|
County Commissioner minutes, December
19-20 |
|
December 30, 2011 |
Monday, December 19, 2011,
Commissioners met in regular session with
Chairman Ron Smith, Commissioner Dan Dinning,
Commissioner Walt Kirby and Deputy Clerk Nancy
Ryals.
Jerry DiMuro joined the meeting. Mike Brown,
Blue Sky Broadcasting Reporter, also joined the
meeting.
9:00 a.m., Road & Bridge Superintendent Jeff
Gutshall gave the weekly departmental report.
Mr. Gutshall submitted a written report.
Work was done on District 5 Road where Road &
Bridge crews excavated and armored catch basins
and installed several small interception drains.
Major excavation will have to be done next
spring. The Road & Bridge Department finished
surfacing on Cow Creek Road. Some of the damaged
road signs throughout the county have been
repaired. Mr. Gutshall reported that he went to
a Local Highway Technical Assistance Council
(LHTAC) online conference in Coeur d’Alene
regarding Federal Highway Administration
policies and federal aid projects. Mr. Gutshall
stated the new policy speeds up projects and
could save money. According to Mr. Gutshall, the
new process would be helpful the more
complicated the project and the more likely
there would be changes in the project. Chairman
Smith inquired if the Idaho Transportation
Department (ITD) would still pull their overhead
cost out of the project up front since there
would be a reduction in time under the new
policy. Chairman Smith commented he doesn’t know
how ITD would continue to charge the same amount
under the new policy as they currently charge.
Mr. Gutshall agreed.
Mr. Brown left the meeting at 9:12 a.m.
Mr. Gutshall stated under the new policy, the
county can select the firm for engineering and
construction and it is not a bidding process.
The state will be a very minor partner. The
engineer would report directly to the county. If
there is a change order, the engineer/contactor
will have to sell the idea to ITD. The county
will pay 7.34% federal aid participation. With
the new process, there is the ability to change
the project if something new arises without
having to go back to readdress things like the
environmental assessment.
According to Mr. Gutshall, ITD has a new program
called Every Day Counts designed to expedite the
programs and not waste so much money.
Commissioner Dinning asked about a bill from
Cabinet Mountain Water District for damage. Mr.
Gutshall stated there was damage caused by Road
& Bridge. Mr. Gutshall stated it was at the end
of Aspen Street and it is a legitimate claim.
Mr. Gutshall informed Commissioners the county
would have to have a project ready to go for
next fall if the county wants to take advantage
of the ITD end of year funding. Mr. Gutshall
stated the county would have to open the budget
since there is only $10,000 in the professional
services line item and $30,000 total is needed.
Chairman Smith stated the funds would be taken
out of another line item in the Road & Bridge
Budget if need be. Mr. Gutshall inquired if
pre-engineering a project is something the
county wants to consider. Commissioners agreed
it is good to have a project ready to go.
There is a rock pit past the “Y” to the right by
the little bridge on Cow Creek. The pit is solid
rock and sits on 13 acres. The rock pit has a
county conditional use permit from 1982,
according to Mr. Gutshall. At this point, the
property owner would prefer to sell the pit.
Chairman Smith stated the only way the county
could purchase it is to have an appraisal done.
Mr. Gutshall stated the county would never be
able to put the whole crusher at that location.
Mr. Gutshall informed Commissioners that he
occasionally buys rock from other sources and
this rock pit would be nice to have. Chairman
Smith asked if there is any timber on that
property. Mr. Gutshall responded yes. Chairman
Smith stated that Mr. Gutshall needs to make the
decision if the pit is something the county
should have. Mr. Gutshall commented that the
county does not know if there will be any Secure
Rural School (SRS) funds so coming up with the
funds to purchase the pit may be a problem.
Commissioners suggested Mr. Gutshall check with
the Planning & Zoning Administrator about the
conditional use permit to make sure it is still
in effect.
Mr. Gutshall informed Commissioners that both
Prosecutor Jack Douglas and County Civil
Attorney Phil Robinson suggested a new spring
road closure policy may need to be looked in to.
The current ordinance is not well defined
according to county attorneys and the fine for
not following the ordinance is minimal. Road
damage is the issue, according to Mr. Gutshall.
Mr. Gutshall stated that he still needs to make
contact to see about the county obtaining a
couple of acres at the Paradise
Valley/Shamrock/Blue Sky intersections.
Commissioner Dinning stated he will make contact
with the property owner, Mr. Maggi.
9:30 a.m., Solid Waste Superintendent Claine
Skeen presented two proposed piggyback bids for
the purchase of a wheel loader for the Solid
Waste Department. Present were Chairman Smith,
Commissioner Dinning, Commissioner Kirby, Deputy
Clerk Nancy Ryals, Solid Waste Superintendent
Claine Skeen, Solid Waste employee Monica
Tompke, Road & Bridge Superintendent Jeff
Gutshall, and Jerry DiMuro. The process was
recorded. County Civil Attorney Phil Robinson
had reviewed the two proposals and found them to
be in proper form from qualified bidders and he
indicated the proposal from Caterpillar was the
lowest and most responsive proposal for the net
cost to Boundary County.
Rowand Machinery submitted a bid of $358,000.00
with a trade-in of $100,000.00 for a net bid of
$258,000.00 and a five year buy back of
$210,000.00.
Western States submitted a bid of $424,380.00
with a trade-in of $109,500.00 for a net bid of
$314,880.00 and a five year buy back of
$272,000.00.
Mr. Skeen recommended the lease/purchase of the
Caterpillar through Western States to be
financed through Panhandle State Bank.
Clerk Glenda Poston joined the meeting at 9:35
a.m.
Commissioner Dinning asked for clarification on
the two bids. Mr. Skeen explained the
difference. The net difference is about
$5,000.00 between the two. There is no basic
difference between the two machines. The same
specifications went to both companies. The
warranties are the same and both machines are
new. Panhandle State Bank is offering finance on
both machines at 3.4%. Rowand is offering 3.55%
and so is Caterpillar.
Mike Brown joined the meeting.
Mr. Gutshall informed those present that Road &
Bridge has gotten Western States to go seven
years, but it depends on the number of hours the
machinery will be used as to whether that is a
good deal. Mr. Skeen said Solid Waste will go
the 5,000 hours. Road & Bridge’s usage did not
go over the 5,000 hours so seven years was
better for them. There is a $700 setup fee if
the county finances through Panhandle State
Bank. Mr. Skeen will look to see if it would be
better to finance with Panhandle State Bank or
Western States.
Commissioner Dinning moved to accept the bid
from Western States CAT for a 2012 Caterpillar
model 980K Wheel Loader. Bid amount is
$424,380.00 with a trade-in allowance of
$109,500.00, and a $272,000.00 buy back after
five years. Commissioner Kirby second.
Chairman Smith called for discussion. Chairman
Smith asked if this was a bid or a quote.
Commissioner Dinning said it is a bid. Chairman
Smith asked if the county is complying with the
bidding laws. Mr. Gutshall said yes.
Motion passed unanimously.
Mr. Gutshall, Mr. Skeen, and Ms. Tompke left the
meeting at 9:47 a.m.
Chairman Smith explained that the Commissioners
approved the Emergency Operations
Plan/Evacuation Plan, but minor changes have
been made to the plan so Commissioners need to
move to accept the revitalized plan.
Commissioner Kirby moved to accept and sign the
revitalized Emergency Operations Plan/Evacuation
Plan. Commissioner Dinning second. Motion passed
unanimously.
Commissioner Kirby moved to approve the minutes
of December 5 and 6, 2011. Commissioner Dinning
second. Motion passed unanimously.
Chairman Smith reviewed the Cooperative Law
Enforcement Agreement and Annual Operating Plan
and Financial Plan with Commissioners.
Commissioner Dinning moved to sign the
Cooperative Law Enforcement Agreement between
the Sheriff’s Office and the USDA Forest Service
Idaho Panhandle National Forests and the
Cooperative Law Enforcement Annual Operating
Plan and Financial Plan for 2012. Commissioner
Kirby second. Motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner Dinning moved to cancel 2011
property taxes in the amount of $82.90 and fees
in the amount of $131.48 and value of $8,720.00
on parcel #SMM0540001007BA as the 2011 taxes
were pre-paid in Washington State before being
moved to Boundary County. Commissioner Kirby
second. Motion passed unanimously.
9:55 a.m. Charles “Charlie” Denton joined the
meeting
Discussion was held regarding the video
conferencing equipment. Chairman Smith stated
Homeland Security ran a signal to the Extension
Office in order to have an alternative emergency
operations site. A line was then run from the
Extension Office to the Courthouse. Computer
Arts will run a line up to the courtroom this
week and will also run a line to the
Commissioners’ office. Commissioners can
purchase a flat screen television and camera for
the Commissioners’ office. It can be used for
the legislative session for the webinars for
Commissioners and other elected officials and
employees. Commissioner Kirby reported that the
Catastrophic Board meeting held last week was
done by conferencing and he participated on his
laptop at home. Commissioner Kirby commented
that the process worked well. Clerk Poston has
already researched the cost of a flat screen
television and will research the cost of the
camera. Commissioner Dinning commented that the
video conferencing equipment would reduce the
need to travel.
Charles Denton informed Commissioners that he
lives in the Curley Creek area and can’t get
translator reception there. Mr. Denton said at
one time, he was exempt from translator fees,
but for some reason he is again being charged.
Chairman Smith stated that the Translator Board
will have to submit a letter to Commissioners
verifying that Mr. Denton can’t get reception.
Chairman Smith gave Mr. Denton a copy of the
affidavit he needs to complete, sign and get
notarized and submit to the Translator Board for
their approval. The Translator Board will then
forward the form to the county.
Mr. Denton left the meeting at 10:05 a.m.
Commissioners discussed budget matters relating
to the Parks & Recreation Fund. Commissioner
Dinning stated that he wants to make sure the
$6,000.00 for the well is in the budget.
Commissioner Dinning stated those funds are
lumped into the capital line item. Clerk Poston
confirmed that is the case. Commissioner Dinning
stated he was told there will be $20,000.00 in
claims coming in and he just wanted to make sure
everyone was on the same page that the $6,000
stays in the budget for the purpose of getting a
well. According to Commissioner Dinning, the
Parks & Recreation Board found they had paid for
a hookup fee in the year 2000 so the county
won’t have to pay for another hook up.
Commissioner Dinning stated the county was
thinking about drilling an irrigation well
across the river for Riverside Park and in
reality the county would save a lot of money by
drilling a well at the fairgrounds instead. The
base rate for irrigation water has a different
value than the water for the RV dump, according
to Clerk Poston. If the county gets water to
Riverside Park for drinking and for the
restrooms that should be all that is needed
because the grass stays pretty green there,
according to Commissioner Dinning. Last budget
year, $3,300.00 was paid for irrigation water
alone for the fairgrounds/parks, according to
Clerk Poston. Commissioner Dinning commented
that the county would have to have electricity
for the well pump and would still need potable
water for the fairgrounds and parks. Clerk
Poston will contact the city and determine
whether the rates for irrigation and potable
water differ.
Clerk Poston left the meeting at 10:14 a.m.
Discussion was held regarding the GEM Plan
(Government Employees Medical Plan).
Commissioner Dinning inquired if there would be
a benefit to the county if the county set up an
account for employees, put $2,000 in it, and the
money if unused would then go to the county or
to the employee. There are a couple of counties
using that buy down process, according to
Chairman Smith, and some counties regret doing
it. Chairman Smith stated he doesn’t know if
that would affect the grandfather clause
connected with the county medical insurance.
Chairman Smith will look into what the other
counties were opposed to in the buy down process
and whether it would affect the grandfather
clause.
Commissioner Dinning will speak with Pam
Copeland, Parks & Recreation Board Chairperson,
about the possibility of drilling a well at the
fairgrounds instead of at Riverside Park.
Chairman Smith agreed it was a good idea.
Mr. DiMuro left the meeting at 10:31 a.m.
10:31 a.m., Treasurer Jennifer Fessler met with
Commissioners to discuss a request for extension
of time to pay taxes. Melinda McGinn feels she
will have the 2008 taxes paid off by March 2012,
according to Treasurer Fessler.
Commissioner Dinning moved to extend the time to
pay taxes on parcel #RP00460GL3003BA until March
1, 2012. Commissioner Kirby second. Motion
passed unanimously.
Treasurer Fessler left the meeting at 10:36 a.m.
10:45 a.m., Commissioner Dinning moved to go
into closed session under Idaho Code 31-874.
Commissioner Kirby second. Motion passed
unanimously. 10:48 a.m., Commissioner Dinning
moved to go out of closed session. Commissioner
Kirby second. Motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner Dinning moved to approve indigent
applications #2011-30 and 2011-49 per the
Clerk’s recommendation. Commissioner Kirby
second. Motion passed unanimously.
11:00 a.m., Chairman Smith left the meeting to
participate in a conference call for the GEM
Plan (Government Employees Medical Plan).
Commissioner Dinning and Commissioner Kirby
attended to administrative duties.
11:30 a.m., Commissioner Dinning and
Commissioner Kirby met with Hospital CFO/CEO
Craig Johnson and Hospital Board Chairman Elden
Koon for an update on hospital matters. Mr.
Johnson reported that the Festival of Trees made
about the same as last year. The Hospital has
been fairly busy and financially they are still
about break even for the year, according to Mr.
Johnson. Mr. Johnson is concerned about expenses
in November and December 2011. The new budget
will go before the Hospital Board on December
30th and it has been approved by the Finance
Committee. The Medi-Tech program is still going
well and the computerized physician entry will
be on line fully in May or June so physicians
can write their own progress notes, etc.,
according to Mr. Johnson. Acceptance by
physicians and staff has been good. Physician’s
offices are also thinking about going to that
process but it is a slower process to put the
notes right online. Commissioner Dinning said
voice recognition software would be helpful. Mr.
Johnson said they are looking into that.
Mr. Koon asked that Commissioners reappoint
members to the Hospital Board.
Commissioner Kirby moved to appoint Commissioner
Dinning as Acting Chairman in the absence of
Chairman Smith. Commissioner Dinning second.
Motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner Kirby moved to reappoint Larry
Nelson, Bob Martin and Theron Wages to the
Hospital Board for terms to expire January 2015.
Acting Chairman Dinning yielded the chair to
second. Motion passed unanimously.
Mr. Koon and Mr. Johnson commented on an article
in the Spokesman Review regarding critical
access hospitals. Mr. Johnson stated what is
being proposed will threaten the critical access
hospitals. Boundary Community Hospital was the
first to receive the critical access designation
in Idaho, according to Mr. Johnson. Mr. Johnson
thinks we may need to take a stand and contact
the legislators. Commissioner Dinning suggested
that all counties should be kept up to date.
Commissioner Dinning recommended that the Idaho
Hospital Association coordinate with the Idaho
Association of Counties (IAC). Mr. Johnson
informed Commissioners the proposal is to do
away with critical access hospitals to save
money. Mr. Johnson commented that the end result
is there is savings because the hospitals go
away. Mr. Johnson asked that Commissioners watch
for the critical access issue in the
legislature.
Commissioner Dinning asked if the Ambulance
Association will be ready with information for
the January 10, 2012 meeting. Mr. Johnson said
they are working on it and putting together as
much as they can.
The meeting with Mr. Johnson and Mr. Koon ended
at 11:47 a.m.
Chairman Smith returned to the meeting at 11:47
a.m.
Phil Schnuerle dropped by at 11:47 a.m. just to
visit. Mr. Schnuerle left the meeting at 11:54
a.m.
12:00 noon, there being no further business, the
meeting was recessed until tomorrow at 9:00 a.m.
Tuesday, December 20, 2011,
Commissioners met in regular session with
Chairman Ron Smith, Commissioner Dan Dinning,
Commissioner Walt Kirby and Deputy Clerk Nancy
Ryals.
Commissioner Kirby moved to approve the minutes
of December 12 and 13, 2011. Commissioner
Dinning second. Motion passed unanimously.
9:00 a.m., Commissioners held an elected
officials/department heads meetings. Present
were: Chairman Ron Smith, Commissioner Dan
Dinning, Commissioner Walt Kirby, Clerk Glenda
Poston, Deputy Clerk Nancy Ryals, Maintenance
man Jerry Kothe, Planning & Zoning Administrator
Mike Weland, Prosecutor’s Office Manager Tammie
Goggia, Chief Probation Officer Stacy Brown,
Assessor David Ryals, Solid Waste Superintendent
Claine Skeen, County Noxious Weeds
Superintendent Duke Guthrie, Extension Office
Educator Carol Hampton, Sheriff Greg Sprungl,
and Road & Bridge Superintendent Jeff Gutshall.
Discussion was held regarding a proposed
Boundary County Mission Statement for working
safely. This Statement will benefit the county
in their worker’s compensation premiums through
the State Insurance Fund. Training will follow.
Chairman Smith read the Mission Statement and
asked that all elected officials and department
heads sign the Statement.
Boundary County Mission Statement
Working Safely
The safety and health of employees at our county
is of primary importance. It is the county’s
goal to provide safe working conditions and
operating procedures that will ensure a safe
work environment for all the employees.
Accidents represent a needless waste of human
resources and economic loss. A safe operation
conserves human and material resources and is
essential to efficient production.
All levels of management and supervision have a
primary responsibility to determine safe work
procedures and ensure safe working conditions.
Supervisors and employees are expected to follow
the work methods and procedures established by
the county.
These responsibilities can be met only by
working continuously to promote safe work
practices among all employees and to maintain
property and equipment in a safe operating
condition. By working together, we can maintain
a safe and efficient work place environment.
Commissioner Kirby moved to adopt the Boundary
County Mission Statement with all elected
officials and department heads to sign it.
Commissioner Dinning second. Motion passed
unanimously.
Road & Bridge Superintendent Jeff Gutshall
commented that the Road & Bridge Department has
done a lot for safety awareness the last few
years.
Clerk Poston commented on the ICRMP (Idaho
Counties Risk Management Program) training
taking place at this time.
Chairman Smith informed those present that the
county passed a Red Shirt Fridays Proclamation
encouraging county employees to wear red on
Fridays. Chairman Smith encouraged those present
to wear red shirts on Fridays until all troops
are back home.
Discussion was held regarding credit card usage.
Chairman Smith cautioned those present to be
careful using credit cards because the county
has to pay sales tax on credit card purchases.
Chairman Smith encouraged those present to use
the county charge accounts where possible
instead of the credit card. Only the person
issued the credit card is to use it, according
to Chairman Smith. Carol Hampton asked about
on-line purchases where a credit card is needed
to order. Ms. Hampton stated that she delegates
the responsibilities for credit card on-line
purchases at times to the secretary. Tammie
Goggia said she uses the Prosecutor’s card to
book airline travel for witnesses and also
purchases office supplies. Sheriff Sprungl
suggested issuing a separate card for that
purpose. Commissioners said they need to discuss
that issue further. Clerk Poston suggested that
the elected official is there when the credit
card is used by an employee for travel and such
things; therefore, the employee is being
supervised when using the card.
Chairman Smith informed those present that the
county is in the process of installing video
conferencing equipment in the large courtroom.
This equipment will be used in processing
juveniles located at the juvenile detention
center in Coeur d’Alene. Chairman Smith stated
that this saves the county money because of the
deputy time to transport the juvenile back and
forth to the detention center, saves money on
vehicle fuel and wear and tear, and also limits
the potential of liability while traveling.
Chairman Smith stated that Computer Arts is also
going to install a television and camera in the
Commissioners’ Office as well. This will reduce
travel costs. The elected officials and
department heads can also use the system by
coordinating with the Commissioners’ Clerk.
Chairman Smith stated that Homeland Security ran
a signal to the Extension Office for an
alternative emergency operations site and then a
line to the courthouse. Commissioner Dinning
commented that the county does not know if it
will tie into the Idaho Transportation
Department. Mr. Gutshall informed Commissioners
he has six webinars this coming year.
Ms. Goggia asked if the video conferencing
system can be used to process mental holds.
Chairman Smith said it probably could be.
Chairman Smith stated the five northern counties
are considering building a mental hold facility
in Kootenai County. Sheriff Sprungl asked if the
county picked someone up on a mental hold, would
the deputy bypass the local hospital and take
them directly to Kootenai County. Commissioner
Kirby said yes, and he added they would be taken
to Kootenai Medical Center first for medical
clearance. Sheriff Sprungl stated it would
eliminate all the time the officers have to wait
at this hospital for a bed to open up in
Kootenai County. Sheriff Sprungl commented that
the detainee has the right to an attorney and
that would be more travel expense for the
attorney, which could be the county public
defender, to travel to Coeur d’Alene. Sheriff
Sprungl agreed it was a good idea. The five
counties need to agree to be a part of it, fund
it, and stay in it, according to Commissioners.
Stacy Brown inquired if wording could be
included on the Mission Statement stating “in a
fiscally responsible manner” so it can be
provided in the best way possible. Chairman
Smith said the wording came from the State
Insurance Fund.
Discussion was held regarding a possible cost of
living increase for next fiscal year. Chairman
Smith informed those present that Clerk Poston
had approached him stating that it was time to
talk about a possible cost of living increase
for next year. Chairman Smith stated employees
brought up the fact that if there is no cost of
living increase, it affects the employee
retirement account. Chairman Smith said he knows
it can be politically troublesome, but he feels
it is the Commissioners’ responsibility to take
care of the employees. Chairman Smith stated he
is not talking about a “raise,” he is talking
about a cost of living increase for everybody so
they can keep up with what is going on with the
economy. Chairman Smith commented that
Commissioner Dinning was not here for the
previous two conversations. Carol Hampton stated
she looked at her PERSI (Public Employees
Retirement System) statement and determined it
will cost $3,136.40 a year on her retirement by
not having a 3% pay increase each year from now
until the time she retires. Ms. Hampton
commented it does affect the retirement and she
is much better paid than her employees. Assessor
Dave Ryals informed those present that he
contacted the City of Bonners Ferry to see how
we compared with the City and if you look at
what the City pays along with their employee
benefit package, the county is about six percent
below the City on elected officials/department
heads and the county is also six percent below
the City’s clerical wages when combined with the
benefit package. Chairman Smith commented on the
potential loss of employees to the City.
Chairman Smith stated that all he wants is some
type of a cost of living increase to help
employees through a hard economic time. Clerk
Poston stated that she appreciates Chairman
Smith’s comment as far as a cost of living
increase and not looking at it as a pay “raise”.
Commissioner Dinning asked Assessor Ryals if he
looked at the City’s health insurance and their
deductible. Assessor Ryals stated that the City
pays 90% of the total premium. Clerk Poston
stated that she does not know if the City pays
dental or vision. Clerk Poston commented that
the county’s insurance is much better than the
City’s insurance. Clerk Poston stated what she
is concerned about is how our retirement is
affected. Assessor Ryals clarified that he did
factor in the difference between the county’s
employee benefits and the City’s employee
benefits. Commissioner Dinning commented that it
is easy to say that is what we should do, but
finding the funding is another issue. Assessor
Ryals stated that it is a matter of priority, if
that is what you want to do; you need to find a
way to do it. Mr. Gutshall agreed that you look
at cutting other things and he thinks the
employees need a boost. Chairman Smith stated
that if Commissioners decide to give a cost of
living increase, he will be speaking with Clerk
Poston so she can put the figures in each
department’s budget so the elected
official/department heads will have those
figures already in their budget paperwork when
working on their budget for next fiscal year.
Chairman Smith stated that when looking at cost
of living increase, you also have to consider
withholdings and benefits which also increase
costs. Chairman Smith would like to establish
whether or not the Commissioners are in
agreement to give a cost of living increase next
fiscal year.
Tammy Goggia stated her concern is being able to
meet the day to day expenses we all have. Ms.
Goggia commented that the cost of everything has
gone up. Ms. Goggia stated she is grateful to
have a job and is not complaining but it is hard
to make it each month with the cost of living
going up and not our wages. Employees will start
looking at other places for employment if they
don’t get an increase.
Sheriff Sprungl stated that the Sheriff’s Office
has trouble keeping employees because the City
of Bonners Ferry and Bonner County pay more than
Boundary County does. The Sheriff commented on
several inmate situations at the jail and the
problem of shortage of employees. Bonner County
pays $5.00 per hour more and it is hard to
compete with that, according to Sheriff Sprungl.
Mr. Gutshall stated that the county does not
have enough money to compete with some things.
Sheriff Sprungl said that he can’t just drag
anyone off the street and make a deputy of them.
Commissioner Dinning informed the group that
currently there is a DNA study regarding the
grizzly bear going on in the Cabinet-Yaak
recovery zone, one quarter of which is in Idaho.
Commissioner Dinning stated every timber sale is
appealed there and funds are needed to fight
those appeals and fund that study. Commissioner
Dinning stated that the point is where do our
priorities lie? Commissioner Dinning stated that
he is not against a cost of living increase, but
there is a big picture and we have to prioritize
what we want to do. Commissioner Dinning spoke
about possibly having the ability to put on a
second shift at the lumber mill in Moyie Springs
if there were more timber sales and the money it
could bring to the community from employment.
Commissioner Dinning stated that cost of living
increases may affect the ability of being able
to do something else. Assessor Ryals questioned
why aren’t the ones who would benefit from that
study kicking in all of the money to fund it
instead of expecting government to pay for it.
The study costs $1.7 million and $1.2 million
was paid by private industry, according to
Commissioner Dinning. Mr. Gutshall made the
comment that sometimes studies produce nothing.
Chairman Smith suggested not making a decision
now and discuss it again at the next elected
officials/department heads meeting.
Mr. Gutshall commented that the Idaho
Transportation Department spent money for a
consultant for a study that produced absolutely
nothing.
Jerry Kothe commented even with a three percent
cost of living increase, if the federal
government does not extend their two percent
federal payroll deduction, the net increase
would only be one percent. If employees don’t
receive a cost of living increase and the
federal government does not extend the payroll
tax deduction, employees are looking at an even
greater decrease in available income, according
to Mr. Kothe.
The elected officials/department heads meeting
ended at 9:51 a.m.
Noxious Weeds Superintendent Duke Guthrie met
with Commissioners. Mr. Guthrie submitted a
written report to Commissioners which contained
the end of the year report for the Selkirk Group
and what work he has accomplished for the county
this year. Mr. Guthrie said he would be
available if Commissioners have any questions.
Mr. Guthrie left the meeting.
10:00 a.m., Commissioners held a public hearing
to accept public comment on the proposed Airport
Overlay District Ordinance that was developed by
the Airport Board. Present were Chairman Ron
Smith, Commissioner Dan Dinning, Commissioner
Walt Kirby, Deputy Clerk Nancy Ryals, Planning &
Zoning Administrator Mike Weland, Don Jordon and
Jay Wages representing the Airport Board,
Airport Manager Dave Parker, and Carl Wheatley,
Steve Vandenberg, Robin Merrifield, Bill Hayden,
Rob Pluid, Ken MacDonald, Dennis Shelton, Don
Vickaryous, Ron Grove, Fred Nystrom, and LaVern
and Eunice Dinning. The public hearing was
recorded.
Chairman Smith reviewed the public hearing
procedures and stated because this is a
legislative matter, conflict of interest does
not apply.
If enacted, the ordinance would establish height
and other development restrictions within the
designated zones and would require applicants
for development permits to obtain approval from
airport staff prior to submission of the
application to Planning & Zoning.
A copy of the hearing information packet
Planning & Zoning Administrator Mike Weland gave
to Commissioners was made and given to all those
present.
Commissioner Dinning stated that someone had
commented on the short notice for the hearing.
Mr. Weland stated that notice was sent out and a
copy of the proposed ordinance was posted on the
county website and copies were given to those
who requested it. Chairman Smith stated
Commissioners have had no discussion of the
merits of the proposal and there could be some
legal matters involved in this issue that
Commissioners may not be in a position to make a
decision at this time. Before making a decision
it is very possible Commissioners may need to
consult with their attorney who is on vacation.
If the hearing has to be continued to another
date so Commissioners can get advice from the
county’s civil attorney, those here today can
also attend the continued hearing, according to
Chairman Smith.
Steve Vandenberg informed Commissioners that he
was not notified by mail of today’s hearing. Mr.
Weland stated since this involves a legislative
matter and more than 200 people, technically
legal notices did not have to be mailed. Under
Idaho Code, publication of a legal notice and a
display advertising in the Bonners Ferry Herald
is sufficient, according to Mr. Weland. Mr.
Weland stated because there is a defined
rectangular overlay that imposes the steepest
restrictions; he tried to identify all the
property owners within that rectangular area and
just as a courtesy mailed them notification of
the hearing. Mr. Weland stated that he sent a
copy to Vandenberg Trust and Marion Vandenberg.
Chairman Smith pointed out the rectangular area
defined on a map that is part of the information
presented by the Planning & Zoning Administrator
for the hearing.
Airport Manager Dave Parker gave the statement
on behalf of the airport. Mr. Parker stated that
the Boundary County Airport Board put this
together because when the new Planning and
Zoning Ordinance went into effect the old
ordinance was cancelled and the airport
basically had no height zoning in place to keep
someone from building into the airport traffic
area which is the area that the planes use in
approach and departure from the airport. There
was an ordinance in place in 2006 and the
Airport Board had several issues with that. Mr.
Parker commented that some of it was hard to
read with the terminology. It has to be Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) oriented. The
Airport Board first tried to simplify the
ordinance to make it a little bit easier for
everyone to understand. This proposed ordinance
is less wordy, according to Mr. Parker. Mr.
Parker informed those present there was nothing
in the old ordinance regarding noise so that was
addressed in this proposed ordinance. Also added
was a notification zone, which has actually been
in place through the FAA for a long time, to
reiterate the federal rule which states the FAA
has to be notified when something is built
within that 100 to one per 20,000 feet area,
which is four miles. Mr. Parker said there are
issues such as it is obviously shadowed. For
instance, if there is a building in front and a
new building was going to be behind it, then the
FAA doesn’t really care about that. Mr. Parker
continued by stating if it is a new building and
it is going to be close to the runway and could
be an issue to air traffic, then the FAA needs
to be notified. Mr. Parker informed those
present that the reason it is for an area of
four or five miles is because it needs to fit
all airports and all places. There could be
skyscrapers in Los Angeles and hills around the
airport with houses on top. The airport tried to
simplify the ordinance a lot and have the area
defined on the map by the rectangle so the
Airport and Planning and Zoning did not have to
deal with every landowner within 20,000 feet.
They felt that everything was shadowed beyond
the rectangle so they didn’t need to notify the
FAA and they could say basically those places
were okay. Inside the rectangle, depending on
the height of the structure, whether it be a
small building or a cell tower or windmill or
whatever might be built, as an airport they need
to look to determine whether the FAA would want
to know about it. Mr. Parker informed those
present that they have always had to give the
FAA notice but it has been for an area that is
five miles wide. Technically they still follow
those rules, but the Airport Board thought they
would just make it a lot simpler if they defined
the rectangular area inside the five mile
radius. Mr. Parker commented there is another
map in the hearing material that shows the whole
five mile radius. Mr. Parker explained if the
property is located within the rectangle, that
means anything over 150 feet tall is a problem
and if it’s 150 feet or shorter then it needs to
be looked at to see if it would create a danger
to aircraft going in or out. Mr. Parker said the
150 foot number is derived from anyone who
builds a cell tower anywhere that is over 150
feet would have to get FAA approval anyway so
the Airport Board didn’t feel it was really a
big deal for the Airport Board to deal with that
issue. The old zoning had a problem where a 35
foot structure was okay basically on anybody’s
land around the airport. That was a problem for
several parcels of property where somebody
wanted to build something close to the airport
on the left and right side where it would have
penetrated the aircraft protection area.
Commissioner Dinning stated Mr. Parker just said
they are not concerned with anything less than
150 feet built within the rectangle shown on the
map and now he just indicated something 35 feet
high might be a problem. Commissioner Dinning
asked for clarification and commented that he
understands anything 35 feet high also applies
within the rectangle. Mr. Parker responded that
it does. Commissioner Dinning asked what the 150
feet means since within the rectangle, it is
less than that.
Airport Board member Jay Wages stated that
outside the rectangle, anything over the 150
foot height would require approval by the FAA
and the airport would want to look at the height
of the construction inside the red rectangle to
see if it would fall within the zoning.
Chairman Smith asked for clarification of the
150 feet. Mr. Parker stated that inside the
rectangle are parcels on the airport property
where one foot would be a problem. Mr. Parker
said the FAA should be involved on anything
built off the south end that was maybe even as
short as seven feet.
Commissioner Dinning asked Mr. Parker if he has
a map that shows what the ordinance we have in
place now says and how it affects the land of
those present and then a map showing how this
proposed ordinance will affect them as far as
height restrictions. Commissioner Dinning stated
if he owned a piece of property near the
airport, he would not understand what the FAA
restrictions would be. Mr. Parker said on the
north end there would be no change from the 2006
ordinance other than the 35 feet. Mr. Parker
stated that 35 feet really messed things up by
giving them a non-standard. Mr. Parker stated
they could produce a map that would be a visual
but not a legal thing. Commissioner Dinning
thinks it would take a lot of anxiety away and
add a lot of clarity. Commissioners Dinning
stated a map of that type would show how it will
affect the landowners and what was in place in
2006 and how this proposed ordinance will affect
them. Mr. Parker stated he has something that
will show how he thinks it will affect the land
by parcel, but he is not the FAA and not the
person who would make that determination. Mr.
Parker said he has a reasonable depiction of
what this zoning would do to people’s parcels
but he doesn’t have anything that would compare
with the 35 foot requirement.
Chairman Smith stated while Mr. Parker was
speaking he saw some indications from those
present that they would be interested in what
that would look like. Chairman Smith thinks that
is the main concern here today; especially
inside the rectangle where the question is what
are they going to be able to build and what
can’t be built. Chairman Smith expressed that it
is so convoluted now he thinks we are wasting
our time to proceed with this until that
information is made available. Chairman Smith
stated with that and the other question that was
spoken to earlier, if it wouldn’t be too much of
an imposition to those present, he would rather
continue the hearing to a later date so that
information could be made available to us.
Chairman Smith asked if anyone had a problem
with Commissioners continuing the hearing.
Craig Wheatley stated he has followed this for a
lot of years trying to get building permits. Mr.
Wheatley commented that he goes to the Planning
& Zoning Administrator who does not have the
answer and who then sends him to the Airport
Manager who sends him back to the Planning &
Zoning Administrator. Mr. Wheatley stated in the
old ordinance it is impossible to get an answer
on how high you can build within 35 feet. The
airport provided a map that shows what the
proposed new ordinance will do which brings up
three problems that Mr. Wheatley sees with the
ordinance. One problem is the property owners
including him who are impacted at forty to one.
Mr. Wheatley made a comment about facing
condemnation proceedings and losing their
airspace. The second problem is there is no
definitive answer on who makes the decisions.
Mr. Wheatley stated that ordinance indicates the
Airport Board makes the decision, yet Mr. Parker
says the FAA makes the decision. Mr. Wheatley
stated the third problem is there is nothing in
the ordinance that defines exactly what numbers
we are all dealing with. Mr. Wheatley went on to
say there should be some definitive answer that
says you meet the requirements based on the
runway distances and you can build there. Mr.
Wheatley stated right now the FAA has the
ability based on that ordinance to arbitrarily
decline a permit based on what they might want
to do later. There are a lot of questions that
need answered in the ordinance, according to Mr.
Wheatley.
Chairman Smith stated those questions would have
to be answered when we continue the discussion.
Chairman Smith informed those present that the
ultimate decision on whether the ordinance is
adopted is with the Commissioners and if
Commissioners can’t get some of the questions
resolved, they will have a tough time making the
decision. Chairman Smith stated that he doesn’t
like it to be “fuzzy”, where nobody knows what
is going on. Chairman Smith commented that he
does understand where something is sent back to
Mr. Parker in order to make sure something
doesn’t happen that shouldn’t happen. Chairman
Smith stated before the Airport gives their
consent, they will have to run it by the FAA.
Chairman Smith stated the way he understands it,
Mr. Weland sends it to Mr. Parker and Mr. Parker
will make the decision whether to go to the FAA.
Chairman Smith asked Mr. Parker to prepare that
document. Chairman Smith stated Commissioners
will certainly address all of the concerns.
Chairman Smith commented that he can just
imagine the majority of the landowners are
concerned with what they can do inside that
rectangle on the map, what they can build, and
will they know they can build in it today, six
months from now or a year from now or will the
rules be changing as we go along and should the
landowner build now in fear that later they will
be told they can’t. There needs to be some kind
of definitive answer through the FAA or whoever
has oversight so we will know, according to
Chairman Smith. Chairman Smith commented he
would say the whole rectangle is going to have
to be diagramed so depending on where you are at
on the map you will know what the building
height can be. Chairman Smith stated we have to
have that information up front rather than a
person makes plans for something they want to
do, they bring it in to do it and find out in
that particular area you can’t build within so
many feet. Chairman Smith stated he thinks the
landowner should know that beforehand.
Commissioner Kirby thinks one thing that would
be extremely valuable to everybody is if you
took an end view of the area from the ground,
down the center of the runway from either the
north or the south end and show the angle off so
many feet in a grid on each side so a person can
see what can be done. Jay Wages showed
Commissioner Kirby another diagram that is in
the hearing packet. Mr. Parker said the airport
doesn’t have anything to show the whole
property, they have the north end and the south
end which an engineer came up with. Commissioner
Kirby said there needs to be more detail.
Mr. Parker commented the problem he has as an
airport manager is what they have depicted on
the map is their engineer’s best idea on what
the FAA would agree to, but the FAA rule says
100 to one and we are looking at 34 to one and
40 to one. Mr. Parker indicated there was a
little gray area in there which he thinks is
good, but the FAA may or may not think it’s good
because they want a little more room there. Mr.
Parker suggested he send the drawing to the FAA
and see if they would sign off on it which might
make it easier for us all.
Commissioner Dinning stated just for clarity, at
34 to one you get up in the air a lot faster.
Mr. Parker stated that is correct. Mr. Parker
said 100 to one seems more restrictive.
Commissioner Dinning stated we need the ability
to look the new information Mr. Parker will
produce or have produced over before the hearing
to see if it fits our needs. Commissioner
Dinning inquired if those present have their
mailing addresses listed on the sign in sheet so
once we have something we are comfortable in
sharing we can mail it out to those present and
everyone who has submitted comments so everyone
has it ahead of time.
Chairman Smith asked Mr. Parker when he thinks
he could have that information available.
Chairman Smith stated he thinks that is a good
idea. The information will give people an idea
of what they can do within the rectangle.
Mr. Weland commented he is not sure they will be
able to do that because you would almost have to
survey every inch of ground. Mr. Parker made the
comment that it is not all just cut and dry as
we would all like it to be. Chairman Smith
responded that it has to be cut and dry.
Chairman Smith stated that he supports the
Airport Board 110% and he wants that airport
there now and in the future but we can’t leave
the property owners hanging on what they can and
can’t do. Chairman Smith continued by stating we
have to give them some kind of definitive
answer, yes you can do this here. Chairman Smith
stated information like what can and can’t be
done needs to be upfront.
Mr. Parker stated no doubt about it Mr.
Wheatley’s property is the closest and if we as
a county said yes you can build a building there
and that building was a problem to the FAA, then
the FAA would no longer fund the airport.
Chairman Smith stated that is what he means; we
need to be able to tell them up front what they
can do. The FAA has to buy off on it, according
to Chairman Smith, and once we get the ordinance
together he would think you would get with the
FAA and say this is what we are going to be
presenting at our public hearing and the person
who owns the property is going to know that his
building can only be so tall.
Commissioner Kirby thinks the drawing Mr. Parker
showed him is explanatory enough and covers Mr.
Wheatley’s property. Commissioner Kirby
indicated it would be easy if you had FAA
approval ahead of time and every parcel was grid
off then you know it has already been okayed.
Commissioner Kirby said it would almost have to
be done parcel by parcel. Mr. Parker said the
FAA is going to want to do it building by
building. Commissioner Kirby said for
information going in, for what each landowner
needs, a map is needed of all parcels with the
parcels numbered and something that says what
you can do by the gradient on that particular
parcel. Commissioner Kirby said that is a lot of
work to do but that is what we are going to have
to do sooner or later because somewhere along
the line when an applicant comes in and asks for
permission to do something we have to say yes or
no. Commissioner Kirby continued by stating if
we had prior approval from the FAA that you can
build to a certain height and we knew that ahead
of time and it was grid off on a map for every
parcel, it would be easy. We just have to do
this homework, according to Commissioner Kirby,
and the FAA has to do their homework too and
they have to commit. Commissioner Kirby said he
sees a lot of properties here inside the
rectangle where the property is down in a hole.
Mr. Weland agreed that a lot of properties drop
off.
Chairman Smith asked Mr. Parker to get the
needed information together stating at least it
is a starting point. Mr. Parker stated he can
contact the FAA and send them a copy of the
drawings presented at this hearing (referring to
the rectangular area and the area within a five
mile radius) and ask the FAA if they will sign
off on the elevations that were put together by
the airport’s engineer, but he is thinking the
FAA probably won’t do that. Commissioner Dinning
inquired why we should go through this exercise
if the FAA won’t sign off on it. Mr. Parker said
so someone doesn’t build something in front of
the runway and shut the runway down.
Commissioner Kirby said if you take that drawing
and ask the FAA if that is what they have in
mind, is this slope going to work, is this area
on the ground going to work, and if the FAA says
yes, that slope works and the county stays
within that, then it is okay. Mr. Parker
informed those present that there is zoning in
place. Mr. Weland said in the current zoning,
anything within that rectangle, he has to refer
to the airport. Mr. Weland stated he thinks 99%
of what is proposed the airport is going to look
at and say it is probably okay, such as a
regular 18 foot house.
Chairman Smith inquired what they are going to
be able to provide to Commissioners so
Commissioners can give it to the landowners.
Chairman Smith asked if they are going to be
able to say a piece of property within the
rectangle can only have a building so tall. Mr.
Weland doesn’t think you can do that. Chairman
Smith asked why it can’t be done. Mr. Weland
said because of the slope. Chairman Smith
inquired if they weren’t aware of what that
slope is. Mr. Weland stated that it depends on
site specific and building specific. According
to Mr. Weland, when an application for a
building permit is submitted, they are supposed
to show on that application where the building
is going to sit and what the elevation is. If
the Airport has a question, they can submit it
to the FAA.
Dennis Shelton commented that as far as
elevation, he can’t see very much variation
except for the last quarter on the south end
where it drops down in the valley. Up on the
level where Mr. Shelton drives every day, it
looks as flat “as a pancake” all the way to the
highway. Mr. Parker responded that it looks that
way, but the runway actually varies 25 feet from
one end to the other, it is not flat. Mr.
Shelton said it is relatively flat and Mr.
Parker agreed.
Commissioner Kirby said everyone who owns a
parcel can find out or maybe even knows what the
elevation of that particular parcel is.
Chairman Smith inquired if there is anything the
GIS Mapper can do to help. Mr. Parker stated the
GIS Mapper can draw something similar to what
the airport engineers have done. Chairman Smith
asked if the GIS Mapper would have the
elevations. Mr. Parker responded that the mapper
probably does not. Chairman Smith suggested
Commissioners meet with the GIS Mapper and
review the area within the rectangle. Chairman
Smith commented that we have to start someplace.
Chairman Smith said the problem he is having
right now is the fact that no matter what we
come up with and agree to here, the landowners
are still going to be hanging out there as to
what they can do. Chairman Smith stated we can
agree to the height, we can agree to everything
the landowner wants to do but then the
application goes to the FAA and the FAA
disapproves and you are going to have to tear it
down. There is where Chairman Smith says he is
having a real problem and he feels we need
something more.
Rob Pluid stated he assumes the FAA when they do
their calculations they are going to do it off
the altitude of the runway so you would have a
starting point there. The other property even
though it does roll, you could adjust it to the
altitude of the runway and they could define it
from that point, the runway point. There has to
be a starting point and something to tie those
measurements to, according to Mr. Pluid.
Chairman Smith asked if Mr. Parker can keep that
in mind. Mr. Parker said everything they have
built on the airport has gone through this
process, every hangar they’ve built, every piece
of asphalt they have laid, every taxiway, every
runway light, and every fence.
Commissioner Kirby stated that he knows Mr.
Parker knows where the level of the ground is on
every square inch of that airport. Chairman
Smith stated that Mr. Parker had mentioned
building the hangars and asked if those were
based off the level of the runway. Mr. Parker
responded that they do and any time they have a
project, they do the same thing any landowner
would be required to do and that is to fill out
form 7460-1 and send it to the FAA and on that
form it would have the latitude, longitude,
ground elevation and basic information like
that. The FAA engineers would have the ability
to put that in space and compare it to the
closest portion of the runway in space and
determine how tall the building could be.
Mr. Wheatley stated the vagueness of having to
go to the FAA every time burdens everyone. Mr.
Wheatley stated if he had an application today
for a 35 or 50 foot building he wouldn’t know if
he could build it or not. As a property owner he
would like to know whether he could build
something this year or if he could wait and
build it two years from now.
Chairman Smith stated right now our runway runs
to a certain point and we already own the
property to extend the runway out to a specific
point and then we have to be worried about the
property that is in front of that and that is
where we have to be concerned how tall those
buildings are. Chairman Smith asked if we also
have to be concerned to the east and west. Mr.
Parker responded yes, in some cases and he
confirmed not as much as we are concerned with
the property right out in front of the runway.
The angle to the side is seven to one so it
rises in a hurry and is a really steep angle
relative to 40 to one off of the south end,
according to Mr. Parker. Every 40 feet you go
out, you are only going up one foot, but off the
side, every seven feet you go out you are going
up one foot. How far out from where we extend
the runway are we concerned with height Chairman
Smith inquired. Mr. Parker referred to the
rectangular area on the map and explained the
affect stating on the south end to a certain
point you could build to 150 feet tall. On the
north end, nothing is changing at all, but in
200 feet it stays level from the end of the
runway and then it goes up at a 20 to one angle
so for every 20 feet you go out it goes up one
foot and at the line someone could build 150
feet tall. Even at 20 to one it climbs pretty
quickly, according to Mr. Parker. Off to the
sides of the runway, from the centerline of the
runway it is 250 feet, so about to the edge of
the taxiway, and from there it starts climbing
at seven to one so for every seven feet to the
side, it goes up one foot. Mr. Parker said as
you can see there really are not many places
where 150 feet tall will bother traffic. Mr.
Parker stated that the issue is in the old
ordinance there was aircraft coming in from the
south and they are shooting a fairly shallow
angle in instrument conditions not looking
outside the aircraft, breaking out of the clouds
and then landing on the runway. The departing
aircraft very, very rarely takes off to the
north because of the hill to the north and the
prevailing wind is almost always out of the
south so the departing aircraft and the
approaching aircraft generally come in from the
south. Mr. Parker showed the end of the current
runway on the map and stated the way the current
situation is it goes out 200 feet and climbs at
two angles, a 34 to one and a 40 to one. The 34
to one is for the approach and it starts at 200
feet from the end of the runway. The departure
starts at the end of the runway and goes out 40
to one. Those angles actually converge in space
according to Mr. Parker. Mr. Parker indicated a
point on the map and stated that someone could
build a 150 foot building there and pointing at
another area on the map, he stated a roughly 75
foot building could be built there. Mr. Parker
stated that it’s not really a big issue for
certain landowners but it is for Mr. Wheatley
and some other landowners. Mr. Parker spoke
about the proposed runway extension showing on
the map the land that is owned by the airport.
The plan is, according to Mr. Parker, for that
runway to be extended 1200 feet so jet traffic
would have enough runway to come to Bonners
Ferry. Mr. Parker commented that they don’t get
as much jet traffic as wants to come here. Mr.
Parker said when they extend that runway then
the 200 foot would be extended to that point and
then the 34 to one and the 40 to one would be at
that new starting point instead of where it
starts now.
Commissioner Dinning inquired if you extend the
runway does it automatically then extends the
affect. Commissioner Dinning stated there are
currently some properties that would not be
necessarily affected as it sits today without
the runway extension. Commissioner Dinning
stated if you extend the runway a quarter of a
mile then you have just pushed the impact of
this ordinance. Mr. Parker stated what the
Airport Board tried to do with this ordinance is
to prepare everybody for that 1200 foot
extension and he confirmed that the proposed
ordinance addresses the extension. Commissioner
Dinning thinks it would be good to use the
airport elevation as best we can to show what we
think would be at that point and he understands
the variances in the land and the topography
change.
LaVern Dinning inquired where Highway 2 comes
into play. Mr. Parker showed Highway 2 on the
map and where Mr. Dinning’s property is located.
Mr. Parker said the FAA did a site survey of our
airport and had engineering and land people come
in to determine how many things we have in the
path for airplanes coming in and out and
landing. In there they found numerous trees, no
buildings at this point, and they’ve given the
county three years to get rid of these dangers
to airspace, the things that penetrate the
airspace. The FAA hasn’t picked up the Highway
yet, according to Mr. Parker, and Dinning’s are
correct in that anytime you have a Highway close
to an airport you have to plan on, he thinks, a
16 foot tall truck going down the highway and
that basically being an obstruction to an
aircraft coming in to land. Mr. Parker thinks
someday we will have to move the runway to the
south or move the highway around the airport,
which probably is not going to happen. Mr.
Parker commented that the Dinnings are being a
little bit forward thinking. The FAA doesn’t
show the Highway as a problem. In some of the
older drawings the FAA brings it up, but since
their drawing was done, Highway 2 has been built
up about four feet. Mr. Parker said the Highway
is going to be an issue.
Commissioner Dinning moved to continue this
hearing tentatively until January 23, 2012 at
10:00 a.m. if the county civil attorney is
available and with the understanding that
detailed maps be produced and given to those in
attendance ahead of the hearing for their
review. Commissioner Kirby second. Motion passed
unanimously.
The public hearing ended at 11:00 a.m.
There being no further business, the meeting
adjourned at 11:00 a.m.
/s/
RONALD R. SMITH, Chairman
ATTEST:
/s/
GLENDA POSTON, Clerk
By: Nancy Ryals, Deputy |
|
Questions or comments? Click
here to
email! |
|
|
|
|
