Laserfiche WebLink
<br />f01J154 <br /> <br />the small communities. Eriksen, Hartman and Logan voted yes, Humiston abstained <br />Arnold, Jeffries and Lancaster voted no. Motion failed. <br /> <br />18 EXECUTIVE SESSION HEAD START APPEAL AND PENDING LITIGATION: <br />Jeffries made a motion and Eriksen seconded to go into executive session. Eriksen, <br />Hartman, Humiston, Jeffries, and Logan all voted yes and Lancaster and Arnold voted <br />no. Motion carried. <br /> <br />10:20 a.m. executive session <br /> <br />10:45 a.m. Eriksen made a motion and Lancaster seconded to go out of executive <br />session. Arnold, Eriksen, Hartman, Humiston, Jeffries, Lancaster and Logan all voted <br />yes and none voted no. Motion carried. <br /> <br /> <br />Lancaster made a motion and Arnold seconded that the Hall County Board of <br />Supervisors approve the firm of Feldesman, Tucker and Fidell to represent Hall County <br />on the appeal for the Head Start grant agreement and to seek payment solely from Head <br />Start and to authorize the Chairman and the County Attorney to execute a retainer <br />agreement with the firm. Arnold clarified that the payment is to come from Head Start <br />and not Hall County taxpayers. Arnold, Eriksen, Hartman, Humiston, Jeffries, Lancaster <br />and Logan all voted yes and none voted no. Motion carried. <br /> <br />16 DISCUSSION REGARDING TRANSFERRING THE COUNTY ASSESSMENT <br />FUNCTION TO THE STATE PROPERTY TAX ADMINISTRATOR: Hartman stated that <br />the county needs to look at transferring the office to the state. Jeffries stated that this <br />item warrants checking on. Douglas County is considering transferring to the state <br />and the board members received information from Douglas County on this matter. <br />County Attorney Jerry Janulewicz stated that if the County Board wants to do this it <br />needs to be done before December 31 st of this year. Hartman stated that he will appoint <br />a committee to look at this matter. Lancaster suggested that the county board look at <br />the firm that they use a referees because the same firm also does work for County <br />Assessor Jan Pelland. If the firm is part of the reappraisal process can they be impartial <br />with the taxpayers. She questioned how the same firm could represent the assessor <br />and also set as the referees, this could be a conflict of interest. The assessor could also <br />have appraisers on staff to do the necessary work. Logan stated that the referee firm <br />has been cooperative with the Board of Equalization but he also questioned a conflict of <br />interest. Hartman expressed his concern on the cases that were taken to TERC. The <br />Board of Equalization could not win the case because they did not have time to gather <br />the necessary information. Logan stated that the county assessor has taken a lot of <br />heat from the board but she does a good job and he appreciates the work even though <br />he may not agree with it. Eriksen stated Jerry Janulewicz did a good job at TERC but <br />the board needs to look at this and he would like to see a committee set up and look at <br />all the options that may be available and come back with a recommendation. Lancaster <br />stated her concern on the high and low sales and the comparable that are used in the <br />assessment process. She also stated that when there are a large number of protests <br />from one area this should be looked at. Hartman stated that a committee will be set up <br />and a study will be made. <br /> <br />13 DISCUSS FILLING POSITION OF ELECTION COMMISSIONER EXECUTIVE <br />SESSION <br />