Assessor presents workload metrics, requests staff additions and system planning for FY26

Kootenai County Assessor Bela Kovacs and Chief Deputy Dyson Savage presented a data‑driven FY26 budget package to the Board of County Commissioners on May 29, telling commissioners the assessor’s office is carrying an elevated workload and requesting staff changes, prorated personnel costing, and planning for a new assessment system.

Dyson Savage summarized growth and productivity metrics used to justify personnel requests. After adjusting nationally derived benchmarks for region and local factors, Savage said the office’s “ideal range is 2,780 parcels per appraisal employee.” He said the office currently has 28 appraisal staff (with two vacancies), producing a current load of roughly 3,482 parcels per appraisal employee — a level Savage described as producing overtime, burnout and operational strain. To reach the target, the assessor’s office requested increasing appraisal staff to 35 full‑time appraisal employees and a range of career progressions and conversions across divisions (residential, commercial, data and development, DMV, land records/mapping). Savage said modest growth of about 1.6% in parcel counts would keep the office near the target after the hires.

Specific personnel and organizational requests included converting an existing tech position to an appraiser, hiring two additional residential appraiser I positions, a commercial appraiser 3 focused on income valuation, progression requests (appraiser 1→2, 2→3 and other step increases) for six employees, two appraisal‑clerk III positions to cross‑support divisions, upgrades for DMV title clerks, and promotional changes for two cadastral mapping specialists. Savage said some of the career progressions could be prorated by effective date, reducing the FY26 cost if promotions occur midyear. He also noted two current vacancies the office expects to fill soon.

Savage described several operational constraints that affect staffing and costs: training and certification timelines (about one year to certification and three to four years to reach full independence), difficulties recruiting specialized technical candidates, limited office space, and legacy software challenges (the assessor described ongoing issues with a legacy system called Simpatico and prior XTR work). He said a system migration is likely in the next five years and noted the state may be developing an RFP; the assessor’s office previously budgeted but did not expend funds for a phase‑2 XTR contract after the state began exploring a shared approach.

Commissioners and staff discussed several budget‑line and facility items tied to the request. Notable items presented by Kovacs and staff:

- A $140,000 legal‑services line (to consolidate litigation and outside‑counsel work that had been handled through other account lines). The assessor’s office said some legal costs had been previously authorized by the board but not appropriated into the assessor’s budget and the FY26 entry restores those funds.

- A request to use fund balance (Fund 46) to cover remaining mod 3 and mod 4 obligations (the assessor cited $173,000 for mod 4 and $13,000 for mod 3, to be funded from Fund 46 rather than a levy).

- Facility and security improvements requested by the assessor’s administrative manager and DMV leadership: $31,797 to convert five second‑floor entry doors to prox‑card electronic access (the assessor requested to piggyback on planned county IT work), $8,000 for a physical wall in the Coeur d’Alene DMV to secure back‑of‑counter workstations and $4,000 for a similar wall in Post Falls. Staff described occasional safety incidents in DMV lobbies and said the current swinging gate and low plexiglass do not reliably secure employees from customers accessing work areas.

- Revenue and fee adjustments tied to DMV operations: the assessor’s office noted a downturn in vehicle admin fees and proposed increasing a county title administrative fee from $8 to $10, which the assessor estimated would increase revenue by about $180,000 if adopted and implemented (the office said any county fee change would be advertised and coordinated with Idaho Transportation Department timing; staff proposed an Oct. 1 effective date). The office also noted it loses roughly $17,000 annually on state boat‑sticker transactions because the state reimbursement does not cover the county’s processing cost and said it will consult legal counsel about authority to set a supplemental handling fee.

Several commissioners asked for more digestible summary materials. Commissioners requested (1) a single summary sheet showing the total FY26 personnel ask and how much of it is new headcount versus career progressions, (2) year‑by‑year snapshots of parcels per employee using a consistent annual snapshot (positions allocated vs filled), and (3) effective dates for each personnel change so the auditor’s office can prorate FY26 costs. Assessor Kovacs and staff agreed to provide those materials by email and to work with the auditor’s office on proration. The auditor’s liaison, Brandy Falcon, said she would prorate promotions if the assessor sends effective dates.

Commissioners also asked the assessor to develop scaled scenarios (e.g., multi‑year ramp to the target staffing level) rather than a single one‑year request. Savage said the office could return with prioritized scenarios if the board requests smaller increments.

On building‑related accommodations tied to personnel and HR matters, commissioners directed staff to place an item on the next HR meeting agenda to discuss an accommodation that may require interior construction; the assessor said she would prepare a more detailed presentation for that meeting.

The presentation closed with commissioners praising the data and asking the assessor to follow up with the requested materials. No formal votes were taken; the presentation was for FY26 review and follow up.