Grant Dorman

• Profession: Professional land surveyor/former business owner

• Party affiliation: Republican

• Educational background: Bachelors in Land Surveying, Masters in Business Administration

• How many years as a Bonner County resident: 5-plus

• Marital status: Married 28-plus years

• Family: 4 children, married daughter at hillsdale college, married son in U.S. Navy, son and daughter at home.

• Hobbies: rural living, livestock, outdoor activities

• Website: grantdorman.com

1. My priorities would be 1) We need to stop losing employees due to turnover. I will get to know all my staff, their current workflows, and listen to them to share their concerns and suggestions. 2) We need to look at exactly why the current valuation models are not effective so we can make the necessary changes to be able to properly valuate properties in this ever-changing market. 3) Implement a zero-trespass policy that respects landowners’ property rights and privacy while establishing best practices for meeting Idaho’s statutory requirements of physical inspections of all properties every 5 years.
2. The three biggest county issues related to the assessor’s office are

• High dissatisfaction with current assessed values w/o relief from board of equalization (BOE is the commissioner’s office). We have a disproportionate number of appeals that go to the state, visit https://bta.idaho.gov/ad-valorem-decisions

• Employee Turnover – The assessor’s office has experienced extremely high turnover which means wasted taxpayer dollars to retrain and loss of institutional knowledge of our county and her residents.

• Trespass and privacy violations – The assessor’s office has a history of trespass and privacy violations that needs to be addressed.

1. 1) The cost tables that are used to determine property values are drastically out of date, and need to be updated, especially in an environment where real estate prices are climbing rapidly as well as construction costs. Additionally, there needs to be a healthy and appropriate respect for different roles of assessment and appeals to the BOE. Too much coordination and cooperation between the assessor’s office and the commissioner’s office can mean folks may not get the impartial hearing they expect, which may contribute to the high volume of appeals to the state.

2) I plan to meet with all the employees and department heads to understand exactly why there is an employee turnover problem, and then work to resolve the problem discovered.

3) I will work with legal to develop defensible policies regarding civil trespass concerns so that we can get the job of appraising properties done as required by statute, and while respecting citizen’s property rights and their legal right to privacy.

1. With growth comes impact on public facilities, usually facilities that have already been paid for. New development should pay a reasonable fee for the impact on those existing facilities that existing taxpayers are already paying for and pay for upgrades that otherwise wouldn’t be necessary if not but for the growth. That being said, care must be taken when imposing impact fees in 3 ways: 1) Impact fees should be calculated very carefully to be used only in close proximity and only in response to growth in those particularly affected neighborhoods, 2) should be put to use in a short timeframe, not sitting on the books for more than a reasonable timeframe, and returned to the developer if not spent on affected infrastructure within that reasonable timeframe and 3) should only be used responsibly in response to growth, not a tool to control or steer growth, lest we become like those coastal communities where impact fees grow into an out of control monster used for all sorts of purposes other than their initial intent.
2. The question wrongly presupposes that government is a singular entity with a singular direction, both of which is not the case. There is federal, state, and local government, not to mention varying forms of districts (health, school, library, fire, EMS, etc.) Each of these government entities is led by representatives that have differing opinions and agendas, so the question oversimplifies a very complex political ecosystem.

That being said, at many levels of government (Federal, State, even local), it appears that there are some officials that would seek to consolidate power into the hands of a few, and by so doing, loose the healthy checks and balances our system of government sought to espouse; these being different roles for legislative, executive and judicial functions. When those roles aren’t respected and the lines become blurred under the persuasive language of coordination, cooperation, and efficiency, we lose one of the most precious aspects of our republic: proper checks and balances through a division of power.

1. See number 2 above.
2. One issue not being openly discussed is the use of certain field collection technology being pushed into the assessor’s office. This technology would put tablets in the hands of the field appraisers with the ability to capture all field data into one seamless platform that connects to a centralized data repository. This may sound appealing in the name of efficiency, but after personally discussing this technology with State Tax Commissioner staff, I would tend to disagree, because in actual practice, it has been shown to only work well in urban environments, like Ada and Canyon counties. I also discovered that this system could cost $50,000-$75,000 for a county like ours. Additionally, counties similar to ours (size, rural nature, lack of 5G cellular connection), after having purchased and deployed said technology, decided it was not worth the cost and effort. After having invested the money, these counties reverted back to the traditional methodology.

Finally, in counties where this technology is used (inc. photos, sketches, etc.), the data can be monetized and sold to private data aggregators who then sell the data to consumers via subscription memberships, companies like LandProData, where appraisal photos along with other public data like building permit data can become available to their customers with just a click of a mouse. While it might be argued that the data is public data and therefore subject to outside access, many well-meaning folks might naively consent to the appraiser collecting data via this platform, while having no idea that that data collected for assessment purposes may be pushed out to data consumers for other purposes entirely. I don’t believe we need this sort of technology, not only for efficiency reasons, but also over privacy concerns.

1. I expect to face the criticism that I do not have the inside knowledge of the inter departmental workings that the other two candidates have. I agree that I do not have that knowledge. But that can be overcome with time. I bring a different perspective to the office from the other two candidates. I am not an insider. Instead, I bring to the office a unique perspective that comes from one who has the experience of having led my own company for over 20 years managing field and office staff and thriving in a competitive environment where the customer can choose which provider they want. These free-market forces make a business owner work hard to satisfy their customer’s expectations, and even though the assessor’s office is not a private organization, it does compete for qualified staff and elected officials only have 4 years to get the job done or the voter will replace them. I am extremely well aware of the fact that ultimately the customer, or in this case the voter, is in charge.
2. Why is the Assessor’s land record and platting function (required by law to be done by the assessor) abdicated to the GIS department who answers to the commissioners? And what is the appropriate organizational structure?

Idaho statute states that part of the assessor’s job is maintaining current land ownership and platting records. Most ID counties have their GIS department under the Assessor’s authority so they can have a single mapping group while be compliant with state law. But Bonner County’s GIS department instead reports to the commissioners. They have created a workaround where the GIS director is also a deputy Assessor so he can oversee assessor staff who perform the platting functions. To me, this is a strange arrangement that blurs lines of authority and budget oversight.

I would encourage the commissioners to reorganize the GIS department under the Assessor’s office, as is the case with most ID counties, which would keep all the mapping and platting functions together under one roof while meeting state statute requirements. But even if the commissioners decide to keep GIS under their own authority, I intend to oversee the platting function directly as required by state statute.

1. I am a recently retired Professional Land Surveyor with 25 years’ experience in property surveys, residential and commercial construction, and GIS/platting. My father was a home builder, and I spent a few years in construction myself before joining the US Navy where I served as an Air Traffic Controller. Afterwards, while working part time in construction, I went to college where I received my bachelor’s degree in Land Surveying. My first job after college was surveying rural ranchlands in Southeast Idaho in the late 1990s. I eventually started my own business where continued my surveying career serving the residential and commercial real estate industry. Years later, after getting my Master’s in Business Administration in 2011, my consulting business widened to serve the public utilities, transportation, and timber industries. I recently sold my business and believe that my technical, administrative, and business experience uniquely qualifies me to serve as County Assessor. This experience is invaluable given the imperative to respect everyone’s property rights while maintaining impartiality between parties involved. I will bring to the office the entrepreneurial spirit that recognizes that if you don’t take care of your customers, you don’t have an organization.Bonner County assessor candidate