the Board of Equalization if the
valuation was that much off. Chairman Smith said
to take whether or not $500,000 was the proper
value to be put on and now does the County take
what Mr. Cowart’s appraiser came up with, which
he knows will favor Mr. Cowart as that is what
he was hired to do, or do Commissioners take the
Assessor’s value who is trying to make things as
close to what is actually out there as they can.
Chairman Smith said he can’t see enough here
that would make him want to go with what Mr.
Cowart’s appraiser has versus what the
Assessor’s Office has said. Chairman Smith said
if the vote was to sustain the Assessor that is
the opportunity for Mr. Cowart to see if the
Idaho State Tax Appeal Board has a different
idea.
Commissioner Kirby said he
is in agreement with Commissioner Dinning as it
begs to go to the State Board of Tax Appeals.
Commissioner Dinning said he has said all he
needs to say to allow Mr. Cowart to go to the
next step if that is what he chooses.
Commissioner Kirby said in order to get to the
State Tax Appeals, Commissioners have to move to
sustain the Assessor’s valuation.
Commissioner Kirby moved to
sustain the Assessor’s valuation on parcel
#RP61N01E190961A owned by Carl and Ann Cowart.
Commissioner Dinning second. Motion passed
unanimously.
Commissioner Dinning moved
to recess as Board of Equalization and reconvene
as the Board of County Commissioners.
Commissioner Kirby second. Motion passed
unanimously.
10:10
a.m., Deputy Clerk Nancy Ryals joined
the meeting.
10:10
a.m., Commissioner Dinning moved to
go into closed session under Idaho Code #31-874.
Commissioner Kirby second. Motion passed
unanimously. 10:14 a.m., Commissioner Dinning moved to go
out of closed session. Commissioner Kirby
second. Motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner Dinning moved
to deny indigent applications #2011-40 and
#2011-47 based on the Clerk’s recommendation.
Commissioner Kirby second. Motion passed
unanimously.
Deputy Clerk Nancy Ryals
left the meeting.
Commissioner Dinning moved
to recess as Board of County Commissioners and
reconvene as the Board of Equalization.
Commissioner Kirby second. Motion passed
unanimously.
10:30 a.m., Commissioners
held a Board of Equalization appeal hearing for
parcel #RPM00000150751A owned by James and Lisa
Angle. Present were: Chairman Ron Smith,
Commissioner Dan Dinning, Commissioner Walt
Kirby, Deputy Clerk Michelle Rohrwasser,
Assessor Dave Ryals, Appraiser Les Vetter, and
Appellant James Angle. The proceedings were
recorded. The Assessor’s Office presented one
exhibit marked Assessor Exhibit #1 (consisting
of 8 pages) and the appellant presented three
exhibits marked Appellant Exhibit #1 (consisting
of 8 pages), Appellant Exhibit #2 (consisting of
1 page) and Appellant Exhibit #3 (consisting of
1 page).
Chairman Smith read aloud
the appeal hearing procedures and administered
the oath to those giving testimony to include
Mr. Angle, Assessor Ryals, and Appraiser Les
Vetter.
Chairman Smith asked Mr.
Angle to provide his testimony. Mr. Angle said
he received a handout from Mr. Vetter that
stated recently Moyie Springs was in turn for
assessments. Mr. Vetter came out and now he has
a $115,000 increase on his property from what it
was last year. Mr. Angle said he assumed the
assessment would have stayed the same as it was
last year for the improvements he made to his
property. Mr. Angle said the improvements are
still not totally complete referring to the
unfinished siding, but said basically the inside
is done. Mr. Angle said his letter says the
garage with a room/kitchen upstairs could easily
be used as a house and was assessed as a
dwelling for 2011. Mr. Angle said when he bought
this property it had a foundation, power, water,
and a slab all just sitting there. Mr. Angle
said he had the stem walls and all he had to do
was frame in the rest of the stem walls. Mr.
Angle said he could’ve added a roof, but he put
a dwelling on top. Mr. Angle said by a dwelling,
it is basically a bonus room that consists of
one room and a bathroom. There are no closets or
bedrooms. There is a kitchen facility, but it is
of commercial-type so it just sits there. Mr.
Angle said there are no countertops and it is
all stainless steel that could be removed today
so he is not sure why Mr. Vetter is looking at
this as a dwelling. Mr. Angle said the majority
of the $115,000 value is the garage, which is
unheated, with a building on top. Mr. Angle said
it just made sense at the time to go ahead and
make it a living space instead of just putting a
roof on it. Mr. Angle said he has a domed shaped
house and he couldn’t go with a regular pitched
roof so he went with a “goofy” roof to match a
“goofy” house. Mr. Angle said since he was going
to look for storage, he just decided to expand
the structure.
As far as living space, Mr.
Angle said he guesses this area could be a
mother-in-law apartment, but it is open except
for the bathroom. Mr. Angle said if he wanted to
purchase a home in town, he could buy a decent
home on a piece of property for $110,000 that
could include a garage and the whole nine yards,
but he is getting assessed for another $115,000
for a garage with a bonus room on top. Mr. Angle
said it is true that he has decking which
connects the two buildings. Mr. Angle referred
to Assessor Exhibit #1, (four pages back) and
said there is an unheated mudroom that is
attached to the house that is on pillars as it
has no foundation so basically it is a covered
deck that was made into a mudroom. Mr. Angle
said he thinks he is getting charged even for
the porch on the front of that building. Mr.
Angle said there had been a porch on the house
and when they made the mud room it needed a
porch so they threw the old one away, but used
the same stairs that were there. Mr. Angle said
he doesn’t see where Mr. Vetter is saying the
value on that mudroom is $17,000. Mr. Angle said
in a way it is a fancy porch as there is no heat
and again it had to fit the house so that is why
it looks like it does.
Mr. Angle said he is
confused on the diagram (Assessor Exhibit #1,
fourth page) that shows the house with the main
deck of 1,038 square feet and he is not sure
where the dwelling itself, the new addition
portion, is drawn out as he didn’t see it. Mr.
Angle referred to his exhibit marked Appellant
Exhibit #3 and said the top two pictures show
the structure in its current condition with no
siding and you can tell the walls aren’t
perpendicular on the outside. Mr. Angle said
they actually are perpendicular on the inside
for a little while before they come up. Mr.
Angle said he is not sure of the specific value
on that structure as he only has the total of
$115,000. Mr. Angle referred to the middle
picture (labeled #6) on the left and said this
structure is valued at $1,280 and has been on
the property for quite awhile and behind that is
a little lean-to made of scrap tin for $530. Mr.
Angle said he could contest the value of the
little lean-to. Mr. Angle referred to picture #1
to the left of #6 and said the smaller shed is
listed as $630 and you can buy those brand new
at that size for $999 out of Kalispell and at
Ziggy’s. This structure has been on the property
since 1989.
The tin one in front on
picture #1 is valued at $1,010 and there are no
sides to this, just a roof. Mr. Angle said he
bought that at an auction for $800.
Mr. Angle said the
structure in picture #7 where the boat is, he
literally bought the tin at a yard sale and the
tin is probably as old as he is. This was mainly
added for a wood shed and Mr. Vetter has it
valued at $910. The very bottom picture is
mislabeled as it is an 8 foot by 12 foot
structure, not 8 feet by 16 feet. Mr. Angle said
this structure is just a chicken coop and always
has been a chicken coop. Mr. Angle said the
highest price he has found on those is $1,450
brand new and delivered. Mr. Angle said the back
of his has been cut out for ventilation and for
chickens to get in and out. Mr. Angle said his
son built it for him four years ago and he is 18
years old now. Overall these are minor things,
but they all are a little overpriced and it all
adds up to the $115,000, according to Mr. Angle.
Mr. Angle referred to
Assessor Exhibit #1 where it states had items
not been added to the assessment roll, the value
of this parcel for year 2011 would have been
$247,530, which is down $2,000 from last year.
Mr. Angle said people are asking for $16,000 for
one acre lots and there are all kinds of lots in
the subdivision near him so there is no
advantage to subdivide and sell. Mr. Angle said
he paid $310,000 for his property in year 2007
and his market value was $336,830. Mr. Angle
said he complained to the Assessor and was told
Commissioners or the State was allowed to be 10%
above what the going rate is. Mr. Angle said he
didn’t make a formal complaint. Even though the
market was turning down, he paid another $31,000
of value immediately and then the market really
went down. Chairman Smith said for clarification
that it was the Tax Commission, maybe for that
10%. Mr. Angle said he was told by someone in
the Assessor’s Office that they were allowed up
to 10% above fair market value. Chairman Smith
said that wouldn’t be something the
County
Commissioners would be telling the
Assessor’s Office. Mr. Angle said he has been
told because of all houses on the market as
there is so much inventory and because of
repossessions and bank foreclosures, if you want
to sell your home, you need to take 25% off what
you think your property is worth in order to get
it sold.
Mr. Angle explained that
one side of his property in Moyie Springs is
Highway 2 and a large corner of his property is
commercial. This area is the Moyie Store, which
is a growing concern because of the nursery,
backhoes, and chainsaws cutting wood. If someone
is going to buy a home for $365,000, they will
find something nicer, according to Mr. Angle.
Mr. Angle mentioned the noise from the train and
the lumber mill. Mr. Angle said the mill is a
large portion of his property so it is
industrial and the mill has been pretty active.
Mr. Angle said if someone bought their home for
$300,000 and a gravel pit went in right next to
them, their property probably won’t be as
valuable and he doesn’t think you can just go by
the numbers’ game. Mr. Angle side for some
reason his little unfinished addition is the
value of a home on property someplace else.
Commissioner Dinning said
Mr. Angle submitted an appraisal as an exhibit
(Appellant Exhibit #1) and he sees $262,000 and
that will be a part of the record. Commissioner
Dinning said in 2009, the assessed value dropped
to almost 2006 values. Then there was an
increase that occurred in 2010 and 2011. Mr.
Angle said from 2009 to 2010 value decreased and
Commissioner Dinning said there was an increase
from 2010 to 2011. Commissioner Dinning said the
amount of $365,000 was after the Assessor’s
Office came out and viewed the property. The
contention is the valuation of the commercial
kitchen area and the valuation in regards to
square footage. Mr. Angle said he assumed the
square footage is correct although he doesn’t
have a picture of the building in question. Mr.
Angle said he didn’t speak specifics to the
Assessor, but he did speak to Mr. Vetter who
explained the process of coming to discuss the
valuation as well as the process of the Board of
Equalization.
Mr. Vetter said Mr. Angle
referred to his garage and he said there is an
additional drawing of the garage and the
upstairs.
Chairman Smith asked Mr.
Vetter to provide his testimony. Mr. Vetter said
Mr. Angle’s property is a 15.199 acre parcel
located in Moyie springs. Of this 14.199 acres
are dedicated to timber with 1 acre dedicated to
a home site (Category 20). There is a large dome
house and a second dwelling over a detached
garage (Category 41). There are also several
outbuildings of various descriptions and
dimensions (Category 30). This parcel was
visited by Mr. Vetter on
July 17, 2010 as part of the 2011
revaluation cycle. It was at this time that the
second residence as well as a large new deck and
new mud room on the main house were found. There
were also 2 new outbuildings found at this time.
The second residence was originally going to be
a commercial kitchen, but the business did not
materialize. As this structure could easily be
used as a house it was assessed as a dwelling
for 2011. If these items had not been added to
the assessment roll, the value of this parcel
for 2011 would have been $247,530. Mr. Vetter
said he has not had the opportunity to review
the fee appraisal that Mr. Angle mentions in his
appeal. Mr. Vetter said he has had the chance to
review other fee appraisals presented to the
County as well as speak with a local fee
appraiser about fee appraisals in general. Mr.
Vetter said his conclusion is a fee appraisal is
no more than an opinion of value at a point in
time for a specific use. The use is generally
financial in nature and is not intended for any
other purpose. There is an Intended Use and
Intended User paragraph in each fee appraisal.
The Assessor’s Office uses mass appraisal, which
is also an opinion of value at a point in time
for a specific use. Even though the main purpose
of mass appraisal is taxation, County records
are public and can be viewed by anyone. Real
estate agents, insurance providers, fee
appraisers and assorted others view the County’s
data. There are several differences between
Boundary County
mass appraisal and fee appraisal. The County’s
sales data for any given assessment year is one
year old. A fee appraiser’s data is three to six
months old and comparables that are used may be
lie outside of the County boundaries. Mr. Vetter
said the appraiser’s work applies to every
parcel in the County. A fee appraiser’s work
applies to one parcel. The Assessors’ Office
attaches value to all components of a parcel
including the land, house, patios, decks,
asphalt, and outbuildings that may exist. A fee
appraiser also values the land and house, but
feels the other items listed contribute little
and values them at thousands if not tens of
thousands less than it would cost to have them
built. Even a second dwelling can have little
value. The things listed above are just a small
amount of the differences between mass and fee
appraisal. Mr. Vetter said he believes each
appraisal method is valid for the purpose it is
designed for. No loaning institution should use
a county appraisal for financing and no county
should use a financing appraisal for a mass
market value. Mr. Vetter said with this he would
ask the Board of Equalization to find for the
County.
Mr. Vetter said he wanted
to discuss the second buildings, which is garage
with kitchen. Mr. Vetter said Mr. Angle was home
the day he was there and was kind enough to show
him the upstairs and at the time. The property
owners were planning a commercial kitchen in
order to make baked goods to sell in town, but
that didn’t happen. Mr. Vetter said at that
time, because of the area being commercial in
nature, he turned it over to the County’s
commercial appraiser, Ken Carpenter. Mr. Vetter
said Mr. Angle called and spoke to Mr. Carpenter
about what the values were going to be. Mr.
Carpenter had asked Mr. Angle about the kitchen
and was told the space wasn’t going to be a
commercial unit after all. Mr. Vetter said Mr.
Angle is correct in that it is a wide open space
with a kitchen that is commercial in nature, a
bathroom, and the rest was wide open. Mr. Vetter
said he felt this space could easily be used as
an apartment or second dwelling for a relative
or kids. Mr. Vetter said there was no choice,
but to value it as something as it was no longer
a commercial kitchen over a garage. Mr. Vetter
said he called it a dwelling over a garage and
the rest of the house deck and the other thing
could go along with the homeowner’s exemption to
help. Mr. Vetter said the homeowner’s exemption
didn’t help because the house and land was
valued so high. Mr. Vetter said he valued the
garage/kitchen at a percent complete as it
wasn’t finished at the time he was at the
property.
Chairman Smith asked if
there are two houses side by side and Mr. Vetter
said at the way he has it classified at the
moment it is. Mr. Vetter said on the drawing he
provided, the deck comes off of the dome-shaped
home and the deck connects them. Mr. Vetter said
there is a house and a deck that connects to a
garage with living quarters over the top. Mr.
Vetter said he separated the value on the
detached garage and the living area because it
was new to the Assessor’s Office. Mr. Vetter
said there are now two different values and if
he didn’t value it that way, the property owner
would’ve been assessed an additional solid waste
fee. Mr. Vetter said the Assessor’s Office
normally calls those a secondary guest house so
not to have additional solid waste and
translator fees. Chairman Smith said next year,
will there be a value on this property as one
parcel? Mr. Vetter said he did that already for
this year and that is why we’re meeting before
the Board of Equalization.
Mr. Vetter explained how he
classed the mud room as a three wall addition as
it is new and wasn’t complete at the time he was
there. Mr. Vetter showed Commissioners where the
new deck is located off of the house and
explained how the garage attaches (Assessor
Exhibit #1, fourth page back). Mr. Vetter said
the house value is $197,560, the addition is
valued at $16,620, the small deck is valued at
$2,010, and the large deck is valued at $9,490.
Mr. Vetter explained the deck was listed at
being 87% complete and explained he subtracted
for the items that weren’t complete when he was
onsite.
Mr. Vetter said the next
page shows the issue that is being discussed
today. There was an original slab and this slab
had been valued as parking space by the County.
There is a one story frame (second floor) over a
framed garage over a slab, according to Mr.
Vetter. Mr. Vetter reviewed a summary of
improvements. The dwelling is at 78% complete
with a value of $61,510, attached garage is 92%
complete with a value of $15,360, the concrete
slab is valued at $1,310, and both decks are
valued at $4,480 each. Chairman Smith said all
of this is attached to the other structure by a
deck and Mr. Vetter said yes. Chairman Smith
said in the future these won’t be shown as
improvements? Mr. Vetter explained how the
system adds value to the house.
Mr. Vetter referred to
Appellant Exhibit #3 (top two pictures) in order
to show Commissioners there is no common wall
attaching the two buildings. Commissioner
Dinning said by attaching the two buildings as
one unit, there has been benefit for the
property owner as opposed to two structures. Mr.
Vetter said yes. Commissioner Dinning asked if
values for other structures came up. Mr. Vetter
said no and if he has mistakes on those, he
would be more than happy to fix that.
Commissioner Dinning said it appears from the
pictures, the garage portion is somewhat
unfinished and the upper portion is at 92%
complete and he asked if that was accurate. Mr.
Angle said the interior of the upstairs room is
finished and the exterior is missing.
Commissioner Dinning said the increase in
assessed value is the new two-car garage with
the structure on top. Mr. Angle nodded.
Commissioner Dinning mentioned the upstairs
consisting of 840 square feet and the garage
portion consists of 1,080 square feet. Mr.
Vetter explained that each side the upstairs
portion is an overhang that consists of extra
wall room. Commissioner Dinning asked if there
is any other category to place the upstairs in
to indicate a reduction in assessed value. Mr.
Vetter said he feels this area is appropriately
categorized. Mr. Vetter said if there was an
attic area or if the walls were pinched in
rather than being expanded. He could call it an
attic, but it doesn’t fit the attic category.
Mr. Vetter mentioned he counted the addition
where the mudroom is as a three-wall addition
and that Mr. Angle described it as an enclosed
framed porch more than a three-wall addition.
Mr. Vetter said he cannot say how much that
reduction would be off the top of his head, but
he would not have an issue with changing that to
an enclosed framed porch for an approximate
reduction of $10,000 down to an approximate
total of $6,000.
Chairman Smith asked if Mr.
Vetter said the values could be reduced. Mr.
Vetter referred to the three-wall addition on
the main house that was a part of the increase
of the overall assessment. This value was
$16,620 and then the decks were $11,000, but the
decks were there so he can’t see that value
changing. Mr. Vetter said unless something was
changed on the secondary house, he doesn’t see
that he made a huge error on these so that needs
to stand. Mr. Vetter said in listening to Mr.
Angle he can see where he probably
misinterpreted what the mudroom was.
Chairman Smith offered Mr.
Angle the chance to rebut.
Mr. Angle said the focus is
on the kitchen above the garage. The Assessor’s
Office has the upper portion valued at $61,510
and he mentioned the bottom portion where the
foundation was already supplied. Mr. Angle said
this foundation was not just a slab as it
already had four foot stem walls and it was
valued at $15,360. Mr. Angle said these two
areas are sharing the same roof and the same
foundation so it seems extreme to him for that
little top portion to be valued at $61,000. Mr.
Angle said maybe there is a formula for decking,
but that seems to be premium as this deck is not
made of Trex brand decking, just standard
lumber. Mr. Angle said the overall value comes
to $87,140 on a foundation that was already
there and water and power had already been
supplied by the previous owner. Mr. Angle said
he had no idea this multi-purpose room would be
valued at the price close to a new home.
Chairman Smith closed the
hearing to further comment after no rebuttals
were offered and reviewed closing and appeal
procedures.
Commissioners called for
discussion amongst themselves. Chairman Smith
said one thing that caught his attention is it
sounds like there is willingness on the part of
the Appraiser to revisit some of these issues
and possibly reduce the value somewhat. Chairman
Smith questioned if the Board of Equalization
wants to sustain the Assessor, look into
possible adjustments, or take the decision under
advisement until
noon in order to give Mr. Vetter an
opportunity to review and possibly make changes
and make a decision on that. Commissioner
Dinning said he is on the same line in that
there are some things the Assessor’s Office can
revisit. Commissioner Dinning said like this
morning, there was an assessed value and an
appraised value that were very far apart and the
Board of Equalization sustained the Assessor’s
valuation in order to allow the individual to go
on to State Board of Tax Appeals. Commissioner
Dinning said the County is stuck with how to
appraise unless there is an error so the County
is caught by process. Chairman Smith said this
is different because the County’s appraiser is
saying because of what he has heard, a possible
reduction may be granted so the County could
give an opportunity for review with a decision
to be made by
noon. Chairman Smith said there is a
value put on the property now and if the Board
of Equalization sustains the Assessor that is
what the value will be, but if Mr. Vetter feels
that a reduction of $10,000 can be made, that
value less $10,000 will be sustained. Mr. Vetter
said he doesn’t have a problem with that.
Chairman Smith said he would suggest taking the
decision under advisement until noon to allow the appraiser an opportunity to
provide an adjusted figure.
Commissioner Kirby moved to
take the decision pertaining to the valuation of
parcel #RPM00000150751A under advisement until
noon. Commissioner Dinning second.
Motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner Dinning said
no matter what Commissioners do, it still allows
Mr. Angle to the opportunity to appeal to the
State Board of Tax Appeals.
The appeal hearing was
tabled at 11:20 a.m.
The Board of Equalization
addressed additional matters for tax year 2011
under authority granted under Title 63, Chapter
5, Idaho Code, as follows:
Commissioner Kirby moved to
change Category 34 to Category 32 with no change
in value for parcel #RP61N01E211953A. Chairman
Smith yielded the chair to second. Motion passed
unanimously.
Commissioner Kirby moved to
change Category 46 to Category 48 with no change
in value for parcel #RP60N01W023011A. Chairman
Smith yielded the chair to second. Motion passed
unanimously.
11:25 a.m., Commissioners
opened the Board of Equalization appeal hearing
for parcel #RPM0540001008CA by property Robert
W. Truppe for the purpose of making a decision.
Present were: Chairman Ron Smith, Commissioner
Dinning, Commissioner Kirby, Deputy Clerk
Michelle Rohrwasser, and Assessor Dave Ryals.
The proceedings were recorded.
Commissioner Dinning moved
to sustain the Assessor’s valuation for parcel
#RPM0540001008CA owned by Robert W. Truppe.
Commissioner Kirby second. Motion passed
unanimously.
The Board of Equalization
appeal hearing for parcel #RPM0540001008CA ended
at 11:25 a.m.
Commissioner Dinning moved
to recess as Board of Equalization and reconvene
as the Board of County Commissioners.
Commissioner Dinning moved
to sign the letter regarding de-designating a
portion of the International Selkirk Loop known
as the Wild Horse Scenic Byway. Commissioner
Kirby second. Motion passed unanimously.
Commissioners reviewed
claims for processing. Fund totals are as
follows:
Current Expense
$31,746.65
Road & Bridge
36,827.99
Airport
4,110.60
District Court
4,954.31
Justice Fund
39,993.59
911 Funds
4,029.58
Health District
12,433.50
Indigent & Charity
1,833.58
Parks and Recreation
6,147.55
Revaluation
273.28
Solid Waste
3,569.59
Tort
88,688.48
Veterans Memorial
719.85
Weeds
861.17
Restorium
16,438.04
Waterways
720.10
Boat Safety Grant
18.77
TOTAL
$253,366.63
Citizens are invited to
inspect detailed records on file in the
Courthouse (individual claims & Commissioners’
allowance & warrant register record 2011).
Commissioner Dinning moved
to approve the minutes of June 27 & 28, 2011.
Commissioner Kirby second. Motion passed
unanimously.
Commissioner Dinning moved
to sign the City/County Dispatch Agreement for
fiscal year 2011-2012. Commissioner Kirby
second. Motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner Dinning moved
to go out for request for proposals for the
construction of an addition to the
Waterways
Building. Commissioner Kirby second.
Motion passed unanimously.
Boundary
County Chief Probation Officer Stacy
Brown and Idaho Department of Juvenile
Corrections District I Liaison Jim Crowley
joined the meeting. Mr. Crowley said he received
information that Karen Skow with the Department
of Juvenile Corrections has developed video
conferencing at the regional detention centers
and the counties.
Boundary
County has been trying to get video
conferencing set up and now the Juvenile Justice
Commission has $10,000 to give each county and
each juvenile detention center for this ability.
Counties will be asked to come up with a 10%
match and they will need to purchase the
equipment prior to getting reimbursed, according
to Mr. Crowley. Ms. Brown said the timeline is
open from
July 1, 2011
through
September 31, 2011. Mr. Crowley
mentioned that J.T. Taylor, Detention Manager
for the Region I Juvenile Detention Center is
working on video conferencing in
Kootenai
County and he felt it would be good
to connect with
Boundary County.
Commissioner Dinning questioned if it would be
best for Kootenai
County to purchase all of the
equipment and then be reimbursed rather than
have individual counties purchase equipment that
may not be compatible. Chairman Smith said some
equipment has already been installed in the
Extension Office and the County is almost ready
to order more equipment. It was mentioned to get
in contact with Mr. Taylor to see what equipment
will be compatible.
Ms. Brown and Mr. Crowley
left the meeting at
11:55 a.m.
Commissioner Dinning moved
to reconvene as the Board of Equalization at
2:00 p.m., today in order to consider
the Board of Equalization appeal hearing for
parcel #RPM00000150751A owned by Andy and Lisa
Angle. Commissioner Kirby second. Motion passed
unanimously.
Commissioners recessed for
lunch at noon.
1:30 p.m., Commissioners reconvened
for the afternoon session with Chairman Smith,
Commissioner Kirby, and Deputy Clerk Michelle
Rohrwasser. Commissioner Dinning was out of the
office for the afternoon.
1:45 p.m., Norvin Skrivseth joined
the meeting to discuss a matter involving
property tax late fees. Chief Deputy Treasurer
Sue Larson also joined the meeting. Mr.
Skrivseth said the amount due is $301.92. Ms.
Larson informed Commissioners the check written
to Boundary
County was written on June 24, 2011 and it was received on June 27, 2011. Commissioners said the
tax due date of June 20th is written
in Idaho Code and is therefore not an arbitrary
date. Chief Deputy Treasurer Larson said post
marked checks are also respected if they are
done by the 20th. Mr. Skrivseth said
he was in the process of buying back the
property in question and the deal didn’t close
until after June 20th so it was
ambiguous as to who was going to have to pay.
Mr. Skrivseth said there was an agreement that
he would pay the tax if the sale was to close,
but there were uncertainties on obtaining
financing. Commissioner Kirby said it is a shame
to get tied up in a whirlwind of paperwork.
Commissioner Kirby said he isn’t sure if
Commissioners can do anything, but he thought it
was worth the conversation. Chairman Smith said
the taxes are late as they weren’t paid by the
20th and he isn’t sure if there is the ability
to wave the late fees. Chief Deputy Treasurer
Larson said the due dates are a statewide policy
and not just Boundary
County’s. Chairman Smith asked
Commissioner Kirby if he wanted to wait until
all Commissioners were present to make a motion
or wave the late fees.
Commissioner Kirby moved to
uphold the Treasurer’s Office in the decision to
deny waiving late fees and interest for parcel
#RP62N01E145992A for year 2010 taxes that are
due. Chairman Smith yielded the chair to second.
Motion passed unanimously.
The meeting with Mr.
Skrivseth and Ms. Larson ended at
1:47 p.m.
1:50 p.m., Commissioners addressed
the extensions/cancellations of taxes.
Commissioner Kirby moved to
grant an extension of time to receive 2010 taxes
for parcel #MH61N03E04091CA until August 1, 2011. Commissioner Dinning
second. Motion passed unanimously.
Commissioners tended to
administrative duties.
Commissioner Kirby moved to
recess as the Board of County Commissioners and
reconvene as the Board of Equalization. Chairman
Smith yielded the chair to second. Motion passed
unanimously.
2:00 p.m., Commissioners
held a Board of Equalization appeal hearing
continuation for parcel #RPM00000150751A owned
by James and Lisa Angle. Present were: Chairman
Ron Smith, Commissioner Walt Kirby, Deputy Clerk
Michelle Rohrwasser, Appraiser Les Vetter, and
Assessor Dave Ryals. The proceedings were
recorded.
Chairman Smith said when
the decision was taken under advisement it was
to allow the appraiser to speak with the
property owner about new information learned in
the hearing.
Mr. Vetter said he and Mr.
Angle met in his office to review the new
information brought up during this morning’s
Board of Equalization appeal hearing that caught
his attention. Mr. Vetter said he did make
changes to include the kitchen-garage building,
which was the biggest concern. Mr. Vetter said
the land values will remain the same at $40,490;
the outbuildings will remain the same at
$11,900. Mr. Vetter said the change in value for
the section marked as “other” on the Notice of
Appeal Form was reduced from $324,720 to
$294,120 for a new overall total of $334,610,
which was originally $365,210. The value was
$365,210 and Mr. Angle was requesting $262,000,
which is a difference of approximately $103,000.
Chairman Smith explained the form will show a
reduction in “other” of $294,120 and the overall
total changed to $334,640. Chairman Smith
explained that even though the Notice of Appeal
will show a change in value, it doesn’t mean
Commissioners aren’t supporting the Assessor’s
valuation, but the changes have been made by the
Assessor’s office. Chairman Smith said the
original total value of $365,210 and it has been
reduced by $30,600 after meeting with the
property owner for a new value of $334,610. Mr.
Vetter said that was correct.
Commissioner Kirby moved to
adjust the market value for parcel
#RPM00000150751A owned by James and Lisa Angle
to $334,610. Chairman Smith yielded the chair to
second. Motion passed unanimously.
The Board of Equalization
appeal hearing for parcel #RPM00000150751A ended
at 2:06 p.m.
Commissioner Kirby moved to
adjourn as the Board of Equalization and
reconvene as the Board of County Commissioners.
Chairman Smith yielded the chair to second.
Motion passed unanimously.
Commissioners met to
consider an application for a 2011 Alcoholic
Beverage License for Michael Naumann doing
business as the Kootenai River Brewing Company
LLC. Present were: Chairman Smith, Commissioner
Kirby, and Deputy Clerk Michelle Rohrwasser. The
proceedings were recorded.
The application and
applicable fees have been received.
Commissioners have yet to receive the 2011 State
of Idaho Retail Alcohol
Beverage License, the
2011 City of Bonners Ferry
Alcoholic Beverage License,
and the 2011 Panhandle Health District permit
for food service. The establishment will not
serve prepared food until a copy of the
Panhandle Health District Permit is received.
Commissioner Kirby moved to
approve the 2011 County Alcoholic Beverage
License for Michael Naumann doing business as
the Kootenai River Brewing Company LLC., to sell
wine by the drink and canned, bottled, and/or
draft beer pending receipt of the 2011 State of
Idaho Retail Alcohol Beverage License, the 2011
City of Bonners Ferry Alcohol Beverage License,
and the Panhandle Health District Permit when
prepared food is to be served. Chairman Smith
yielded the chair to second. Motion passed
unanimously.
There being no further
business for the remainder of the day and as
there are no meetings scheduled for tomorrow,
the meeting adjourned at
2:14 p.m.
/s/
RONALD R. SMITH, Chairman
ATTEST:
/s/
GLENDA POSTON, Clerk
By: Michelle Rohrwasser,
Deputy Clerk
|
