***Monday, July 06, 2020, at 9:00 a.m., Commissioners met in regular session with Chairman Dan Dinning, Commissioner Wally Cossairt, Commissioner Walt Kirby, Clerk Glenda Poston, and Deputy Clerk Michelle Rohrwasser.

Road and Bridge Department Co-Superintendent Randy Morris joined the meeting to give the department report. A written report as presented. Chairman Dinning commented that a board member from the Trow Creek Water Association had contacted him about someone apparently digging into their right-of-way and he asked Mr. Morris if he could look into that. Commissioners and Mr. Morris discussed looking into a matter pertaining to a possible road abandonment near Porthill and how they couldn’t find anything saying this area was abandoned. Mr. Morris mentioned that there is information showing the road is there, but not that it’s been maintained.

Commissioners were informed that work on Ruby Creek Bridge #3 will start this week and a plan will be formed on how to divert the creek through a couple of culverts. Road and Bridge will also contact Oxford Inc. about applying dust abatement. Ms. Nelson had mentioned planning to have some of the budget go toward repairs to the Naples Bridge with more repairs to be done the next year. Chairman Dinning mentioned that he thought he saw something about funding through the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) for repairs to that bridge. Mr. Morris spoke of filling some potholes in Naples using the Durapatcher.

Commissioners asked about budget. Clerk Poston said Ms. Nelson visited with her last week and there is too heavy of an equipment purchase in one year so Ms. Nelson was to go back and rework that. There is enough funding for the purchase, but it would leave nothing going forward. The budget will have to be used to fund what is proposed, according to Chairman Dinning. Clerk Poston said the revenue coming in will not cover it. Those present discussed what positions might become vacant due to upcoming retirements.

9:11 a.m., Jason Bias with Union Pacific Railroad stopped by to inquire about striping at a crossing on District Two Road. Mr. Bias left the meeting at 9:13 a.m.

Chairman Dinning mentioned that as it pertains to the equipment purchase, Road and Bridge would have to use most of their reserve funds to make the purchase, but they will have nothing coming in to replace those funds for the next year.

Those present discussed the status of the Ruby Creek bridges. Mr. Morris said Bridge #2 will go out to bid this fall. The upper bridge has a new deck and is in good shape.

Eric Lederhos with EL Internet Northwest joined the meeting at 9:22 a.m.

The meeting with Mr. Morris ended at 9:24 a.m.

Commissioners discussed setting up a special meeting for both Wednesday and Thursday staring at 9:00 a.m. to review the proposals for the State of Idaho CARES Act Broadband grant. Commissioners and Mr. Lederhos discussed what the purpose of the meeting with EL Internet is tomorrow and Mr. Lederhos explained that it was not to give their presentation for this grant, but to just explain their company. Commissioners and Mr. Lederhos discussed cancelling that meeting.

Mr. Lederhos left the meeting at 9:32 a.m.
County Civil Attorney Tevis Hull contacted Commissioners at 9:32 a.m.

Chairman Dinning mentioned that Roger Miller had contacted Commissioners last week. There is a water line that runs through the middle of the field and goes west of Mr. Miller’s property. Mr. Miller informed Chairman Dinning that Three Mile Water District needs an easement for this line. In looking at information from the public hearing regarding the extraction of sand for the Road and Bridge Department, it was indicated that the water line could stay, but if the county chose to have the line moved, it would be at county expense. Chairman Dinning said there may be a request for an easement coming.

Those present discussed a question from a county resident regarding the abandonment of an area near Wheatland Road. Commissioners said the county doesn’t maintain this road, but it is a county road. The best they could tell is that it had not been abandoned. Attorney Hull said in this person’s public records request they wanted a definitive answer, but the only thing the county can do is provide the public records, not give legal advice. Attorney Hull said he doesn’t know if this road was ever abandoned.

Attorney Hull informed Commissioners that he sent county resident Garvin Williams’ attorney a letter stating that Mr. Williams has 30 days to remove the cement pad next to the county road or the county will take that off the right-of-way and send the bill to Mr. Williams.

Attorney Hull said he received a copy of the Ground/Hangar Agreement for hangar C-4. The modifications were made to this agreement and it will be sent to Jim Woodward for review.

Attorney Hull mentioned receiving a letter from Peter Erbland with Lake City Law. Lake City Law is representing Intermax Northwest and in the letter it’s asking about contact made to Intermax Northwest in relation to the Idaho CARES Act Broadband grant.

Chairman Dinning mentioned to Attorney Hull that John Ailport with Inland Forest Management had requested use of Commissioners’ contact information as it pertains to access to Idaho Department of Lands webpage for the Fire Safe Program.

The call to Attorney Hull ended at 9:41 a.m.

Commissioner Cossairt moved to sign the Certificate of Residency for Shannon Daniel. Commissioner Kirby second. Motion passed unanimously.

Commissioner Cossairt moved to cancel late fees totaling $19.99 and interest for tax year 2019 for parcel #RP64N01E068411A as the check for the tax payment was put in the lock box at the front of the Courthouse, but never made it to the Treasurer’s Office on June 8, 2020. A replacement check was brought in on June 30, 2020. Commissioner Kirby second. Motion passed unanimously.

Commissioners and Clerk Poston discussed their request for an awning to be installed at the back of the armory with a cost of approximately $9,000.00 to $10,000.00.

Commissioner Kirby moved to proceed with the project to have Bonners Ferry Builders install an awning to the back side of the armory for an amount not to exceed $9,000.00. Commissioner Cossairt second. Motion passed unanimously.

9:50 a.m., Commissioners considered the county alcoholic beverage license application for Verden Allen Bettilyon doing business as Kit’s Trading Post. Present were: Chairman Dan Dinning, Commissioner Wally Cossairt, Commissioner Walt Kirby, Clerk Glenda Poston, and Deputy Clerk Michelle Rohrwasser. The proceedings were recorded.

The completed application and fee have been received. Yet to be received is a copy of the 2020 State of Idaho Retail Alcoholic Beverage license.

Commissioner Cossairt moved to approve the 2020 County Alcoholic Beverage License for Verden Allen Bettilyon dba Kit’s Trading Post, located at 79714 Highway 2, Moyie Springs, Idaho, to sell bottled, canned and draft beer on and off premises and retail wine pending receipt of the 2020 State of Idaho Retail Alcoholic Beverage License. Commissioner Kirby second. Motion passed unanimously.

The proceeding ended at 9:48 a.m.

Chairman Dinning discussed with Commissioners that John Ailport with Inland Forest Management had requested use of Commissioners’ contact information as it pertains to accessing the Idaho Department of Lands webpage for the Fire Safe Program. Commissioners approved the use of their contact information.

Commissioner Cossairt moved to authorize the Chairman to sign the Certificate of Substantial Completion for the armory remodel. Commissioner Kirby second. Motion passed unanimously.

9:51 a.m., Commissioner Cossairt moved to go into executive session pursuant to Idaho Code 74-206(1)b, to consider the evaluation, dismissal or disciplining of, or to hear complaints or charges brought against, a public officer, employee, staff member or individual agent, or public school student. Commissioner Kirby second. Commissioners voted as follows: Chairman Dinning “aye”, Commissioner Cossairt “aye” and Commissioner Kirby “aye”. Motion passed unanimously. The executive session ended at 9:58 a.m. No action was taken.

10:01 a.m., Solid Waste Department Superintendent Claine Skeen joined the meeting to give the department report. Mr. Skeen informed Commissioners the landfill’s excavator has been down for three months and he explained that there is no compression. The cost to rebuild it including labor is $14,000.00. Mr. Skeen mentioned the price for recycling metal is $50.00 to $55.00 per ton. Commissioners and Mr. Skeen spoke of adjusting hours at the monitored sites as Mr. Skeen has some staff members out. These sites are still open three days per week, but they are now closing at 6:00 p.m. instead of 5:00 p.m. Chairman Dinning asked how the sites would be affected if hours were reduced. Mr. Skeen commented that the Paradise Valley site has only one site monitor.

Those present discussed budget for the Solid Waste Department. It was said the vacant landfill assistant superintendent position will not be filled. There is $150,000.00 for capital equipment. Clerk Poston said she is $50,000.00 over last year’s budget so her question is what the rates are projected to be and if there was an increase built in there for what’s planned for capital equipment. Mr. Skeen mentioned roll off containers. Clerk Poston listed the roll off equipment and costs. The cost for 13 roll off containers would be $100,000.00. Nine roll offs for the monitored sites and four recycled containers were mentioned. Clerk Poston relayed information on the budget for employees. The six site monitors would provide for seven days per week coverage. Chairman Dinning asked how the budget looks for this current budget year and Clerk Poston reviewed the remaining budget for various line items. The Solid Waste Department should have approximately $95,000.00 carry forward, but that is needed to operate. Clerk Poston said if Mr. Skeen wants an increase in fees, Commissioners will have to hold a public hearing unless the increase is below a certain percentage and Mr. Skeen reduces the number of roll offs. Clerk Poston said she is still working through these numbers, but she needs direction on capital equipment. Clerk Poston said we all know we will be suffering as a result of property taxes.

Mr. Skeen said he understands the three day schedule at the monitored site is inconvenient, but having the ability to dispose of wood and metal at those sites may reduce some complaints. Mr. Skeen explained what the containers would be used for.

The meeting with Mr. Skeen ended at 10:20 a.m.

10:30 a.m., Chief Probation Officer Stacy Brown joined the meeting to give the Probation Department report. Ms. Brown reported that the number of those on probation was down, but she is starting to see an increase. As of January 1, 2020, 368 urine analyses have been done and that equates to approximately 60 tests per week. Ron Pell from the State Probation and Parole Office is mandated to wear a mask at all times, according to Ms. Brown.

Ron Stultz with the Bonner County Detention Center will renew the agreement with Boundary County at the same rate of $110.00 per month and Ms. Brown will reach out to him for an agreement. Commissioners informed Ms. Brown that Commissioners have approved an awning to be installed on the back side of the armory. It was said that training on the gates at the armory has taken place.

Chairman Dinning said the county will receive funds from the Idaho Transportation Department to relocate the armory’s front fence at some point. Ms. Brown said the overall number of those on probation across the state is down. Clerk Poston reviewed budget matters regarding the Probation Department with Ms. Brown. Ms. Brown discussed matters pertaining to future training courses and precautions related to COVID-19. Clerk Poston listed a couple budget line items she has reduced as the higher budget amount historically hadn’t been used.

The meeting with Ms. Brown ended at 10:38 a.m.

Courthouse Maintenance John Buckley joined the meeting to give his department report. Mr. Buckley said he doesn’t have a lot to discuss, but he’s been really busy working on installing permanent splatter guards. Mr. Buckley spoke of various projects to include trying to get the sidewalk project started and the plan for heating and getting back to painting offices. Mr. Buckley discussed the vandalism of the restrooms at the boat launches and how people are stealing toilet paper, but he is about to install a new trail camera. Clerk Poston said Mr. Buckley has been very helpful.

Eric Lederhos with EL Internet Northwest joined the meeting at 10:55 a.m.

The meeting with Mr. Buckley ended at 10:56 a.m.

Chairman Dinning informed those present that Commissioners’ Office had inadvertently scheduled the meeting with Boundary Economic Development Director Dennis Weed for 11:30 a.m., instead of the regular time at 11:00 a.m., so Commissioners tended to administrative duties until 11:30 a.m.

11:30 a.m., Boundary Economic Development Director Dennis Weed joined the meeting. Commissioners will schedule a special meeting for Wednesday, July 8th and Thursday, July 9th to listen to presentations for the State of Idaho CARES Act Broadband grant. Commissioners questioned how many people they needed to schedule time for and Mr. Weed said maybe three or four at approximately 30 minutes per project. Mr. Weed explained that a project is a geographical area. If two companies come in and cover the same project area, Commissioners either have to pick one of those two companies or don’t pick either one. Mr. Weed will enter the selected company into state portal and the state will choose which entity they will fund. The first part of August is the public comment period. Chairman Dinning said the company who is awarded a project is totally responsible for purchasing their own equipment and hardware. Chairman Dinning added that the deadline in which to have projects completed is December 15, 2020, and that’s when the county will have to verify that the project has been completed and the state will pay the county who will pay the company for the work.

Chairman Dinning said Commissioners received a letter from Attorney Peter Erbland with Lake City Law today so they need to get in touch with Attorney Tevis Hull to address that.

11:50 a.m., Commissioners contacted County Civil Attorney Tevis Hull via telephone.

Commissioners and Attorney Hull discussed Attorney Peter Erbland’s letter and a comment was made that it doesn’t seem a statement was correct in its assumption. Mr. Weed said when the grant came out it stated that normal procurement statute laws will not be in effect due to timing of the process of finishing and completing projects by December 15, 2020. That is what Attorney Erband’s letter is stating has to be followed even though the state said they did not. Commissioners said they would forward the letter to Attorney Hull. Mr. Lederhos said his understanding is that it was pass through funding and not the county or government agency who’s doing this so that process was waived. The funds are passed through the government entity to the for-profit company. Attorney Hull said it would be helpful to see the language that was sent out so Commissioners can decide going forward and it will need to be applied universally. Mr. Weed will forward this information to Commissioners and Attorney Hull. Chairman Dinning said the grants are not given to the county as he understands. Mr. Weed said they are and Attorney Hull said, as an administration position the grant is given to the county, but information also says it’s for profit. Mr. Lederhos said this is a request for a proposal; you can’t bid on it, based on his understanding.

The call to Attorney Hull ended at 11:56 a.m.

Mr. Weed and Mr. Lederhos left the meeting.

Commissioners recessed for lunch at 11:58 a.m.

1:30 p.m., Commissioners reconvened for the afternoon session with Chairman Dan Dinning, Commissioner Wally Cossairt, Commissioner Walt Kirby, and Deputy Clerk Michelle Rohrwasser.

Commissioner Cossairt moved to recess as the Boundary County Board of Commissioners and to reconvene as the Board of Equalization. Commissioner Kirby second. Motion passed unanimously.

1:30 p.m., Commissioners held a Board of Equalization appeal hearing for parcel #RP60N02W348851A owned by Bert Williams. Present were: Chairman Dan Dinning, Commissioner Wally Cossairt, Commissioner Walt Kirby, Appraisers Monica Tompke and Melissa Kramer, and Appellant Bert Williams. Assessor Dave Ryals participated in the hearing via conference call. The proceedings were recorded.

Chairman Dinning read the procedures to follow and administered the oath to those giving testimony. The Assessor’s Office submitted one exhibit marked “County Exhibit Assessor #1” (consisting of 5 pages copied both sides.) The appellant submitted one exhibit marked “Appellant Exhibit #1” (consisting of 1 page).

Mr. Williams said he had questions and he asked what an HSG improvement is. Chairman Dinning said that refers to the mobile home, which is real property, but the system still calls it a mobile. Mr. Williams asked what the item with a value of $1,900.00 is and Ms. Tompke said it’s the concrete and the shed. Mr. Williams said the shed is actually a pump house. Ms. Tompke said the value is $690.00. Mr. Williams explained that it’s an 8 foot by 10 foot pump house. The concrete is in front of the house. The pump house is to be taken down as the snow damaged the roof and it’s not worth $1,900.00, according to Mr. Williams. Chairman Dinning said that also includes the concrete. Category 48 is the mobile home that’s been converted to real property. Mr. Williams asked what the shelf life is for a manufactured home as his home is about 25 years old and he said he doesn’t see how it would sell for that much. Mr. Williams said there is no fire or law enforcement protection where he lives and the traffic is bumper to bumper this time of year. This is Upper Pack River Road and it’s either snow mobiles in the winter or four wheelers in the summer and the county doesn’t see fit to treat the road and it’s getting ready for dust season. Mr. Williams commented that he’s going to be moving to Montana and he added that his property is assessed far more than he thinks it is worth. Ms. Tompke asked if there is something wrong with the shed building. Mr. Williams said the shed the county has a picture of is the chicken coop. Ms. Tompke said she didn’t have a picture of a shed, but the value of $690.00 is what the Assessor’s Office has for it. Mr. Williams said the homeowner’s exemption is $8,000.00 less and he’s getting taxed more. Chairman Dinning commented that the land value had increased. Assessor Ryals said the homeowner’s exemption applies to the improvement and up to one acre for the homesite. Chairman Dinning said Mr. Williams is assessed at $75,000.00. It appears the homeowner’s exemption stayed the same at $27,890.00. Assessor Ryals said if the homesite value increased and the home value increased, the homeowner’s exemption should’ve increased with it. It was said that the rural land is valued at $36,480.00, the real property manufactured home is valued at $38,400.00 so it’s close to $70,000.00 and that is what the homeowner’s exemption is based on. Assessor Ryals said those are all eligible categories so the homeowner’s exemption should apply to everything. The total value is $76,780.00 less the homeowner’s exemption of $19,195.00. It was said the homeowner’s amount should be $76,780.00 divided by two. Assessor Ryals said yes. The total value of $76,780.00 divided by two is $38,390.00. It’s saying the taxable property value is $38,390.00, not $57,585.00. This would be reducing the assessed value by almost $20,000. Chairman Dinning asked if the Assessor’s Office sees any issue in correcting this value. Ms. Tompke said no. The assessed value of $76,780.00 with the homeowner’s exemption would be $38,390.00 so that taxable assessed value would be $38,390.00. Chairman Dinning said there is no reason to go through this entire process now that this error was discovered. Mr. Williams said he would be willing to have a look at the pump house. It was said the value of $690.00 for the pump house could be removed. Chairman Dinning said that would be $38,045.00. With the adjustment of $690.00 for removing the shed the value is reduced to $76,090.00, and then reduce that amount by half due to the homeowner’s exemption, that would reduce the taxable value to $38,045.00. Chairman Dinning asked Mr. Williams and Ms. Tompke if that was acceptable and they said yes.

Ms. Tompke asked Mr. Williams if it’s okay to come onto his property and he said yes. Mr. Williams said he wanted to find out what that improvement valued at $1,900.00 was.

Commissioners closed the hearing to public testimony. Commissioners were in agreement of the reductions discussed.
Commissioner Kirby moved to eliminate the value of $690.00 for a building and adjust the homeowner’s exemption for a net taxable value of $38,045.00 for parcel #RP60N02W348851A owned by Bert Williams. Commissioner Cossairt second. Motion passed unanimously.

Chairman Dinning explained to Mr. Williams that he could appeal this decision to the Idaho State Board of Tax Appeals or district court and that Mr. Williams will receive another certified letter listing the Board of Equalization decision.

The Board of Equalization appeal hearing for parcel #RP60N02W348851A owned by Bert Williams ended at 1:54 p.m.

2:10 p.m., Commissioners held Board of Equalization appeal hearing for parcel #RP002900000200A owned by Greg Milloway. Present were: Chairman Dan Dinning, Commissioner Wally Cossairt, Commissioner Walt Kirby, Deputy Clerk Michelle Rohrwasser, Appraisers Monica Tompke and Melissa Kramer; and Deputy Assessor Tracy Golder. Assessor Dave Ryals and Appellant Greg Milloway participated via telephone. The Assessor’s Office presented one exhibit marked “County Exhibit Assessor #1” (consisting of four pages, copied both sides). The appellant did not present an exhibit. The appeal hearing was recorded.

Commissioners asked Mr. Milloway for his opening statement. Mr. Milloway spoke of the COVID-19 outbreak as it pertains to financial loss and he added that he’s trying to get back to work after being retired. Mr. Milloway commented that he’s been living on his savings for the last six months and he just can’t bear any increase in property taxes. Chairman Dinning explained that this is a unique situation to us this year and he discussed the letter included with the Assessor’s valuation information that was sent out to property owners. Chairman Dinning said this year is what the Idaho Association of Counties has been trying to get the legislature to realize. Boundary County’s Assessor, in over 20 years, has never failed an audit of his valuations. The state came in and valued the residential category and those values failed so the Assessor had to increase them to between 90% and 110% of what is determined for the real estate class and this result is the reflection of that. It’s a pure tax shift as Boundary County did not increase taxes one penny. It’s a shift to the residential category and usually a shift is able to be absorbed into other categories, but not this year. Chairman Dinning said the State of Idaho informed them that if the county did not increase the residential home value to within a certain range, they would take the county to the State Board of Tax Appeals, they would win the appeal and send the order to raise values, which might result in values that are higher than what they are right now. Commissioners tried to address these issues in the best interest of the homeowner. Commissioners and Mr. Golder had no questions.

Mr. Golder read page 3 of the Assessor’s exhibit into the record. This is an improved property on 0.85 acres. The value of the homesite, amenities, power, sewer and water total $44,360.00 and the value of the house/improvements total $315,300.00 for an overall total market value of $359,660.00. Mr. Golder said Mr. Milloway has a mailing address in California while receiving the full homeowner’s benefit on this property so there might be some clarification needed. The property sold in 2017 for $252,500.00. The opinion of the total market value cited by Mr. Milloway in the appeal is $259,000.00, which is a mere $8,500.00 or 2% increase over three years. The state estimates the increase to be approximately 1% per month in Boundary County. Mr. Golder stated that he did not physically visit the property nor did he make any changes to the appellant’s property assessment for year 2020. The value increase applied by the Assessor was estimated using voluntarily reported sales data from which he calculated market driven adjustments that were applied throughout Boundary County for year 2020. Mr. Golder said in closing, the appellant didn’t contact him to discuss this property nor did he provide any evidence to refute the assessment value. However, using the time adjustment of 1% over 36 months to the previously reported sales price, he would ask the Board of Equalization to approve a reduction of Mr. Milloway’s property assessment to a total market value of $343,450.00 for year 2020.

Mr. Milloway said he doesn’t know what kind of difference that reduction would make on his tax bill. Chairman Dinning said in looking at $343,450.00 and including the homeowner’s exemption benefit of $100.000, it would make the taxable value of $243,450.00. Mr. Milloway questioned what the tax increase would be and Chairman Dinning explained that the county doesn’t set the budget until September so Commissioners cannot tell what the dollar increase will be. Mr. Milloway said he appreciates the reduction, and it’s going to be tough, but there is only so much Commissioners can do. Chairman Dinning said Commissioners have asked the legislature to increase the homeowner’s exemption benefit to $150,000.00, but they were unsuccessful in that. Chairman Dinning said value of $343,000.00 was based on the 1% time adjustment. Mr. Golder said that was correct.

Commissioners had no questions. Mr. Milloway said he doesn’t have any comments other than he cannot afford any more increases, but he understands Commissioners have to work within the guidelines and he appreciates what they have done.

Mr. Golder said he didn’t really have comps so it was the only place he could see to make an adjustment. Mr. Milloway commented that the home across street had sold for $330,000.00, but it had more property and he didn’t know if Mr. Golder used sales as comps. Mr. Golder said he didn’t use that as he didn’t think it was a sales verification that was turned into the Assessor’s Office. Mr. Golder commented that he didn’t think Mr. Milloway’s property had a view. Mr. Milloway said the property he’s referring to has a wonderful view and his property doesn’t. Mr. Golder said he doesn’t have any information on that other sale.

The hearing was closed to public testimony.

Commissioner Cossairt moved to reduce the valuation to $343,450.00 for parcel #RP002900000200A owned by Greg Milloway. Commissioner Kirby second. Motion passed unanimously.

Chairman Dinning explained that the reduction would be reflected in the residential property. The amount of the reduction is $16,210.00. Chairman Dinning informed Mr. Milloway of the process of appealing the Board of Equalization decision.

The Board of Equalization appeal hearing for parcel #RP002900000200A owned by Greg Milloway ended at 2:30 p.m.

Commissioner Cossairt moved to sign the Certificate of Residency for Alan Schleif. Commissioner Kirby second. Motion passed unanimously.

Commissioners tended to administrative duties.

3:00 p.m., Commissioners held a Board of Equalization appeal hearing for parcel #RPB0600006003AA owned by Gina Rosengrant. Present were: Chairman Dan Dinning, Commissioner Wally Cossairt, Commissioner Walt Kirby, Deputy Clerk Michelle Rohrwasser, Assessor Dave Ryals, who participated via telephone, Appraisers Monica Tompke and Melissa Kramer, and Appellant Gina Rosengrant. The Assessor’s Office presented five exhibits marked as “County Exhibit Assessor #1” (consisting of 5 pages, copied both sides), “County Exhibit Assessor #2” (consisting of 1 page), “County Exhibit Assessor #3” (consisting of 1 page), “County Exhibit Assessor #4” (consisting of 2 pages), and “County Exhibit Assessor #5” (consisting of 2 pages). The appellant presented one exhibit marked “Appellant Exhibit #1” (consisting of 2 pages). The hearing was recorded. Chairman Dinning administered the oath to those giving testimony.

Chairman Dinning reviewed the Board of Equalization appeal hearing procedures and asked the appellant for an opening statement.

Ms. Rosengrant said she feels her taxes for the parcel are too high. When comparing to her neighbor’s parcel, it is similar, but the value is substantially lower. Ms. Rosengrant said she feels her value is higher than other values in her neighborhood and it’s so far above what it’s worth, she had to contest it. The tax on the house is too high and no substantial improvements have been made. Ms. Rosengrant said she understands the market. Ms. Rosengrant said as a retired woman on a $60,000.00 per year budget, how will she afford this and she added that she’s at the top of the entire neighborhood. Ms. Rosengrant commented that she looks back over the years at the adjoining properties and the values were lagging way behind what they should’ve been. Ms. Rosengrant said she would accept the value of $30,000.00 less. Ms. Rosengrant said an appraisal done at the end of year 2018 didn’t bear anywhere that type of money. Chairman Dinning asked if she had a homeowner’s exemption and Ms. Rosengrant replied that she just signed up for that now that she’s retired. Ms. Rosengrant stated that she is already paying $3,800.00 per year without the exemption. The property in question is in the city limits and it’s on 1.96 acres, but she’s not disputing that. The building that increased is a vacant building and Ms. Rosengrant said she hadn’t done anything to it.

Chairman Dinning said what has happened in our market is that the Idaho Association of Counties has gone to the legislature for the last three years as counties have foreseen this issue coming. The request was to increase the homeowner’s exemption benefit amount, to do something along the lines of a curve, and to look back a few years so homeowners don’t experience spikes in their assessments, but the counties haven’t been successful in doing that. Chairman Dinning said the Assessor told him that he has never failed an Idaho State Tax Commission audit by category like he has this year. The State came and audited all values and the county failed this year. Values have to fall within 90% to 110% of market. The representatives from the State Tax Commission met with Commissioners and when asked about it, said that if the county weren’t to increase values to within that range, they would take the county to the State Board of Tax Appeals, the state will win, and then order the county to place values where they say they have to be, which could be higher than what has occurred.

Ms. Rosengrant asked why the Assessor failed. Assessor Ryals explained that sales are generated and reported to the Assessor’s Office in the form of a ratio. If properties are selling for far more than what they’re valued, then he’s failed. The answer is to increase values to between 90% and 110% and it’s something that’s required. Assessor Ryals said it’s a market adjustment and he had to apply it to everyone. Chairman Dinning explained that this pertained to residences. Ms. Rosengrant said her property value was high as compared to her neighbor, Jim and Janice Tucker. Ms. Rosengrant said the Tuckers have a three car attached garage and probably the same amount of bedrooms. Tax and market value are two different animals and that’s why we’re in this predicament. Ms. Rosengrant said what’s happening to her is discriminatory as someone is favored and someone else is on the high end and that would be her.

Ms. Tompke read page 3 of her exhibit into the record. This is an improved property at 7596 Mohawk Street. The current assessed value is $45,970 for land and amenities and $327,920.00 for the building improvements for a total assessed value of $373,890.00. Other than the countywide residential improved property increase, no specific value changes were made to this property for year 2020. Ms. Tompke said Ms. Rosengrant did not contact her to discuss her appraisal and she has not received any comparable sales or an appraisal. This property is posted and while researching it, Ms. Tompke said it appears there might be another structure on the property that’s being discussed. Ms. Rosengrant said that is a studio, a non-residential building. Ms. Tompke stated that there is another structure on this piece of property. It was clarified that parcel #RPB0600006003AA is what is being discussed. Ms. Rosengrant said in year 2004, the Assessor’s Office was at her residence and made her get a permit for it and it’s basically a shed that is unfinished. Ms. Tompke said there is a 28 foot by 12 foot studio and a shed and that’s it. Ms. Rosengrant said this is information the Assessor’s Office has and she added that she had to get a building permit from the City for this and it was unfinished and not hidden. This is located next to the house and it has been valued with the house as far as she understands. Chairman Dinning said in the residential appraisals we’re looking at land and buildings. There being some confusion was brought up and Ms. Kramer said this information is not in their system. It was said the “30” is the studio and shed and it shows the value of $20,560.00. Ms. Tompke said the confusion is that she’s never been on the property. Ms. Rosengrant said it’s been there for six years and she added that she is in this hearing for the value of the home. The appeal is on her home and why someone next to her has a value of $215,000.00 and her value is $378,000.00.

Chairman Dinning said it appears there is confusion on a lot of things. Ms. Rosengrant said everyone knows about this building since 2013. Chairman Dinning said he wants to make it right. Ms. Tompke said we need clarification on the buildings, especially since she has not been to the property. Ms. Rosengrant said if her property is posted, the pictures looks as if someone had visited the property and Ms. Tompke explained that the cameras they use have zoom lenses and that they do not go onto properties that are posted.

Commissioner Kirby referred to page 2 of “County Exhibit Assessor #5” and he asked what the house is behind the studio. Ms. Rosengrant said someone noticed the building. This is just about the home value, according to Ms. Rosengrant and she doesn’t want a bunch of red herrings coming into what she’s here for. The studio was painted pink sometime around year 2005 or 2007. The initial foundation may have been around year 2007 or 2008. Ms. Rosengrant said we’re talking about the cedar cabin in the back. Commissioner Kirby said we have a house and a cabin and a tool shed. Ms. Rosengrant said it’s a place where someone can live.

Ms. Rosengrant questioned how mobile homes are valued and asked if they were substantially less value than a house. Ms. Kramer said some are, but it just depends. Some newer manufactured homes can have as much value as a house. Ms. Rosengrant said if you were to look to the south, to her right, there is a mobile home on a property and it’s nice and this home has been there since she’s had her home there. It seems so irregular to her, according to Ms. Rosengrant. Ms. Kramer explained that mobile homes do depreciate faster. Ms. Rosengrant said the mobile home’s value is listed as $7,020.00 and she asked if a mobile home can depreciate to nothing. Ms. Kramer commented that the State Tax Commission has said depreciation no longer exists. To have a good neighborhood and a home in good condition for a value of $7,000.00 seems ludicrous, according to Ms. Rosengrant. Ms. Rosengrant asked who did the tax assessment this year. Ms. Tompke said she valued the property, but she didn’t change anything. Market value versus assessed value was questioned and Chairman Dinning replied that market value is the assessed value that we’re looking at in the amount of $373,890.00. When you take out the homeowner’s exemption that determines the taxable portion of value. In this case the value of $373,890.00, less a homeowner’s exemption in the amount of $100,000.00 would leave a taxable value of $273,890.00. Chairman Dinning said the determination of value is based on the value from sales and in this case the Idaho State Tax Commission imposed other things on the Assessor.

Ms. Rosengrant gave a closing statement and said it was mentioned that she had never contacted the Assessor’s Office, but she called that office on approximately June 22nd. Someone from the Assessor’s Office answered and Ms. Rosengrant voiced that she wanted to object to the tax increase and the Assessor’s Office staff said to come to the Courthouse and fill out the form. They never said to talk to the Assessor. Ms. Rosengrant said when she came to the Assessor’s Office, Teri Cushman asked her if she had spoken to an appraiser and she said no. Ms. Rosengrant said personally she feels that her house is valued approximately $30,000.00 too high because in total everything on her property does add to quite a bit more. The taxes on this home would be a struggle as a retired person and she mentioned having moved to the property in April. Ms. Rosengrant said, furthermore she wants to say that when she looked at surrounding properties there is a huge discrimination and she has an issue with the Tucker’s house in that their total value is $215,000.00 and her value is approximately $370,000.00. Even though they’re very comparable homes, she feels this is discrimination and she feels her home has always been valued much higher. Ms. Rosengrant said she is specifically asking about her house’s value. That is what her complaint is about.

Ms. Tompke said given the opportunity, she would like to talk with Ms. Rosengrant to make sure the information she has is correct. Ms. Rosengrant said, sure.

Commissioners closed the hearing to public testimony. Chairman Dinning stated that with all the confusion, the county would want to consider looking at the value of Ms. Rosengrant’s house and he mentioned the $30,000.00. Chairman Dinning added that when we get through the Board of Equalization, maybe Ms. Rosengrant would let the Assessor take a look at her property to make sure everything is accurate. Commissioner Cossairt agreed.

Commissioner Cossairt moved to reduce the value of the house by $30,000.00 for a total assessed value of $343,890.00 for parcel #RPB0600006003AA owned by Gina Rosengrant. Commissioner Kirby second. Motion passed unanimously.

It was mentioned there is the understanding the matters pertaining to the property will be sorted out. Chairman Dinning explained to Ms. Rosengrant that she will receive a certified letter with the Board of Equalization’s decision along with instructions on appealing that decision to the State Board of Tax Appeals or district court.

The Board of Equalization appeal hearing for parcel #RPB0600006003AA owned by Gina Rosengrant ended at 3:50 p.m.

3:55 p.m., Commissioners held a Board of Equalization appeal hearing for parcel #RPB0420001014CA owned by Jennifer Kelson. Present were: Chairman Dan Dinning, Commissioner Wally Cossairt, Commissioner Walt Kirby, Deputy Clerk Michelle Rohrwasser, and Appraiser Melissa Kramer. Appellant Jennifer Kelson was not present and had not contacted Commissioners’ Office. The Assessor’s Office presented one exhibit marked “County Exhibit Assessor #1” (consisting of 3 pages, copied both sides). The hearing was recorded. Chairman Dinning administered the oath to those giving testimony.

Ms. Kramer read page 1 of her exhibit for parcel #RPB0420001014CA into the record. Last year’s value was $108,410.00 and this year’s value is $128,510.00 and most of the increase is in the mobile home. The taxable value increased from $57,495.00 to $68,180.00, which is an increase of $11,000.00. Ms. Kelson’s appeal form lists that she feels the value should be $97,850, which would be less than last year’s value. Chairman Dinning asked if this is due to appreciation gain. Ms. Kramer said Ms. Kelson might have the mobile home as real property, but the mobile itself is not very old, maybe year 2006. Improvements are the concrete and deck. The non-residential building would be the small pole building.

Commissioners closed the hearing to public input and deliberated amongst themselves. Commissioner Cossairt said the value looks to be really close to him. Commissioner Cossairt said the pole building looks to be approximately 1,000 feet.

Commissioner Kirby moved to uphold the Assessor’s valuation for parcel #RPB0420001014CA owned by Jennifer Kelson. Commissioner Cossairt second. Motion passed unanimously.

Commissioners held a Board of Equalization appeal hearing for parcel #RPB0420001014DA owned by Jennifer Kelson. Present were: Chairman Dan Dinning, Commissioner Wally Cossairt, Commissioner Walt Kirby, Deputy Clerk Michelle Rohrwasser, and Appraiser Melissa Kramer. Appellant Jennifer Kelson was not present and had not contacted Commissioners’ Office. The Assessor presented one exhibit marked “County Exhibit Assessor #2” (consisting of 2 pages, copied both sides). The hearing was recorded. Chairman Dinning administered the oath to those giving testimony.

Ms. Kramer read page 1 of her exhibit into the record. It was said this home has an effective year of 1952. It’s an older home that has lost its depreciation. The last page of the exhibit shows the picture of the home and the dwelling is no longer depreciating, but there is still depreciation left on the garage. It’s at almost the lowest class of house. Chairman Dinning said the home was built in year 1924 and then some remodeled it in 1952 and again in 1981. The value increased $59,000.00 from last year so it’s a little more than a 50% increase.

Commissioners closed the hearing to public testimony for deliberation. Commissioner Kirby said he was thinking of a $20,000.00 reduction. Commissioner Cossairt said he agreed with $20,000.00.

Commissioner Kirby moved to reduce the value of the residence by $20,000.00 for a total valuation of $169,620.00 for parcel #RPB0420001014DA owned by Jennifer Kelson. Commissioner Cossairt second. Motion passed unanimously.

The Board of Equalization appeal hearing for parcel #RPB0420001014DA owned by Jennifer Kelson ended at 4:14 p.m.

4:15 p.m., Commissioner Cossairt moved to recess as the Board of Equalization and to reconvene as the Boundary County Board of Commissioners. Commissioner Kirby second. Motion passed unanimously.

There being no further business, the meeting recessed until tomorrow at 9:00 a.m.

***Tuesday, July 7, 2020, at 9:00 a.m., Commissioners met in regular session with Chairman Dan Dinning, Commissioner Wally Cossairt, Commissioner Walt Kirby, Clerk Glenda Poston, and Deputy Clerk Michelle Rohrwasser.

9:00 a.m., Treasurer Sue Larson joined the meeting.

Commissioner Cossairt moved to approve extending the agreement to cancel late fees and interest associated with delinquent tax payments for parcel #60N01W348990A. Commissioner Kirby second. Motion passed unanimously.
Treasurer Larson left the meeting at 9:03 a.m.

Commissioner Cossairt moved to sign the Certificate of Residency for Eric Layeux. Commissioner Kirby second. Motion passed unanimously.

9:30 a.m., Commissioners held a Board of Equalization appeal hearing for parcel RP64N01E327210A owned by George and Karrie Shutes. Present were: Chairman Dan Dinning, Commissioner Wally Cossairt, Commissioner Walt Kirby, Deputy Clerk Michelle Rohrwasser, Appraisers Melissa Kramer and Monica Tompke, Appellant George Shutes, and Assessor Dave Ryals, who participated via conference call. The Assessor’s Office presented two exhibits titled “County Exhibit Assessor #1” (consisting of 4 pages, copied both sides) and “County Exhibit Assessor #2” (consisting of 1 page). The appellant did not present any exhibits. The hearing was recorded. Chairman Dinning administered the oath to those giving testimony.

Chairman Dinning clarified information he has from Mr. Shutes and reviewed the appeal hearing procedures to follow.

Mr. Shutes gave an opening statement and referred to parcel #RP64N01E327210A and parcel #RP64N01E331040A in that these two properties are the same parcel that happen to be split by a section line and in the past he has always paid more taxes on those two properties due to this split. Mr. Shutes commented that he could never sell one parcel or the other due to the 10 acre minimum rule outside of city limits. The property has a home on it that was built in 1942 and value has increased from $84,880.00 to $135,650.00. The house is by no means in great shape and is an old farm house. Mr. Shutes described what may be under the siding and a roof replacement is needed. The surrounding property that sold is not equivalent to that age, referring to parcel #RP64N01E327210A. Parcels ending in #7210 and #1040 are both small pieces of property. They used to be five acres, but the pins are on the opposite side of the county road and he mentioned it had been reduced to half an acre as the county road takes one whole side. The section line runs right through the middle. Mr. Shutes said the other parcel is #RP64N01E286760A and that is the property where they live. There is an outbuilding (Category 32) with a value of $950.00 and this is a garden shed on skids with no foundation. This shed could most likely be built at a cost of $400.00 and he mentioned that the Assessor’s Office could come take a look at it. The real property value of the modular home (Category 48) was valued at $28,430.00 and it increased to $33,900.00. This is a 1981 modular home and if you pulled it from the property, it’s probably worth just a few thousand dollars. Mr. Shutes said he is aware that the value is higher if you tie the modular home to real property, but he feels it’s high. Mr. Shutes asked what Category 47, manufactured housing improvements are as they haven’t done anything. Ms. Kramer explained that refers to the enclosed porch and a couple of decks. It was mentioned that as far as the separation by the section line, there is nothing you can do about that. It creates small parcels, which have more value than a larger parcel. Ms. Kramer said the acreage rate would be higher.

Ms. Kramer gave her opening statement and said regarding parcel #RP64N01E327210A, this is an improved property on 3.159 acres located on 572 Harvest Road. The current assessed value is $135,650.00 with a value of $65,240.00 for the land and a value of $70,410.00 on the residential building. Ms. Kramer added that other than the countywide residential improved property increase, no specific value changes were made to this property.

Chairman Dinning referred to parcel #RP64N01E327210A and said there is an approximate increase of $26,000.00 on the residential value for the lot and building. The value increased from $44,290.00 to $70,410.00. Chairman Dinning explained that the Idaho State Tax Commission used to consider depreciation, but that is not the case now. All depreciation that had gone to prior values has been added back in. As it pertains to the lot, it appears that value for the one acre homesite (category 10) increased to approximately $52,000.00. Ms. Kramer mentioned that a lot of that has to do with the value of amenities increasing. Everyone experienced the same upgrade for amenities if you are outside of the city and that would be on that one acre. Chairman Dinning said Mr. Shute’s other question pertained to the combination of the other parcels. Chairman Dinning he thought there was the opportunity to tax parcels as one. Assessor Ryals said generally you can and the only time you couldn’t was if there were different tax code areas involved. Chairman Dinning said that is probably not the case here. Assessor Ryals said it sounds like it’s not, but typically with this situation it’s for the Assessor’s office to value the parcel as one, even without combining them it could at least be valued as one. Ms. Kramer commented that there is a note on the Proval System that this parcel is contiguous with parcel #RP64N01E331040A. It is already being valued at the five acre rate. Assessor Ryals said he has to reflect that there are two parcels, but they’re valued as one. Chairman Dinning said for parcels ending #7210 and #1040, parcel #7210 has a current year value of $65,240.00 for 3.159 acres and parcel ending #1040, having 1.4 acres is valued at $15,860.00. Ms. Kramer said at the one acre rate that would be a lot higher if not valued as contiguous. Chairman Dinning mentioned using that information while looking at a cost of $10,000.00 per acre for parcel ending #7210. Ms. Kramer said that parcel has to have the amenities due to the house. Assessor Ryals asked for the categories on both parcels and it was category 12 for both. Assessor Ryals asked if they show a separate homesite for the parcel with the residence. They should be valued at the same acre rate, but one will have the value of the amenities. Chairman Dinning said if they’re valued at the same rate, which would be approximately $30,000.00 for three acres, and there is the amenities at $21,500.00, that would equate to approximately $51,000.00. Assessor Ryals said for one of the acres, yes and he added that the rate per acre should be the same for the two parcels, but one parcel will have the value of the amenities on it.

Mr. Shutes said this might be a continuing conversation. Chairman Dinning explained the deadline for Board of Equalization decisions and Assessor Ryals stated that we have until next Monday for a decision. Chairman Dinning said the other major question was regarding the homeowner’s exemption for parcel #RP64N01E286760A. It was said the net taxable value increased $12,000.00. There is the rural homesite, the outbuildings have been addressed and decks, etc. It’s the mobile home value, but that is probably the State Tax Commission adding deprecation back in. Mr. Shutes said so that is more or less a structure price versus actual quality price. Ms. Kramer replied that it’s market value. Mr. Shutes said manufactured homes depreciate like an RV so it was hard for him when he saw the value increase when it’s worth less. Chairman Dinning said that is what it’s worth sitting on that land versus when it’s separated.

Parcel ending #7210 has a residential building. The value increased $26,000.00 and this is the older home built in 1942. That is also due to depreciation loss from the Tax Commission who said depreciation doesn’t exist anymore. Mr. Shutes provided calculations for Category 12 for rural residential land in relation to cost per acre. Ms. Kramer relayed her calculations. The first line, Category 12 is land at $57,286.95 per Mr. Shutes. The residential building is an older home. Mr. Shutes said that’s saying this building is valued at $70,000.00 and he’s very much questioning that.

Mr. Shutes said to make an adjustment on the parcel ending #7210 on rural residential land at $65,270.00 and look further into the situation of the home built in 1942 valued at $70,410.00. Mr. Shutes said he thinks an increase of $26,000.00 on that property is a little extreme for a home built in 1942. Mr. Shutes said he also questions parcel ending #6760 and he is just merely identifying the value of the modular home being so high and he added that he knows the Assessor’s Office has formulas, but he still has questions.

No further closing statements were made. Chairman Dinning closed the appeal hearing to further public testimony.

Commissioner Kirby said he would like to change the current set value. Parcel ending #7210 is the residential building and land and Mr. Shutes had suggested a value of $57,200.00 for the building and Commissioner Kirby said he would like to change the value to that figure. Chairman Dinning said for rural residential land for parcel ending #7210, Commissioner Kirby mentioned reducing the value to $57,200.00 and then there was a suggestion on that building to reduce value to $50,410.00. That would be a total value of $107,410.00.

Commissioners discussed the parcel ending #6760 and reducing Category 32 for outbuildings to $400.00. There are improvements and the mobile home has an increase of a little over $5,000.00 from last year, according to Chairman Dinning. Commissioner Cossairt said Commissioners could roll back the real property mobile home to last year’s value of $28,430.00. Commissioner Kirby agreed.

Ms. Kramer said these parcels are not up for revaluation this year, but five years from now. Parcel ending #7210 is rated a low.

Commissioners recapped that for parcel #RP64N01E327210A to reduce value for land and amenities to $57,200.00 and to reduce the residential building to $50,410.00 for a total of $107,410.00. Commissioners also proposed reducing the value of the shed to $400.00 and reducing the value of the mobile home to $28,430.00 for a total of $88,190.00 for parcel ending #6760.

Commissioner Cossairt moved to reduce the value for land and amenities to $57,200.00 and to reduce the residential building to $50,410.00 for a total value of $107,410.00 for parcel #RP64N01E327210A. Commissioner Kirby second. Motion passed unanimously.

Commissioner Cossairt moved to reduce the value of the shed to $400.00 and reduce the value of the mobile home to $28,430.00 for a total value of $88,190.00 for parcel ending #RP64N01E286760A. Commissioner Kirby second. Motion passed unanimously.

The Board of Equalization appeal hearing for parcel #RP64N01E327210A and parcel # RP64N01E286760A owned by George and Karrie Shutes ended at 10:07 a.m.

10:12 a.m., Commissioners held a Board of Equalization appeal hearing for parcel #RP60N01W131050A owned by Patrick and Laureen Doolin. Present were: Chairman Dan Dinning, Commissioner Wally Cossairt, Commissioner Walt Kirby, Deputy Clerk Michelle Rohrwasser, Appraisers Monica Tompke and Melissa Kramer, Appellant Patrick Doolin, and Assessor Ryals, who participated via telephone. The Assessor submitted one exhibit marked “County Exhibit Assessor #1” (consisting of 5 pages, copied both sides). The appellant did not present an exhibit. Chairman Dinning explained the appeal hearing procedures and administered the oath to those giving testimony. The hearing was recorded.

Mr. Doolin said in general the assessments, including his for at least his buildings have been low and that’s why he’s never contested his values in the past. Mr. Doolin commented that he had sold four acres across the highway from his property in year 2018 and that sold for $40,000.00, which is approximately $10,000.00 per acre. Mr. Doolin said his property could be considered view property as it’s right on the highway, but he’s really shocked to see how much land value has increased so that is really what he’s appealing. Mr. Doolin informed Commissioners that he did look at the sales book across the hall and received some explanations and he had contacted the Assessor’s Office before the appeal hearing and was told they couldn’t explain the land value so he just appealed. Mr. Doolin commented that In looking at examples of the sales book, it’s hard to determine exactly how many acres are in each piece as it’s scribbled in so he couldn’t use that to help his case, but he’s wondering if Commissioners could tell him how the county arrived at his per acre value. It was stated that the homeowner rate is out of control and it is the State Tax Commission that mandated this and if the county were to fight this, the county would lose.

Ms. Tompke read her statement into the record. Parcel #RP60N01W131050A is an improved property at 127 Stampede Lake Road. The current assessed value is $404,070.00. Other than the countywide residential improved property increase, no specific value changes were made to this property for 2020.

Chairman Dinning mentioned there being an approximate increase of $30,000.00 and he asked what created that increase. It was said $21,500.00 is the value for the amenities and that is included in the land value. The value for amenities had increased from $10,000.00 last year to $21,500.00 this year for power, septic and water. Chairman Dinning said there is also a value of $11,500.00. It was said that is part of the increase for the land. The market is the other basis for the increase. Mr. Doolin asked if Ms. Tompke could site a comparable (comp) property and Ms. Tompke said she wasn’t given any comps. Chairman Dinning explained the mass appraisal process as opposed to specific comps. Mr. Doolin said he just doesn’t know. It’s an extreme amount of value per acre and he questioned if his value is the pinnacle and everyone else’s value is based around his. Mr. Doolin added that he wants to feel comfortable if it’s really worth that much and he knows the property has water. It’s on the lake with lily pads and it’s a swamp, but it is water and maybe that’s part of it. Chairman Dinning said it’s a unique parcel to Boundary County. There is a water adjustment for this land, per Ms. Kramer and that is an adjustment with a 50% influence. There is another parcel on the lake that is also seeing this increase. Mr. Doolin said that’s really all he needed to know after reviewing this with Ms. Tompke and Ms. Kramer. Mr. Doolin had no further questions.

In closing Mr. Doolin said he appreciates the information and understands the county is under gun, too. Mr. Doolin commented that having this information helps and he figured being on the water had something to do with the increase. Ms. Kramer said some properties on the Moyie River may have more of an adjustment, it just depends. Chairman Dinning asking Mr. Doolin if he is satisfied knowing this information. Mr. Doolin said no, but he can understand it. Chairman Dinning explained information pertaining to the Idaho Association of Counties (IAC) and how for the last three years they’ve seen this valuation issue coming and that other counties experienced this last year. IAC has asked over the last three years for the legislature to increase the homeowner’s exemption benefit and that has not occurred. IAC has also asked for values to be indexed and to use an average of three to five years in order to avoid large spikes, but it’s fallen on deaf ears. The House of Representatives has wanted to freeze county budgets, but that didn’t happen. The shift of responsibility in taxes went to the homeowner and counties are having difficulty with the legislature in what happens with that shift. This is the first time the Assessor failed a test to determine if a category is at market value. The residential category failed that test this year and that has never happened. Values had to increase to within 90% and 110% and we’re probably on that low side.

Commissioners closed the hearing to further public testimony to deliberate.

Commissioner Kirby moved to sustain the Assessor’s Office valuation for parcel #RP60N01W131050A owned by Patrick J. Doolin and Laureen K. Doolin. Commissioner Cossairt second. Motion passed unanimously.
The Board of Equalization appeal hearing for parcel #RP60N01W131050A owned by Patrick J. Doolin and Laureen K. Doolin ended at 10:30 a.m.

10:50 a.m., Commissioners held a Board of Equalization appeal hearing for parcels #RP62N03E218552A, #MH62N03E21855AA and #MH62N03E21855BA owned by Robert Johnson. Present were: Chairman Dan Dinning, Commissioner Wally Cossairt, Commissioner Walt Kirby, Deputy Clerk Michelle Rohrwasser, Appraisers Melissa Kramer and Monica Tompke, and Assessor Dave Ryals who participated via telephone. The appellant Robert Johnson was not present. The Assessor presented one exhibit marked “County Exhibit Assessor #1” (consisting of 4 pages copied both sides) The appeal hearing was recorded.

Chairman Dinning said the appraisers know this process and have been sworn in so Commissioners will review Mr. Johnson’s concerns. Chairman Dinning said in looking at this, Mr. Johnson has no dispute with the land value of $114,900. The concern pertains to the assessed value of $2,420 for the buildings category for parcel #RP62N03E218552A and the assessed value of $4,150.00 for the mobile home on parcel #MH62N03E21855AA in addition to $2,190.00 listed as “other” for that same parcel. Chairman Dinning said the request from the appellant is to reduce value to $3,222.00 for the manufactured home for parcel #MH62N03E21855BA, reduce value to $2,990.00 for the manufactured home and reduce value to $1,750.00 for “other” for parcel #MH62N03E21855AA. Chairman Dinning mentioned that the appellant is stating that the value of $2,420.00 for “Buildings” as listed for parcel #RP62N03E218552A has already been accounted for in the mobile home.

Ms. Kramer said as it pertains to parcel #RP62N03E218552A, #MH62N03E21855AA and #MH62N03E21855BA, the real property is improved property on 10 acres. Chairman Dinning said Mr. Johnson’s contention is that the value of $2,420.00 is already assessed on the parcel ending #1855AA and he asked if that was correct. Ms. Kramer said no and she said on the real property there are two sheds and a hay cover and that has the value of $2,420.00. Regarding the parcel ending #1855AA, it has a wood deck with a canopy over it that is adding value so it’s not an outbuilding. It was said the value of $2,190.00 is for the manufactured home improvements. Chairman Dinning said Mr. Johnson is thinking this value is for outbuildings, but it’s not; it’s a wood deck with a canopy. Ms. Kramer said the value increase on those were the same residential increase that all property owners saw. The parcel ending #1855AA is a 1971 manufactured home and the parcel ending #1855BA is a 1973 manufactured home. These are just two mobile homes on the same parcel and it’s thought that they are just rentals. It was said there is no homeowner’s exemption on the land. Ms. Kramer said the real property may qualify for a timber exemption as there is enough acreage. Commissioners asked about an agriculture exemption, but Ms. Kramer said the property has more trees then field. Chairman Dinning said parcel ending #18552A shows two “TSB amenities” with values of $2,150.00. It was said that these are two separate trailers and they each have their own power, sewer and water. Chairman Dinning asked how current the picture is for parcel ending #1855BA. Ms. Kramer said this picture could be five years old. Chairman Dinning said to be honest with valuation of mobile homes, it is what it is, unless conditions have changed. Both mobile homes are graded as low, according to Ms. Kramer. Ms. Kramer said this property is due to be revalued next summer.

Commissioners closed the hearing to further testimony.

Commissioner Cossairt moved to reduce the value of the mobile home to last year’s value of $3,320.00 and sustain the Assessor’s current value of $2,190.00 for the manufactured housing improvement “Other” for a total value of $5,510.00 for parcel #MH62N03E21855AA; and to reduce the value of the mobile home to last year’s value of $3,580.00 for parcel #MH62N03E21855BA as these parcels will be revalued next year. Commissioner Kirby second. Motion passed unanimously.

Commissioner Cossairt moved to sustain the Assessor’s value on parcel #RP62N03E218552A. Commissioner Kirby second. Motion passed unanimously.

The Board of Equalization appeal hearing for parcels #RP62N03E218552A, #MH62N03E21855AA and #MH62N03E21855BA owned by Robert Johnson ended at 11:06 a.m.

Commissioners recessed for lunch at 11:14 a.m.

2:30 p.m., Commissioners reconvened for the afternoon session with Chairman Dan Dinning, Commissioner Wally Cossairt, Commissioner Walt Kirby, Deputy Clerk Michelle Rohrwasser.

2:30 p.m., Commissioners held a Board of Equalization appeal hearing for parcel #RP62N01E242840A owned by Charles and Tiffany Tuma. Present were: Chairman Dan Dinning, Commissioner Wally Cossairt, Commissioner Walt Kirby, Deputy Clerk Michelle Rohrwasser, Appraisers Monica Tompke and Melissa Kramer, Assessor Dave Ryals who participated via telephone, and Appellant Charles Tuma. The Assessor presented one exhibit marked “County Exhibit Assessor #1” (consisting of 5 pages, copied both sides). The Appellant presented two exhibits marked “Appellant Exhibit #1” (consisting of 8 pages) and “Appellant Exhibit #2” (consisting of 18 pages). The hearing was recorded.

Chairman Dinning reviewed the hearing procedures and administered the oath to those giving testimony.

Mr. Tuma mentioned being familiar with market trends in Boundary County and he spoke of his personal situation versus the county’s situation as far as inventory, lack of prices, etc. Mr. Tuma said the increased assessed value on his personal house was overly substantial due to its condition as it’s literally under construction from top to bottom. The location of the property is good and Mr. Tuma said his only thought is to take that into consideration. Mr. Tuma added that if the home was finished, it would be close to a somewhat fair value. There has been a lot of chatter about housing prices going through the roof and comparables (comps) were submitted that are felt to be fairly close to accurate. Mr. Tuma said he has a little over four acres. Mr. Tuma spoke of his house and the person who built it tended to use a lot of lumber pieces and it’s spliced together, but it’s literally a remodel from the roof down to the basement and he’s doing the work himself. Mr. Tuma commented that it was approximately two years ago that the value of his commercial building doubled from $173,000.00 to $347,000.00 and he had contacted Deputy Assessor Tracy Golder to ask what the market is doing and he mentioned an increase of 4% to 6% per year. In the last two years it’s looking to be more-so 6% per year. As opposed to market sanity, it is lack of inventory, which will drive prices up, according to Mr. Tuma.

Chairman Dinning asked when the property was last appraised and Ms. Kramer said an appraiser visited the property in year 2016. Last year’s value was $233,200.00. Chairman Dinning said that’s an increase of approximately $97,000.00 from last year to this year, but the property has not been looked at physically since year 2016. Mr. Tuma said if he had finished the house, he doesn’t think he’d have an issue with the current value.

Ms. Kramer read her exhibit into the record. This parcel is an improved parcel on 4.79 acres. The current assessed value is $352,700.00, which breaks downs as follows: land and amenities valued at $83,270.00, outbuildings valued at $5,930.00 and the residence valued at $263,500.00
Those present reviewed the Assessor’s exhibit. Assessor Ryals said it’s trying to develop a replacement cost, which is then adjusted upward or downward depending on market. The home’s finished square footage was mentioned. Chairman Dinning said the problem is that the county doesn’t go into homes every year as it’s done every five years so this is due for a revaluation in year 2022. Mr. Tuma said this remodel started approximately two years ago and there is probably another three years to go. Assessor Ryals said the way the laws are written, the county is authorized to call construction 100% complete if it taking too long.

Mr. Tuma said the value increased approximately 60% over the prior assessment. Chairman Dining asked what percentage of completion the home is and Mr. Tuma said it’s maybe 60% done. Ms. Kramer explained the Assessor’s system used to determine percent of completion. Mr. Tuma said he’s living in this home.

Mr. Tuma said a fair adjustment would be a market trend of 6% versus 60%. Commissioner Cossairt questioned if that is just the value of the house. Mr. Tuma said that was correct, $247,192.00.

Chairman Dinning asked Assessor Ryals if it would be appropriate to look at continuing this hearing until the appraiser can visit the house to determine a percent complete. Ms. Kramer said she could just run through the check list here.

Chairman Dinning said there is an automatic value of $21,500.00 placed on the property for amenities on top of the value for the land and that is what the figure total comes to. Without those amenities the value would be $67,000.00. Mr. Tuma said that sounds reasonable. There being a garage was mentioned. Ms. Kramer said there is a lean-to, a shed and a machine shed. Mr. Tuma said it’s a chicken coop. There is a three car detached garage and a carport attached to the garage. Ms. Kramer said the garage is on the same sketch as the house and shows as 24 feet by 40 feet on a dirt floor with man doors. Mr. Tuma mentioned the chicken coop with the lean-to off of it and the last snow storm took it down.

Chairman Dinning said the hearing would be continued until these details are worked through.

The hearing paused at 2:55 p.m. and resumed at 3:00 p.m.

Ms. Kramer said the value of the house is $145,150, the value of the land is $83,270.00 and the value of the other buildings is $23,780.00. The overall value is $252,200.00.

Commissioner Cossairt moved to reduce the value of the house to $145,150.00, the value of the land is $83,270.00 and the value of the other buildings is $23,780.00 for a total value of $252,200.00 for parcel #RP62N01E242840A owned by Charles and Tiffany Tuma. Commissioner Kirby second. Motion passed unanimously.

Commissioners informed Mr. Tuma of process to follow if he chooses to appeal the Board of Equalization’s decision.

The Board of Equalization appeal hearing for parcel #RP62N01E242840A owned by Charles and Tiffany Tuma ended at 3:04 p.m.

Mr. Tuma left the meeting at 3:04 p.m.

David Winn and LaDean Winn joined the meeting.

Chairman Dinning spoke of the Idaho Association of Counties and the Idaho legislature on the matter of property values. The Assessor’s Office failed their test for residential appraisals as values have to fall within the range of 90% and 110%. Values had to increase to where they are now in the low 90%. Chairman Dinning explained that the Idaho State Tax Commission met with Commissioners and when asked what would happen if the county did not increase values, the Tax Commission’s answer was that they would take the county to State Board of Equalization, they would win and then force the county to put everything into place and residents would lose their appeal rights. This was forced upon the county. Mr. Winn said he just wants to go on record.

3:10 p.m., Commissioners held a Board of Equalization appeal hearing for parcel #RP62N02E166252A owned by the Winn Revocable Trust, David and LaDean Winn. Present were: Chairman Dan Dinning, Commissioner Wally Cossairt, Commissioner Walt Kirby, Clerk Glenda Poston, Deputy Clerk Michelle Rohrwasser, Appraisers Monica Tompke and Melissa Kramer, Assessor Dave Ryals who participated via conference call, and Appellants David Winn and LaDean Winn. The Assessor’s Office submitted one exhibit marked “County Exhibit Assessor #1” (consisting of 5 pages copied both sides). The appellants did not submit any exhibits. The appeal hearing was recorded. Chairman Dinning reviewed the appeal hearing procedures and administered the oath to those giving testimony.

Chairman Dinning asked the appellants for an opening statement. Mr. Winn said his case isn’t about the numbers, although they’re getting too high. Mr. Winn said in his case a man’s home is the most precious thing he thinks he owns. A man raises his family in the home, it’s a place of refuge, safety and peace. When he finds the government in the process of attacking them as homeowners with the result of the homeowners losing their homes, it’s immoral, wrong, it’s unconstitutional, against better judgment and he’s against basing taxes on real estate. Mr. Winn said he knows why taxes are based on real estate and it’s because real estate can always be levied against and it won’t go away. The figures on his valuation are too high and are not worth what it shows, according to Mr. Winn. Just because someone else will pay a big price, doesn’t mean the property has increased in value. It’s what one person is willing to buy and sell for. Mr. Winn said people have spent years and years building a home and eventually they’ve got a decent house until you find out you can’t afford to live in it anymore. Value should be based on that latest sale for that property and not base it on sales that are going on all over the place. Every property is different. Chairman Dinning said he doesn’t disagree with anything Mr. Winn has said. Chairman Dinning explained that everything being implemented today has been mandated by rules of the State of Idaho and by the state legislature. Mr. Winn said he doesn’t know how to change it and he questioned who determines how much is to be spent on services. Mr. Winn asked if the county budget is available and he added that retired people are on fixed incomes and don’t get a raise. County employees and working people get raises and have an advantage over retired people. Mr. Winn said he didn’t get a 34% increase, he got an extra $12.00 per year from social security and he received no increase from retirement from the bank. Mr. Winn said he won’t live long enough to keep up with this and he questioned what he is to do, sit back and be quiet. Mr. Winn said he’s here to let them know he’s really upset and he questioned how much money is Boise getting from Boundary County? Mr. Winn said that’s why he wants to see where money is going. No one had questions for Mr. Winn. It was said the current assessed value is $302,000.00 and he has suggested the value to be $265,000.00. Mr. Winn said he doesn’t have an issue with the value of the buildings, but he does have an issue with the value of the land, but apparently that’s what land is selling for. Mr. Winn questioned why depreciation is no longer being considered. His home needs a roof, new siding, and plumbing and the government feels his house is worth as much as a newer house.

Ms. Tompke gave an opening statement and read her exhibit into the record. The parcel’s current assessed value is $302,280.00. No specific value increases were made other than the countywide residential improved property increase. The Assessor’s Office did not receive comps or an appraisal. Chairman Dinning talked about depreciation and how it had been calculated in the past, but the state is no longer considering that so that value was added back on. Chairman Dinning said he disagrees with that, but that is what occurred. Mr. Winn said if someone were to buy his house and saw what needed to be done, the buyer would require that work to be done or pay less. Ms. Tompke said the house is rated as an average plus. Chairman Dinning asked if the square footage seems accurate and Mr. Winn said as far as he could see. Mr. Winn said as he mentioned in his opening remarks, he felt it was unconstitutional, because it’s to protect the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Anytime that is threatened it is unconstitutional as far as he is concerned. Mr. Winn said if someone is living in Boundary County in a $5,000,000.00 home and he has a $5,000.00 tar paper shack, why is the expensive house paying the same rate as the other house? Services cost the same for both houses so why is the value different. Mr. Winn said that is why he hopes Commissioners continue to hound the legislature and let them know that Dave Winn is upset. Chairman Dinning informed Mr. Winn that Senator Jim Woodward supported the citizens on this matter. Mr. Winn said he contacted Representative Heather Scott.

Ms. Winn questioned why pay more taxes just because other people want to live here too. Chairman Dinning said the Constitution says that everyone must be taxed equally. Chairman Dinning said California’s Proposition 13 was mentioned and people are afraid that there will be a transfer tax. Last year is the first year the county levied for Road and Bridge and it was in the amount of $150,000.00. Other than that, the funds for Road and Bridge comes from the federal government for what is produced off the national forest and fuel tax, etc. Chairman Dinning said for everything else, the state system bases on value and that is where change needs to occur. This year is a prime example of that tax shift. The totality of residential values has increased so the percentage of the overall county value has really increased and the portion allocated to the residential side is going to be higher and in some cases much higher due to this mandated valuation increase. Ms. Winn commented on certain values and Commissioner Cossairt replied that it’s due to the homeowner’s exemption.

Assessor Ryals said he agrees with Mr. Winn and this is frustrating to him beyond what he can express. Normally when values increase the rates come down as a taxing district cannot collect more than is budgeted. Increasing values doesn’t bring more money in, it just changes distribution. Counties tried to get the amount of the homeowner’s exemption increased. The median home price is beyond $200,000.00 and the homeowner’s exemption used to cover half. The median is now closer to $300,000.00 and we don’t get the benefit from the homeowner’s exemption any longer. Assessor Ryals said he wants people to get mad and contact the legislators about this as they need to hear from the public because they’re not listening to Assessors or Commissioners. Mr. Winn thanked Assessor Ryals for his comments. Mr. Winn questioned, if the least expensive property is $1,000,000 and they still have the same services, what will happen to taxes, will they stay level or increase? Assessor Ryals said they should still stay fairly level, but he won’t know until November. The impact is unknown. Taxes may increase for everyone, but it’s based on value. There are different categories and in Boundary County the residential category is covering two-thirds. The exemptions on forest land and agricultural land have greatly reduced in value to a very small level to promote and encourage farming and forestry. The homeowner’s is at $100,000.00, but the problem is that the state hasn’t raised that figure and that is the largest group of taxpayers. Mr. Winn said taxation should be based on funds to support infrastructure and services and Assessor Ryals said it kind of is. Mr. Winn said he would rather see a sales tax as opposed to property tax as he won’t lose his home, maybe. Assessor Ryals said he does understand both sides, but he doesn’t see an easy way around it. Chairman Dinning said this year Boundary County can only collect $5,300,000.00 and by state code we’re only allowed to increase the budget, the tax portion, by 3% for the upcoming year. There is a cap on what the county can collect. That 3% is just a touch over $150,000.00 per year, but whether the county increases the budget by one penny or not, there has been a shift, according to Chairman Dinning.

Mr. Winn apologized for mistakenly saying he received a 68% increase instead of a 34% increase and he said it’s not a fair system, though. Mr. Winn asked what the county’s largest line item expenditure in the budget is. Chairman Dinning said that would be the justice system, which includes the Sheriff, Clerk of Court, Prosecuting Attorney, and jail medical. Mr. Winn said if you want to get honest people, the largest line item is for salary, pension, etc. for employees and he understands trying to do what’s best for the county, but to remember that employees work for the public. Mr. Winn added that he was invited to come and complain and bring a bunch of documentation, such as sales, but the Assessor has already done that so why does he have to do that job.

Commissioners closed the hearing to further public testimony in order to deliberate.

Commissioner Cossairt commented about adjusting square footage down to $100.00 per square feet with a total of 1,876 finished area. This would reduce the value of the dwelling from $203,470.00 to $187,600.00 for a $15,870.00 decrease. Ms. Winn said they’re not counting the basement. Chairman Dinning mentioned the pole building at $7,300.00. The next physical inspection to be done is in year 2022. Commissioner Cossairt spoke of reducing value of the dwelling to $187,600.00 and the value of the garage to $17,688.00 for a reduced value of $205,288.00 on the residential building and garage. The land value is $69,600.00 and the value for the other outbuildings is $8,640.00 for a total value of $283,528.00.

Commissioner Cossairt moved to adjust the value on the residential building and garage to $205,288.00, the value for other buildings is $8,640.00 and the value of the land is $69,600.00 for a total value of $283,528.00 for parcel #RP62N02E166252A owned by the Winn Revocable Trust, David and LaDean Winn. Commissioner Kirby second. Motion passed unanimously.

Commissioners explained the process of appealing the Board of Equalization decision to the Board of Tax Appeals or district court. Ms. Winn asked how Commissioners can reduce value like that and Chairman Dinning said appeals are considered on an individual basis.

The Board of Equalization appeal hearing for parcel #RP62N02E166252A owned by the Winn Revocable Trust, David and LaDean Winn ended at 3:55 p.m.

3:55 p.m., Boundary County Emergency Manager Andrew O’Neel, South Boundary Fire Protection District Chief Tony Rohrwasser, North Bench Fire Department Chief Gus Jackson, and Sheriff’s Office Administrator Crystal Denton joined the meeting to discuss a countywide simulcast system. Eric Lederhos with EL Internet Northwest participated in the meeting via conference call.

Mr. O’Neel explained that the countywide simulcast system is used by the Sheriff’s Office, Search and Rescue and emergency responders through repeaters across the county. There is approximately $500,000.00 worth of equipment essentially operated by the Boundary County Fire Chief’s Association. Mr. O’Neel spoke of recent events and needing a solution to sustain the simulcast system long term. This equipment is not insured. A grant covered a large portion of the equipment and the Fire Chief’s Association has developed an agreement with users of this system. Anyone using the Fire 1 channel contributes financially to sustain the system, but it was learned through discussions that this process isn’t really working. A new repeater had to be purchased recently at a cost of $3,800.00 and radios in dispatch had to be updated and the fund for this equipment did not have enough budget in it. Mr. O’Neel said he worked with Idaho Office of Emergency Management Local Area Field Officer Jay Baker about using 2018 Homeland Security Grant funds and those funds were used to purchase the repeater for the Fire 1 channel. Ms. Denton said the repeater has been ordered. Chairman Dinning commented that the order hadn’t been approved by Commissioners.

Mr. O’Neel said another question that came up was thinking about ways to turn the system over to the Sheriff’s Office as a county entity to own as opposed to a Fire Chief’s Association. This system benefits all county residents. Mr. O’Neel said he isn’t familiar with the agreement from 10 years ago, but it’s not quite working right and it should fall under the county ownership, such as the Sheriff’s Office and fall under the county’s insurance. A decision doesn’t need to be made today as this is just an informative discussion, but currently the simulcast committee is who decides how the channel is used and who pays into it, but that group of people is represented here and they’re looking for ways to make sure the system is sustainable. Grants are a great way to get pieces of equipment, but it’s not reliable to do on short notice. There is also system maintenance on a contract that has not been done and some of the users of this system who are paying into the pot are not living up to their obligation. Chairman Dinning questioned who the original owners of the system are and Chief Rohrwasser said each of the fire departments, the Boundary County Ambulance Service District, and Boundary Community Hospital. Chairman Dinning mentioned the hospital and there being something about concerns regarding connectivity or frequency in that if the system was put into place, it wouldn’t work for the hospital. It was asked if the Sheriff’s Office would be responsible for funding and maintenance. Mr. O’Neel said that was the main idea that was being considered, to have this system under a county organization who is already doing maintenance and planning. Mr. O’Neel spoke of having a line item in the budget to pay for that ongoing maintenance and sustainment of the system. Commissioners asked what the annual needs are and the reply was that annual maintenance is approximately $5,000.00 to $8,000.00. Commissioners asked what other costs might be incurred other than repairs. Chief Rohrwasser said the City of Bonners Ferry houses one of the antennas so the system was not receiving payment from the city as they were covering electrical costs.

Mr. Lederhos said it’s difficult when you have a lot of different entities trying to maintain the system and it would be cleaner if it was centrally controlled, but then you have to look at decisions on upgrading various things and when, and to consider if and when to add equipment. Mr. Lederhos said Copper Falls is one site and EL Internet works on that tower for the Translator District. Mr. Lederhos said he’s never looked at coverage maps of the network, but his opinion would be to have something for Pack River as there is very little coverage that direction. Mr. Lederhos said he doesn’t know the actual cost per year because logically, in his opinion, there would be some expansion to get better coverage.

Chairman Dinning reminded Commissioners that they had forgotten to recess as the Board of Equalization and to reconvene as the Boundary County Board of Commissioners.

4:15 p.m. Commissioner Cossairt moved to recess as the Board of Equalization and to reconvene as the Boundary County Board of Commissioners. Commissioner Kirby second. Motion passed unanimously.

Chairman Dinning resumed the conservation on the simulcast system and said with that there are always things that concern him and one is payment by a committee and the second thing is recommendation by committee to an elected official, such as the Sheriff. Chairman Dinning added that he wouldn’t want something in place in which one person has the ability to say they don’t want to deal with this system anymore causing the whole system to be eliminated.

Chief Jackson said the system would be owned by the Sheriff’s Office so the hope is there would be a three panel board to oversee the system’s future and approve and update minor repairs needed. Fire departments, law enforcement and EMS would be involved. Chairman Dinning clarified that there is no committee or advisory board over the elected officials. The worst case would be the Sheriff saying he doesn’t want to deal with the system. Ms. Denton said Sheriff Kramer is agreeable to looking at this system and will look into actual ownership and where that ends up. Commissioners suggested talking to County Civil Attorney Tevis Hull about this and then Jay Baker. Chairman Dinning said the county will run into budget concerns this year so everything will need to be considered. Chairman Dinning said a majority of funding was through the Assistance to Firefighters grant and there is a joint powers agreement that split ownership between the agencies. Chairman Dinning said they will see if that can be done. Chief Jackson said he would still advocate that every user of this system pays their portion. Chairman Dinning said he recalls quite a discussion with the city about why the city is the only agency paying for dispatch services. Chairman Dinning said we will need to visit about the expenditure and approve it and he suggested brain storming more about the simulcast system and checking on the grant about who can or can’t have ownership. We need to get those pieces of the puzzle together in order to make a knowledgeable decision.

The meeting to discuss the simulcast system ended at 4:20 p.m.

4:20 p.m., There being no further business, the meeting recessed until Thursday, July 9, 2020, at 9:00 a.m.

***Thursday, July 9, 2020, at 9:00 a.m., Commissioners met in special session at Memorial Hall with Chairman Dan Dinning, Commissioner Wally Cossairt, Commissioner Walt Kirby, and Clerk Glenda Poston.

The purpose of the meeting is for Commissioners to consider proposals received for improvement and expansion of internet services in Boundary County under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security (CARES) Act Idaho Commerce Broadband Grant program. Present were: Commissioners, Clerk Glenda Poston; Stephanie Franke, Valerie Surprenant, Mat Surprenant, Kevin Lederhos, and Eric Lederhos with EL Internet Northwest; Patrick Whalen, Dustin Moses and Tony Jeppesen with Intermax Northwest; Larry Hosterman, Kevin Boldt of Whitebridge Consulting; George Schrems, and Nancy Mabile with Panhandle Area Council.

Chairman Dinning provided introductions for those present and explained the process involved. The first company to give their presentation was EL Internet Northwest. EL Internet was established in year 2010 and they’re licensed to do business in Idaho and Montana. They are a local provider and they employ 23 local county residents. EL Internet provides wireless, cable and fiber services. EL Internet started off with four towers and currently they have 18 towers and they also provide service to Bonner County and Lincoln County, Montana. EL Internet currently covers 97% of Bonners Ferry with wiring and 35% of Bonners Ferry has fiber to their homes. EL Internet has multiple sources of feed for the area and their system will automatically transfer over to another source, limiting interruptions. The current speed that EL Internet offers is 10 megabits per second (mbps) and having broadband will increase it to 25 mbps. EL Internet spoke of prices to the consumer and mentioned having lowered prices three times. It was said they have higher speeds and lower prices and they stressed that prices will not increase. The fixed wireless almost covers the entire county. EL Internet proposed improving their five towers for better service.

Mr. Surprenant presented a slide of proposed projects and listed details associated with each project. Project areas included: Deep Creek, Copeland, Eastport, Naples, and Curley Creek. Clerk Poston mentioned that is a total of 2,580 potential homes served.

Kevin Lederhos provided a recap of the presentation and stressed the need for broadband and higher broadband speeds. Kevin Lederhos reviewed the handouts and letters of support that were provided to Commissioners, reviewed the project schedule of how events will happen prior to December15, 2020, discussed local jobs and the impact these projects will have for the county. EL Internet is also working on two potential tower sites, but these projects are not included in this grant.

Chairman Dinning asked about challenges and Eric Lederhos replied that wireless technology has changed tremendously and is 100 times more capable than it was 10 years ago. Other challenges would be outside elements and the need to make reception better, but because EL Internet is local, they have the ability to address an issue sooner adding that EL Internet has 24/7, 365 days per year service.

Chairman Dinning asked about towers and lightning strikes. Eric Lederhos said EL Internet has not lost equipment in 10 years so they have not suffered this issue. If lightning hits a tower, there are increases in voltage and grounding hasn’t been an issue.

The next company presenting was Intermax Northwest. Patrick Whalen said the company began in September 2001 and has 60 to 70 employees. They provide fiber to Coeur d’ Alene, Post Falls, Sandpoint, etc. Mr. Whalen spoke of leasing fiber to Seattle, Amazon and Netflix, having a data center in Liberty Lake, building networks in a ring, providing service to the Schweitzer Mountain area, having a help desk seven days per week, being familiar with the grant process and working with Panhandle Area Council as well as working with partners who can procure products. A question was raised about grant administration and Chairman Dinning said no decisions about grant administration have been made. Short timelines for the procurement process were discussed. Mr. Whalen stated that Intermax Northwest is proposing two new towers. Mr. Whalen commented that Coeur d’ Alene declared an emergency declaration for procurement and permitting and he asked if there are issues with permitting in Boundary County. Mr. Whalen discussed wireless and needing to work together as well as frequency on a national level. Mr. Whalen stated that Intermax has seven project proposals for Boundary County. Details Mr. Whalen spoke of included: prioritizing projects, handouts for Commissioners, service and megabytes (megs) being delivered to households, proposing projects in Kootenai, Bonner and Boundary Counties, increasing in frequency, and fixed wireless being here to stay.

Intermax’s proposal areas include: Camp Nine, Copper Ridge in the Eastport area, Curley Creek, Moyie Springs, the Meadow Creek area, Naples, O’Callaghan’s, and Porthill. Chairman Dinning raised questions about whether or not Intermax needs new licensing. Mr. Whalen said if crossing into Canada, Intermax has already requested licensing for that. Procurement is four to six weeks out. Equipment has already been purchased so Intermax can use equipment received from the state. Mr. Whalen spoke of procurement and grant administrators and having worked with different grant administrators. Mr. Moses, Systems Engineer for Intermax, spoke of having strong relationships with vendors. Mr. Whalen informed Commissioners that frequency could be shut down by the Department of Defense as they do have that ability, but he doesn’t believe that to be an issue.

10:59 a.m., the meeting recessed for the morning session until 1:00 p.m.

1:00 p.m., Commissioners reconvened for the afternoon session with Chairman Dan Dinning, Commissioner Wally Cossairt, Commissioner Walt Kirby, and Deputy Clerk Michelle Rohrwasser.

1:00 p.m., Commissioners continued their special meeting in Memorial Hall to consider proposals received for improvement and expansion of internet services in Boundary County under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security (CARES) Act Idaho Commerce Broadband Grant program. Present were: Commissioners, Deputy Clerk Michelle Rohrwasser, Boundary Economic Development Director Dennis Weed; Stephanie Franke, Valerie Surprenant, Mat Surprenant, Kevin Lederhos, and Eric Lederhos with EL Internet Northwest; Patrick Whalen, Dustin Moses and Tony Jeppesen with Intermax Northwest; Larry Hosterman, Kevin Boldt of Whitebridge Consulting; George Schrems, Nancy Mabile with Panhandle Area Council; and Graham Taylor and Jamie Miller with Fatbeam.

The last company to present was Fatbeam. Graham Taylor said Fatbeam would like to compliment or contribute to the state and he spoke of their project consisting of a six mile build project to Moyie Springs. The connection to Moyie Springs would terminate at City Hall. Mr. Taylor explained that Fatbeam doesn’t do residential service. Mr. Taylor said Fatbeam provides internal/external WiFi to better the City of Moyie Springs’ service so people can pull into the City Hall parking lot to get a better connection. Chairman Dinning asked if there is fiber to Moyie Springs and Mr. Taylor said maybe through Frontier/Ziply, but he’s not sure. Chairman Dinning asked Mr. Taylor about comments from the City of Moyie Springs and Mr. Taylor mentioned having spoken to the City of Moyie Springs’ mayor.

Eric Lederhos commented that EL Internet got the engineering done for this route and has purchased fiber so they will be working on that project in approximately one month. It was asked if that would be overbuilding. Eric Lederhos said this project is in route right now with or without this grant funding.

Mr. Taylor said his thinking is why not submit for this project as it’s not known who the state will select. Chairman Dinning questioned if this is exclusive to Moyie Springs and if there will be the opportunity for other businesses and people to connect. Mr. Taylor said yes and this is just the opportunity to use CARES Act funds to get service to that location. Mr. Weed asked where the project will terminate and Mr. Taylor said the project ends at Moyie Springs’ City Hall and he added that Fatbeam will also do equipment upgrades. The project will start at 3 Mile Café and end at City Hall in Moyie Springs. Commissioner Cossairt asked what the monthly rate would be and Mr. Taylor said there is no recurring costs for this concept. Mr. Taylor added that Fatbeam would work with other providers.

It was said that Ziply Fiber has fiber to Idaho Forest Group and further on to Missoula and back around and EL Internet is going with fiber as well. Commissioners Cossairt asked if fiber would follow the highway or go down Roosevelt Road and the reply was that it would follow Roosevelt Road.

Kevin Boldt commented that he is in information technology (IT) and business consulting and he wanted to know how many tech personnel would be directly involved and what the pool of talent is. Patrick Whalen replied by listing the number of Intermax Northwest’s technicians, engineers, field tech team members, tower teams and project managers. Mr. Whalen added that Intermax Northwest employs a lot of North Idaho College computer science graduates and on the IT side, they have staff with backgrounds in Microsoft. Eric Lederhos commented that EL Internet has IT people on staff and they partner with electrical engineering firms. EL Internet provides a cable system that covers 95% of the town and he listed EL Internet’s accomplishments. There is fiber to the Courthouse, Library, Sheriff’s Office, etc. and EL Internet has the highest “up time” in Boundary County. Mr. Boldt spoke of in-house training within EL Internet’s company. Eric Lederhos said he uses in-house skills as much as they can and he further explained their experience and the job duties of personnel. Eric Lederhos said for technical expertise they have people on call in addition to himself.

Mr. Boldt asked about outages. Mr. Taylor said Fatbeam’s chief operation officer is with their team and they have multiple engineers and are fully staffed. Their work is handled by certified personnel who are experienced. Mr. Graham mentioned that he doesn’t think Fatbeam has had any outages, but Eric Lederhos said EL Internet has had to go to Naples three times due to Fatbeam’s power outages. Mr. Boldt questioned what would cause the outages. Mr. Taylor said there will be outages, but it’s about communication and response. Mr. Taylor encouraged redundancy and not placing all of one’s eggs in one basket. Mr. Whalen stated that Intermax Northwest runs the most complex system and there is zero down time. Mr. Whalen said Intermax Northwest feels Fatbeam and EL Internet are competent.

Mr. Boldt spoke of dividing dollars into speed to determine value and he spoke of post plans and prices. Eric Lederhos said EL Internet is probably higher than most for bandwidth, but if customers are happy with the reliability and response, they will stay or switch over to EL Internet. It was said that EL Internet is mentioned most on Facebook when referring new residents. Mr. Boldt said if there is strong word of mouth, the company should be okay and be transparent with pricing. Mr. Taylor said Fatbeam doesn’t provide residential service, but they do indirectly through EL Internet, etc. Fatbeam doesn’t have a rate card. Mr. Boldt said transparency means consistency throughout the community. Kevin Lederhos said EL Internet has never raised its rates in 10 years and when they’ve expanded, they’ve lowered their rates. Mr. Whalen commented that Commissioners should consider building a competitive system.

Chairman Dinning spoke of grants and said if Panhandle Area Council (PAC) is not available, Dennis Weed is authorized to administer the grant. Nancy Mabile said PAC is now available and she explained PAC’s role for administration.

Chairman Dinning asked the three service providers if they can meet the project timeline to get the job done and all said yes. Chairman Dinning explained that if the county is awarded this grant and something goes wrong, Commissioners will be considered the responsible party so that is why he asks. Mr. Weed reiterated that it’s the county’s responsibility and liability to get the projects done timely. Mr. Whalen briefly mentioned line of sight issues. Mr. Boldt spoke of systems used to determine topography to homes.

Commissioners will add to their agenda for July 13, 2020, a motion regarding the selection of Panhandle Area Council as grant administrator for this project.

There being no further business, the meeting was recessed until tomorrow at 9:00 a.m.

***Friday, July 10, 2020, at 9:00 a.m., Commissioners met in special session with Chairman Dan Dinning, Commissioner Wally Cossairt, Commissioner Walt Kirby, Clerk Glenda Poston, and Deputy Clerk Michelle Rohrwasser.

9:00 a.m., Panhandle Area Council Grant Administrator Nancy Mabile, Pat Whalen with Intermax Northwest, Kevin Lederhos with EL Internet Northwest, Kevin Boldt, and Boundary Economic Development Director Dennis Weed joined the meeting and participating in the meeting via conference call were: Stephanie Franke, Valerie Surprenant, Mat Surprenant, and Matt Harmon with EL Internet; and Jamie Miller and Taylor Graham with Fat Beam. The purpose of the meeting is to rank and select service providers for the specific locations.

Mr. Lederhos and Mr. Whalen presented maps of their respective coverage areas.

Mr. Weed said Commissioners are to rank the projects from 1 to 13 and he would suggest ranking them by project area as there could be emergency services areas to consider. Chairman Dinning said ranking is not by cost, but by the areas Commissioners feel are most important.
Ms. Mabile is writing and submitting the grant application with the help of the county for Intermax Northwest and she thought Mr. Weed was submitting the grant application for EL Internet, but Mr. Weed said that was not his understanding. Ms. Mabile said next week Commissioners want grant administration, but there is a public notice that has to be posted for 14 days before they can award or sign off on a contract for that administration. Those present discussed timelines for Ms. Mabile and Ms. Mabile said Commissioners need to know her rate through PAC is $100.00 per hour. Eric Lederhos said his understanding is that it was 1% for the entire project. Ms. Mabile said that was just for administration. We’re back to that process, excluding administration.

Kevin Lederhos mentioned filling out an application with the City of Moyie Springs and being willing to work with anyone. Kevin Lederhos commented that one rebuttal he has is that he has information stating something different than what he’s hearing as he’s hearing that all applications are submitted, but in the application it doesn’t say that. Eric Lederhos asked if that would be prioritized for location as it would be prioritized by all locations in his opinion.

Commissioners received three updated maps from Intermax Northwest for Copper Ridge, Camp Nine Road, and Porthill and as well as updated figures from both Intermax Northwest and EL Internet. Chairman Dinning informed those present that this information was public record now. There were no adjustments for Fatbeam. Chairman Dinning said Commissioners will start looking at these projects and maps and they don’t want this to be a dialogue of “my company will do this better”, etc. Chairman Dinning addressed Mr. Miller and Mr. Taylor of Fatbeam and said the Mayor for Moyie Springs contacted him and he indicated the City of Moyie Springs Council members had not taken any position or had Fatbeam’s proposal brought to them and he asked if that was also their understanding. Mr. Taylor said he had a conversation with the Mayor a couple days ago and he was open to EL Internet’s residential proposal and the other application with Fat Beam. Mr. Taylor added that he doesn’t’ think it went to city council for a vote, and he explained it was going through the county. Chairman Dinning said the Moyie Springs proposal with EL Internet would include them bringing fiber to Moyie Springs, if the project is funded, but at this point all cards are on the table. Fatbeam’s project consists of the 3 Mile area to the Moyie Springs City Council building, but it’s not just a connection to City Hall. With the cost in the proposal it would create community access to WiFi network. The goal for the application is to provide at least broadband access to 100 people, except that Fatbeam services a government entity and the other two companies can provide residential service. Chairman Dinning said if projects have to be ranked by category, it becomes a default. Mr. Weed listed the amount of funding that would go toward households as well as the amount that would be split between telehealth and government so it’s different funding.

Intermax Northwest has new maps for the Copper Ridge, Camp Nine and Porthill project areas. Mr. Whalen replied that the overall map is still accurate and only the legend at the bottom changed. Chairman Dinning asked Fatbeam if they’re okay with PAC being the administrator. Mr. Taylor said yes and he reiterated that the cost proposed doesn’t include any reoccurring costs.

Commissioners reviewed proposals areas.

Intermax’s cost for the Copeland project is $19,132.00. EL Internet overlaps Porthill and Camp Nine and Chairman Dinning mentioned there being approximately one mile in between project areas. Intermax’s proposal for Camp Nine and Porthill is pretty much the same as the Copeland definition, which is Copeland and Camp Nine. Those present discussed their interpretation of the purpose of this program.

Chairman Dinning asked about considering Intermax’s proposal for Porthill and Camp Nine together. This area is just north of Three Mile and within this area are two fire stations and heading north there are two creeks and businesses at the border. The businesses are not included in this, but the thought is to hook up to this. Eric Lederhos listed the various businesses that EL Internet has provided service to in those areas. Chairman Dinning asked Eric Lederhos if they could list Copper Ridge as a general project area. Chairman Dinning said if Commissioners choose a project from one provider and a different area for another provider, it could still cause overlap. Mr. Whalen commented that it’s not overlapping, but building and he added that Commissioners should pick and strategically place each company. The priority areas are north, Curley Creek and Naples. Commissioner Cossairt said he agrees, but had them in a different order of priority. Ms. Mabile said it’s where the need is, not how much the cost is. Mr. Boldt added that it’s areas of great need, but within those you won’t get service to everyone. Mr. Boldt said he would emphasize future development and supporting infrastructure into those areas and he would also encourage competition as that drives the prices lower.

Kevin Lederhos said he shows 95% of coverage in the Copeland area. Kevin Lederhos said he keeps hearing about competitive edge and he commented on two different companies going after the same project, but private enterprise is one thing and grant funding is a different thing. Mr. Whalen said Intermax started receiving funds from the federal government prior to this program. In talking about fairness, one company has $3,000,000.00 to work in this area whereas they don’t. Chairman Dinning asked Commissioners about project #1 and Commissioner Kirby said he didn’t disagree. Chairman Dinning said it appears it is almost identical between Intermax and EL Internet. The Curley Creek project area will be ranked #1 and the two companies are covering that area. Chairman Dinning asked how the county becomes as consistent as possible. Those present discussed households served. Chairman Dinning said he’s hearing that the Curley Creek project for EL Internet versus the same project area for Intermax are priority areas ranked either #1 or #2. Commissioners said they will list Intermax’s Curley Creek area as #1 and EL Internet’s Curley Creek area as #2, because between the two different companies we will pick up more customers. Mr. Whalen said using Federal Communication Commission (FCC) data it shows where underserved areas are.

Chairman Dinning said the next project identified was either Naples or up north. Mr. Weed said his opinion on Naples is that EL Internet has coverage in that area so he would select EL Internet for that. Chairman Dinning said when you get to the Copeland area project, it coincided with Intermax’s Porthill and Camp Nine projects. Commissioner Cossairt suggested EL Internet for Copeland as #3 and Naples for #4. Commissioners discussed how they would rank projects. Intermax said they feel Naples is their important area. Chairman Dinning said that would correspond with EL Internet. Mr. Surprenant asked if Intermax would integrate to the Naples tower. Mr. Whalen spoke of upgrading to a presence at Black Mountain and other newer sites. Mr. Boldt said he likes where this is headed for the next couple steps. Chairman Dinning said because of availability of water and utilities that is where the need is going to be next so we want to be sure we can get it there. Kevin Lederhos to be clear it’s a very important part of their infrastructure as well. Eric Lederhos said he feels the Deep Creek area will pick up more customers. Commissioners rated the Deep Creek area for EL Internet #4, the Naples area for Intermax #5 and the Naples area for EL Internet #6. Commissioner Cossairt asked Mr. Weed what the next big area is in his opinion and Mr. Weed said the Meadow Creek area is getting built out more, such as Moyie River Road. Eric Lederhos said that gets hit off the city, Dawson and other areas. Those present discussed the Eastport area of coverage. Eric Lederhos said that is an important area in his opinion. Commissioners ranked the Eastport area for EL Internet #7 and the Copper Ridge area for Intermax #8. The O’Callaghan’s area is important to Intermax, according to Mr. Whalen. Commissioners ranked the O’Callaghan’s area for Intermax #9, leaving the Porthill, Camp Nine and Meadow Creek areas. Commissioners said the Camp Nine area for Intermax is ranked #10, the Porthill area for Intermax is ranked #11 and the Meadow Creek area for Intermax #12.

Commissioner Cossairt moved to approve the ranking as follows: #1 is Curley Creek with Intermax, #2 is Curley Creek with EL Internet, #3 is Copeland with EL Internet, #4 is Deep Creek with EL Internet, #5 is Naples with Intermax, #6 is Naples with EL Internet, #7 is Eastport with EL Internet, #8 is Copper Ridge with Intermax, #9 is O’Callaghan’s with Intermax, #10 is Camp Nine with Intermax, #11 is Porthill with Intermax, and #12 is Meadow Creek with Intermax. Commissioner Kirby second. Motion passed unanimously.

Commissioners said the next step is to appoint Nancy Mabile with Panhandle Area Council as grant administrator.

The meeting to rank project areas for the State of Idaho CARES act Broadband grant ended at 10:46 a.m.

10:57 a.m., Commissioner Kirby moved to go into executive session pursuant to Idaho Code 74-206(1)b, to consider the evaluation, dismissal or disciplining of, or to hear complaints or charges brought against, a public officer, employee, staff member or individual agent, or public school student. Commissioner Cossairt second. Commissioners voted as follows: Chairman Dinning “aye”, Commissioner Cossairt “aye” and Commissioner Kirby “aye”. Motion passed unanimously. The executive session ended at 11:00 a.m. No action was taken.

There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 11:13 a.m.

_______________________________________
DAN R. DINNING, Chairman

ATTEST:

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