***Monday, August 28, 2023, 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., Commissioners discussed proposed hours of operation at the main landfill. Commissioner Robertson said he wants to see how the schedule works with the compactors first. Commissioners questioned what is needed for a compaction truck. Assistant Landfill Superintendent Richard Jenkins has talked with Frederickson’s B.F. Garbage about compaction trucks, according to Chairman Bertling. Chairman Bertling said he doesn’t have any issue using Local Assistance and Tribal Consistency Fund (LATCF) funds to purchase a compacting truck. Commissioner Robertson spoke of having a hard time finding a nicer used truck and the trucks he did find were back east.

The meeting to discuss hours of operation and the landfill ended at 9:30 a.m.

Commissioner Cossairt moved to sign a Certificate of Residency for Jacob Ramsey. Commissioner Robertson second. Motion passed unanimously.

Commissioner Cossairt moved to approve minutes of August 21 & 22, 2023. Commissioner Robertson second. Motion passed unanimously.

9:31 a.m., County Civil Attorney Tevis Hull joined the meeting to update them on various matters he’s working on.

9:42 a.m., Commissioner Robertson 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 Cossairt second. Commissioners voted as follows: Chairman Bertling “aye”, Commissioner Cossairt “aye” and Commissioner Robertson “aye”. Motion passed unanimously. The executive session ended at 10:03 a.m. No action was taken.

10:03 a.m., Austin Terrell with the Office of Species Conservation and Rob Morris with Idaho Department of Fish and Game joined the meeting. Mr. Terrell presented Commissioner with a flyer depicting a grizzly bear eating on a cow carcass and it explains the new livestock carcass removal program. Mr. Terrell mentioned putting on a bear fair sometime in late September and he listed what activities are planned. Brochures will be handed out on the livestock carcass pickup program and they will do public outreach. Mr. Terrell said he’s hoping to pick up the trailer used for this program this week. A contract will be signed between the Office of Species Conservation, Idaho Department and Fish and Game and Boundary County, but there won’t be an exchange of funds. Chairman Bertling spoke of an incinerator program in Canada where carcasses are burned in that process.

Commissioner Robertson moved to sign the Cooperative Agreement/Memorandum of Understanding with the Idaho Office of Species Conservation and the Idaho Department of Fish and Game pertaining to the livestock carcass removal program. Commissioner Cossairt second. Motion passed unanimously.

The meeting with Mr. Terrell and Mr. Morris ended at 10:26 a.m.

Commissioner Cossairt moved to sign the Engagement Letter with Scott Hoover, CPA for the fiscal year 2023 county audit. Commissioner Robertson second. Motion passed unanimously.

Commissioner Cossairt moved to sign the Notice of Award and Construction Agreement for the Boundary County Airport Slope Stabilization Project. Commissioner Robertson second. Motion passed unanimously.

Commissioner Cossairt moved to approve the New Private Road Name Request Form for Jewell Ridge Road. Commissioner Robertson second. Motion passed unanimously.

11:00 a.m., Smith Lake Road residents Steve Harris, Rob and Kathy Wenzel and Joe McClure joined the meeting.

Mr. Harris explained that they live up Smith Lake Road. Mr. McClure lives across from the day use area of the Smith Lake campground and the Wenzels live one-half mile around the corner at Texas Lane and Smith Lake Road. Mr. Harris said over the past couple of years there have been a lot of instances of kids raising hell and last winter was horrific. Mr. Harris explained people backing a truck up on the boat ramp and putting pallets on the lake and using gas for a fire. Mr. Harris said from his house you can see the dock, but according to the Sheriff’s Office it’s not illegal to have a fire on the ice. It looks like a bunch of kids. Mr. Harris said he also texted the game warden and the Forest Service law enforcement officer. Mr. Harris voiced concerns regarding the use of gas and the pallets having screws and other debris. He took pictures of the area the next day showing brackets and screws left from the pallets and beer bottles. There was a large charcoal pile. An agency had to clean it up, but otherwise all of that debris will sink to the bottom of the lake. Mr. Harris said he saw the game warden taking pictures of all of the fires and he asked the game warden about pictures. It’s pretty much a weekend occurrence and from what he’s heard, people can have a fire, but it’s the garbage. Mr. Harris said anything that floats flows down to where he lives and the residents are trying to do what they can to improve conditions. Mr. Harris said he talked to District Forest Ranger Kevin Knauth and Mr. Knauth was in favor of putting up a gate and he encouraged talking with Commissioners about it. Mr. McClure said there are also problems with older adults who are drinking and partying, and they get more aggressive with you, shooting firearms, etc. There had once been a camp host who tried keeping things under control. The older group of people who show up at the lake still have the attitude that they can do what they want. Law enforcement has said that these adults act like they can do what they want and when a call to the Sheriff’s Office is made and deputies are on the way, the people find out and shut it down before the deputies get there. Even when deputies do catch them, they’re not handing out citations. Mr. McClure said these are the adults in this case and once the deputies leave, they start up again.

Mr. Wenzel said his wife was coming home last weekend a people had started a camp fire when our area was at a Stage 2 fire restrictions and the person was very unfriendly. The person with the fire was very aggressive and these people were drinking and had this fire. Mr. McClure said he’s put up with this issue for three years now and he finally got fed up and put their house up for sale. Ms. Wenzel said they still live there and would like to get this issue resolved. People were racing their vehicles doing time trials through the park and dock area, through the camp ground, down toward her husband and it was from 1:30 a.m. to 3:00 a.m. and when deputies are on the way, these people shut down. They have their vehicles and come shine their spotlights. These areas are now owned by people, according to Mr. Harris. You have to pass various no trespassing signs before you get to his driveway now. It’s not what it used to be and there are now a lot of households up there.

Mr. McClure said the type of people causing issues now are adults and they’re okay until they’ve had too much to drink and they get aggressive.

It was said over the last year and a half the Sheriff’s Office hasn’t done anything. In one case, the deputy didn’t issue citations and this driver had no license plates, no driver’s license, etc., and he wasn’t given one ticket, and it was the same offender multiple different times. Mr. Harris said the residents are just looking for support.

Chairman Bertling said he’s thinking this is more of a law enforcement issue. It was asked how a gate would be achieved and that the Sheriff talked about not being able to do enforcement when there is nothing posted. Mr. Knauth will put up signs, but he doesn’t need permission to put up a gate. It was said this will help prevent kids from bringing in their trucks and pallets. Mr. Knauth is in favor of installing a gate and he would talk to Road and Bridge about snow removal. It was said there have been fires in the restrooms and Mr. Knauth and Steve Petesch with the Forest Service have had to clean them up. A gate would just be a temporary one and if it gets bad, it would be locked at night. It’s just a gate in the winter to prevent garbage on the lake and it could be left open from Memorial Day to Labor Day.

Those present discussed a noise ordinance.

Chairman Bertling said this starts with the Forest Service. The Sheriff’s Office is its own entity and Commissioners don’t have authority over that office.

It was said that in the one particular case with a driver, there were five citations so at least issue one citation. Commissioner Robertson said he agrees that the Sheriff’s Office should be enforcing this, but Commissioners can’t mandate the Sheriff’s Office. Mr. McClure said Mr. Knauth just wants Commissioners to be aware. There will be a petition sent to the Forest Service and they will push hard to have something done. Mr. McClure said residents are just done with this and they will try to be proactive, but it’s a matter of time before someone gets hurt. Ms. Wenzel said she spoke to the Sheriff about it and he said he would let the deputies doing patrols know, etc., but unfortunately their patrol shift ends at a certain time and it’s the shift through the middle of the night when this happens.

Mr. McClure said you don’t see families in that area anymore. The last family they saw hooked up their camper and left at 3:00 a.m. due to these issues.

Chairman Bertling said the biggest thing is the opening and closing of the gate. Mr. Harris said it would just be opened from Memorial Day to Labor Day to start. A park host is wanted, but there is no electricity there. Ms. Wenzel said the goal is to keep trucks out of the day use area and she reiterated that people are running time trials. Mr. Harris said it’s literally called Smith Lake Subdivision in the Assessor’s Office and more people are moving up there. The noise and music travels across the lake.

Mr. McClure commented that he would’ve never bought his property had he known this area’s reputation. Chairman Bertling said they will have conversations with the Sheriff and Mr. Knauth. Commissioner Robertson said he’s apprehensive about gates in general. Mr. Harris said over the last three winters trucks have backed to the lake. Commissioner Robertson said he’s not in favor of that. The laws should be enforced. Commissioner Robertson added that there is a snowball effect with gates and it could end up with there being no access to the lake. Mr. Wenzel said nobody would put up with this in town. He added that he’s a firefighter and people had a fire when the area was in Stage 2 restrictions. There was a fire on the ramp and when the fire department came up, the kids were filing out. It was said that you can still get down to fish and there is still the campground, but they’re trying to prevent drinkers, etc. The Forest Service only has one law enforcement employee and this person is not working in the area. Commissioner Robertson mentioned that he didn’t want the residents to take it that he’s not sympathetic to them.

Mr. Harris said on September 23, 2022 and September 29, 2022, the same kid lit a fire during Stage 2 restrictions and it was still warm and dry. Kids lit a fire on September 29th at 8:20 p.m. and Mr. Wenzel was called to get the fire department and the Sheriff to respond. The week prior, it was suggested that pictures be taken. Less than a week later there was a fire on the boat ramp, but when someone drives up, the fire suddenly goes out. The kids get alerts that law enforcement is on the way and when they drive up, the cars leave. Mr. Harris said once when he’s shown up, Mr. and Ms. Wenzel were there and the kids had already left. Three fire trucks show up, but the Sheriff did not. The logs were kicked into the lake. It’s the same kid, because the Sheriff’s Office doesn’t do anything. Nobody holds anybody accountable up there and it’s the same kid over and over. Commissioner Robertson said we have an enforcement issue.

Mr. McClure said he knows nobody is in favor of gates, but they could just be locked at a certain time in the evening and opened in the morning. Chairman Bertling said Commissioners will talk with the Sheriff’s Office and Mr. Knauth. Ms. Wenzel said these partiers are not even using the water so they can party anywhere. Observed drug use was discussed and Ms. Wenzel said issues have been between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 3:00 a.m. Mr. McClure spoke of observing patterns of drug deals occurring daily.

Mr. Harris mentioned that the condition of Smith Lake Road was a lot better last winter than it had been the year before. Chairman Bertling spoke of what is involved in widening the road.

Mr. Wenzel spoke of someone in the area stealing his gas can off the tailgate of his truck while he was there cutting a tree down and having to call dispatch and follow the person. He wants to stop people from partying and have a gate locked at different hours. Mr. Wenzel said he understands Commissioner Robertson about gates, but we need to curtail this. As soon as the Horricks opens their property, it’s going to be another 20 lots. Law enforcement is a last resort. Ms. Wenzel feels there will be more partiers at the lake, because the Horricks gated off their properties so people cannot use that property anymore, which forces people to funnel to the lake. Commissioner Robertson said the offenses listed should be ticketed and he commented on the issues of gates being under more governmental control when there are already measures that should be in place. It’s an enforcement issue, not a law or ordinance issue, according to Commissioner Robertson. Mr. McClure said they want everyone to get on the same page and come to some kind of resolution. It’s taking excuses off of the table, but will people step up and do it. Commissioner Robertson said Commissioners have no authority over the Sheriff. Mr. McClure said Commissioners can provide positive input. Commissioner Robertson said this shouldn’t be happening and he 100% agrees.

The meeting to discuss issues at Smith Lake ended at 12:05 p.m.

Commissioners recessed for lunch at 12:05 p.m.

1:30 p.m., Commissioners reconvened for the afternoon session with Chairman Bertling, Commissioner Cossairt, Commissioner Robertson, Clerk Poston, and Deputy Clerk Rohrwasser.

1:30 p.m., Road and Bridge Department Co-Superintendent Renee Nelson joined the meeting to give the department report. Ms. Nelson presented a written report and reviewed work listed. Ms. Nelson discussed concerns pertaining to work on Mirror Lake Road.

Ms. Nelson spoke of wanting to submit an application to fund improvements for Great Northern Road and Sunset Road to US Highway 95. The application would apply for phase 2 and 3 of the Sunrise Road 100% Plans and the project provides access to Tribe’s project, which is phase 1. It’s like a partnership with the Idaho Transportation Department (ITD) and it also benefits the Tribe to fix impacts. Ms. Nelson said she drafted a design and still working out the estimate. It takes the burden off of the county to provide access to the Tribe’s proposed accesses, etc., and both the road improvements and costs can be included in the application. Ms. Nelson said contingencies would be included for engineering design modifications. If something happens and phase 1 is not completed, the county’s plans would change. The Tribe is meeting with their council for a support letter. Chairman Bertling said this would free up the $250,000.00 for Great Northern Road for use on something else. Commissioner Robertson asked if this application covers everything from Highway 95 to the cul-du sac and Ms. Nelson said yes.

Commissioner Cossairt moved to sign the Idaho Strategic Initiative Grant Program Application for the Sunrise Road-Great Northern Road US-95 Intersection Improvement Project. Commissioner Robertson second. Motion passed unanimously.

The meeting with Ms. Nelson ended at 1:50 p.m.

2:00 p.m., Boundary County Emergency Manager Andrew O’Neel joined the meeting to discuss proposed 2023 State Homeland Security Program (HSHP) projects.

Mr. O’Neel said typically the county receives approximately $30,000.00 through this grant and it’s the same this year, except the state will typically ask that a certain amount be spent on law enforcement. This year 35% needs to be spent on law enforcement and everything else needs to be a qualified purchase. Usually radios and pagers are purchased. Only four of the seven fire agencies requested equipment through this grant. Mr. O’Neel reviewed the Sheriff’s Office request for equipment consisting of a portable radio, two vehicle repeaters and a mobile radio. The fire agencies mostly requested radios and pagers, and evacuation route direction signage was requested by North Bench Fire Department. The other items requested through the grant are training and exercise costs. Commissioners said the requested items sound good.

Mr. O’Neel informed Commissioners that he would like to start a community emergency response team.

Commissioner Cossairt moved to approve the proposed 2023 State Homeland Security Program projects. Commissioner Robertson second. Motion passed unanimously.

The meeting with Mr. O’Neel ended at 2:20 p.m.

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

***Tuesday, August 29, 2023, at 10:00 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.

Travis Stolley joined the meeting at 9:40 a.m.

10:00 a.m., Ben Bernier and Ken Gallagos with Lombard/Conrad Architects, Boundary County Sheriff Dave Kramer, Boundary County Undersheriff Rich Stephens and Boundary County Jail Sergeant Robert Pew joined the meeting to discuss plans for a jail facility remodel or new building as drafted by Lombard/Conrad Architects.

Jon VanGesen also joined the meeting.

Mr. Gallegos provided a report on his assessment of the jail. The current jail is old and it will run into facility issues due to the age of the building. The floor plan is not conducive to today’s way of operating a jail with direct sight lines and it’s also not conducive to a remodel. The square footage doesn’t allow the goal of providing for a certain number of beds. Mr. Bernier said they drafted a few different options for a remodel, but it’s not gaining anything other than four beds. Mr. Gallegos said it’s a very short-term fix to spend money on. If there was an extensive remodel of the existing site and they figured out the number of offices and beds needed, they would add on to the front of the building for offices and public areas and also add a booking area, kitchen, laundry, and sally port intake area on the back side. Mr. Gallegos described materials that would be used to keep people from tossing items into the yard and he said they would look at the existing square footage of the jail to determine how to get a more direct sight line. In doing that, you really take a lot of the structure away from that building as all of the interior walls would be gutted, so the downside is that everyone would have to move out and inmates would need to be housed out of town for approximately 14 months or so. Mr. Bernier said they were running into that issue with a proposed remodel as well so people would need to move out of the building and there is the cost of housing people.

Those present reviewed information on utilizing the areas at the County Annex and it was said it makes sense to have the jail at that location. It would have a fully enclosed sally port and a secure staff entry that is separate from the public and jail.

Mr. Bernier reviewed a proposed 60-bed version of the current jail with a remodel next to the Annex, to include dorms, cell pods, outdoor/indoor recreation areas, a library for video court, kitchen services, booking area, and dispatch center. Mr. Gallegos said with a remodel, dispatch would need to temporarily relocate, but if the project were built at the Annex, it would be new. Mr. Bernier said Sheriff Kramer preferred to consolidate his office at one site.

Those present discussed the cost estimate for remodeling an additional site and Mr. Gallegos explained different areas of cost. Mr. Bernier spoke of costs to house inmates out of county for an extended time and Mr. Gallegos explained direct and indirect costs. Total construction and soft costs to remodel the existing jail is approximately $9,400,000.00.

Undersheriff Stephens stepped out of the meeting at 10:25 a.m.

Constructing an all brand-new facility at the Annex location has more options and the variance is a lot of site development area and more square feet over all. The total construction and soft costs for a new facility at the Annex is approximately $10,000,000.00 to $11,000,000.00. The annex location would provide for a lot longer life. Chairman Bertling said with a new site and looking a long way into the future, would the building be designed to where you could build another story. Mr. Gallegos said it could be designed, but they wouldn’t add another story on the roof. They would propose building cell pods two stories high with a mezzanine and stairs. The day room would need to be bigger due to the number of inmates and meeting jail standards, according to Mr. Gallegos.

Sheriff Kramer commented that Mr. Bernier and Mr. Gallegos bring a lot of knowledge about jails. The Boundary County jail is over 40 years old and it’s running 24/7 constantly so the wear and tear reflects more years. Sheriff Kramer said a proper design will make it more efficient for detention deputies and it wouldn’t be as labor intensive as building a jail that is not properly designed. Currently, the jail has had an assessment, then a firm with experience was brought in, and today we’re over capacity with the anticipation of getting two more inmates. The female population consists of six beds, but the jail had 10 female inmates. The current jail has no medical isolation or screening area. In looking towards the future, it doesn’t look like the inmate population will decline. The Prosecutor’s Office works with the Sheriff’s Office and tries to release people with the use of ankle monitors due to the jail’s size limitation. Sheriff Kramer said building a new facility at the Annex site makes more sense and they wouldn’t have to try to find somewhere to house inmates. Sheriff Kramer spoke of plumbing issues at the jail. A new jail with more bed space could generate revenue when housing certain jurisdiction’s inmates. The Sheriff’s Office could receive $600,000.00 per year to have 20 beds for federal and state inmates. The jail also needs a holding area for work release inmates. Chairman Bertling said as it relates to revenue generated by reserving bed space, are those funds designated for a specific use or can they be used to pay back a loan. It was said it’s more or less an accounts receivable. Commissioner Robertson asked if reserving 20 beds is a guarantee and Sheriff Kramer said he’s not sure about the state, but federal is a guarantee. Commissioner Robertson asked if more bed space would require more staffing. Sheriff Kramer said yes. Sergeant Pew discussed staffing and said they would have a minimum of three staff members for increased inmates. Sheriff Kramer said the jail has two employees on shift now.

Mr. Gallegos commented on staffing and said with a new jail having staff amenities, those are big drivers for employees to come work if they’ve been working in an old building and then there is a new facility with new features. It’s good in helping to bring staff in.

10:36 a.m. Undersheriff Stephens returned to the meeting.

Mr. Gallegos spoke of having worked in remote towns where it’s hard finding contractors. Five years ago, the cost to build was $500.00 per square foot and now we’re reaching $600.00 per square foot and there is a wait time for materials. Those present questioned if the interior walls of the current jail are load bearing walls and Mr. Gallegos said he doesn’t think they are load bearing.

Chairman Bertling said finding a funding source is the hard part. Sheriff Kramer spoke of the USDA grant where it pays 75% of costs. The county would likely receive $30,000.00 to $50,000.00 and then they would offer a long -term low interest loan of about 30 years. To pass this would require a simple majority vote.

Mr. Bernier reviewed the report on the Courthouse and said some of the challenges pertain to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Mr. Bernier said the important part is if an elevator is feasible. An elevator may work to be installed on the back of the Courthouse, through the Department of Motor Vehicles, Assessor’s Office and the lounge area of the women’s restroom on the third floor. Mr. Bernier also spoke of people coming in without going through security or there could be another security area. The work proposed for the Courthouse was based on the ADA checklist. There are unknowns when getting into plumbing and electrical work.

Chairman Bertling spoke of hypotheticals and questioned the process if Commissioners preferred having a new jail built and hiring an architect for design. Mr. Gallegos said if the cost is $50,000.00 or less, the county can pick whoever they want to work with, otherwise they would need requests for quotes for design qualifications. Mr. Gallegos said a lot of design build contactors are smaller so the county would want a contractor who has done this type of build before and can bond to those higher amounts. Mr. Bernier gave an example of timelines once a bond is approved. Chairman Bertling said he wouldn’t want to get into a lot of change orders. Mr. Bernier said the county would go out for requests for proposals for architectural services, then the project is contingent on the bond passing or voter funds and they would have a better cost estimate after that. Sheriff Kramer said he will look into information on federal bed space and get more of a realistic figure. Chairman Bertling said that would be good for the public to know. Mr. VanGesen questioned if there is an opportunity to expand the footprint instead of building up at the Annex.

11:01 a.m., the meeting with Mr. Gallegos and Mr. Bernier ended. Mr. Stolley and Mr. VanGesen left the meeting.

Commissioners discussed their meeting held yesterday with residents near Smith Lake in relation to disturbances and citations. Sheriff Kramer cited Idaho Code and how the deputies have to see what is happening in order to issue a citation.

Sheriff Kramer and Undersheriff Stephens left the meeting at 11:20 a.m.

Commissioners recessed for lunch at 11:30 a.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., Commissioners held a public hearing to consider Planning and Zoning File #23-0112 for applicants Linda and Harold Holloway. Present were: Chairman Tim Bertling, Commissioner Wally Cossairt, Commissioner Ben Robertson, Deputy Clerk Michelle Rohrwasser, Contract Planning Administrator Clare Marley, Contract Planner Tessa Vogel, and Mercy Bushnell with Bushnell Law. The hearing was recorded.

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

Commissioners asked for a staff report. Ms. Vogel said the application is for a comprehensive plan map amendment and zone change from Ag/Forestry to Rural Residential for a 15.8-acre parcel and the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval. Ms. Vogel’s staff report presentation included an aerial view of the property and information on the property being off of a private road, which is off of a public road, and site minimum lot size. A small northeast portion of the property is marine wetlands, but it is not an issue, according to Ms. Vogel. Commissioners reviewed a copy of the zone map and Ms. Vogel explained the color of zone designations. The property is bordered by the railroad to the south and the other sides of the property are zoned ag/forestry. The application was routed to agencies twice and agency comments did not change from the Planning and Zoning hearing with the Addressing Coordinator, Road and Bridge and Panhandle Health District providing comment. The application was also routed to the public and published in the newspaper. Comments were received from Janice and David Eby, Pamela Hartman, and Matthew and Kelin Fuller. Ms. Vogel reviewed a color-coded map and the applicants’ narrative explaining why they want a zone change, which is to be able to split their property in the future and provide some for their grandchildren who want to buy and build.

Ms. Vogel referenced the Standards of Analysis of Applicable Codes and Draft Findings and Conclusions, stating that #14 of the findings is the mention that the Planning and Zoning Commission voted unanimously for approval. There are no conditions to the application as this is not a conditional zone change. Commissioner Cossairt asked about Avista utilities listed in the findings. Ms. Marley said that is how it’s listed on the application and it was stated that #6 of the findings should be amended to Northern Lights Inc. instead of Avista. There were no further questions.

The applicants were not present to give an opening statement. The hearing was opened for public testimony, but no testimony was offered. The hearing was closed to public testimony.

Commissioner Cossairt said he doesn’t have a problem with the application. Commissioner Robertson said he doesn’t like the zone change and he questioned at what point does it end? Chairman Bertling said he does agree with that for the fact that below this parcel it’s five-acres. Commissioner Robertson said you have to draw a line somewhere and that was where it was done in the past. Commissioner Robertson said his problem is when the next property owner wants to reduce their property down to five acres and it keeps going and if we keep saying yes, it just progresses across the board. What is the point of having zones if we’re not going to stand by them? Commissioner Robertson said he’s not saying they shouldn’t look at expanding areas, but he doesn’t think this is the way to go about it. Just expand those areas and not do a piece at a time.

Ms. Marley spoke of the comprehensive plan. Chairman Bertling said if Commissioners approve the application, they can then go back and take a hard look at where the county has five-acre lots mixed in with 10s and 20s. Ms. Marley said it’s handy when it is along section lines. Ms. Vogel said there was a big umbrella term of ag/suburban, but it still had farm designation. Chairman Bertling said up north there was an application by Copeland that was similar to this. Commissioner Robertson said we had the zone change and it was split into two lots. Commissioner Robertson said the application that was done near Copeland was not a zone change, was it? Ms. Vogel said it was a subdivision. Commissioner Robertson said he thinks he’s been through one zone change application and the property was split in half by a zone line. Commissioner Cossairt said he agrees that we need to define areas.

Commissioner Cossairt moved to approve the request to amend the Boundary County comprehensive plan land use designation map and the zoning map from Agriculture/Forestry to Rural Residential, File #23-0112, and direct staff to prepare written findings and a decision, finding that the proposal is in accord with the comprehensive plan and the criteria of Section 18 of the Boundary County Zoning & Subdivision Ordinance, based upon the findings and conclusions as written or amended. This action does not result in a taking of private property, and adding #6 to be amended to state Northern Lights Inc. Commissioner Bertling yielded the chair to second. Commissioners voted as follows: Chairman Bertling “aye”, Commissioner Cossairt “aye” and Commissioner Robertson “nay”. Motion passed.

The hearing for Planning and Zoning File #23-0112 ended at 1:55 p.m.

2:00 p.m., Commissioners held a public hearing to consider Planning and Zoning File #23-0059, a text amendment filed by Boundary County. Present were: Chairman Tim Bertling, Commissioner Wally Cossairt, Commissioner Ben Robertson, Deputy Clerk Michelle Rohrwasser, Contract Planning Administrator Clare Marley and Contract Planner Tessa Vogel. The hearing was recorded.
Chairman Bertling reviewed the public hearing procedures. Commissioners cited no conflicts of interest. Ms. Marley presented a staff report. This process was started by the Planning and Zoning Commission since the law allows them to initiate code amendments. This is a result of the matter involving Struggle Bear LLC. and the definition of what is a dwelling. Also, a citizen this past year asked that Planning and Zoning consider accessary dwelling units (ADU) to be attached as well as detached. Residential and ADU definitions are the primary focus based on Struggle Bear LLC and their attorney. Ms. Marley reviewed the current code for Section 2.56 and she mentioned that Struggle Bear said they met all of these things, but it was crossways so Struggle Bear pulled their applications and said the county’s code doesn’t apply. Ms. Marley said she doesn’t think Struggle Bear has built anything more, but the Planning and Zoning Commission felt this matter needed to be amended. Ms. Marley referred to her information and said that the proposal calls it residential structures; not residential and it will list various dwellings. The new definition for dwelling was reviewed. Not requiring a structure to have a toilet was proposed because you could still have a house without a bathroom. If you have a sink or washup area, it could still be a house. An RV, as defined by Idaho Code, is excluded from the dwelling definition.

Currently the ADU definition says the exterior dimensions of an ADU is 1,050 square feet. Testimony had once been given from someone asking if that could be changed to interior dimensions instead of exterior dimensions. ADUs will allow both attached and detached dwellings. Those present reviewed drawings for different types of ADUs. The Planning and Zoning Commission pointed out this section didn’t need to list the two terms of livings quarters and care taker, but it’s already listed. Commissioner Robertson spoke of people having built their shop/house and it’s over 1,050 feet, but then they build their home. Ms. Marley said the property owner could seek a conditional use permit to allow the two structures to remain. Ms. Marley said if someone wants to build an ADU first, they would limit it to 1,050 square feet, so they work with how that can be done. Commissioner Cossairt said with using interior dimensions, what do you do if they don’t want you in their house? Ms. Marley said if they don’t want someone from the county to come into their house, you just have to trust the information on the application. Those present discussed determining dimensions. Commissioner Cossairt said why not use the exterior dimension instead of interior dimension and increase the size to 1,070 or 1,100 square feet? Chairman Bertling said it’s the same as the Assessor going by aerial photos and not knowing if a structure is one story or two. Commissioner Cossairt asked about accessory dwellings being two stories and Ms. Marley said you have to count both floors and it’s the living area being considered. Commissioner Robertson said if we ever have enforcement, we won’t be able to go into the house. Ms. Marley said you could. Commissioner Robertson said the homeowner would have to allow that and he suggested using exterior dimensions and increasing it to 1,100. Commissioner Robertson questioned the suggested footage of 1,050 and Ms. Marley said she thinks changing the size to 1,100 is an immaterial change and she wouldn’t need to re-advertise for another hearing. Ms. Marley explained that the law requires there be another public hearing when there is a material change, but this is immaterial to add 50 feet. Commissioner Cossairt said he sees going out to check on a permit and when you go to the property the homeowner is not there initially, and when they do come home, they’re not happy. Ms. Marley spoke of Bonner County’s form and how you can fill in where it asks if a county representative needs to make an appointment to visit the property or not when showing up on site to do inspections. Chairman Bertling said this is more so for people who haven’t completed a permit or don’t want people to show up on their property. Ms. Marley said she feels Commissioners could make that change. Commissioner Cossairt said he just thinks it’s easier. Commissioner Robertson said he sees some downfalls. If you allow inspections and only go outside of a structure, you won’t know where the actual wall is if the ADU is attached to a garage.

Ms. Marley mentioned a cross reference correction to Sections 2.55, 2.56. and 2.63.1 pertaining to ADU’s and she said when doing an amendment, the county has to show what text is being taken out and what is being added. ADU’s can be put under Section 2.56 for residential structures as a subsection. Being removed from Section 2.56.1. is multi-family, which is roughly the same reading. This is only a Planning and Zoning Commission decision, unless it’s appealed to Commissioners. It’s more than one single family dwelling. Ms. Marley referenced showing Section 2.56.5 pertaining to interior dimensions and she will add dwelling.

Ms. Marley said this application was routed to agencies, but there were no comments. Three public comments were received at the Planning and Zoning Commission public hearing. Two comments favored using the exterior square footage and a comment from Tom Bushnell about rights of entry into a house and Mr. Bushnell also felt the county should stick with using the exterior measurements.

Ms. Marley said if Commissioners are thinking about the matter of proof of an ADU’s size, it’s better to use exterior dimensions. Ms. Vogel said what could come into play is when there is a question of if a person turns the structure into an entire house rather than an ADU or garage. They wouldn’t need to do inspections on anything, it’s just if something comes up in the future. State law allows the county to ask for that permission. Commissioner Cossairt said if the county wants to use interior square footage, it’s fine, but his thought that using the exterior would be easier. Commissioner Robertson said it would be easier in the long run using the exterior. If there was an ADU on the property, it would be easier than having to do interior design for the Assessor’s purposes.

Ms. Marley said since no one from the public was present at this hearing, Commissioners could skip forward in the process.

Commissioner Cossairt moved to approve the request to update the Boundary County Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance as proposed in File #23-0059, and as recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission with an amendment of the accessory dwelling unit definition to provide a maximum living area of 1,100 square feet exterior dimensions, finding that the proposal is in accord with the comprehensive plan and the criteria of Section 18 of the Boundary County Land Use Ordinance based upon the findings and conclusions as written in the staff report or as amended. Commissioner Robertson second. Motion passed unanimously.

Commissioner Robertson had asked the question of what happens when the building two stories? He said he understands it says living area with the external dimension, but that’s going to be hard to do so he sees a flaw there. If a property owner has walls that are 18 feet tall, and the external dimensions comes to 1100 square feet. Without being able to go inside, you don’t know if it’s a two-story structure. Ms. Marley said that could happen. Ms. Vogel said that happens right now.

The hearing for Planning and Zoning File ended at 2:37 p.m.

Road and Bridge Department Co-Superintendent Renee Nelson joined the meeting at 2:50 p.m. to take part in the discussion about private roads in relation to road standards.

Ms. Marley spoke of working through land use code sections in relation to private versus public road standards. In year 2012, documents stated the county had to meet about new subdivision roads pertaining to width and slope for most lots. Commercial and industrial code says roads have to meet all standards, even if they’re private. In year 2023, the ordinance repeals requirements for commercial property and current standards for new private roads within a new subdivision. At that time, the Board of County Commissioners wanted Planning and Zoning to address public road standards for width and slope. Ms. Marley discussed if public road standards were taken away from private roads and visiting with the Planning and Zoning Commissions about what makes sense, and then visiting with Road and Bridge Department Co-Superintendents Renee Nelson and Randy Morris. Road and Bridge brought forward examples from other counties and they reviewed suggestions. Addressing, Road and Bridge and Planning and Zoning might not be in sync. A private road can be created when there are three or more lots. The question is what is a road. Ms. Nelson mentioned the statement that a road is when there are three or more residences, but the Road Naming Ordinance says it is when there are three or more parcels. Ms. Marley said to be in sync with what is called a road, is it three or more residences or parcels? Chairman Bertling said he thinks it is addresses and 911 needs to know where to go. Chairman Bertling spoke of one parcel possibly having multiple houses on it. Ms. Marley said when addressing platting, when a road crosses the threshold of three or more lots, will we say it’s a private road versus a driveway? If someone has two primary residences and an accessory dwelling unit (ADU), they will have three separate addresses off of one approach and they need to make it easy for 911 and emergency responders to find where they’re going. It would be safer to require a parcel as opposed to a dwelling. If the county sets private road standards, what is the minimum, can it say three or more lots? Ms. Marley said when a county road intersects a public road, it needs to meet standards for how wide the travel way has to be, fire code says it’s not less than 20 feet, but they cannot be arbitrary. Vertical clearance is not less than 13.5 feet in fire code. Easement width is not less than 30 feet, but it’s sufficient for drainage, snow storage and shoulders, etc. Slopes are not to exceed 8% unless approved by the fire chief or private engineer if the area is outside of a fire district. The developer is to provide stop signs at public road intersections. Mr. Morris and Ms. Nelson questioned if roads can just be roughed in, but Planning and Zoning felt it should be more than roughed in. What would proof consist of when approving a road, photos or an engineer signing off? Those present reviewed construction standards. Planning and Zoning generally felt it was okay to not requiring pavement. As it relates to the structure of a road, they looked at Boundary, Bonner and Elmore Counties’ codes for ballast, fabric, top courses, brushing and removal of obstacles, and who signs off, such as a private engineer or use of photos. Chairman Bertling commented on enforcement and if the standards weren’t met. Ms. Marley said they wouldn’t sign off on the plat until it’s done.

Commissioner Robertson said just because it is a subdivision, doesn’t mean someone is making money on it. It’s a pretty large expense for people to build roads to these standards. Ms. Vogel said these are for just plats. The question is what is minimally acceptable? Ms. Nelson said what Road and Bridge sees is a road and you have a surveyor that did the plat and he can stake out what the private road is supposed to be and get gravel to know where that is. If that doesn’t happen, they know the road got started, but the other end didn’t get finished and if someone wants to build somewhere, they can’t because the road was never finished. Chairman Bertling said he would be fine with a photo to show the road is roughed in. Ms. Marley asked if Commissioners are okay with three or more approaches to meet standards, vertical clearance, easement width not less than 30 feet, and a slope percentage of 8%. Chairman Bertling said he is fine with that. A gravel surface is appropriate. Chairman Bertling said it would be up to the person putting the road in to use fabric. Planning and Zoning doesn’t want to get into ballast fabric. Standards now say it’s imposed loads of fire apparatus. Ms. Nelson said use of gravel would cover emergency access and if had the width and enough space at the end of a road to turn a fire truck around.

Ms. Nelson left the meeting.

Ms. Marley said the county currently has 11 different processes to create a subdivision. Planning and Zoning has reviewed two property adjustments, six plat types and three unplatted types and she listed what needs to be done. A property is not able to be split if it was once divided by a primitive split or by the 20-acre division process. Code says when a property has been divided by the 20 acres, anything further has to go to plat. Ms. Marley said Planning would like to reduce the number of ways to divide property from 11 to two or three.

Those present reviewed zoning versus land division types, such as clustered, commercial/industrial, mixed use, primitive, rural and urban subdivisions. Ms. Marley reviewed what Planning and Zoning is working on. Ms. Vogel said since county code doesn’t have design standards, property owners can do anything and she referenced the Wheatley application, saying those designs were not necessary. Ms. Vogel reviewed design criteria suggestions. In the current Road Standards Ordinance, it says for the minimum feet from a right-of-way, you need to have sight distance.

Ms. Marley discussed the county’s current code on enforcement and possible areas to address. Concerning infractions, the property owner can be fined, but that doesn’t equate to compliance. Planning and Zoning is looking to take infraction out of equation and have civil authorities require compliance. We need to address that current code is exceeding state law. Planning and Zoning likes using the soft approach first. Civil authority needs to be confirmed and Ms. Marley questioned if the Planning and Zoning Department should be allowed to collect fees for violations and add them to stop work orders, either each week or should they be separate offenses. Should it say “each day”, which is supported by Idaho Code? The Sheriff would prefer this goes through Planning and Zoning first to get a collection of evidence. Ms. Marley said she would propose this change to say a potential violation is not to go to the Sheriff. Ms. Vogel explained how the current process works. The authority to enforce comes from the county’s Zoning and Land Use Ordinance. It doesn’t suggest infractions unless it’s thought $300.00 or less will solve the problem. The county may institute civil action. Chairman Bertling spoke of assessing fines first then using civil authorities. Ms. Marley said the county could recover court costs.

Ms. Marley updated Commissioners on the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) pertaining to the community assistance visit. The letter from FEMA states the county needs to update its ordinance. The county has the overlay ordinance and flood damage prevention ordinance and both don’t meet federal standards and they both conflict. The county needs to repeal Chapter 16 regarding overlays for flooding and adopt a stand-alone ordinance. Boundary County has 12 homes in a floodway out of 30 different properties. A few properties were visited and found to be in compliance. Homes will need to do a hydrologic and hydraulic (H & H) study done on them and Ms. Marley mentioned the cost being $37,000.00 a few years ago. Ms. Marley mentioned the county could ask the state to update the map to make sure areas are out of the floodway, but it could go the other way. The county can obtain flood permits retroactively. Ms. Marley provided the history of Boundary County’s flood code. It was said that Boundary County is considering pulling out of the National Flood Insurance Program, but they would need to get in contact with the 12 property owners about possibly withdrawing because it could affect their financing. Ms. Marley suggested gathering questions to voice them to FEMA. Chairman Bertling discussed going through violations and Ms. Marley said it’s going through efforts and costs. Chairman Bertling said he would be concerned about accruing more violations, because people just build in the flood ways. Ms. Vogel said realtors are very well aware of these boundaries and they’ve withheld that information to make the sale, but they’re required to tell people this information.

The meeting with Ms. Marley and Ms. Vogel ended at Done at 4:40 p.m.

4:40 p.m., there being no further business, the meeting recessed until tomorrow at 1:00 p.m.

***Thursday, August 31, 2023, at 1:00 p.m., Commissioners met in special session at the County Annex with Chairman Tim Bertling, Commissioner Wally Cossairt, Commissioner Ben Robertson, Clerk Glenda Poston, and Deputy Clerk Michelle Rohrwasser.

1:00 p.m., Commissioners held a public hearing to consider establishing a Department of Motor Vehicle (DMV) title administration fee in the amount of $6.00. Present were: Chairman Tim Bertling, Commissioner Wally Cossairt, Commissioner Ben Robertson, Clerk Glenda Poston, Deputy Clerk Michelle Rohrwasser, Assessor Olivia Drake, Assistant Restorium Administrator Diana Lane, Restorium Advisory Board members Jeannie Robinson and Marty Martinez, Adrienne Norris, and Richard Williams. The hearing was recorded.

Chairman Bertling reviewed the public hearing procedures. No one had questions of the procedure. Commissioners cited no conflict of interest.

Assessor Drake explained that the last legislative session passed House Bill 85 that allows a title administration fee to be set by the Board of County Commissioners to cover costs at the county level associated with title transactions, instead of having property taxes covering this shortfall or longer wait times at the County DMV. As Idaho Transportation Department implements the centralization of services, registration fee counts are dropping so the County DMV is not receiving as many administration fees. As a fee for service this title transaction fee would help to fund current staffing levels, allowing the DMV to continue to provide in-person DMV service without adding burden to the property tax payer.

Commissioners opened the hearing to public testimony and asked for any written testimony or questions. Ms. Norris asked if we’re only talking about an expectation of $100,000 or just a little under when you have approximately 14,000 people in the community? Chairman Bertling said not all of them will be using the DMV since a lot of it is online. Assessor Drake clarified that it’s not a registration fee, it’s a title transaction so it is only people buying new cars. Ms. Norris asked what the expectation of funds is and Assessor Drake said $34,000.00. Commissioner Robertson said some of this could be reduced even further because people can do this online now, correct? Assessor Drake said registrations can be done online, but titles are processed through dealers or the local Department of Motor Vehicles Office. That may also change in the next three years as the Idaho Transportation Department may look at doing electronic titles. Having a local presence at the DMV is getting harder and harder, according to Assessor Drake. Ms. Norris asked how many employees are in the Department of Motor Vehicles. Assessor Drake said there are two employees. Ms. Norris asked what is going to be done with the excess funding, because $34,000.00 sounds like a lot to supplement. Chairman Bertling said he would say that’s very little. Assessor Drake said that’s as conservative of a number as they could get. Assessor Drake explained how she calculated the proposed fee to collect based on the number of title transactions they can process.

Chairman Bertling asked if there is anyone who would like to speak in favor of the application. No one spoke. Speaking uncommitted to the application was Richard Williams. Mr. Williams said he’s seeing through social media that the levy for the school is not going to be put on the November ballot this time to relieve the taxpayers, but it seems like you’re trying to come up with more money all of the time as far as where different taxes come from, whether it’s from the DMV or somewhere else. Chairman Bertling said this is actually the opposite; this fee is so the taxpayer doesn’t have to pay. If you buy a new vehicle and you need a new title, that’s who is paying instead of the taxpayer. Chairman Bertling said this is doing what Mr. Williams should be in favor of. Mr. Williams said he understands, but it’s just a little cash here and a little cash there and it all adds up. Commissioner Robertson said the cost of $34,000.00 is going to be there one way or another, but with this, the only people who are using this service will be paying the fee instead of the property tax paying for that service. So, it should actually be a relief to taxpayers, according to Commissioner Robertson. Chairman Bertling asked if there were any other comments. No other comments were given. Commissioners closed the hearing to any further public comment and called for discussion amongst themselves. Commissioners said they had no problems with the proposal.

Commissioner Cossairt moved to establish a Department of Motor Vehicles title administration fee in the amount of $6.00 effective immediately upon approval from the Idaho Transportation Department. Commissioner Robertson second. Motion passed unanimously.

The hearing ended at 1:10 p.m.

Commissioner Robertson moved to adopt Resolution 2023-54 establishing $6.00 Department of Motor Vehicles Title Administration Fee. Commissioner Robertson second. Motion passed unanimously. Resolution 2023-54 reads as follows:
RESOLUTION 2023-54
A RESOLUTION OF BOUNDARY COUNTY, IDAHO, ESTABISHING BOUNDARY COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLE (DMV) TITLE ADMINISTRATIVE FEES.

WHEREAS, Idaho Code 31-870(1) and 63-1311A authorizes the Board to "impose and collect fees for those services provided by the county that would otherwise be funded by ad valorem tax revenues. The fees collected pursuant to this section shall be reasonably related to, but shall not exceed, the actual cost of the service being rendered"; and

WHEREAS, House Bill No. 85, which was passed in the 2023 Legislative Session, amended Idaho Code 31-870(4) to authorize the adoption by the County of an administrative fee to be collected for issuance of a motor vehicle title; and

WHEREAS, the Assessor has requested that the administrative fee be set at $6.00 to cover the expenses not covered by other revenue; and

WHEREAS, notices of public hearing have been made and published in the Bonners Ferry Herald on August 17th, 2023 and August 24th, 2023 and August 31st, 2023; and

WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners, County of Boundary, State of Idaho, did hold a public hearing on August 31, 2023, to receive public comment on a proposal to establish the Department of Motor Vehicle (DMV) Title Administration Fee; and

WHEREAS, members of the public were present and provided comment, and the Board of County Commissioners, County of Boundary, State of Idaho, find it in the public interest to establish the fee to help fund the cost of operating this department.

NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED that the Department of Motor Vehicle (DMV) Title Administration Fee will be set as follows:
$6 per title transaction, effective as of October 1, 2023.

DATED this 31st day of August, 2023.

BOUNDARY COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

s/______________________________
TIM BERTLING, Chairman
s/______________________________
WALLY COSSAIRT, Commissioner
s/______________________________
BEN ROBERTSON, Commissioner
ATTEST:
s/________________________
GLENDA POSTON, Clerk
By: Michelle Rohrwasser, Deputy Clerk
Recorded as instrument #295220

1:14 p.m., Commissioners held a public hearing to consider increasing its Restorium room and board fees for new Restorium residents by an amount of 10% over the room and board fees collected the previous year and to consider increasing its Restorium room and board fees for existing Restorium residents by an amount of 6% over the room and board fees collected the previous year. Present were: Chairman Tim Bertling, Commissioner Wally Cossairt, Commissioner Ben Robertson, Clerk Glenda Poston, Deputy Clerk Michelle Rohrwasser, Assessor Olivia Drake, Assistant Restorium Administrator Diana Lane, Restorium Advisory Board members Jeannie Robinson and Marty Martinez, Adrienne Norris, and Richard Williams. The hearing was recorded.

Chairman Bertling reviewed the public hearing procedures. There were no questions of the hearing procedures. Commissioners cited no conflict of interest. Commissioners opened the hearing and asked Ms. Lane for an opening statement. Ms. Lane commented that she hadn’t prepared a statement.

Commissioners opened the hearing to public testimony and asked for comments in favor of the application. No one spoke. Commissioners asked for comments from those uncommitted to the proposal. Ms. Norris asked if the people paying into this are the residents of the Restorium and not the taxpayers and it’s not a tax. Chairman Bertling said that was correct. Nobody else spoke uncommitted to the proposal. Commissioners asked for comments opposed to the proposal. Nobody spoke. Chairman Bertling asked if there were any further comments. Mr. Martinez asked about the increase of 10% and Chairman Bertling said that is for new incoming residents. The existing residents will see a 6% increase.

Chairman Bertling said the county has to do something so the costs don’t come back on to the taxpayers. Ms. Norris said it’s like Mr. Williams said in that it’s across the board in everything in our life and she feels bad for people on a fixed income. Ms. Norris questioned if social security covers this fee or will someone still have to have a supplemental income? Ms. Lane explained that some of the residents have long term insurance coverage and some have their savings account that they pay their monthly rent with. At one point, the savings may decrease to the point the resident doesn’t have anything left and they will have to apply for Medicaid. Ms. Norris asked what happens to the residents who don’t have another alternative? Ms. Lane said they would have to apply for Medicaid and if they qualify, Medicaid would cover the difference. Ms. Lane said it depends on the individual’s income level, what they receive from social security, what Medicaid is willing for pay for an individual, etc. Ms. Norris asked what will be offered for the residents who are in a hard position? Ms. Lane said basically, it’s Medicaid. If the resident is a veteran, they could apply for veterans’ services. Ms. Norris said when you look across north Idaho are these standard fees? Ms. Lane said the Restorium charges less than just about every other assisted living facility within the region. Chairman Bertling added that he would say for hundreds of miles. These are very reasonable rates. Mr. Martinez said the Life Care Center charges $7,000.00 per month. Ms. Norris said people are scared that social security is going to diminish and she questioned what will be do with our elders. Commissioner Robertson said again, this is a minor relief to the taxpayers. It’s a taxpayer subsidized program and by raising the rates, hopefully it helps cover some of the inflation costs, such as food and everything else. Mr. Martinez said costs are raising every year and we’re already behind now. The Restorium will be needing more money for wages. The Restorium is short-staffed so it’s overtime. Chairman Bertling said it’s tough, because you can’t find people for staffing. Ms. Norris said she thinks it’s been said that the current family size is 1.9 whereas 20 years ago it was 2.5.

Commissioner Robertson said if a resident is on Medicaid, they pay a reduced cost so what the Restorium brings in for Medicaid is less. Mr. Williams asked what makes Commissioners think Medicaid will pick up the costs for residents. Chairman Bertling said the resident will have to qualify for the benefits. Ms. Lane explained that a lot of it has to do with the person’s income level, if they have a certain level of savings, they will have to use that. If the person has any property, they will have to sell that. Ms. Lane said basically, you would have to be very low income to receive Medicaid. Ms. Norris asked if there are concerns over some of the residents if the rates are raised? Ms. Lane said there are a couple residents she would be concerned about and who would have to apply for Medicaid.

Chairman Bertling said he’s talked to someone who runs a private, long-term care facility in southern Idaho and they only allow 10% of their residents to be Medicaid residents, otherwise their budget would go backward. Commissioner Robertson commented that this increase does not create a profit for the Restorium. Ms. Norris said she’s not concerned about that, she’s more concerned about people getting bumped out of the Restorium and some of them have family here and have lived there their whole life. Chairman Bertling said we do have some of those people, but we also have people who have looked all over for an assisted living facility and they come to the Restorium because the rates are low. Mr. Martinez said Boundary County is the only county that has an assisted living facility in the entire state. Mr. Martinez said it’s a wonderful place.

Restorium Board member and Friends of the Restorium member Jeannie Robinson said she wanted to clarify that people have also searched out the Restorium for the excellent quality of care they provide. Ms. Robinson questioned, what can you do, rates are going up, but something has to be done. It’s unfortunate, but people live here because it is cheaper. Ms. Norris said the wages are so low, such as $12.00 to $13.00 per hour from what she’s seeing and who could live on that?

Commissioners closed the hearing to further public testimony. Commissioner Cossairt said this is what Commissioners have to do. Commissioner Robertson agreed and said he doesn’t see a way around it.

Commissioner Cossairt moved to approve the increase of Restorium room and board fees for new residents by 10% over the amount collected previous year and to increase the fees for the current residents by 6% over the previous year to be effective October 1, 2023. Commissioner Robertson second. Motion passed unanimously.
The hearing to consider a Restorium room and board fee increase ended at 1:25 p.m.

Commissioner Cossairt moved to adopt Resolution 2023-55. A resolution establishing Boundary County Restorium Room and Board Fees. Commissioner Robertson second. Motion passed unanimously. Resolution 2023-55 reads as follows:
RESOLUTION 2023-55

Establishing Boundary County Restorium Room and Board Fees

WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners, County of Boundary, State of Idaho, did hold a public hearing on August 31, 2023, to receive public comment on a proposal to increase Restorium room and board fees for new residents, and

WHEREAS, no public comment was given, and the Board of County Commissioners, County of Boundary, State of Idaho, find it in the public interest to increase the room and board fees to help fund the cost of operating the Restorium, and

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Restorium room and board fees are set as follows effective October 1, 2023:

Single Occupancy Room with private restroom $4884.00
Single Occupancy Room with shared restroom $4472.00
Double Occupancy (half room) $3358.00
Double Occupancy Room $6526.00
Memory Care (half room) $3744.00
Memory Care/shared room $5219.00

**Current Restorium residents will be subject to a 6% increase over the room and board fees collected the previous year. When a current resident vacates their room, the rate for that room will increase to the rate of a new incoming resident.

DATED this 31st day of August, 2023.
COUNTY OF BOUNDARY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
s/___________________________
TIM BERTLING , Chairman
s/___________________________
WALLY COSSAIRT, Commissioner
s/___________________________
BEN ROBERTSON, Commissioner
ATTEST:
s/_________________________________
GLENDA POSTON
Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners
Recorded as instrument #295221

There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 1:41 p.m.

______________________________
TIM BERTLING, Chairman

ATTEST:

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