***Monday, February 17, 2020, Commissioners did not meet due to the President’s Day Holiday.

***Tuesday, February 18, 2020, at 9:00 a.m., Commissioners met in regular session with Chairman Dan Dinning, Commissioner Wally Cossairt, Clerk Glenda Poston, and Deputy Clerk Michelle Rohrwasser. Commissioner Walt Kirby was out of the office.

Commissioners gave the opening invocation and said the Pledge of Allegiance.

9:00 a.m., Sandy Moser and Tim Osborne with Idaho Counties Risk Management Program (ICRMP) met with Commissioners and Clerk Poston to discuss updates on insurance matters. Also present were: Darrell Kerby with Pace-Kerby Insurance & Co., and County Civil Attorney Tevis Hull.

Commissioners said the county suspects there may be double coverage on Boundary Community Hospital based on what the county and hospital pay. Ms. Moser said she had tried to outline where there might be duplicate coverages. Attorney Hull said the question is why is the county paying for general liability for the hospital? Ms. Moser said there is duplicate coverage there. Ms. Moser said the county is covering something that may come back on them, unless the other insurance agency will cover the county as additionally insured.

Ms. Moser informed Commissioners and Clerk Poston that the hospital has been made aware of her letter to the county. Chairman Dinning said what started this is trying to determine what the county does provide to the hospital in a monetary value. Ms. Moser said approximately $157,000.00 is the premium and $100,000.00 of that is for the hospital due to their reported payroll. Ms. Moser added that it’s probably more so 50/50 due to the property. Chairman Dinning asked if there is any way ICRMP sees to save money by adjusting policies. Ms. Moser said yes, if the county could exclude coverage related to the hospital, except for the property. Mr. Kerby briefly discussed matters pertaining to employer and officer liability and he said that ownership of the property still provides exposure. Ms. Moser spoke of aggregate coverage amounts. Chairman Dinning said once Commissioners get more information they will meet with the hospital.

Mr. Osborne discussed matters pertaining to various ICRMP training, Bonner General Hospital, etc. Mr. Kerby questioned if ICRMP could take coverage and modify it due to the Hospital’s Fry Foundation. Ms. Moser said yes. Chairman Dinning said he would like some documentation for the next Board of Commissioners as this is the most clarity that he’s ever received for this situation. Mr. Kerby said last year the State Insurance Fund determined the hospital and counties were combinable for losses.
The National Council on Compensation Insurance (NCCI) sees the hospital and county as one.

9:42 a.m., Commissioner Cossairt moved to go into executive session pursuant to Idaho Code 74-206(1)b, to consider the evaluation, dismissal or disciplining of, or to hear complaints or charges brought against, a public officer, employee, staff member or individual agent, or public school student. Chairman Dinning yielded the chair to second. Commissioners voted as follows: Chairman Dinning “aye” and Commissioner Cossairt “aye”. Motion passed unanimously. The executive session ended at 9:48 a.m. No action was taken.

The meeting with Mr. Osborne, Ms. Moser, Mr. Kerby, and Attorney Hull ended at 9:49 a.m.

10:00 a.m., Commissioners continued the public hearing to consider Planning and Zoning Application #19-177, amending Land Use Ordinance 9B18LOV2. Present were: Chairman Dan Dinning, Commissioner Wally Cossairt, Clerk Glenda Poston, Deputy Clerk Michelle Rohrwasser, County Civil Attorney Tevis Hull, Planning and Zoning Administrator John Moss, John Poland, Lisa Aguilera, Carol Clausen, James Embree, Attorney Muriel Burke-Love, Laurie Barton, David Nicholas, Cassie Tauber, John Keller, Marti Keller, Janice Rudeen, Seth Fisher, Kristina Fisher, Pamela Jacobs, and Tony Jacobs. The hearing was recorded.

Chairman Dinning said Commissioners had addressed the urban subdivision issue previously and last left off discussing the excess storage issue. Chairman Dinning said he’s done a lot of thinking about this and this is something that has a greater impact than this one specific problem as it affects the whole county. It’s an ambiguous type of standard that would be set. If a neighbor felt another property owner had excess storage, that property owner would have to build a fence to block the view from the neighbor. Chairman Dinning said he was going back to the Comprehensive Plan introduction for this issue and it says, “it is the belief of the county that people who buy and build here have the right to build the home that best suits them with minimal intrusion; if the roof caves in under the weight of the snow, they'll know better next time. Conversely, you may build a beautiful home that meets the most stringent building codes, but your next door neighbor may not. County government will not intercede on your behalf to make your neighbor live up to your standards.”

Chairman Dinning said at this point in this hearing, he would like Commissioners to have a conversation. Chairman Dinning stated that he personally feels if someone doesn’t like what their neighbor is doing, then it’s that person who should build a fence. It’s an intrusion upon everyone’s rights in the county to put this provision in place in the ordinance. Chairman Dinning added that he would like Commissioners to consider not even addressing this excess storage issue. The bigger issue is the county’s ordinance does not have the teeth to address what is being perceived, allegedly, as a business that is operating in an area. That is the issue that needs to be addressed. Commissioner Cossairt said Planning and Zoning is a tough one to do because you try not to infringe on everybody and then at times there comes a problem you didn’t foresee and it’s hard to foresee every potential problem. He doesn’t know how to cure it all. Chairman Dinning said if the county chooses not to address excess storage where does that leave us? Attorney Hull said the proposed amendments cover more than just this issue. If Commissioners make a motion to accept other amendments and not this issue, they can make a vote on those other amendments and it leaves the excess storage issue to be addressed at some future time. Attorney Hull briefly mentioned enforcement matters that still may be in effect. Chairman Dinning stated with that being said, Mr. Moss gave these two documents to Commissioners today and they questioned what information these documents contained. Mr. Moss said they are clarifications Commissioners made mention of during the last public hearing, but they don’t address this discussion of excess storage. Commissioners made copies of the documents for those present who requested a copy.

Mr. Moss said discussion was had about utility use permits and a surcharge and this references the removal of surcharge and the information also references utility use, which had been the reason for discussing surcharge. Mr. Moss said as it relates to junk yards, the modification or changes made are based on comments concerning the standard definition for junk yard. Chairman Dinning said he’s clarifying that what Mr. Moss presented Commissioners with is a modification of what was supplied as a recommendation to them from Planning and Zoning. Mr. Moss said yes. Those present reviewed the information handed out. Chairman Dinning said the information is based on discussions from the last hearing. Mr. Moss said yes.

Chairman Dinning said looking at Section 2.76 there is a note that says delete. What are we looking at? Mr. Moss said Section 2.76. lists the definition of surcharge and it says to refer to Section 6.6. That reference should be deleted because it’s no longer there, but the definition of surcharge may still be valid. The definition for tourist has not changed. Mr. Moss said the items that are highlighted were provided before and they’re simply a definition because in the area of zone definitions, there is reference to tourist and tourist attractions and there was no definition of what that means so that is what this inclusion is. Mr. Moss said this isn’t new information. Chairman Dinning said he’s trying to understand the context. Are we limiting something with the change? Mr. Moss said no. Mr. Moss referred to Section 15 where it talks about tourists and tourist attractions being a valid use. This describes what a tourist and tourist attraction is. Mr. Moss said under Section 15.4.8. it describes a tourist attraction and all we’re doing is defining it. Chairman Dinning said for clarification that 2.78. is for tourist accommodation and 2.79. is tourist attraction and we’re just defining them.

For Section 2.81, under the heading “use” what hadn’t been included before was utility use, which is defined in Section 15.3. in definitions. Chairman Dinning said utility use means electrical, water, etc. Mr. Moss said yes, for someone wanting to get an address for a utility. Section 2.82. is the definition for vehicle, which in essence is something that needs to be licensed.

Chairman Dinning said for Section 6.6., there is verbiage that says review surcharge, but it has been crossed out as initially there was going to be a proposed surcharge for a utility use permit, but that has been decided against. Commissioners questioned there still being a need to be an application for a utility use permit. Mr. Moss said yes. Chairman Dinning said if Northern Lights already has an easement and they want to place a utility, do they need to get a permit? Mr. Moss said this applies to when someone wants the utility service, but doesn’t have an address so it’s not for a utility company. Attorney Hull pointed out the proposed deleted statements in Mr. Moss’s documents are shown in pink for clarity. Chairman Dinning asked if this will eliminate the fee for the Road and Bridge Department to assign an address. Mr. Moss said no, it will eliminate the concept of a surcharge. The idea of the surcharge was to impose a charge at the time of a utility use permit to encourage the individual to come back and get a residential placement permit. Chairman Dinning referred to Section 6.6.2. pertaining to a decision. Mr. Moss said this refers to the utility use permit and what is deleted is being shown in pink. Chairman Dinning said what we’re saying is that someone has 10 days in which to approve an address for utilities use. Mr. Moss said yes. Chairman Dinning questioned if that will that give other county departments such as Road and Bridge and mapping enough time to give input. Mr. Moss said it has taken approximately 15 to 30 days before he gets responses back from everyone. The 10 days is a copy from a placement permit for both commercial and residential. Mr. Moss said we’re already operating under this, but it can be changed. Chairman Dinning said he would feel more comfortable adjusting that time frame. Commissioner Cossairt agreed and Commissioners suggested 20 days. Attorney Hull clarified if that is business days. Chairman Dinning replied that it would be business days. Chairman Dinning discussed the section on penalties for violations and failure to obtain a utility use permit and he asked for clarification if the utility companies contact the county if they need a permit. Mr. Moss said these are penalties for failing to get a utility use permit. Chairman Dinning also commented on assessed penalties for failing to get residential or commercial placement permits. Chairman Dinning said in reality, none of the utility companies will install such services until there is an address. Mr. Moss said yes, and failure to get an address is what this is about.

Section 10.5. pertains to junk yards. Mr. Moss said the verbiage highlighted in yellow has already been reviewed and the text in blue is the proposed solution. It was said there has been no change in the definition of junkyard. Mr. Moss said there was significant change up front to the standards for junk yards. Mr. Moss said if you look at the information there are definitions that relate to commercial or non-commercial junk yards and those terms were removed so now it’s just “junk yard.”

Section 11 for subdivisions was reviewed and Chairman Dinning mentioned the definition section was changed. Chairman Dinning questioned if this was a change. Mr. Moss said we defined, within the classes of subdivision, a private well, community water, etc. so we’re all talking the same thing. Section 11.3.6.3. pertains to an underlying “can serve” statement. Mr. Moss said the question was, if an approved system may or can serve, etc., so why have a difference in term. It was said that the terms may or can should not be open to interpretation. Attorney Hull said there should be consistency and he added that if Panhandle Health District approves a perk test, there is a specific location where septic can be placed, but if Panhandle Health District says the property doesn’t perk, then there isn’t the availability. Attorney Hull said with electrical utilities, it should state that the property owner will need a will serve letter, unless it says that somewhere else in the ordinance.

Mr. Moss said in Section 11.3.7. for subdivisions, the requirement for water, Panhandle Health District approved septic and electrical service have been presented in each of those subdivision types.

Chairman Dinning said by recommendation of Planning and Zoning, if Commissioners choose not to deal with storage, they will have taken care of urban subdivisions, junk yards and other verbiage changes presented to Commissioners. Mr. Moss said yes. Mr. Moss added that there are changes to the definitions in Section 2 that haven’t been addressed. Mr. Moss commented that Commissioners have looked at some changes in Section 11, but not all of them. Sections 12, 13, 15, 18 and 20 have not yet been reviewed.

Containers were discussed as far as needing to know what the definition is. Mr. Moss said consistent with what was proposed, he doesn’t think it was referred to anywhere else; just in future use and what is considered a container. Mr. Moss said the Planning and Zoning Commission had created standards for a container and they elected to not go forward with that until they had a clear definition. Chairman Dinning said at this point, we can keep this. Commissioners had already gone over derelict vehicles, grandfather and grandfather clause, and impoundment Mr. Moss said the definition of impoundment and vehicles are referred to in junkyard. Section 2.40. is the definition of junkyard and having one requires a permit. Mr. Moss said Section 2.65. is new and it’s a definition of refuse. Chairman Dinning said this deals with the intent to sell. Chairman Dinning added that when we talk about refuse, who determines it’s worthless? Mr. Moss said there’s got to be a definition. Attorney Hull said that is the first question he had for the definition so he looked it up and it’s very general. If this matter were come to an administrator or jury, that definition would be used and it would be up to the fact finder of how that definition is applied to the facts that are there, such as “it looks like trash to me.” Chairman Dinning said that is what he’s trying to get to; it’s not up to the Planning and Zoning Administrator to determine as it’s up to the Prosecutor and the legal side. Attorney Hull said that is correct and added that this is the application to any law. It becomes enforcement from the law enforcement standpoint.

Mr. Moss said when someone does a parcel division and they have a large parcel and want to split off two, ten acre parcels, there is the remaining acreage. The property owner will end up with three parcels. It was decided the term surcharge would be removed.

Mr. Moss referenced Section 7.4. and he explained that a conditional use is something where the applicant agrees that they’re going to do something on their property and clarification is added that the work to complete this has to begin in the time established. Chairman Dinning said then we will have projects with a time frame. Attorney Hull said the issue that has come up is that conditional use permits were being granted, but the landowner wasn’t completing what they set out to do and the property was an eyesore outside of the conditional use permit. Attorney Hull added that the county would have to rely on case law, which wasn’t always clear. It will allow for enforcement that the conditional use permit will be terminated if the property owner doesn’t follow terms and conditions. Mr. Moss said the new definition for junk yard says, the property owner must apply for a conditional use permit.

Section 10.5. refers to junkyards and this matter has to meet or be brought to meet general provisions established in Section 10.5.2. Anything in existence today that meets the definition of a junkyard will have to come forward and comply with the conditions that we’re talking about. Mr. Moss said the conditions we’re talking about today is a time frame that is agreed upon and is not less than 60 days or more than two years.

Chairman Dinning said at this point, he would like to entertain a motion to eliminate excess storage considerations and approve changes through Section 10.5., then continue.

Chairman Dinning asked for general public comments. Muriel Burke Love introduced herself as an attorney in Idaho representing David Nicholas. Attorney Burke Love said she was asked to come to this hearing to remind Commissioners about the codes they’re approving and how they legislate to the common low denominator. Attorney Burke Love said not everyone has the same value systems and Idaho has the belief that you do what you want with your own land, but with zoning matters you have to have codes and minimums and looking at all of these codes is important to do. Attorney Burke Love said what she knows is that if a parcel of land has something on it that violates community standards, it’s up to Commissioners to legislate around that. It’s important to have a bare minimum and she mentioned having things the community doesn’t want.

Kristina Fisher said she has not had the opportunity to refer to the document regarding excess storage. Chairman Dinning said that information was part of the original documentation. Mr. Moss said he believes this all of this information is online and he explained where it can be found. Chairman Dinning said Commissioners may or may not vote on adopting some of these changes. Seth Fisher said he is the person who owns the property in question and he has a different view on a lot of this. Mr. Fisher said he views these Conex containers as a structure. Mr. Fisher added that he has over 20 of these containers at 320 square feet each. The containers are set up 24 feet apart and Mr. Fisher said he plans on building with these Conex boxes. Attorney Hull said one of the things we need to remember is that there was a particular property in question originally, but Commissioners, as they sit as a body right now, are speaking generally as they cannot legislate to a particular individual or property. Commissioners’ legislative act in adopting changes to this ordinance affects everyone; not just one person. Attorney Hull said comments can be general, but cannot be a specific reference. Mr. Fisher said there are beautiful structures that can be built out of these containers and he added that it’s to each their own.

Cassie Tauber said she is a neighbor to the Fisher’s property and she has no issue with people doing what they want, but take into account the historical use and how areas are zoned and kept zoned. Ms. Tauber said she would like to see that her tax base is maintained, such as the impact of use historically and maintaining that in the future. Chairman Dinning said he wanted those present to know that he is not disregarding this and what we have is a problem with enforcement. Ms. Tauber said it seems the county is taking that out. Chairman Dinning said what Commissioners are looking to develop out of this will be the enforcement and legal side and he has not had the opportunity to see this portion come forward. Attorney Hull spoke of not having a motion yet. Chairman Dinning said Commissioners would open the hearing up for communication. Chairman Dinning added that if Commissioners adopt the ordinance, it doesn’t mean the ordinance wouldn’t come back to address enforcement issues, or be put together better as opposed to putting verbiage together quick and not having enforcement addressed still.

John Poland mentioned certain definitions that have been referenced in other sections being removed, but there are other definitions such as grandfather clause. Mr. Moss said they are not referenced. Mr. Poland said then they should also be removed. Chairman Dinning stated we just said a junkyard can be grandfathered, but the term will need to be brought forward in other areas.

Attorney Hull left the meeting at 11:10 a.m.

Mr. Moss discussed Section 2.32., and 2.33. referencing grandfathering. Chairman Dinning said it’s not mentioned anywhere else so do we need this term. Mr. Moss said the Planning and Zoning Commission was looking for understanding of pre-existing conditions and they looked in the ordinance, but did not find anything. Commissioner Cossairt said everything else was removed so it should probably be taken out here, too. Mr. Poland asked what Commissioners’ expectations would be when addressing excess personnel property. The proposals that were brought forward in this set of changes are being rejected so what is he to tell the Planning and Zoning Commission that would be satisfactory. Chairman Dinning said Commissioners are not going to limit the Planning and Zoning Commission in what they recommend. Commissioners have made it clear that these matters affect every piece of property, not just one so the question is how to do this fairly. Chairman Dinning said we’re not going to get into the “what ifs”. Mr. Poland asked if he could get the reasons for rejecting the proposed changes pertaining to excess property. Chairman Dinning said again, this is affecting every property owner in the county. Chairman Dinning referred to the matter involving neighbors regarding a specific issue and who should be responsible for building a fence. Chairman Dinning added that in the second hearing he had asked what if he had a car, boat, or a BBQ stored outside and a member of the public had commented that a BBQ shouldn’t be kept outside and it became subjective. There needs to be something hard and fast. Chairman Dinning said this is not about opinion and we need comments about what we are talking about today; not actions in the future. Mr. Poland asked if that is proposing that some matters will be moved on. Commissioners said they will discuss approving proposed changes reviewed up to this point and will continue the hearing to a time when Attorney Hull can attend. What Commissioners would do is adopt changes discussed up to this point, which went through to Section 10.5. regarding junkyards. Mr. Poland asked if there were any provisions rejected through Section 10.5. related to junkyards. Chairman Dinning said that would be excess storage. Mr. Poland asked if that would be rejected. Mr. Moss said the discussion on excess storage is in Section 15 and we have not looked at that yet. Chairman Dinning said we talked about having to build a fence, etc. Mr. Moss said that is in Section 10, Section 15 is the zone, and Section 15.17. is a new definition that was reviewed during the last hearing. Mr. Moss said this was discussed prior and what was referenced as excess storage, but we have not yet addressed Section 15. Commissioners did look at personal property and excess storage before, according to Mr. Moss. Mr. Moss spoke of violations and a specific time in which to correct it.

Carol Clausen referred to Section 15.17. and she asked if this section relates to Section 15.2.11. and if that is why Section 15.17. was added. Section 15.2.11. discussed refuse on certain property that is less than one-half acre in size. Chairman Dinning said that has been reviewed. Ms. Clausen asked if there has been any change in that. Mr. Moss said not today, and he referenced the statement of Section 15.2.11. as being outdoor storage, materials, etc., and out of public view on parcels less than one-half acre in size. Ms. Clausen asked if both parts of the section would need to be adopted. Mr. Moss said we’ve not gotten that far as we’ve only gotten to Section 10.

Chairman Dinning said Commissioners had already discussed urban subdivisions in order to review the section that everyone came to address so it doesn’t make chronological sense because sections were skipped for the purpose of addressing this other matter. Chairman Dinning said for the record that there will be ample opportunity in this process and there will be another public hearing on this. Chairman Dinning said he wanted those present to understand where we are at in the process and he doesn’t want people, in any fashion, to feel left out as there seems to be some confusion. Ms. Clausen asked if Section 15.15.7. will be included in version 3 of the zoning ordinance. Chairman Dinning said Commissioners have not yet voted on that; so for clarity in the process, Commissioners have not discussed Section 15.17. Commissioners should take a step back and let everyone have their say.

James Embree said Section 15.2.11. relates to Section 15.17. and Commissioners led off the meeting legislating personal property and he asked if these two statutes relate to the statement made at the beginning. Chairman Dinning said Commissioners discussed the personal property issue at the last hearing. Mr. Embree said this is saying if someone has excess storage it has to be out of view and he asked if that is current. Mr. Moss said that provision is in the current ordinance. Out of direct public view in less than one-half acre in size is unrestricted use. Chairman Dinning said there are no restrictions upon it. Mr. Embree questioned out of public view. Chairman Dinning said he understands that this is a proposed change. Chairman Dinning said due to confusion, he would propose to adopt changes discussed today excluding Section 15.2. and 15.17. so that everyone can get a better understanding and have more discussion and comments. In his mind, Commissioners had already discussed excess storage at length, but that is not the impression of others. Mr. Embree said when someone moves to the area they will understand what the zoning is and they will know what they can and cannot do. Chairman Dinning said Commissioners are going to step back and have this full discussion. Mr. Poland said in Section 15.2.11., it mentioned containers so Commissioners will need to bring that definition

Mr. Nicholas said for clarification, the original intent of Section 15.2.11. is not worrying about containers. This is a proposed change. Section 15.2.11. talks about quantities of equipment and if it’s in direct public view. It doesn’t talk about containers. Unrestricted uses were mentioned, which says that Boundary County is not legally bound to enforce it and if they do, the matter needs to go to the state or federal level. That is the crux of the issue.

Commissioners closed the hearing to public testimony regarding the changes Commissioners have approved through Section 10.5. understanding they will address personal property, excess storage and Section 15.

Commissioner Cossairt moved to approve the changes and verbiage addressed through Section 10.5. as Commissioners have discussed, specifically not addressing personal property and excess storage, and that Sections 15.2.11 and 15.17 will be scheduled for discussion at a future date. Chairman Dinning yielded the chair to second. Motion passed unanimously.

Commissioners’ public hearing to consider Planning and Zoning Application #19-177 was continued to Tuesday, March 10, 2020 at 10:00 a.m. and the hearing will be held at Memorial Hall.

The hearing ended at 11:40 a.m.

Commissioner Cossairt moved to adopt Resolution 2020-16. A resolution to create a new line item in tort fund budget for Hospital liability insurance. Chairman Dinning yielded the chair to second. Motion passed unanimously. Resolution 2020-16 reads as follows:

RESOLUTION 2020-16
CREATE NEW LINE ITEM IN TORT FUND BUDGET FOR HOSPITAL LIABILITY INSURANCE
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners, County of Boundary, State of Idaho, did establish an operating budget for the Tort Fund for fiscal year 2019-2020, and

WHEREAS, within the Tort Fund Expense Budget, line item 024-00-0459-0000, Insurance-Other, was budgeted in the amount of $240,000.00, and

WHEREAS, it is the desire of the Board of County Commissioners, County of Boundary, State of Idaho, to create a new line item in the Tort Fund Expense Budget to be known as line item 024-00-0459-0013, Insurance – BC Hospital, for the purpose of acknowledging the amount Boundary County pays for liability insurance on behalf of Boundary Community Hospital, and
WHEREAS, the Boundary County Commissioners deem it in the best interest of the general public of Boundary County to create the new line in the Tort Fund Expense Budget for that purpose, and
WHEREAS, the creation of this new line item does not affect the tax levy for Boundary County, and
WHEREAS, based on information provided by the county insurance agent, Darrell Kerby of Pace-Kerby & Co., Inc., the amount needed to pay the liability insurance for Boundary Community Hospital is $135,806.00 for fiscal year 2019-2020, and

WHEREAS, it is appropriate to reduce the Tort Fund Expense Budget, line item 024-00-0459-0000, Insurance-Other, to $104,194.00 and create a new line item in the Tort Fund Expense Budget to be known as line item 024-00-0459-0013, Insurance – BC Hospital, in the amount of $135,806.00.

NOW THEREFORE, upon motion duly made, seconded and unanimously carried,

IT IS RESOLVED to reduce the Tort Fund Expense Budget, line item 024-00-0459-0000, Insurance-Other, to $104,194.00 and create a new line item in the Tort Fund Expense Budget to be known as line item 024-00-0459-0013, Insurance – BC Hospital, in the amount of $135,806.00 is hereby authorized and ordered, and

IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED that the Clerk is instructed to deliver certified copies of this resolution to the Boundary County Treasurer and the Boundary County Auditor.

PASSED this 18th of February 2020.
COUNTY OF BOUNDARY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
s/_____________________________
Dan R. Dinning, Chairman
s/_____________________________
Wally Cossairt, Commissioner
s/_____________________________
Walt Kirby, Commissioner
ATTEST:
s/__________________________________________________
Glenda Poston, Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners
Recorded as instrument #280801

Commissioner Cossairt moved to sign Certificates of Residency for Dylan Rankin and Nolan Vineyard. Chairman Dinning yielded the chair to second. Motion passed unanimously.

Commissioner Cossairt moved to sign the Change Order for the armory remodel once it has been received. Chairman Dinning yielded the chair to second. Motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner Cossairt moved to select Nancy Ryals to be a member of the Sick Leave Bank Committee. Chairman Dinning yielded the chair to second. Motion passed unanimously.

Commissioner Cossairt moved to ratify signing the new Service agreement with SiteLock for the county’s website as it was a time sensitive matter. Chairman Dinning yielded the chair to second. Motion passed unanimously.

Commissioners recessed for lunch at noon.

2:00 p.m., Commissioners reconvened for the afternoon session with Chairman Dan Dinning, Commissioner Wally Cossairt, Clerk Glenda Poston, and Deputy Clerk Michelle Rohrwasser.

Assessor Dave Ryals joined the meeting at 2:00 p.m.

Assessor Ryals stated that he wants to get quotes for a vehicle for his office so he would have three vehicles and the Subaru would either be sold or used as a trade-in. Assessor Ryals said he had been getting by with the two sport utility vehicles and the Subaru. It was said that there is budget for the purchase to take place this year. Clerk Poston discussed purchasing a vehicle for Emergency Manager Andrew O’Neel so he wouldn’t need to borrow a vehicle from the Assessor’s Office. Commissioners were in favor of Assessor Ryals seeking quotes for a vehicle. Commissioners suggested purchasing a used vehicle for the Emergency Manager.

The meeting with Assessor Ryals ended at 2:10 p.m.

Commissioners tended to administrative duties.

2:30 p.m., Road and Bridge Department Co-Superintendents Renee Nelson and Randy Morris and Office Secretary Kaley Piatz joined the meeting. Mr. Morris presented a written department report. Ms. Nelson spoke of the annual Idaho Association of Counties (ICRMP) training and she asked if any more information was found out about various employees using a computer for this training when they don’t have a county email address. Clerk Poston said not all Road and Bridge staff would need to take this training if they don’t have a county email address.

Mr. Morris said Road and Bridge had obtained tanks from the Idaho Transportation Department in Lewiston. These tanks are stainless steel and they will fit the Road and Bridge trucks. Mr. Morris said one tank could be used for de-icing and the other tank could be used as a water truck, etc., but if not, every one of the parts are interchangeable with existing Road and Bridge equipment.

Commissioner Cossairt moved to sign the Boundary Area Transportation Team (BATT) Local Designee Form appointing Randy Morris as the Boundary Area Transportation Team Representative and appointing Renee Nelson as the Alternative for Boundary County. Chairman Dinning yielded the chair to second. Motion passed unanimously.

Ms. Nelson and Mr. Morris informed Commissioners of a large sink hole forming on Deep Creek Loop near the Northwoods Tavern. Ms. Nelson said KG & T Septic was called to locate the source of the leak, but they dug down eight feet deep and never came across a water line. Ms. Nelson said she hasn’t yet received an invoice for this work, but Road and Bridge is being asked to cover this cost as it would normally be a county project.
Chairman Dinning asked the status of financial documents from Caterpillar (CAT) Financial Services. Ms. Nelson said CAT contacted her last Thursday and informed her that the attorneys are still working on the paperwork.

Chairman Dinning said part of this morning’s public hearing had to do with assigning addresses in order for the property owner to obtain electrical services. Mr. Moss had voiced a timeline of 10 business days, but Commissioners pushed that out to 20 business days. Chairman Dinning said that just sounded like too short of a turnaround time. Mr. Morris mentioned working on cold patching and issuing load permits.

The meeting ended at 3:00 p.m.

3:00 p.m., Commissioners participated in an Idaho Association of Counties legislative conference call for District 1. Also participating in the conference call was Clerk Glenda Poston, Assessor Dave Ryals and Treasurer Sue Larson; Seth Grigg, Tim Hibbard, Sara Westbrook and Kelli Brassfield with the Idaho Association of Counties; and various elected officials from the remaining four northern counties.

The call ended at 3:46 p.m.

There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 4:45 p.m.

______________________________________
DAN R. DINNING, Chairman
ATTEST:

_______________________________________
GLENDA POSTON, Clerk
By: Michelle Rohrwasser, Deputy Clerk