***Monday, March 9, 2020, at 9:00 a.m., Commissioners met in regular session with Chairman Dan Dinning, Commissioner Wally Cossairt, Commissioner Walt Kirby, Clerk Glenda Poston, and Deputy Clerk Michelle Rohrwasser.

County resident Marty Martinez was in attendance of the meetings off and on throughout the morning.

9:00 a.m., Road and Bridge Department Co-Superintendents Renee Nelson and Randy Morris joined the meeting to give the department report. A written report was presented. Mr. Morris said Road and Bridge employee Brad Barton will work on the cleanup of the Waterways boat launch tomorrow. Road and Bridge also worked on grading last week and will do more this week. Chairman Dinning questioned how the county looks for opening roads in relation to spring breakup. Commissioner Kirby asked when work will be done to the end of Roosevelt Road. Ms. Nelson said that project is still out a few years and she added that information is being sought for that project regarding a proposed turnaround, etc. Mr. Morris spoke of cold patching as well as brushing again today on Westside Road.

Ms. Nelson said as it pertains to the 323 excavator documents, there is one change County Civil Attorney Hull wants made so that change will be forwarded to Western States for their review.

Mr. Morris informed Commissioners that Panhandle Towing gets a hauling permit every time they tow a vehicle, but Bonner County does not require a permit as the tow truck is considered an emergency vehicle. There are times that Panhandle Towing is just hauling a vehicle for someone else. Commissioners agree that if a tow truck is hauling or towing a vehicle in an emergency situation, then Road and Bridge doesn’t need to issue a permit, otherwise a permit is needed when hauling or towing a vehicle in a non-emergency related situation. Commissioners suggested not making any changes to the permit requirements, but to look into a new policy for the next year. Mr. Morris informed Commissioners of a matter regarding a truck load of hay sitting at Huff Road, but it’s gone as of the next day so the driver is hauling without a permit. Chairman Dinning suggested Road and Bridge ask County Civil Attorney Tevis Hull how to handle that. Chairman Dinning asked about possible road damage.

Those present discussed a purchase order from True North Steel bridges for materials for the Ruby Creek Bridge #3 repairs. If the county locks in the bridge materials purchase, it will still be six weeks out before it’s ready.

Commissioner Cossairt moved to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign the Purchase Order with True North Steel for bridge material for Ruby Creek Bridge #3 in the amount of approximately $34,765.00. Commissioner Kirby second. Motion passed unanimously.

9:25 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. Commissioner Kirby second. Commissioners voted as follows: Chairman Dinning “aye”, Commissioner Cossairt “aye” and Commissioner Kirby “aye”. Motion passed unanimously.

County Civil Attorney Tevis Hull had called in to the executive session at 9:30 a.m.

Commissioner Cossairt moved to go into executive session pursuant to Idaho Code 74-206(1)f, to communicate with legal counsel for the public agency to discuss the legal ramifications of and legal options for pending litigation, or controversies not yet being litigated but imminently likely to be litigated. Commissioner Kirby second. Commissioners voted as follows: Chairman Dinning “aye”, Commissioner Cossairt “aye” and Commissioner Kirby “aye”. Motion passed unanimously. The executive session ended at 9:50 a.m. No action was taken.

Attorney Hull and Commissioners briefly discussed the status of discussions regarding open ranges and herd districts, vacating the easement associated with the Tihonovich property purchase and not requiring a permit for tow trucks when towing a vehicle due to an accident or emergency. Attorney Hull said he is formulating some questions about the herd district and open range matter, he will work on the Tihonovich matter and he is in favor of not requiring a hauling permit when it’s due to an emergency. Commissioners said the permit matter won’t be in place until next year.

The call to Attorney Hull ended at 9:55 a.m.

The meeting with Ms. Nelson and Mr. Morris ended at 10:00 a.m.

Commissioner Cossairt moved to sign the Certificate of Residency for Alex Stella. Commissioner Kirby second. Motion passed unanimously.

Clerk Poston mentioned costs for drain pipe and floor drain at the armory. The total cost in this change order comes to $13,000.35.

Commissioner Kirby moved to sign Change Order #001 for the armory remodel project. Commissioner Cossairt second. Motion passed unanimously.

Commissioner Kirby moved to approve and sign the Commissioner meeting minutes for the weeks of February 17, 2020, February 24, 2020 and March 2, 2020. Commissioner Cossairt second. Motion passed unanimously.

Commissioner Cossairt moved to appoint Lawrence “Scooter” Drake to the Boundary County Snowmobile Advisory Board with a term to expire February 2023. Commissioner Kirby second. Motion passed unanimously.

Commissioner Cossairt moved to appoint Eldora Gatchell to the Boundary County Community Restorium Advisory Board with a term to expire January 2023. Commissioner Kirby second. Motion passed unanimously.

Commissioners reviewed claims for payment. Fund totals are as follows:

Current Expense $ 156,020.62
Road & Bridge 76,230.62
Airport 3,450.02
District Court 8,753.02
Justice Fund 84,806.12
911 Funds 3,598.70
Indigent & Charity 15,622.87
Parks and Recreation 3,456.21
Revaluation 1,413.44
Solid Waste 49,855.75
Tort 685.00
Veterans Memorial 200.21
Weeds 2,289.86
Restorium 52,843.16
Waterways 1,853.28
Grant, Boat Safety 80.48

TOTAL $461,159.36
Trusts
Auditor’s Trust 00.00
Boundary Co. Drug Court Trust 173.15
Driver’s License Trust 9,891.75
Motor Vehicle Trust 103,316.06
Worker’s Comp – Comm Service 81.29
Sheriff’s Trust Fund 380.00
Odyssey Court Trust Account 17,580.53
Odyssey Bond Trust Account 300.00
Odyssey Restitution Trust Account 3,274.97

TOTAL $134,997.75

GRAND TOTAL $596,157.11

Citizens are invited to inspect detailed records on file in the Courthouse (individual claims & Commissioners’ allowance & warrant register record 2019-2020).

10:10 a.m., Restorium Administrator Karlene Magee and Assistant Administrator Diana Lane met with Commissioners to give the department report. Ms. Magee reported that there were 38 residents at the Restorium for the month of January and 35 residents for the month of February. Ms. Magee reviewed information for the months of January and February 2020 as presented in her written report. Ms. Magee explained that her budget for food is higher for the month of February because she is supposed to keep a food supply should they ever need to shelter in place and that wasn’t happening so she is trying to build that supply back up. Ms. Magee said Bee Safe sent her a quote for a wireless system and she had budgeted $22,000.00 for this, but the quote came in at $28,800.00. This is the call button type system, according to Ms. Magee.

Chairman Dinning said county budgets are going to be frozen by the State of Idaho for approximately two to three years so the county needs to plan for this and preserve cash as best as we can. This means that tax dollars will not increase. Chairman Dinning said he knows county departments are frugal, but we all need to be aware of this as in our case, it’s significant. Ms. Magee informed Commissioners of an issue with the Restorium’s dishwasher so she is using funds left over from the boiler to purchase a new dishwasher. Ms. Magee spoke of the cost associated with remodeling the oxygen room and she feels it is not worth the $6,000.00 so she was given an alternate solution. This room is now just an empty heated room with a door on the outside and Ms. Magee said her thought was to use the $6,000.00 toward the wireless call system instead.

10:24 a.m., Commissioner Kirby 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. Commissioner Cossairt second. Commissioners voted as follows: Chairman Dinning “aye”, Commissioner Cossairt “aye” and Commissioner Kirby “aye”. Motion passed unanimously. The executive session ended at 10:31 a.m. No action was taken.

Chairman Dinning discussed looking at restrictions to put into place at the Restorium in order to help prevent the Coronavirus from affecting the Restorium and to also limit outside groups at the Restorium’s discretion. Those present discussed people washing their hands or using sanitizer when they enter the Restorium. Ms. Magee said she will write an instructional information letter to mail out, but she will show it to Commissioners prior to sending it. It was suggested that the Restorium contact the Panhandle Health District about protocols to follow if they have to shelter in place. Clerk Poston asked if the Restorium has any residents who might want to vote in Tuesday’s election as her election staff could deliver ballots out to the Restorium’s passenger van instead of having the residents come to the polls.

The meeting with Ms. Magee and Ms. Lane ended at 10:36 a.m.

10:36 a.m., Bureau of Land Management Coeur d’ Alene Field Manager Kurt Pavlat joined the meeting to provide Commissioners with an update on BLM matters.

Mr. Pavlat informed Commissioners that he is retiring June 1, 2020, but Principal Acting Field Manager Debbie Paul will be here for some time. Kurt Pindel is the new District Manager for the Coeur d’ Alene District. Mr. Pavlat said there are no changes in terms of land tenure in Boundary County and there is still approximately 4,400 acres of BLM public lands, of which most are in southern Idaho. Mr. Pavlat said no changes in land ownership is expected. The BLM is a partner with the Forest Service on the Westside Project so they will be doing some burning and logging. Mr. Pavlat said the BLM comes up periodically to look at their parcels, such as Two Tail, Myrtle Creek, Farnam Forest, Parker Ridge, etc. The BLM also treats the Hideaway Island for weeds. There is no active mining on BLM public lands in Boundary County. Mr. Pavlat said the budget for the BLM is the same, their office is small with 15 permanent full time and seasonal employees and the BLM hires five seasonal employees every year. The budgets for the BLM remain static and $1,200,000.00 is proposed for the next budget. Mr. Pavlat said the BLM is one of the few federal agencies that makes money for the tax payers, primarily in coal and gas leases, timber receipts, sand and gravel sales, right-of-way rent, grazing fees, etc. As it relates to timber sales, 3% of timber receipts are pushed out to counties in the state. Mr. Pavlat said he will continue to attend the Kootenai Valley Resource Initiative (KVRI) meetings.

Mr. Pavlat commented that the BLM is back to a classic multiple use and they try to be very transparent and work closely with their neighbors. Mr. Pavlat said it’s always been a pleasure coming to Bonners Ferry.

The meeting with Mr. Pavlat ended at 10:50 a.m.

11:00 a.m., Chief Probation Officer Stacy Brown joined the meeting to provide a department report. Idaho Department of Juvenile Corrections District 1 & 2 Liaison Zlata Myr was also present in order to provide Commissioners with the annual Juvenile Justice Report for Boundary County.

Ms. Myr explained to Commissioners that this year the only thing different is the informational chart design and they left out the Idaho State Police information as it was always one year behind. Ms. Myr reviewed the county, district and state totals, as well as the figures for year 2019 county information pertaining to juvenile arrests, petitions, felony arrests, misdemeanors, and status offenses. Ms. Myr said there were no status offenses. Ms. Brown said the entire state is out of compliance as they are jailing juveniles for status offenses. Those present discussed probation releases versus intakes, diversion releases versus intakes, juveniles on probation, participants in the Diversion Program and in the Department of Juvenile Corrections’ custody as of September 30, 2019. Information reviewed also included youth in terms of recidivism and funding received from the state. Boundary County is doing a very good job of utilizing resources, working with kids and putting the time in and that’s reflected in the figures, according to Ms. Myr.

Ms. Brown provided Commissioners with a Probation Department report. There are 40 people on supervised probation and 132 on unsupervised probation. Ms. Brown said the Probation Department is staying busy. The remodel of the armory is going smoothly. Chairman Dinning said the year someone won a large lottery in Idaho, it really helped the county as those funds go toward Probation. Clerk Poston asked Ms. Myr when the county will know about funding for the upcoming year and Ms. Myr replied that information should be available in approximately 30 to 45 days or so. Ms. Myr spoke of how the tax freeze will affect the Department of Juvenile Corrections and how they’ve planned for it.

The meeting with Ms. Brown and Ms. Myr ended at 11:15 a.m.

Commissioners stated they were in favor of having the Restorium Administrator proceed with purchasing the call system from BEE Safe with the use of funds saved from not remodeling the oxygen room and they would notify Ms. Magee of this.

Chairman Dinning said to Commissioners that the Restorium is looking at a significant shortfall if things continues as they have been. The Restorium is approximately $20,000.00 per month short. Chairman Dinning said the county levied approximately $200,000.00 and will be approximately $50,000.00 short for the year so we need to take a look at that.

11:27 a.m., Commissioner Kirby 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. Commissioner Cossairt second. Commissioners voted as follows: Chairman Dinning “aye”, Commissioner Cossairt “aye” and Commissioner Kirby “aye”. Motion passed unanimously. The executive session ended at 11:44 a.m. No action was taken.

There being no further business, the meeting recessed until tomorrow at 10:00 a.m.

***Tuesday, March 10, 2020, at 10:00 a.m., Commissioners met in regular session with Chairman Dan Dinning, Commissioner Wally Cossairt, Commissioner Walt Kirby, Clerk Glenda Poston, and Deputy Clerk Michelle Rohrwasser.

10:00 a.m., Commissioners held a public hearing in the Valley Event Center (VEC) at the fairgrounds to continue their public hearing to consider Planning and Zoning Application #19-177, an application to amend Land Use Ordinance 9B18LOV2. Present were: Chairman Dan Dinning, Commissioner Wally Cossairt, Commissioner Walt Kirby, Deputy Clerk Michelle Rohrwasser, County Civil Attorney Tevis Hull, Planning and Zoning Administrator John Moss, David Nicholas, Muriel Burke-Love, Janice Rudeen, John & Marti Keller, Tony & Pam Jacobs, John Poland, Lisa Aguilera, Chris Embree, James Embree, Cassie Tauber, Steven Seeright, and Carol Clausen. The hearing was recorded.

Chairman Dinning said he wanted to clear something up from the last hearing as he was using the wrong verbiage for a topic that was being discussed so he wanted to apologize for that. Chairman Dinning added that he appreciates the public bringing that to his attention. In this hearing Commissioners will back up and allow public comment due to the prior confusion he created when using the wrong terminology. The hearing was opened up to public comments and Chairman Dinning asked if there was anyone who wished to speak.

Attorney Hull explained to those present that Mr. Moss had created a packet of information that breaks out the different changes in sections and categories that may make it a little easier for everybody who would like a copy. Copies were handed out.

Chairman Dinning explained that the hearing held today is to accept public comment on everything that’s been reviewed and once all testimony has been received, Commissioners will close the hearing to any further testimony and set a time in the future for Commissioners to have discussion amongst themselves in order to come to a conclusion.

David Nicholas, Naples, Idaho, spoke and asked if we’re just talking about all of the proposed changes or is it just specific to Section 15 changes. Chairman Dinning said he’s backed it up because of the confusion he’s created so we’re talking about all of the proposed changes. Mr. Nicholas said this is really homeowners’ support of the proposed changes, specific to better control and enforcement of excess property violations. Mr. Nicholas read a letter into the record, labeled by Commissioners as “Public Hearing Exhibit 1”. Chairman Dinning stated for the record that on February 25, 2020, Commissioners received an email signed by Mr. Nicholas, as part of the record.

John Poland, Naples, Idaho, said we’ve gone over much of this in the past, but he wishes to remind Commissioners that there are certain issues with the proposed changes that need to be addressed. Mr. Poland stated that he is in favor of approximately 95% of what the Planning and Zoning Commission had put together in terms of the proposed changes, but there are some proposed changes that need to be improved before they are adopted and among those are definitions, which have been gone over in previous meetings. Mr. Poland said there are significant problems with definitions as it applies to junk yards. Junk yards are defined in terms of refuse and refuse is defined as material of no value. That’s not common usage. Refuse can mean a number of things, but what the ordinance needs to state specifically is what is common terminology applicable to scrap yards and junk yards as everyone knows what these things are. The definitions appear to be straying away from what that common terminology is. Commissioners should be well aware of the public’s concerns in that regard by now. Mr. Poland said when the ordinance gets adopted, Commissioners should make sure those definitions get approved. Attorney Hull asked Mr. Poland for the proposed sections numbers with regard to the definitions so Commissioners can address those. Mr. Poland said they’re Sections 2.40. referencing junk yard and he read aloud the definition. The other definition was refuse as listed in Section 2.65. and he read the definition for refuse. Mr. Poland said the problem he has with this is that the proposed definition of refuse applies to garbage so effectively it would make the junk yard definition a duplicate definition for a landfill. If material has no value at all, it ends up in the landfill, it doesn’t end up in a scrap yard. Mr. Poland read the definition of a junk yard and it references scrap materials, not refuse. If it’s refuse, then it’s garbage and it falls under the landfill definition. Mr. Poland said he wanted to ask that Commissioners to adopt the sections that are in Section 15. Section 10.5. is specifically related to junk yards and is a pretty good addition to the zoning ordinance. Mr. Poland commented that there were a few concerns he had with Section 10.5., which will affect a lot of the county. Mr. Poland reviewed the statements in 10.5.1.1. and 10.5.1.2. and he said the wording is somewhat adequate, but not strict enough. It implies that there would be a loophole as it pertains to if someone creates an illegal junk yard prior to the adoption of these ordinances, that there would be a way for them to make it legal. If a junk yard is established in an area where they are not prohibited, there should be no way to make them legal. Mr. Poland said he would like to ask that the county make sure that we don’t create ordinances that allow people to rush in unapproved usages prior to the adoption of the ordinance and then make them legal. Mr. Poland referenced the statement or definition associated with Section 10.5.2.5. and how it refers to refuse. A regulated area for refuse is a landfill and an unregulated area would supposedly be prohibited by this, but does that mean a regulated area would be approved and create circumstances in that people would be starting landfills without going through the landfill process. Mr. Poland voiced concerns over creating cross definitions.

Mr. Poland referenced Section 15 for zone specifications and in Section 15.2.11. regarding outdoor storage of materials and property, it includes containers, but is not to include refuse in an area less than half an acre in size, and that sounds fine. In Section 15.17., for storage excess, very few people would disagree with the intent the way Section 15.17 is proposed. Mr. Poland commented that many people here want some limit on what can be done with a piece of property in terms of a use that is outside of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Poland said the point he wanted to make pertaining to this section is 15.17.2., because the reference to being in plain sight provision is a little vague so is that in plain sight of a public highway or plain sight in terms of the neighbors? Most people would think that means in plain sight of the adjoining properties, or rights-of-way, public roads, access points, and private or public roads. Mr. Poland said he hopes this is written to mean in plain sight of any adjoining parcel or access way. Mr. Poland mentioned there are other provisions in this section pertaining to what uses are allowed and what uses are prohibited and he would like to see the county adopt those. Mr. Poland said a lot of those are well written and he voiced appreciation of the Planning and Zoning Commission in putting these together. Mr. Poland said he would like Commissioners to review the definitions, make sure they’re in line with the Comprehensive Plan and the needs of the county as a whole, revise the definitions and adopt the changes proposed.

Attorney Muriel Burke Love said she represents the Nicholas family. Attorney Burke Love said there was a container definition section that was dropped out during the last hearing and she thinks that was because at that time the container section wasn’t in any of these ordinances, but the container section does need to be added back in as it is in Section 15.2.11. Attorney Burke Love said the definition of junk yard, in Section 2.40. needs more work because junk yards can include more than just vehicles as they can also include containers. The term junk yard could also be used in excess storage so she wants that section in there, too.

Attorney Hull briefly explained the reason Commissioners opened the hearing to public testimony on all proposed changes addressed so that section on containers is a part of the consideration that Commissioners will make. Attorney Hull said the matter of containers can be found in Section 2.15., in the information handed out today. Attorney Burke Love said the definition of containers needs to be incorporated throughout this ordinance and in the Section of 2.40. for junk yards, and Section 15.17., for excess storage needs to be in the junk yard definition also.

Cassie Tauber with Circle D Farm, Doe Road, said she has a business and it’s important that Commissioners take their job seriously as they’re running the county as a business. This is the process of reviewing the things that affect the county has a business and she would implore Commissioners to consider the definitions with that in mind. Each of the topics Commissioners are reviewing have an economic impact to the county. Ms. Tauber said as a business owner the things that go on around her affect her business very seriously. Ms. Tauber asked that Commissioners review the definitions carefully so not only do they allow historic use, but realistically support the county and citizens in enforcements of the protocol for the economic best interest of the county and county citizens. Ms. Tauber said if Commissioners don’t allow containers to be defined in areas just mentioned, they can have impacts to the ground water, which affects her business as an agricultural use. Historic use needs to be a serious consideration and Ms. Tauber informed Commissioners that she has had several generations farming here and she would like to think her farm will continue sustainably for multiple generations. Junk yards are not part of the historical use and she hopes they’re not a part of history moving forward. Contents of containers can contaminate ground water, which is also a part of her business. Trucks that haul the containers are large and can economically impact the roads, which falls on Commissioners and the tax payers. These may be matters that did not come up in the definitions, but to her they’re huge and that is Commissioners’ job.

Chris Embree said he agrees with everyone who spoke. Mr. Embree said Ms. Tauber brought up a good point. There are economic consequences in having the county not enforce the regulations that are already on the books. He understands that there are regulations even before these are adopted, which haven’t been enforced and we’ve been going so many months with this. Mr. Embree said we could be working on the existing problem with the existing code without having to change the code to then work on the problem, correct. Chairman Dinning said he didn’t know. Mr. Embree said he does, it’s right in the code and it says one-half acre. It says one-half acre of storage stuff out of public view is the current law, correct? Attorney Hull said if Mr. Embree is asking if a complaint was filed and investigated, yes, a complaint was filed and investigated. Law enforcement has conducted an investigation and that was relayed. Attorney Hull said he spoke to Mr. Poland about it, specifically, with regard to concerns to the county ordinances and that is why, he thinks, is what prompted the work from the Planning and Zoning Commission to get the matter before Commissioners. Mr. Embree said that is what he understands as well, but in the meantime are the county’s hands tied to use what is on the books currently? Attorney Hull said, no. Mr. Embree asked if there is work going on to deal with this issue. Attorney Hull said we’re not here to challenge that issue as far as what’s happening. Mr. Embree said his public comment is that he feels the Board of Commissioners and County Attorney should be working on issues regardless and aside from this process of amending and making changes, making it clear and better, but because of this process it doesn’t mean we can’t do our job and continue to protect the public, roadways and other ordinances that are available right now for the county use when you have complaints. Mr. Embree said he will state on the record today that he will agree with both Mr. Poland’s and Mr. Nicholas’s complaints and he would like this board and the county attorney to enforce the law. They’re not asking the county to do anything above or under the board. The law is already on the books and there is no reason to wait.

John Keller, Naples, Idaho, explained his career of dealing with government contracts with a similar numbering system to the handout given today, but it would be helpful if this information would have been put in some sensible order. This handout is not in any recognizable order, according to Mr. Keller.

James Embree, Doe Road, asked for clarity from Attorney Hull on Section 15.2.11., the current version and proposed version. Mr. Embree said if the current version is on the books right now, Section 15.2.11. is stating that it’s an unrestricted use to have property on less than half an acre out of public view. Mr. Embree asked to get the attorney to agree that that is what this is saying. Mr. Embree said he wants to be clear as to what he would be commenting on. Attorney Hull said there has been no amendment to the ordinance. Mr. Embree repeated the explanation of an unrestricted use and he said anything other than that would fall outside of that definition. Attorney Hull asked Mr. Embree if he had any comment with regard to the proposed changes, not what the ordinance currently states. Mr. Embree mentioned Section 15.2.11. and adding Section 15.1.7 to that. Attorney Hull said this setting is to provide comments. Mr. Embree said he is commenting. Attorney Hull said he’s asking questions. Mr. Embree said he just wants to be clear as to what the current regulation currently is. Mr. Moss read aloud the definition of the current version of Section 15.2.11. Mr. Embree said if something falls outside of those conditions, is that an unrestricted use as well. Chairman Dinning said he didn’t know. Mr. Embree said if something falls outside of that rule, would it not be a restricted use. Attorney Hull said to Mr. Embree that he’s asking for a determination. Mr. Embree replied that that is what the county is supposed to be doing. Chairman Dinning asked Mr. Embree to calm down. Mr. Embree said he’s calm, but we want to know what is going on. Attorney Hull said that is not the purpose of this hearing. Mr. Embree questioned if the purpose of the hearing is to drone on and just have a continuation? No, that is not the purpose of the hearing.

Attorney Hull explained that he had to temporary leave this hearing to attend a scheduled hearing at 11:00 a.m., but that he would return when he’s done.

Mr. Embree said they wanted Attorney Hull to think about that. Attorney Hull said in all fairness, members of the public can laugh, but this issue is serious here. Attorney Hull said to Mr. Embree, that he asks that the county to take this seriously, then goes outside the parameters of what’s being done here where if you have a comment based on the changes that are proposed, that is what you can comment on, not challenge an existing ordinance and put it in a context where you’re asking for a decision on what the current ordinance means. That is outside of the parameters of this hearing now. Attorney Hull said the Commissioners welcome it and he wanted Mr. Embree to know that he doesn’t make decisions as that is for Commissioners to make. Commissioners will take a look at all the comments made today seriously, and look at their ordinance and if they need to make this ordinance better, he’s sure these Commissioners are going to take the public’s comments into consideration ultimately when they get to that point, but that’s not the purpose of this hearing.

Mr. Embree said thank you for that. We just want to make sure we understand actually how these rule are enforced because apparently they’re not enforced at all.

Attorney Burke Love said there is some underlying frustration and she understands this is not the appropriate forum to address some of those issues, but she thinks it’s important for Commissioners to be aware of that underlying frustration because someone is going to have to address it in the future. The neighbors on Doe Road and other areas in Naples have valid concerns so she appreciates Commissioners taking the time to just listen.

Ms. Tauber said she wants to revisit the impacts and the frustration in economics. She’s seen this before in Bonner County where multiple times the citizens’ aggressions were ignored and it ended up that the county was in a very expensive and lengthy lawsuit that nobody wants. A clear path that follows Commissioners’ consideration of regulation changes or amendments where the citizens know what the enforcement protocols are is important. It relieves the economic stress for everybody so making sure the clear path of enforcement is defined is she thinks where everyone’s frustrations will be relieved.

Mr. Nicholas spoke and said everyone needs to understand the issues that have been brought up. The reality is that complaints have been made, we try to keep them objective and we try not to point fingers. Planning and Zoning are the people who have created a lot of the changes that are being put in front of us. They’ve had public comment. Some people like, John Keller and himself, look at these changes and try to provide good comments because Mr. Moss has a very hard job to get this information together to put in front of the Planning and Zoning Commission and other people. Then the matter comes before Commissioners. If it’s like the old days, managers would be looking at this information for the first time and he really feels for Commissioners here. However, when it comes down to it Commissioners have an important issue at hand here because things are changing. The Comprehensive Plan is dealt with first. That is the overarching document that drives the regulations that Mr. Moss and the Planning and Zoning Commission deal with. This is a tough thing as this matter has been going on for one and one half years, not a few months. Mr. Nicholas commented that he’s been involved in this issue for eight months and Mr. Poland has been involved for one and one half years. Mr. Nicholas said he wishes he could say it’s like the good old days, but things are changing and people are moving in. Sometimes the views of people coming in are beyond what the regulations are in hand right now. We need to breathe and relax that we’re trying to do the right thing, be objective, but the reality is sometime these changes do have an effect, personally, to people, yourselves, people in the audience here and that’s the only thing we’re doing here to make it easier for people.

Chairman Dinning asked if there were any further comments. Hearing none, Chairman Dinning reminded those present that Commissioners will be closing the hearing to further public testimony, and then will schedule a continuation of this hearing with Commissioners. Due to the complexity of this issue Commissioners will have an opportunity, individually, to think about this, then Commissioners will have the hearing where they can discuss and debate this and the date is Tuesday, March 17, 2020, at 10:00 a.m. Commissioners will hold the next hearing at the same location, but will notify those present if the venue changes or if Attorney Hull cannot make the next hearing.

Commissioner Kirby moved to continue the hearing to March 17, 2020, at 10:00 a.m., at the Valley Event Center. Commissioner Cossairt second. Motion passed unanimously.

It was explained that the hearing is a public setting, not an executive session and all proposed changes discussed will be reviewed. Commissioners can also make a decision regarding proposed changes. It’s an open meeting, but no public input will be accepted.

The hearing ended at approximately 11:00 a.m.

Commissioners recessed for lunch at noon.

1:30 p.m., Commissioners reconvened for the afternoon session with Chairman Dan Dinning, Commissioner Wally Cossairt, Commissioner Walt Kirby, Clerk Glenda Poston, and Deputy Clerk Michelle Rohrwasser.

Commissioners discussed a request received to use Memorial Hall. The 4H cake decorating group has requested to schedule use of Memorial Hall every Friday during the month of May and they don’t pay the rental fee. The concern with this scenario is that we have a full kitchen at the Extension Office and the issue is that the group is trying to schedule these classes during a Friday when kids are out of school, but they have all kinds of classes going on at the Extension Office on Fridays in the space that we pay for. Chairman Dinning said Memorial Hall is a veterans matter; not a county matter. Chairman Dinning said his thought is to ask the 4H cake decorating group to use the school because we are trying to generate funds for the veterans. 4H has an annual banquet and they’re allowed to use Memorial Hall for this banquet, but we don’t want to get into just scheduling courses at Memorial Hall repeatedly and have the Fridays all booked up. It is similar to Planning and Zoning in that because the county hasn’t raised application fees, the taxpayers are subsidizing the applications. We as a community greatly support 4H, but this use could set a precedent in which Memorial Hall gets used all the time in this manner. Clerk Poston said the Fair Board can waive fees for renting the Exhibit Hall, but not Memorial Hall, which falls under Commissioners. Chairman Dinning said we have not charged 4H or FAA. Clerk Poston said we’ve not had this type of request before in using the Valley Event Center (VEC) for 4H projects, other than the annual banquet meeting due to the large number of attendees and it’s during the week; not a weekend. Clerk Poston suggesting keeping the Extension Office open on Fridays for the kids’ use. Commissioners will make this suggestion. Chairman Dinning said he will relay Commissioners’ feeling about this to Extension Educator Amy Robertson. Chairman Dinning said we will need to anticipate usage of the meeting room at the armory.

Those present discussed the armory. Clerk Poston spoke of wanting to make the conference room and the door to the conference room key specific. Chairman Dinning suggested a lock with a key code.

Commissioner Cossairt moved to sign the Certificate of Residency for Falisha Elliston. Commissioner Kirby second. Motion passed unanimously.

Commissioners tended to administrative duties.

2:00 p.m., Planning and Zoning Administrator John Moss met with Commissioners to discuss a proposed increase to Planning and Zoning application fees. Clerk Poston explained the formula used to determine the estimated fee increases, such as using a cost per hour basis. Mr. Moss said he’s been running with this fee schedule for a long time. The original projection for the categories of applications was based on the associated workload assumed for the Planning and Zoning Administrator, having a Planning and Zoning Commission hearing and then having a County Commissioners’ hearing. Mr. Moss said the initial fee was $35.00 for a Planning and Zoning application and if this fee was determined in the 1990’s or earlier, $5.00 per hour was probably reasonable so $35.00 made sense. If there was a long plat, there would be a Planning and Zoning Commission meeting followed by a County Commissioner hearing. The fee for a hearing before the Planning and Zoning Commission is $90.00 and it’s another $90.00 for a hearing before the County Commissioners so that totals $180.00. Chairman Dinning said County Commissioners’ cost should not count as it’s a function of their elected position. Mr. Moss said he’s not looking at making a profit, but there is an expense to what he is doing. For Moss said for example, if his hourly cost is $10.00 and he spends 10 hours on an application, that’s $100.00. If he spends 5 hours on a residential placement permit and he makes $10.00 per hour, that’s $50.00 for the application, but we’re only charging $35.00. Chairman Dinning said that is fair and Commissioners are looking at the same thing. What is occurring, no matter the application, is that Boundary County taxpayers are subsidizing a developer or someone else when they should be paying their fair share of the application fee. By code, the county cannot charge more than what its cost is. Mr. Moss said he created a spread sheet to keep track of his time and the County Mapper and Road and Bridge were also keeping track of their time. Mr. Moss said he did not take the time to list all the different types of applications. The reality is that there are a lot more applications that he processes. What he did was take actual applications and the time it took to process them. There were more applications than what he tracked and Commissioners only saw a portion of the work he’s doing. Mr. Moss said all he is trying to do is illustrate the hours it takes versus what he charges and the document provided represents all activities for the last year on his part. It does not include mapping or Road and Bridge hours involved. The base column is the number of hours listed for Planning and Zoning hours involved multiplied by his position’s salary. Commissioners reviewed the list of applications and the estimated Planning and Zoning base as based on hours involved at the Administrator’s salary.

Chairman Dinning said a temporary use permit fee seems extremely high at a cost of $821.10. Mr. Moss explained the formula used to reach that total. Chairman Dinning said Commissioners’ time should not be a factor, nor should the Planning and Zoning Commission’s time. Mr. Moss said he was trying to show Commissioners what occurred last year. Chairman Dinning said Commissioners are saying that a residential placement permit will cost approximately $300.00 using the estimate put together using the information the Clerk was given. An amended zone map would cost approximately $900.00, etc. It was said that travel hours will need to be adjusted, but the totals include overhead, mapping, Road and Bridge, etc. Chairman Dinning said if he splits a parcel, pays the fee and his application is approved, why will it cost him $350.00 to write a letter to Cabinet Mountain Water District to let them know it’s an approved property? The application is not the Water District’s to say the application is approved. Mr. Moss said Cabinet Mountain Water District used to require a Certificate of Compliance, but now they want to see a placement permit. Mr. Moss said there are a lot of homes that don’t have a placement permit. Chairman Dinning said Commissioners are going to start recouping costs and they have the data to back it up. If Commissioners start seeing that the time spent is less than projected, then they can adjust the fee down. Mr. Moss explained the requests made by Cabinet Mountains Water District, which is to make sure there is a residence for the person who wants a water right. Chairman Dinning said that should not be the county’s business and the Water District could just drive by and look at the property.

Those present reviewed the list of applications to determine proposed fee increases.

The meeting with Mr. Moss ended at 2:49 p.m.

2:49 p.m., Courthouse Maintenance John Buckley met with Commissioners briefly to discuss trimming the trees around the Courthouse. Mr. Buckley said Doug Dirks no longer provides this service, but the person who took over doing this work, Shawn Smith with CDA Stump Grinding, LLC. has general liability insurance and worker’s compensation insurance and honors the same prices so he is scheduled to work Saturday. The cost is $1,200.00 to do the trees and $200.00 for the steroid injections for a total of $1,400.00 total.

Mr. Buckley brought up work needed to the sidewalks in front of the Courthouse. Rich Brown wasn’t able to get the sidewalks repaired last year, but he said he will honor his bid from last year and get it done. Chairman Dinning said he would like Commissioners to look at heating the sidewalks so no one has to shovel or de-ice them. Mr. Buckley said he’s looking at glycol, such as Road and Bridge is using as he’s just talking about 1/10th of what is at Road and Bridge. A glycol heater would cover half the size of what Road and Bridge has, but he can also look at running gas. Mr. Buckley said he will get costs for both.

The meeting with Mr. Buckley ended at 2:56 p.m.

3:00 p.m., Commissioners participated in the Idaho Association of Counties legislative conference call for District 1. Clerk Glenda Poston, Assessor Dave Ryals, Treasurer Sue Larson; various elected officials from the remaining four northern counties; Seth Grigg and other members of the Idaho Association of Counties also participated in the call. The call ended at 3:45 p.m.

Commissioners, Clerk Poston and Assessor Ryals reviewed topics discussed on the conference call.

There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 4:15 p.m.

________________________________
DAN R. DINNING, Chairman
ATTEST:
_______________________________
GLENDA POSTON, Clerk
By: Michelle Rohrwasser, Deputy Clerk