Commissioners Respond to Land Sale Questions

Is knowingly omitting facts lying? If a newspaper reporter attends a meeting where information is presented that could change the tone of his story, but doesn’t report those facts, is he lying to his readers? What about elected school officials who, through their own ignorance of laws and business practices, are unsuccessful at completing a land deal, so accuse someone else of wrongdoing? What follows is the truth: truth you didn't read in the Press Tribune last week.

How did Canyon County become interested in the Department of Labor building?

• County officials first looked at that building four years ago. Last September, when we learned it would be sold, we began negotiations with the state.

Why does the county need this particular facility?

• The county needs courtroom space. To make room, other department within the courthouse must be relocated. This is the perfect location to move county departments, because we already have high-speed computer connections in place at the Animal Shelter next door, which will allow the offices in this new building to conduct business as though they were in the main courthouse. Video conferencing will be installed in the new building, so staff can attend meetings via video, saving time and fuel costs. We have been looking for a permanent location between Nampa and Caldwell to consolidate Driver’s License and Motor Vehicle services since 1998. This property is adjacent to two others owned by the county, and is already wired into the state’s computer system, a necessity for Driver's License and Motor Vehicles. Purchasing an existing building is less costly and less time-consuming than building one, and a lease is a temporary solution.

What really happened with Commissioner Rule and the school district?

• When Commissioner Rule learned that the Vallivue School District was interested in the property, he contacted Superintendent Grant and board member Dave Christensen to discuss whether the district had any other options. They said no. Rule was disappointed, but said he understood. During the conversation, Rule said the county was legally unable to pay more for the property than the appraised value. Days after this meeting, the county obtained an updated appraisal. After the Land Board’s decision, Rule wrote a letter to Grant, offering to lease the county's undeveloped property adjacent to this building, for $1 a year, where the school could install modular classrooms.

Why did the county get a second appraisal?

• The appraisal being used by the state was from 2006. It is the practice of the county to get appraisals on property before purchasing, to ensure that state law, as well as good business practices, are followed.

Does the county have money in its budget to purchase this property?

• Yes, despite the school district's claims to the contrary, the county’s budget does allow for this purchase.

Last, but not least

• At the Land Board meeting March 20, a Department of Labor official said that the school district’s offers were expired, so the county's was the only offer on the table. During the process, the county was open and above-board, and now we will move forward in doing the best job possible for the people of Canyon County.