Board of Tax Appeals asks legislature to raise member per diem to $400, seeks $29,200 in ongoing funds
February 07, 2025 | Appropriations, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Committees, Legislative, Idaho
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
The Joint Finance-Appropriations Committee received a request from the Board of Tax Appeals to increase the board members’ daily per diem to $400 and to fund that change with an ongoing general fund appropriation of $29,200.
"For the fiscal year 20 26 budget enhancement request from the agency, the board of tax appeals request $29,200 in ongoing personnel costs from the general fund to increase the per diem for board members from $300 to $400," Christopher LaHozet, a budget and policy analyst with the Legislative Service Office, told the committee.
Why it matters: the three board members serve as quasi‑judicial officers who travel to hearings across the state and complete hearing preparation and decision work. Any statutory change to the per diem would require legislative action to amend Idaho Code section 63-3804, the agency stated.
Agency officials said the per diem increase reflects time board members spend preparing for hearings and writing decisions, not only time seated at hearings. Board Director Cindy Pollock told the committee the board is funded for 80 days per year and that members break out prep and decision time on an hourly basis within that limit.
"So our model is, the board is only allowed to work 80 days. They're funded for 80 days 29000 dollars. So for our board to get all their work done, they have come up with a model themselves, internal policy where they when they have a hearing or a board meeting, it's usually a full day's work. When they have prep time or decision making, they break it down hourly," Pollock said.
LaHozet’s presentation noted the current $300 daily per diem equates to about $37.50 per hour under an 80‑day model; the proposed $400 daily rate would be about $50 per hour, according to the grantor’s math included in the presentation.
Committee members pressed for caseload and fiscal context. Pollock said the agency’s typical caseload is about 300 appeals per year but may spike in catastrophic years — she cited an instance with 600 appeals in Bannock County after a local catastrophe. The agency reported a 10‑year average where appellants obtained a modification or won in roughly 39% of cases that reached final action.
Representative Tanner questioned why the agency would request additional ongoing funds while reverting unspent dollars from prior years. Pollock responded the agency routinely reverts unused funds when caseload and travel are lower; conversely, per‑diem changes affect the compensation rate when days are used.
Legal references and process: LaHozet told the committee the Board of Tax Appeals operates under Idaho Code section 63‑3801; the per diem statute the agency said would need amendment is section 63‑3804.
No formal committee action or vote was recorded during the presentation; committee members asked clarifying questions and heard that board members receive training (including attendance at the judicial college in Reno) and generally are recruited for legal or appraisal expertise.
Evidence: presentation by LSO analyst Christopher LaHozet and testimony from Board of Tax Appeals Director Cindy Pollock and financial specialist Rachel Whitaker.
"For the fiscal year 20 26 budget enhancement request from the agency, the board of tax appeals request $29,200 in ongoing personnel costs from the general fund to increase the per diem for board members from $300 to $400," Christopher LaHozet, a budget and policy analyst with the Legislative Service Office, told the committee.
Why it matters: the three board members serve as quasi‑judicial officers who travel to hearings across the state and complete hearing preparation and decision work. Any statutory change to the per diem would require legislative action to amend Idaho Code section 63-3804, the agency stated.
Agency officials said the per diem increase reflects time board members spend preparing for hearings and writing decisions, not only time seated at hearings. Board Director Cindy Pollock told the committee the board is funded for 80 days per year and that members break out prep and decision time on an hourly basis within that limit.
"So our model is, the board is only allowed to work 80 days. They're funded for 80 days 29000 dollars. So for our board to get all their work done, they have come up with a model themselves, internal policy where they when they have a hearing or a board meeting, it's usually a full day's work. When they have prep time or decision making, they break it down hourly," Pollock said.
LaHozet’s presentation noted the current $300 daily per diem equates to about $37.50 per hour under an 80‑day model; the proposed $400 daily rate would be about $50 per hour, according to the grantor’s math included in the presentation.
Committee members pressed for caseload and fiscal context. Pollock said the agency’s typical caseload is about 300 appeals per year but may spike in catastrophic years — she cited an instance with 600 appeals in Bannock County after a local catastrophe. The agency reported a 10‑year average where appellants obtained a modification or won in roughly 39% of cases that reached final action.
Representative Tanner questioned why the agency would request additional ongoing funds while reverting unspent dollars from prior years. Pollock responded the agency routinely reverts unused funds when caseload and travel are lower; conversely, per‑diem changes affect the compensation rate when days are used.
Legal references and process: LaHozet told the committee the Board of Tax Appeals operates under Idaho Code section 63‑3801; the per diem statute the agency said would need amendment is section 63‑3804.
No formal committee action or vote was recorded during the presentation; committee members asked clarifying questions and heard that board members receive training (including attendance at the judicial college in Reno) and generally are recruited for legal or appraisal expertise.
Evidence: presentation by LSO analyst Christopher LaHozet and testimony from Board of Tax Appeals Director Cindy Pollock and financial specialist Rachel Whitaker.
View full meeting
This article is based on a recent meeting—watch the full video and explore the complete transcript for deeper insights into the discussion.
View full meeting