Minutes for 2009-01-20, Direct pdf link.

MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF WEBER COUNTY
Tuesday, January 20, 2009 - 10:00 a.m.
Commission Chambers, Weber Center, Ogden, Utah
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Kenneth A. Bischoff, Vice Chair, and Jan M. Zogmaister. Craig L. Dearden participated via telephone conference after the consent items were handled.

OTHERS PRESENT: David C. Wilson, Deputy County Attorney; Roger Brunker, Clerk/Auditor’s Office; Fátima Fernelius, Clerk/Auditor’s Office, took minutes.

A. WELCOME - Commissioner Bischoff
B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - David Wilson
C. THOUGHT OF THE DAY - Commissioner Bischoff

D. CONSENT ITEMS:
1. Purchase Orders in the amount of $568,086.96
2. Warrants #246184-#246411 in the amount of $2,594,102.86
3. Minutes for the meeting held on January 13, 2009
4. New beer licenses
5. New business licenses
6. Surplus computer equipment from the Information Technology Department
7. ACH payment to US Bank in the amount of $42,515.37 for purchasing card transactions made through the billing cycle ending January 15, 2009

E. ACTION ITEMS:

1. ACTION ON A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE TAX REVIEW COMMITTEE REGARDING PENALTIES OF $7,016.97 ON 22 PARCELS

John Bond, County Treasurer’s Office, stated that Q10 Bonneville Mortgage was asking if penalties on taxes paid late to Weber County could be waived. On 12/8/2008 Q10 employees discovered two Fed Ex packets with property tax checks that had not been sent and which had been written three weeks prior. Both packets were sent out immediately. The Tax Review Committee (TRC) voted unanimously to recommend not waiving the penalties because there was no county error.

Mr. Bond spoke of the dollar amounts and the number of parcels, stating they were larger than any he had seen. Commissioner Zogmaister noted that these types of issues were reviewed by the TRC according to certain prescribed criteria and she wanted to be fair and treat this item the same as for individual taxpayers. She stated that “size” was irrelevant. Commissioner Bischoff concurred stating that the Commission would not be lenient with an individual taxpayer who simply forgot to mail the tax payment. The commissioners did not want to set a precedent and give preferential treatment just because the petitioner was a larger entity. Three Q10 representatives were present and Jim King addressed the Commission. He stated that they understood the penalties and statutes and did not fault the county but asked for some leniency in this downturn economy indicating that over its 34-year history the company had never made a payment late.

2. ACTION ON A RECOMMENDATION FROM TAX REVIEW COMMITTEE REGARDING PENALTIES & INTEREST ON DELINQUENT TAXES FROM 2003 -2007, AS WELL AS AN ADJUSTMENT ON PROPERTY VALUE DURING THAT TIME FRAME THAT WOULD RESULT IN A LESSER TAX AMOUNT DUE

John Bond, County Treasurer’s Office, stated that Steve Jeffs was asking that all penalties ($54.40) and interest ($424.56) be waived on this corner lot, LSN 09-076-0011, on delinquent taxes from 2003-2007.

Mr. Jeff’s daughter and husband purchased property in 1998 at 5483 W 5100 S and later the developer offered them the corner lot next to their property. It has a canal running through it and is unbuildable. Mr. Jeffs had given about $1,200 to his daughter to purchase that corner lot. During that time the valuation and tax notices were mailed to the couple. The Assessor’s Office had it valued at $25,240. It appears the couple never appealed the value or paid taxes after 2002, which caused the property to go on the tax sale list in May 2008. That value held for 2002-2004. In 2005 it jumped to $35,250 for a couple of years and in 2007 to $60,225.

The Tax Review Committee (TRC) concluded that the county had properly notified the couple and recommended that the penalty and interest stand. The extreme increase in property value was also discussed and legal counsel at that point had advised that the TRC was not authorized to look at the separate issue of value, which would have been a Board of Equalization issue.

Mr. Jeffs showed the Commission photographs of the property. He had given his daughter $1,250 to buy the property to keep one horse on it. When he found out she and her husband had not paid the taxes, he felt it was inexcusable behavior and gave them an ultimatum to pay or deed the property to him before the tax sale. The latter occurred and he paid the taxes. He had spoken with Mr. Bond at that time and felt confused and upset at the history of this parcel. He researched the property with the County Assessor’s Office and they initially could not find the property. When he asked about the value, he found that in 1999 it was up to $100,000. Then he was told there was a house on that property and he asked that they visit the property but no one did. Mr. Jeffs paid the penalties because it was the responsible thing to do, although he did not want the property, however, he strongly objected to being taxed for a house that never existed and an overinflated value of a $1,250 piece of useless ground, and he felt the county had some responsibility. Mr. Bond stated that the Assessor’s Office had now dropped the value to $900 for this year. Roger Brunker, Clerk/Auditor’s Office, stated that late appeals can be accepted until March 31 of the following year, that the only year Mr. Jeffs could have appealed was the 2008 taxes (which have been corrected), and that legal counsel had advised that Mr. Jeffs did not own the property previously and had no standing.

Commissioner Dearden wondered about the county’s responsibility in overvaluing a piece of property worth about $900 and assessing it at such a high rate. Commissioner Zogmaister said that there were checks and balances in the system–the county assesses, the citizens receive notice and can then respond. Commissioner Bischoff agreed that although the county overvalued the property, that the appeal needed to come from the property owner and that a process existed to get the value in proper line. Commissioner Dearden felt that the county had some responsibility because of the mis-valuing and that because the only thing the Commission could deal with were penalties and interest, that some leeway should be granted. Mr. Bond noted that the entire event occurred while the daughter and husband owned the corner lot. Commissioner Bischoff asked how the value had gone from $35,000 to $60,000 in one year but the answer was not available.

3. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE MALNOVE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA PLAN TO RENAME THE PROJECT AREA AS THE WEBER INDUSTRIAL PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AREA ‘A’ - ORDINANCE 2009-1

David Wilson, Deputy County Attorney, stated that this item was to rename the Project Area based on prior discussions.

4. REQUEST ON CONTRACT WITH HUNTSVILLE TOWN FOR LEASE OF CITY-OWNED PROPERTY FOR USE BY THE SHERIFF’S OFFICE AS A RADIO RELAY STATION

This item was held.

5. CONTRACT WITH OGDEN VALLEY PATHWAYS TO PARTIALLY REIMBURSE OGDEN VALLEY PATHWAYS FOR EXPENSES INCURRED FOR TRAIL-HEAD PARKING LOT IMPROVEMENTS AT THE SOUTH GATE OF NORTH FORK PARK - CONTRACT C2009-5

Nate Pierce, County Operations Department Director, stated that in December 2008, just prior to the freeze, Pathways and the county desired to improve this parking lot in preparation for the snowshoeing and crosscountry skiing season. There was a verbal agreement with Pathways and this contract formalizes it. Pathways purchased road base and fill on the county’s account and arranged to haul and install the materials. The county is partially reimbursing Pathways for work completed from trails impact fees, with proof of the costs, in the amount of $5,587.00. The county will be reimbursed for the cost of the crushed rock and road base out of the trails impact fees prior to reimbursements to Pathways. The county spent $5,281 and Pathways $9,870.

6. REQUEST ON SECOND READING TO ENACT AN ORDINANCE MAKING CERTAIN CHANGES TO ORDINANCE #2006-1 WHICH CONSOLIDATED THE OFFICES OF COUNTY RECORDER AND SURVEYOR

David Wilson, Deputy County Attorney, noted that this item was discussed last week. For efficiency/cost savings the Commission consolidated these two elected offices in 2006. At that time because there was an existing Recorder, an ordinance requirement was not instituted that the person running for office be a licensed surveyor. It was the recommendation of the County Attorney’s Office at that time that when offices were combined where there was a certification or license requirement that it be instituted as a prerequisite to file for office. This is not State law. If this issue was not changed, someone without qualifications could have filed for Recorder and any survey work would have to be supervised by a licensed surveyor in the office. Upon adoption of this ordinance, at the next regular election anyone who files for the office will have to be a licensed surveyor in Utah.

Commissioner Dearden expressed concern that this action limits who can file for office. He asked what if in the future no licensed surveyor filed. Commissioner Zogmaister felt that it was in the best interest of the county to move forward with this requirement because of the critical work of that office. Commissioner Dearden said that if the offices were not combined, a licensed surveyor would not be required under current statute. Ernest Rowley, County Recorder/Surveyor, stated that if these offices were still separate, State law §17-23-1 states that the office shall be filled by a “licensed land surveyor,” thus when the office is elected, it shall be filled by a licensed surveyor.

Mr. Rowley stated that in 2000 and some prior years the consolidation section of Code stated that if the offices were consolidated the office holder need not have a license to hold that consolidated office but all work had to be done by a licensed surveyor. In 2001 the County Surveyor’s Association and the Utah Council of Land Surveyors petitioned the legislature to change that Code section striking the ability to have a non-licensed individual in the code but they left language that all work, under consolidated offices, has to be done by a licensed surveyor.

He said that the intent of the Surveyors organizations was that when the offices were consolidated the surveyors still should be licensed because they were still being elected. Commission Dearden asked if other counties with combined offices required a licensed surveyor to file. Commissioner Bischoff was aware of only Cache Valley where the county executive was also the county surveyor and Mr. Rowley believed that it had been combined under the former code, and added that the Recorder/Surveyor for Garfield County was also licensed.

7. RESOLUTION AMENDING A PRIOR RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF WEBER COUNTY CREATING THE WEBER COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY - RESOLUTION 4-2009

Commissioner Zogmaister noted that the Commission had reestablished the Weber County Housing Authority several months ago. In discussions it was felt appropriate to change the name to Weber Housing Authority and the intent is to strengthen this entity and increase the belief that it is a county-wide entity in that it works within the entire county.

F. ASSIGN PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE & THOUGHT OF THE DAY FOR TUESDAY, JANUARY 27, 2009, 10 A.M.

G. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None

H. ADJOURN

Craig L. Dearden, Chair
Weber County Commission

Alan D. McEwan, CPA
Weber County Clerk/Auditor