Monday, March 11, 2024, at 9:00 a.m., Commissioners met in regular session with Chairman Tim Bertling, Commissioner Wally Cossairt, Commissioner Ben Robertson, Clerk Glenda Poston, and Deputy Clerk Michelle Rohrwasser.

Commissioners said the Pledge of Allegiance.

9:00 a.m., Restorium Maintenance Kevin Schnuerle joined the meeting to update Commissioners on various projects at the Restorium. Mr. Schnuerle discussed looking for heating and air conditioning units that will fit into the holes cut for the existing models. Mr. Schnuerle said he’s trying to determine if the problems are related to the unit or circuit boards. Approximately 19 units are needed.

Mr. Schnuerle informed Commissioners that the main floor and lobby flooring has been installed, but when taking measurements originally, it didn’t take into account the activity office, two public restrooms, and the beauty shop. There is still material available, but labor would cost approximately $1,000.00. Commissioners had no problem with Mr. Schnuerle having this installation done.

Mr. Schnuerle said the ductless heating and air system worked well this winter, and he discussed wanting to check the attic so he can address heat loss in the winter. Mr. Schnuerle mentioned that he doesn’t know what the legal code is for using heat tape in an assisted living facility. Those present continued their discussion on heating distribution.

9:15 a.m., County Civil Attorney Bill Wilson joined the meeting.

The meeting with Mr. Schnuerle ended at 9:16 a.m.

9:30 a.m., Road and Bridge Department Co-Superintendents Renee Nelson and Brad Barton joined the meeting.

Commissioners and Attorney Wilson discussed Planning and Zoning matters.

9:43 a.m., Commissioner Robertson moved to go into executive session pursuant to Idaho Code 74-206(1)c, to acquire an interest in real property which is not owned by a public agency; and 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 Cossairt second. Commissioners voted as follows: Chairman Bertling “aye”, Commissioner Cossairt “aye” and Commissioner Robertson “aye”. Motion passed unanimously. The executive session ended at 10:12 a.m. No action was taken.

Ms. Nelson, Mr. Barton and Attorney Wilson left the meeting.

10:12 a.m., Sheriff Dave Kramer, Undersheriff Rich Stephens, Detention Sergeant Rob Pew, Deputy Greg Reynolds, and Deputy Mike Valenzuela joined the meeting to discuss wage scales. Assessor Olivia Drake also joined the meeting.

Sheriff Kramer and Undersheriff Stephens discussed options for the Sheriff’s Office pay scale for recruiting and retention purposes. Sheriff Kramer said he wants to stay competitive with surrounding areas so they can attract qualified people and retain them. Deputy Reynolds discussed the county having a good benefits package, but people look at the wage. Deputy Valenzuela commented that it is hard to keep employees and then lose them to Sandpoint, even though Bonner County’s benefits aren’t as good. Increased stress and liability without having the incentive was mentioned. Detention Sergeant Pew discussed compensation for a level two detention deputy and how there is not an incentive to submit for that level. More detention staff are needed for the jail, but the possibility of holiday hours being taken away after some time creates bad blood between departments and Commissioners. Sheriff Kramer spoke of increased activity and how it used to calm down, but it is just keeping busy. Commissioner Robertson said commissioners will need to come up with a plan for all departments; not just the Sheriff’s Office. Commissioner Robertson added that he wants to make it work. Undersheriff Stephens mentioned that employees do understand that commissioners are trying and thinking of ideas and they appreciate that. Commissioner Robertson said he appreciates Sheriff Kramer advocating for his employees. Detention Sergeant Pew spoke of having a really good detention crew and he doesn’t want to lose them.

The meeting to discuss the pay scale for the Sheriff’s Office ended at 10:37 a.m.

Commissioner Cossairt moved to sign the certificate of residency for Myah Francis. Commissioner Robertson second. Motion passed unanimously.

Commissioner Cossairt moved to sign the Idaho Department of Lands Hazardous Fuels Treatment Grant application for the Fire Safe Program for the FY24 HFR Kat Camp project. Commissioner Robertson second. Motion passed unanimously.

Commissioner Cossairt moved to approve the meeting minutes for the week of March 4, 2024. Commissioner Robertson second. Motion passed unanimously.

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

Current Expense $ 108,491.13
Road & Bridge 217,145.98
Airport 5,739.54
District Court 13,011.73
Justice Fund 102,897.60
911 Funds 7,292.80
Indigent and Charity 2,133.00
Junior College Tuition 450.00
Parks and Recreation 6,582.30
Revaluation 2,353.53
Solid Waste 72,608.83
Tort 85,000.00
Veterans Memorial 116.28
Weeds 1,735.41
County EMS 4,476.00
Restorium 50,108.02
Snowmobile 6,869.65
Waterways 536.13
Juvenile Probation – Lottery 2,089.05
Grant, Boat Safety 147.77
Opioid Settlement Fund 25,000.00
LATCF Fund 0.00
ARPA Fund 676,834.74

TOTAL $1,391,619.49

Trusts
Auditor’s Trust – *Misc 4,229.24
Boundary Co. Drug Court Trust 156.22
Driver’s License Trust 10,972.00
Interlock Device Fund 180.00
Indigent Reimbursements 1,681.75
Motor Vehicle Trust Acct 153,365.44
Workmans Comp Trust 60.00
Worker’s Comp – Comm Service 469.01
Sheriff’s Trust Fund 860.45
Odyssey Court Trust Account 28,432.83
Odyssey Bond Trust Account 245.50

TOTAL $200,652.44

GRAND TOTAL $1,592,271.93

Citizens are invited to inspect detailed records on file in the Courthouse (individual claims & Commissioners’ allowance & warrant register record 2023-2024).

11:30 a.m., Restorium Administrator Janay Smith joined the meeting to give a department report. The Restorium currently has 29 residents and Ms. Smith said she has assessments coming up for potential new residents. Ms. Smith spoke of matters pertaining to discharge notices for various reasons, as well as discussed holding a meeting with staff on reporting procedures, ideas for staffing education training and schedules, job descriptions, policies, maintenance logs, working on the budget, and computer documentation. Those present reviewed the Restorium report for the months of November 2023 through January 2024.

12:00 p.m., Commissioner Robertson 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 Bertling “aye”, Commissioner Cossairt “aye” and Commissioner Robertson “aye”. Motion passed unanimously. The executive session ended at 12:15 p.m. No action was taken.

Ms. Smith left the meeting.

Commissioners recessed for lunch until 1:30 p.m.

1:30 p.m., Commissioners reconvened for the afternoon session at the County Annex with Chairman Tim Bertling, Commissioner Wally Cossairt, Commissioner Ben Robertson, and Deputy Clerk Michelle Rohrwasser.

1:30 p.m., Road and Bridge Department Co-Superintendents Renee Nelson and Brad Barton joined the meeting to give the department report. Those present reviewed work listed in the report.

Ms. Nelson informed Commissioners that the Riverside Road Memorandum of Agreement for the Riverside Road Phase 1B project is not yet ready to sign.

Commissioner Cossairt moved to sign the Riverside Road Memorandum of Agreement for the Riverside Road Phase 1B project when it is ready. Commissioner Robertson second. Motion passed unanimously.

The meeting with Ms. Nelson and Mr. Barton ended.

2:00 p.m., Commissioners held a public hearing to consider Planning and Zoning File #23-0180. An application for a land use code text amendment by applicant Boundary County. Present were: Chairman Tim Bertling, Commissioner Wally Cossairt, Commissioner Ben Robertson, Deputy Clerk Michelle Rohrwasser, Planner Tessa Vogel, Planner Clare Marley, Planner Ben Jones, Sheleah “Mercy” Bushnell, Karen Pedey, John Poland, Jeff Sater, Phil Schnuerle, John Marquette with JRS Surveying, and Tony Jacobs. County Civil Attorney Bill Wilson participated in the hearing via conference call. The hearing was recorded.

This is an application for an amendment to the county’s subdivision and zoning codes to repeal current Section 4 “Enforcement” of the Boundary County Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and adopt a new enforcement section establishing procedures, remedies, and penalties for addressing land use code violations. The proposed amendment would define violations and declare them to be a misdemeanor, set a process to review zoning complaints, seek compliance, and authorize various remedies to abate violations.

Chairman Bertling reviewed the public hearing procedures. Commissioners cited no conflicts of interest.

Commissioners asked for a staff report. Ms. Marley reviewed the staff report and mentioned that this is to consider replacing the existing code enforcement, which is known as Section 7 of the current Planning and Zoning Ordinance. A recommendation was given by the Planning and Zoning Commission to Commissioners as 8 to 2 to 1. One Commission member wanted to keep the infractions in the ordinance as a penalty. Planning and Zoning is tasked with investigating all potential land use code violations and since year 2020, there have been approximately 50 to 60 and a rough estimate of approximately 30 of those cases are resolved. As of the fiscal year, Planning and Zoning has 35-man hours involved with violations and trying to abate them.

Ms. Marley said approximately a year ago, Planning and Zoning started looking at repeat violations and had met with the Sheriff’s Office and County Civil Attorney Tevis Hull about county code and what needed to be adjusted in order to effectively administer those code violations. Planning and Zoning has held various workshops on various drafts. There was an initial agreement between those who met over this that a complete overhaul was needed. Ms. Marley informed commissioners of information out of the Local Land Use Planning Act, which are authorities by which allows Planning and Zoning to do the things that are being proposed. The code is 67-6527, Violations, Criminal Penalties and Enforcement. Ms. Marley said she’s highlighted the ones that are being proposed in this code section that may be declared a misdemeanor. It also may provide for a fine, imprisonment, or both, and it can include infractions, but the part about infractions hadn’t been fully determined by Attorney Hull, so they chose to just address misdemeanors. For civil actions, you’re allowed to seek injunction and go to court to seek abatement. Ms. Marley’s staff report showed a summary of the current code and proposed updates. A $100.00 fine for an infraction for a variety of violations is existing. The code also mentions that a judge could impose higher fines, but the State of Idaho sets the maximum for infractions, so there is a proposal to remove that stay with a misdemeanor only. The current law states that each week is a violation, whereas you can consider each day a separate violation, so the proposal is to go to each day and that had been supported by Attorney Hull. The current violation is forgiven if the person pays up to $1,000.00. In a situation where the person doesn’t want to abate, they have the ability to pay $1,000.00 and never meet the code, but it was felt that was inappropriate. The goal is to meet the codes, so that was removed. The violation remains a violation under the current code, as well as the proposed code is adopted, it says those violations remain violations so it can’t start the clock all over.

Ms. Marley said the current code has approximately 12 or so types of violations, but a violation could be an action or an inaction and it’s not in accord with the county’s land use law. There are several remedies outlined under Section 4.6., and they include a stop work order, but that would allow a build to be weathered in, there are also civil actions and injunctions, and recovery costs proposed. Also, is withheld permits, prosecution and notice to title. Voluntary compliance is in current code and remains under the proposed code. There is mention of reporting violations to the Sheriff, but the Sheriff did not want to be involved in that, nor does the prosecutor, because there is no collection of evidence. There’s a violation noticed and it’s really land use-based and they want those involved in land use to collect evidence and show which law is being violated. That section is proposed to be removed. For violations that are not land use, such as child welfare issues, the Sheriff’s Office does need to be notified of those by Planning and Zoning if they’re encountered in the field. The statement of failure to abate a matter is sent to the sheriff will be changed to the list the prosecutor, who has to build a record. If there is action needed due to an immediate threat to health, safety or welfare, there are actions that can be taken. There is a two-step process for notifying and that is remaining the same. The current code states 10 days, but the proposed code is going to 14 days. The first notice of violation letter is not certified and is mailed to the individual. The second letter will remind the person that the matter could be turned over to the prosecutor.

Ms. Marley said all of the agencies received notice of hearing that was required by law. At the time of the staff report there were no agency comments. A couple written comments and oral testimony was received and the written comments are in commissioners’ packet of information. John Poland had testified as well as provided a letter to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Adrienne Norris also asked for clarification on civil actions and she asked a question, if a tree fell onto someone else’s property, would the county, through this code, enforce that and the general answer was no, because it wouldn’t be a zoning violation. A comment letter was also received by Joseph Lenz who raised a question about an unelected bureaucrat being able to civilly charge a person. Ms. Marley said a bureaucrat is not, it’s the prosecutor who is authorized by law to bring that. Mr. Lenz also objected to jail time.

In January, Planning met with the county’s current prosecutor and County Civil Attorney Bill Wilson about a notice to title. This is when the county is unable to get an abatement and then they can record a document that states the issue remains in violation and it can go against a person’s title. The violation would have to be abated in order to remove the notice. The county’s prosecutor and civil counsel discussed that the current written suggestion be that after the courts have determined there’s a violation, you can record a decision by a court so you don’t have to wait for that. It was Attorney Wilson’s recommendation that Planning and Zoning remove the part that states needing to wait for a court action. In the current code is the phrase “by the court” and it was suggested to remove that phrase. If that is to be removed, commissioners have to determine that the change is a non-material change. If a material change is made, a second hearing is required. Ms. Marley reviewed the draft findings and conclusions and draft motions for commissioners to consider.

Commissioners had no questions.

The hearing was opened to public testimony and asked for comments from those in favor of the application. John Poland, Naples, spoke and said he’s commented during a number of meetings where Planning and Zoning discussed details of what has gone into this revision. The penalties proposed are a lot more severe than they were, but the Zoning Board considered the ramifications of all of that and they didn’t make these changes lightly. The Planning and Zoning Commission has done their due diligence to work out a good set of revisions that will work. Mr. Poland encouraged the county to adopt these revisions and use them to clean up the county. This should provide the tools needed to make a difference and he thinks it would be a tremendous benefit to the community.

Chairman Bertling asked for comments from those uncommitted to the proposal. Ms. Bushnell said for people who have been in violation before and that violation was not resolved, will those people be held to the new penalties or the old penalties. Chairman Bertling said he would say the new penalties. Current ongoing violations would be held to the new penalties. Chairman Bertling said yes.

Nobody spoke in opposition and Commissioners closed the hearing to additional public comments.

Commissioner Robertson said he’s not necessarily opposed to the revision, but he’s opposed to not defining the county’s ordinance clearly before we put the penalties in place. It’s cart before the horse. Commissioner Robertson said he would like to redefine some of the ordinance to what he agrees with before he votes for a violation on that. He also thinks the misdemeanor and the fine of $1,000.00 might be more than he would like to impose.

County Civil Attorney Bill Wilson explained having experience in planning enforcement in Bonner County going on approximately 10 years. Attorney Wilson commended Ms. Marley, Ms. Vogel and the Planning and Zoning Commission for a well-drafted document. You need to get planning enforcement just right. Civil enforcement is often the preferred because it doesn’t involve criminal penalties, so that is one of the benefits to it. The down side to civil penalties is that it is much more inefficient, it takes a long time, and in some cases it’s not as effective, particularly when dealing with difficult landowners or people who own junkyards, etc. You tend to find those people are not very interested in civil enforcement and getting a judgment is not always decided. A criminal punishment with a misdemeanor can be difficult politically. It is a lot more of an effective tool. The process is faster and it has the threat of criminal punishment and people are more likely to work with the county. Attorney Wilson added that he thinks civil compromise followed by criminal charges is enticing. Nobody wants criminal punishment; we just want compliance, but it can be difficult in some cases. Attorney Wilson said if commissioners really do want to effect change, they have to be willing to use the criminal option when necessary. Each case is unique.

Attorney Wilson referred to the notice to title as an effective tool and it is low cost to the county in that you don’t have to litigate the case and have a judgement from the court if commissioners choose to adopt the language that is presented, but it does provide some level of protection for subsequent purchasers. Attorney Wilson said he’s found that notice to title is an effective tool, because when people go to sell their house in the future, there is a strong incentive to get that notice to title removed and correct the error, otherwise the property is not nearly as marketable. Chairman Bertling said he doesn’t mind the notice to title, but he has a tough time with everything going to a misdemeanor. Also, he doesn’t mind the fine of $1,000.00, but that fine every day is excessive. Attorney Wilson said when it comes to every day violations, we’re not saying we’re going to charge 365 counts. This is more so included so there is no argument and the county doesn’t lose the right to seek relief. Chairman Bertling said he can see that being misunderstood. Commissioner Robertson said it’s not saying current commissioners, or a future board, or prosecutors are going to do that, but it just gives the authority to do so. It could be good or bad. An overzealous board or prosecutor could do that. Attorney Wilson said yes, that is how it’s written. Chairman Bertling said there is a possibility that could be abused. Commissioner Robertson said it’s not abuse, it is how code is written. He has a problem in that, if that’s how code is written, that is how it should be enforced and he has a problem with that. Commissioner Robertson said all of this takes time to do it cleanly. We need to go backwards and look at all of our codes and well define what a junk yard is, what this and that is, what constitutes a commercial versus a private junk yard. Get that settled and then revisit the penalties. If we put the cart before the horse in this situation, then it’s enforcing things he may not agree with it. Chairman Bertling said he agrees.

Ms. Marley said she there are a number of things that need to be done and this issue was an early one they were asked to look at. Ms. Marley said she feels a penalty would be appropriate to fix that and she agrees that the junk yard definition needs to be fixed. With the discussion that each day is a separate offense, could the county add language that says, for use in determining the ability to stay in court and not lose the statute of limitations without that being a material change? If it were a material change, it would require another hearing anyhow. Attorney Wilson said he doesn’t know if he can answer the question off the top of his head and he would need to do some research. Attorney Wilson added that he wouldn’t want to completely abandon the possibility that more than one charge might be necessary. The breadth of possibilities in land use violations is so broad that there might be occasions the county would want to impose multiple counts. It’s better to leave this as a discretionary thing. Ms. Marley gave an example of a case where they had posted a stop work order on a violation that was pretty egregious, and the notice was torn down and they went back and forth. By the time the matter went to court it had happened 57 times. The county did have a charge for each day as a separate offense, but the judge determined that it was only one offense. Commissioner Cossairt said we still have some work to do on this. Commissioner Robertson asked about tabling the hearing for a lengthy amount of time so it would allow a few months to fix some other issues.

Commissioner Robertson moved to table or continue the hearing until a future date to allow further consideration of the proposed application or to allow review and approval of written findings and decision. Commissioner Cossairt second. Motion passed unanimously.

The hearing for Planning and Zoning File #23-0180 ended at 2:37 p.m.

2:40 p.m., Commissioners held a public hearing to consider Planning and Zoning Application #24-0029, for Sater, LLC. This is an application for a comprehensive plan amendment and zone change. Present were: Chairman Tim Bertling, Commissioner Wally Cossairt, Commissioner Ben Robertson, Deputy Clerk Michelle Rohrwasser, Planners Tessa Vogel, Clare Marley and Ben Jones, Mercy Bushnell, Applicant Jeff Sater, John Marquette with JRS Surveying, Phil Schnuerle, and Karen Pedey. The hearing was recorded.

Chairman Bertling reviewed the public hearing procedures. Commissioners cited no conflicts of interest.

The applicant is requesting approval for comprehensive plan and zoning change map amendments from Suburban to Rural Community/Commercial for a 1.77-acre portion of a 5.33-acre split-zoned parcel. The parcel is located at 67220 Highway 2 and is identified as parcel RP62N02E172710A.

Ms. Vogel reviewed the staff report and explained the hearing process for a zone change. The parcel is a split-zoned property off of Highway 2. The applicant is looking to have the parcel fully zoned rural community/commercial as opposed to being split zoned. The Planning and Zoning Commission has recommended approval. Ms. Vogel pointed out which Idaho Code standards are applicable and referenced Boundary County Land Use Ordinance Section 18. Ms. Vogel provided background information and explained that the subject property is across from the gun range. The total acreage of the parcel is 5.33-acres and the property does have existing development with individual wells and septic, and it’s in the North Bench Fire Department coverage area. Access is directly off of Highway 2. This parcel is currently zoned both suburban and rural community/commercial. The zone runs through an existing building on the property. Ms. Vogel said the application was routed to agencies for comment. The Idaho Transportation Department explained what they would like to see for conditions for this, but the county code currently does not allow for conditions for zone changes. With future development, if someone wanted to divide or a have a placement permit for commercial uses, then those conditions could occur there, but there is no ability to do that at this stage with a zone change.

Ms. Vogel said Planning received no public comments. The notice was mailed to landowners within 300 feet and was also published in the newspaper and a site posting was done. The staff report slides showed a radius map, photos of the approaches, the applicant’s narrative, and staff notes to that narrative. There is a mini storage unit on site that has been there for years, as well as an existing shop and dwelling. The mini storage is a moderate class use, so it’s permitted in both zones. Ms. Vogel explained when a conditional use permit would be required for the storage units in a suburban zone, but a permit is not required if the zone is rural community/commercial regardless of distance to another property’s structure. The parcel is not within any flood plains, wetlands, etc. Ms. Vogel pointed out the Standards of Analysis of Applicable Codes and she added that there are no conditions since this is not a conditional zone change.

Commissioners had no questions for Ms. Vogel. Chairman Bertling asked the applicant for an opening statement. Mr. Sater said he wants to get a zone change so he can have open air parking on the property with lighting and fencing.
Commissioners opened the hearing to public testimony and asked for comments in favor, uncommitted and opposed to the application. No one from the public commented. The hearing was closed to public testimony. Commissioner Robertson and Commissioner Cossairt said they had no issues with the application.

Commissioner Cossairt moved to approve the request to amend the Boundary County comprehensive plan land use designation map and the zoning map from Suburban to Rural Community/Commercial, File #24-0029, and direct staff to prepare written findings and decision, finding that the proposal is in accord with the comprehensive plan and the criteria of Section 18 of the Boundary County Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance based upon the findings and conclusions as written. This action does not result in a taking of private property. This includes draft findings and conclusions 1 through 17. Commissioner Robertson second. Motion passed unanimously.

The hearing to consider Planning and Zoning File #23-0029 ended at 2:51 p.m.

2:54 p.m., Commissioners held a public hearing to consider Planning and Zoning File #24-0039, for applicant Karen Pedey. Present were: Chairman Tim Bertling, Commissioner Wally Cossairt, Commissioner Ben Robertson, Deputy Clerk Michell Rohrwasser, Planners Tessa Vogel, Clare Marley and Ben Jones, Tom Iverson, Ty Iverson, Road and Bridge Department Co-Superintendents Renee Nelson and Brad Barton, Applicant Karen Pedey, Dick Staples and John Marquette with JRS Surveying, and Mercy Bushnell. The hearing was recorded.

Chairman Bertling reviewed the hearing procedures. Commissioners cited no conflict of interest.

The application is for preliminary plat approval for Raven Ridge at Valley-High Subdivision to divide two, 19.41-acre parcels to create four lots between 6.58 acres and 17.23 acres. The parcels are located in the Suburban zone (2.5-acre minimum lot sizes without community water and sewer services; 1-acre with either community water or sewer). The properties are located on Chokecherry Drive and are identified as parcels RP62N01E210601A and RP62N01E211180A.

Ms. Vogel provided a staff report and explained the application to divide the 19.41 acres into four lots and she referenced the Standards of Review for a rural subdivision and said Section 11 of Ordinance 2023-1 applies. It’s a land division by short plat to create lots primarily intended for residential development. The rural subdivision does not have a limit as to how many lots can be created. County code does not look at that; it looks at zoning and size. The lots run in a north south manner and it’s located in the suburban zone. This zone’s density is based off of services. The parcels are located at the end of a county road. All proposed lots are well above 2.5 acres in size. The lots are to be served by wells, unless Three Mile Water District services are available. Ms. Vogel pointed out the preliminary plat of the proposed lot configuration. Ms. Vogel said services will be Three Mile Water or wells, private septic systems, Northern Lights for electric, and the North Bench Fire District.

Ms. Vogel referenced the preliminary plat and said the large Lot 1 will be 17.23 acres, which is where the existing development lies. Lots 2, 3 and 4 all access off of a shared approach. This is also where any easements for Lots 3 and 4 regarding Three Mile Water District are and they had gone through the variance process. Lot 1 has its own access at 1068 Chokecherry Drive. Ms. Vogel spoke of doing site postings and Ms. Pedey had explained the site layout to her. Ms. Vogel stated where the site postings were placed. Site photos were shown of the accesses for the lots. The application was routed to various agencies. This is not in the city area of impact, but it does border it, so the City of Bonners Ferry was sent a notice of the application. The city had no issues because no city services are provided. Panhandle Health District and Road and Bridge provided comments. No public comments were received on the application when notice was routed to neighbors and the newspaper. Ms. Vogel reviewed pages included in her staff report. The final plat will need to list the level of services for utilities along with special purpose districts. All existing and proposed roads will need to conform with the correct road names and any Road and Bridge standards. All roads on site will need to be in accordance with Section 11.3.6.1., which addresses how roads will be built.

Commissioners had no questions for Ms. Vogel.

Commissioners asked the applicant for an opening statement. Karen Pedey said her biggest goal is to establish this south acreage for her three heirs and she just needed to do legal delineations and a survey to make sure all of the lines were correct for continued use. Ms. Pedey added that this is just preliminary and she doesn’t expect to do any more development for an undetermined length of time. Ms. Pedey said she really appreciates the help she has received in doing this.

Commissioners had no questions for Ms. Pedey.

Chairman Bertling asked Ms. Nelson to speak about the approach. Ms. Nelson said Ms. Pedey has always worked with Road and Bridge. There is an approach permit for the original approach that goes to what is the proposed Lot 1, which is the 17.23-acre lot. Ms. Pedey did go through the process for an accessory dwelling using that same approach, so it has been addressed and the approach fits standards. There are no concerns. Ms. Nelson said Lots 2, 3 and 4 were given a residential approach that provided access to that original lot. It was constructed to standards, but now that it’s going to become a roadway approach it would need to be widened to the south, because there is an existing water meter. Ms. Nelson said within the county right-of-way, Ms. Pedey has a place to widen it to meet county standards. That is what Road and Bridge requested as a condition of the plat, that the residential approach is upgraded to a roadway approach permit, and widen it and so that work is done being constructed prior to anything in the subdivision, and that it be paved from the road edge of Chokecherry Drive to the right-of-way line with the 40 feet and three inches compacted, which is normally requested for a subdivision off of a paved road. Proposed Lots 2 and 3 will have access from that same proposed new roadway approach. If you look at that flag lot, the way you can see the existing approach, that is the original location of the existing residential approach that was for the whole lot. Lots 2, 3 and 4 are supposed to have use of that and that was something the surveyor mentioned that would have to be showing an easement to Lot 2. Other than that, Lots 3 and 4 have to do with fixing the approach as they do have the proper site distance, distance from existing approaches, etc.

Chairman Bertling opened the hearing and asked for public comment from those in favor, uncommitted and opposed to the application. No one spoke. Chairman Bertling closed the hearing to public testimony. Commissioner Cossairt and Commissioner Robertson had no issues with the application.

Commissioner Cossairt moved to approve the preliminary plat for the Raven Ridge Valley-High Subdivision, a proposed rural subdivision, File #24-0039, and direct staff to prepare written findings, a decision, and terms and conditions of approval, finding that the preliminary plat is in accord with the applicable zoning and subdivision standards of the Boundary County Land Use Ordinance, based on the findings and conclusions as written. This action does not result in a taking of private property. This includes draft findings and conclusions 1 through 11 and draft conditions of approval 1 through 8. Commissioner Robertson second. Motion passed unanimously.

The hearing to consider Planning and Zoning File #24-0039 ended at 3:10 p.m.

3:10 p.m., Commissioners held a public hearing to consider Planning and Zoning File #24-0046 for Applicant Maas Loop, LLC. Present were: Chairman Tim Bertling, Commissioner Wally Cossairt, Commissioner Ben Robertson, Deputy Clerk Michelle Rohrwasser, Planners Clare Marley, Tessa Vogel and Ben Jones; Carol Lucero, Russ Mass, Cindy Maas, Tracie Isaac, Delton Isaac, Pam and Mike Rothrock, Lori Sheppard, Keith and Shirley Bitton, Sheila Webb, Road and Bridge Department Co-Superintendents Renee Nelson and Brad Barton, Fred Maas, Edie Guthrie, Dick Staples with JRS Surveying, Bridget Zills, and Jim Wadel. The hearing was recorded.

Chairman Bertling reviewed the public hearing procedures. Commissioners cited no conflicts of interest.

The applicant is requesting preliminary plat approval of Maison Estates Subdivision to divide four, 4.56-acre parcels, totaling 18.24 acres to create six, 2.5-acre lots and one, 3.24-acre lot. The parcel is located off Maas Loop in the residential zone, which requires a .5-acre minimum lot size when community water and sewer services are not available. The properties will use private wells and septic systems and are identified as Assessor’s Parcels RP62N02E162450A, RP62N02E162413A, RP62N02E162850A, and RP62N02E162900A.

Commissioners asked for a staff report. Ms. Vogel explained the request to divide the parcel into smaller lots. This being a rural subdivision there is no limit to the number of lots and because the lots are 2.5 acres or greater in size, this is not a long plat and didn’t need to go through two public hearings. Ms. Vogel’s presentation included an aerial view showing the four parcels; two of the northern parcels have access off of Maas Loop and the remaining two southern parcels will have access off of a shared easement that will run down the middle. The zoning is residential, even though there are agricultural uses the zoning is really residential and it’s based off of services. Lots can be reduced to ¼ acre if there is both community water and sewer or down to one acre if you have one or the other. Where you don’t have those services at all, the minimum lot size is 2.5 acres. The applicant proposes that the services are going to be private wells and septic systems, so they don’t have the community services and lots cannot go below 2.5 acres.

Access is directly off of the county road and Maas Loop. Ms. Vogel said her staff report shows an aerial of the preliminary plat and there are six lots at 2.5 acres and one lot at 3.24 acres. There is Maas Loop to the north and then there will be a shared easement running down to Lot 7. Ms. Vogel explained visiting the site for site notice postings and showed pictures of the proposed access. The application was routed to agencies for comment and the Addressing Coordinator, County Assessor, Department of Environmental Quality, Idaho Transportation Department, Panhandle Health District, TC Energy and County Road and Bridge provided comments. Comments received from the public did not come in prior to the completion of the staff report, but did come in afterwards. Comments were received from Delton and Tracie Isaac, Carol Lucero, Edie Guthrie, and Loretta Sheppard who voiced various similar concerns over contamination of wells, the road, water rights, safety concerns for the farming operation, pedestrian safety, and protecting the rural quality of life. Ms. Vogel explained that when public comments are received, they develop a radius map showing where these residents live in relation to the subject site. Notice of the application and hearing are mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the subject site. Ms. Vogel explained the remaining pages of her staff report presentation to include the Standards of Analysis and evidence of applicable codes and comprehensive plan, draft findings and conclusions for discussion and draft conditions of approval. Ms. Vogel said there are the standard conditions, but there are also the standards for Road and Bridge, which Ms. Nelson can review. The conditions set by TC Energy are also provided to be considered.

Ms. Nelson said for the proposed 1 to 7 lots, they’re to be accessed from a roadway approach off of Maas Loop. Road and Bridge did issue Approach Permit #23034 for that approach in conjunction with the parcel division from the one parcel to the four parcels, with Planning and Zoning File #21-0183. As terms and conditions of that division, the applicant was to complete an approach permit with Road and Bridge and construct the approach once the parcel division was approved. The landowner at that time, which has now changed, did come and get the approach permit, but never completed the construction at all. As a condition of the subdivision, Road and Bridge Department’s request is for the landowner to complete a roadway approach for the subdivision and that the approach construction has to be completed before there is any further work inside the subdivision to maintain Maas Loop. Maas Loop is a paved county road and that’s the one way the county can maintain the road for the rest of the traveling public. Road and Bridge also requests it to be paved from the road edge of Maas Loop to the right-of-way line for a width of 40 feet and a minimum thickness of three inches compacted prior to any work within the subdivision in order to maintain the integrity of Maas Loop. There is already a private road name approved, Spud Way, so Road and Bridge would request that the road sign and regulatory stop sign for the private road be purchased by the landowner and Road and Bridge can install it in the right-of-way prior to the subdivision being used, because that helps control traffic from the proposed new subdivision onto Maas Loop. There also needs to be a correction to the plat since it still shows Maas Loop Road and it should be just Maas Loop as the approved county road name. The approved name for the subdivision is Spud Way; not Mino Lane, according to Ms. Nelson. Ms. Nelson reviewed draft conditions of approval No. 8 a, b and c and said those were correct.

Chairman Bertling asked for the applicant to give an opening statement. John Marquette with JRS Surveying represented Applicant Greg Johnson. Mr. Marquette said he submitted the application for Greg Johnson who was representing the landowner and Ms. Vogel has already given all of the pieces of information that he could.

Commissioners opened the hearing to public testimony and asked for comments from those in favor of the application as well as uncommitted to the application. No one spoke. Commissioners then asked for public comment from those in opposition to the application. Russ Maas said he and his wife own property to the north of the proposed subdivision and they have no issue with four lots they were informed of. Water was going to be provided by the City of Moyie Springs and it was going to come off of Cinnamon Lane. Mr. Maas said they were surprised when a well was drilled close to Maas Loop next to their property. If more wells are drilled, will that affect his well, which he has water rights to and it’s located above the same property. Who would be responsible for that? The current wells have been in place since the early 1960s. Mr. Maas questioned what the plan is for keeping kids, dogs and cats off of their property when haying starts. Is a privacy fence going to be put up? He’s not going to go to someone’s house to let them know that he’s going to start cutting hay and to keep the kids and pets inside. This project will have a detrimental impact on the quiet loop. The proposed development is simply too large for the area. The increase will put a strain on everyone involved and lead to increased traffic and noise, which would result in significant environmental damage. It would destroy natural habitat and put wildlife at risk.

Carol Lucero, 151 Winchester Road, commented that her maiden name is Maas. Ms. Lucero said she’s lived in this area most of her life and her grandkids live there now, fifth generation in the area. Ms. Lucero said the letter she submitted was summarized earlier, but she has questions and if the developer was here, he might’ve had answers. Can the developer, Planning and Zoning and commissioners reassure them that all of their concerns will be addressed? If yes, what are the thoughts and actions to preserve and manage the current lifestyle created and maintained on Maas Loop? Can the developer be held accountable legally to maintain property lines with respect to adjacent landowners or does the burden of any impact due to the subdivision fall on the shoulders of the people who already live there? If the developer is granted the ability to subdivision into seven lots, does that mean that Commissioners do not believe that the public’s concerns are valid? If granted, does this shift a complete power control or rights to the developer and take away rights, power and lifestyle of the people who have lived on Maas Loop for decades? A win-win would be allowing four lots in the subdivision with less impact to Maas Loop and the community.
Loretta Sheppard said her property is adjacent to that piece of ground. Ms. Sheppard explained looking out her windows at the Selkirk Mountain range and she gets sick to her stomach thinking if this project goes through, she will lose her view of 32 years. In its place will be roofs, people, barking dogs, screaming kids, and numerous cars. There will be people who complain about everything. Complaints will come from the dust of farming and animals. They live in a very quiet area and they don’t need noise pollution. Ms. Sheppard said one of her concerns is fire and lack of fire protection, and loss of her privacy for not only her, but everyone on the bench. The front of her home is all glass and this will allow snooping neighbors to look inside her home. Ms. Sheppard said her property is fenced, but it doesn’t stop people from trespassing. The no trespassing sign at the end of her driveway has not stopped people from coming in. The idea of hearing screaming kids and barking dogs and speeding cars that throw dust, landing on her home that she will have to clean off. Ms. Sheppard added that she is in the golden years of her life and does not plan to move. Blowing garbage is another concern; who is going to clean it up? Homeowner’s insurance rates and property taxes will escalate. Another very important point is if a fire were to start up in the field from those houses, and spread to her house, it would devastate the entire bench. Her home is made from logs and treated with preservatives every few years and if it caught fire, it would burn for a month. Ms. Sheppard asked Commissioners to please deny the subdivision.

Delton Isaac said he doesn’t understand why people want to tear up a 20-acre piece of farmland and put houses on it. Money is the worst evil. As we grow up and leave our footprint on this earth of what we do, it will follow you. It doesn’t matter if it’s good or bad; it will follow you. Mr. Isaac said he considers this bad, because good land is torn up, subdivided and houses are built on it. Instead of building on a rocky piece of ground, their building right in the middle of the field. Someday we’re going to have trouble finding a place to grow feed and hay is more often getting so you can’t find it to feed the animals. Mr. Isaac said he and his wife are building a house on a rocky knob. He’s taken 20 acres of ground and cleaned it up and now they have 20 acres to replace what the developer is destroying. That makes it a little better, but they’re still losing 20 acres. Water is the most precious thing on earth and aquifers are a very important source of water. As the developer drills down into this aquifer and even putting six houses above these wells that they’re drilling, the developer says they’re so deep that the sewers can’t affect it, but he doesn’t believe it. Mr. Isaac explained digging his crawl space and how he found a funny looking rock hole or crevasse. It rained really hard one night and in two hours that water was gone. He took a two-inch high-volume water pump and tried to get the hole to stop running water, but it just kept sucking it up. It’s just going to take a hole like that in that field from the developer’s well, from their sewers above their well, to contaminate it. It’s common sense to know what is going to happen. The six fresh water springs they have up there, they are a relief value for the aquifer. Springs push water out when nature puts in too much. If the developer is going to do this, they should know what they’re doing and find out what’s underneath the ground. Mr. Isaac said these springs are wonderful water and they’re in different areas. They’re all fresh water springs at five to 10 gallons per minute and they just keep running going on 50 some years now that he’s aware of, but probably 100 years before that. Mr. Isaac said nobody’s done a water study. If the developer is going to do this, they should know what they’re doing.
Edie Maas Guthrie said if there are seven homes built, there are about three cars per household, so that could be 21 more cars. Will the road have to be widened and residents have to give an easement and give more of their property? Chairman Bertling said no, the county won’t be looking for more property to widen the road. Ms. Guthrie said she also owns an 18-acre alfalfa field there and they do farm it, so it gets dusty and they spray for weeds and gophers. Sometimes they farm early in the morning and late at night. Will new residents complain about that, because the area is zoned residential and they’re doing agriculture? Can they stop people from farming? Commissioner Robertson said no. Ms. Vogel and Ms. Marley said the right to farm is a state law. Commissioner Robertson said he farms as well and can see her concerns. He farms around houses, too, and if she’s going to farm at night, then she’s going to do that and he farms at night as well. Ms. Guthrie mentioned that the area there is a beautiful community and she hopes commissioners have all been there and seen it before making any decisions. Chairman Bertling said that is his usual bike route. Ms. Guthrie said seven houses is a lot.

Fred Maas explained that he lives right down the road form the site. Mr. Maas asked who the applicant is? Commissioners and Ms. Marley said Maas Loop, LLC. Chairman Bertling said commissioners don’t have the information as to who the owner of the LLC is. Mr. Maas asked about commissioners not doing their homework to see who is behind this and see if the applicant has done bad work before or if they’re reputable. Chairman Bertling explained that being outside of commissioners’ scope and they have to follow the zoning laws. Ms. Marley added that is totally out of commissioners’ realm as commissioners have to look at the capacity of the land, what it is zoned and road issues, and they have to look at what the applicant is doing, not who they are. Mr. Maas questioned who would be on the bill if the developer sucked the water from their springs? Chairman Bertling said they would need to contact the Idaho Department of Water Resources. Chairman Bertling added that he looked at the water logs and the number of wells there. There is one well that is not registered. The well that was just drilled had 22 gallons per minute, the static water is at 100 feet and they went down 300 feet for that well. It would be who had wells first.

Commissioner Robertson said he would assume the public has water rights recorded by date. Russ Maas explained that he visited the Idaho Department of Water Resource Office to talk about this project and he was told to monitor his well for changes.

Mike Rothrock, 168 Dawson, asked who sets the standards for subdivisions in Boundary County, because from what he’s heard, they’re not in favor of small acreages, especially in rural communities. Chairman Bertling said standards were set by the Planning and Zoning Commission probably 20 years ago and there had been public hearings for this. Chairman Bertling added that this is something new for the community and he doesn’t want to see fields turned into subdivisions, but unfortunately the commissioners have to go by what is allowed in the ordinance. Mr. Maas asked what can be done to change what is in the books? Ms. Marley said commissioners would have to look at the comprehensive plan. In Boundary County the comprehensive plan and zoning are identical, so you’d want to review the comp plan first to see if commissioners need to rethink some of the areas that are agricultural. Mr. Rothrock said he’s a newcomer here, but in the six years they’ve been here, all they’ve seen is expansion and it is ruining this community.

Jim Wadel said he lives about 1,000 feet from where the subdivision is going to be. Fifty years ago, there was no water system in that area. A neighbor drilled an artesian well and water ran over the top for a month. The neighbors got together and bought the well and put in a tank, but after 30 or 60 days it pretty much went dry. The experts said they had drilled into an underground lake and he commented about that source being depleted. Mr. Wadel questioned if any water that trickles in where wells will be drilled be a part of that lake?

Commissioners closed the hearing to additional public testimony and called for discussion amongst themselves. Ms. Marley mentioned that the applicant has the ability to make a rebuttal. Mr. Marquette said he feels he’s not prepared or able to give a rebuttal on behalf of the applicant to anyone. Mr. Marquette added that JRS Surveying was just contacted to lay something out based on what someone said is who representing the owner of the property who he’s never personally met.

Commissioner Robertson had a question for staff and asked to readdress the concerns of the Department of Water Quality. If an agency raises a concern, is that a reason to pause or deny? Ms. Vogel said it’s not a standard for the county’s code. The county’s code has no standards in regard to services, other than if you’re going to be on a community system, you would need provide a will-serve letter, so until this county has a standard that you have to prove you can have wells or septic systems or a permit has to be done prior to, that’s not an actual standard of review for a subdivision. If commissioners want that, it would take a text amendment because it’s not currently in county code for any type of subdivision. Ms. Marley explained that commissioners can weigh the evidence and the current standards under each of decisions they have to make, one says each lot created is or can be served by sewer or private septic system. So, if an applicant can’t show that, it might be something to ask for proof of. Ms. Marley added that for the water, it’s each lot created is or can be served by a water district, community system or private well. So, it’s a matter of having something showing that it’s true, according to Ms. Marley. Chairman Bertling commented that the Department of Water Quality stated, if the proposed wells and septic systems are later found to be infeasible, the proposed lots would be undevelopable until served from a public drinking water. Chairman Bertling said he’s concerned that if the developer cannot do that, they will try to proceed anyway and just develop the lots, but he would like to have the developer show that Panhandle Health does agree to septic and show that the Department of Water Resources does agree that the developer can put in that many wells in one area. Chairman Bertling said he personally doesn’t see that it would be feasible, so he would like to see that blessing before moving ahead with this.

Chapter 11.6.1.3. is what commissioners have to consider and Ms. Marley reviewed the chapter. Commissioner Robertson said our code states these lots could be serviced by private well and water, but the concern raised by the Department of Environmental Quality throws that into question if it can be met. Ms. Vogel replied that the agency is just making a note that they have a concern about that many wells within a small proximity. Commissioner Robertson said if they can’t, then they have a 2.5-acre lot that is unbuildable. Ms. Vogel and Ms. Marley agreed. Ms. Marley added that commissioners would not want to approve the application if they know it is undevelopable. Commissioner Robertson asked what if commissioners don’t know? This has a more of a significant impact and unknown than it would if it were a 5-acre lot. Commissioner Cossairt said we’re not going to know until the developer drills wells. Commissioner Robertson commented with that being said, is it the county’s problem if the developer does not hit water? It’s not; it’s a landowner’s issue. Ms. Marley commented that Boundary County doesn’t require demonstration wells as part of its subdivision process. Ms. Vogel gave an example of a similar situation when commissioners considered an application for a subdivision of 17 lots on Chokecherry Drive. Commissioner Robertson said he can see that there have been mistakes in the county’s plan that have been going on for a long time and he knows that this is not the right setting to fix that as the right setting would be to draft a new plan. Unfortunately, what the applicant has fits the current ordinance and the only thing is the water issue and uncertainty of what they said. Commissioner Robertson added that he’s 100% behind farmers being able to farm day or night, whenever they need to. For Idaho, that’s the way it works and he feels for everyone involved with that. Chairman Bertling said when an applicant has this sort of proposal for that many wells in a certain amount of area, it should be a minimum of five-acre lot sizes. Commissioner Robertson said he totally agrees with that, but unfortunately, we’re passed that at this point. Commissioner Robertson addressed comments to include trespassing and he said it’s tough, but that is a law enforcement issue. Neighbors can often times be difficult. Chairman Bertling asked if the law requires the landowner to fence the perimeter? Ms. Marley said the county code doesn’t. Ms. Marley mentioned that commissioners have not heard from the applicant and she thinks hearing from them can help answer some questions. Ms. Vogel said Mr. Marquette with JRS Surveying stated he couldn’t rebut any of the comments. Ms. Vogel added that the surveying group is not actually a part of the development in any manner other than they mapped out where the lots are going to go. Ms. Marley said commissioners are lacking information on the wells, if exploration was done for septic tanks, disposal systems, etc. Chairman Bertling said he would like to hear from the developer and Commissioner Robertson said he was comfortable with that.

Commissioner Robertson moved to table or continue the hearing to Tuesday, April 9, 2024, at 1:30 p.m. to allow further consideration of the proposal or to allow review and approval of the written findings and decision. Commissioner Cossairt second. Motion passed unanimously.

The hearing ended at 4:05 p.m.

4:05 p.m., there being no further business, the meeting recessed until tomorrow at 1:30 p.m.

***Tuesday, March 12, 2024 at 1:30 p.m., Commissioners met in regular session with Commissioner Wally Cossairt, Commissioner Ben Robertson, Clerk Glenda Poston, and Deputy Clerk Michelle Rohrwasser. Chairman Tim Bertling was out of the office.

Commissioner Robertson moved to appoint Commissioner Wally Cossairt acting chairman in the absence of Chairman Tim Bertling. Commissioner Cossairt second. Motion passed unanimously.

1:30 p.m., Bureau of Land Management (BLM) District Manager Kurt Pindel, Field Manager Ray Pease and Acting Public Affairs Officer Michael Traver-Greene joined the meeting to discuss matters relating to BLM. Mr. Pindel explained the region his office covers, which is from McCall all of the way north. The BLM has only 2,087 acres in Boundary County. The BLM has a total of 58 employees for the two field offices. Mr. Pindel explained having a lot of recreational properties. Those present discussed BLM land closures when there are fires, but notices are provided. A Federal Register Notice is published for 30 days, but when there is a fire going on, that’s impractical. The Great American Outdoors Act makes funding available for improvements and the BLM is improving 14 of their recreation sites. Those sites will be closed during that time as the BLM cannot have a contractor doing work with the public wandering around, so they need to close the area for a while. Mr. Pindel said they will do their best to let the public know when this work happens, but there are no closures planned for Boundary County.

The BLM tries to produce five million board feet of timber each year. Mr. Pindel said the Department of Interior didn’t totally buy into the Good Neighbor Authority program, but he hopes to get that solved and put that same legislation from the Forest Service to the BLM. The BLM is trying to rebuild its staff after COVID-19 and trying to recruit and retain staff has been difficult, but they have been able to increase staff. Recreational staff was increased during COVID-19 and the BLM will ask for increased fees in order to level out with the state, but it’s doubling up for the BLM. Mr. Pindel said 80% of the fees for a recreational site goes back to that specific site. Those present discussed people recreating during COVID-19 and Mr. Pindel explained to commissioners that Kootenai County had adopted an ordinance prohibiting Washington State residents from recreating on Kootenai County property and the same was attempted for the State of Idaho.

Mr. Pease discussed the increased development in the Spokane Valley consisting of apartment complexes, so with social media information there are a lot more people showing up at recreational sites now. Mr. Pease spoke of having to post signs that certain activities are not authorized, but when people post social media pictures doing these same activities, the public thinks it’s allowed. The BLM has one officer that covers the five northern counties, as well as having an officer for the Cottonwood District.

Mr. Pease commented on having fire-resistant communities and having foresters, but it’s intermittent work in Boundary County.

Parks and Recreation Board members Pam Copeland and Sarah Skinner joined the meeting at 1:57 p.m.

The meeting with Mr. Pindel, Mr. Pease and Mr. Traver-Greene ended at 2:01 p.m.

Ms. Skinner informed Commissioners that she and Ms. Copeland were representing the Skateboard Park Alliance. The Skateboard Park Alliance has been raising funds for almost two years and they have raised $11,000.00 so far and there is $2,400.00 in a trust with the county. Ms. Copeland presented Commissioners with their vision and mission statement and she explained they’re all in favor of getting the skate park built, but not maintaining it. Where the old skate park was is where this new location is proposed. Ms. Copeland spoke of trying to hold public relation events in hopes of raising funds for the new plan, but then the cost of the plan has increased to $17,000.00. They’re still moving ahead. Ms. Skinner listed the upcoming event of a spring clean-up. Those present reviewed a rendering for a new skate park. The plan is for all concrete. Ms. Copeland mentioned that there are a lot of grant opportunities for skateparks.

The meeting with Ms. Copeland and Ms. Skinner ended at 2:14 p.m.

2:32 p.m., University of Idaho Extension Educator Amy Robertson and University of Idaho Northern District Director Rusty Gosz joined the meeting.

Ms. Robertson explained having been able to use a particular safe to store funds associated with market animal sales, but learning that she won’t be able to use this safe going forward. Idaho Counties Risk Management Program (ICMRP) is concerned about insurance covering the safe the Extension Office would need to use instead. Ms. Robertson mentioned that she hasn’t seen the email from ICRMP. Commissioner Robertson said this has been a non-issue for the years he’s been on the Fair Board. Ms. Robertson said the checks have been in the safe for only one night, but she’s been told they can no longer keep those funds in that location. Commissioner Robertson said it makes the most sense to put the safe used for market animal sales in the Fair Office.

Mr. Gosz introduced himself to commissioners and explained his goal of cultivating healthy relationships and wanting to meet with various counties. Those present discussed staffing matters and having a Master Gardener Program staff member filling in on a temporary basis. Commissioner Robertson said he felt the position for the Agriculture Educator should be posted soon and not wait until summer. It was mentioned that everything is running well for the Extension Program in Boundary County.

The meeting with Ms. Robertson and Mr. Gosz ended at 3:00 p.m.

There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 3:00 p.m.

_________________________________
TIM BERTLING, Chairman
ATTEST:

__________________________________
GLENDA POSTON, CLERK
By: Michelle Rohrwasser, Deputy Clerk