Monday, December 30, 2019, at 8:00 a.m., Commissioners met in regular session with Chairman Dan Dinning, Commissioner Wally Cossairt, Commissioner Walt Kirby, Clerk Glenda Poston, and Deputy Clerk Michelle Rohrwasser.
8:00 a.m., Judge Barbara Buchanan and Administrative District Judge Rich Christensen joined the meeting.
Commissioners held a special meeting with Judge Buchanan and Judge Christensen to discuss the proposal for another district judge for Bonner and Boundary Counties. Judge Christensen said they’re looking to acquire another district judge who would be housed in Bonner County and they have the statistics to prove there is a need as they’ve been very busy. Judge Christensen informed Commissioners that statewide filings for district judges have been reviewed and between years 2018 and 2019, there was actually a drop in state filings, but the First District had the highest filings in the state. It was nearly double the filings in the Second District. It not only affects judge caseloads, it also affects criminal caseloads, etc. Two new magistrates will also be requested for Kootenai County. Judge Christensen said they do have Kootenai County Commissioners’ blessings and have a support letter from them. This affects having a longer time resolution and it’s important for justice to have this position. Judge Christensen said for at least the last seven years, we’ve had a district judge coming from Kootenai County to assist Judge Buchanan. Judge Christensen added that he does understand that it’s a tough year for budgets, but he feels there is some support already from legislators. Commissioners were asked if they would provide a letter of support that would be addressed to the Supreme Court.
Judge Buchanan said if the request for another district judge is approved, the new judge would be chambered in Bonner County. Judge Buchanan said she has two assistants in Bonner County and one of them handles out of county matters. Bonner County Commissioners will be informed that she will need another law clerk. Clerk Poston said Boundary County contributes $14,000 for its portion of the law clerk. Judge Christensen said there needs to be a law change and to go through the Joint Finance-Appropriations Committee (JFAC) as well. Chairman Dinning asked how Boundary County is, statistically, for population in cases compared to other counties. Judge Christensen said it always feels like there is a lot more litigation out of Bonner County. Judge Buchanan said there are not a lot of civil cases in Boundary County and felonies increased greatly for a time, but that has cut back some. Chairman Dinning said if this request is approved, it would probably take place in July. Judge Buchanan said there probably wouldn’t be a new judge until approximately January 2021. Clerk Poston said she would need to know expenses.
Judge Christensen commented that Kootenai County is looking at a new courtroom facility.
Commissioner Kirby moved to write a letter of support for a new district judge. Commissioner Cossairt second. Motion passed unanimously.
The meeting with Judge Buchanan and Judge Christensen ended at 8:16 a.m.
Commissioners tended to administrative duties until their next scheduled meeting at 9:00 a.m.
9:00 a.m., Road and Bridge Department Co-Superintendents Renee Nelson and Randy Morris joined the meeting to give the department report. Mr. Morris provided a written report.
Commissioners gave the opening invocation and said the Pledge of Allegiance.
Ms. Nelson and Mr. Morris informed Commissioners that they found two loaders on the Idaho Transportation Department’s (ITD) website for surplus property so they contacted ITD to notify them of the county’s interest. Mr. Morris said Boundary County was the first to express interest in both loaders so if they can get them, they will make arrangements to pick them up. Mr. Morris listed benefits of having the loaders. Mr. Morris mentioned that Road and Bridge was also able to pick up a snowplow from ITD.
Those present discussed the Myrtle Creek Bridge Replacement project.
Commissioner Kirby moved to authorize the Chairman to sign the FY 2020 Federal Aid Bridge Application for the Myrtle Creek Bridge Replacement project. Commissioner Cossairt second. Motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner Kirby moved to adopt Resolution 2020-13. A resolution supporting the project identification submittal for the Myrtle Creek Bridge Replacement Project, and will sign the resolution once the figures have been determined. Commissioner Cossairt second. Motion passed unanimously. Resolution 2020-13 reads as follows:
A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE PROJECT IDENTIFICATION SUBMITTAL FOR THE
STC-5804, MYRTLE CREEK BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Boundary County, Idaho, does support the project identification submittal for the STC-5804, Myrtle Creek Bridge Replacement Project to the Local Highway Technical Assistance Council (LHTAC), and
WHEREAS, the total project cost estimate is $2,471,000.00, which will require $181,371.00 of local matching funds to be made available from Boundary County,
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Chairman of the Board of Boundary County Commissioners is hereby authorized and directed to sign the project identification packet and submit it to LHTAC for prioritization.
Adopted this 30th day of December, 2019.
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Dan R. Dinning, Chairman
Wally Cossairt, Commissioner
Walt Kirby, Commissioner
GLENDA POSTON, Clerk
Recorded as instrument #280319
Those present reviewed piggyback bid information for a Caterpillar Excavator Model 323 and discussed details involving a five year and seven year lease. It was said the difference between the two terms is if Boundary County enters into a seven year lease, there is more cost to the sale price as a result of the full seven year government fail-safe warranty. Chairman Dinning asked how financing will be under each scenario. Ms. Nelson reviewed the two quotes provided.
The annual payment options involved are $24,000 or $30,000, plus the warranty, according to Ms. Nelson. Ms. Nelson said this excavator seemed to be one of the best models they could run for seven years as long as it’s under warranty so Road and Bridge would not have a fear of running it for seven years instead of the five year term.
Commissioners stated for the record that there was an error due to a misunderstanding that the motion to accept the piggyback bid was to be made this week, but was mistakenly scheduled for next week and this is a time sensitive matter. Due to the warranty deadline, Commissioners need to make a motion today.
Commissioner Kirby moved to amend this morning’s agenda for 9:30 a.m., to accept the piggyback bid for a Caterpillar 323 Model Excavator as it’s a time sensitive matter. Commissioner Cossairt second. Motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner Kirby moved to accept the piggyback bid for a Caterpillar Excavator Model 323 with the seven year term. Commissioner Cossairt second. Motion passed unanimously.
Deputy Clerk Nancy Ryals joined the meeting at 9:35 a.m.
The meeting with Mr. Morris and Ms. Nelson ended at 9:35 a.m.
Commissioner Kirby moved to go into closed session pursuant to Idaho Code 31-874. Commissioner Cossairt second. Motion passed unanimously. 9:37 a.m., Commissioner Kirby moved to go out of closed session. Commissioner Cossairt second. Motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner Cossairt moved to deny indigent case 2020-4. Commissioner Kirby second. Motion passed unanimously.
Deputy Clerk Ryals left the meeting at 9:38 a.m.
Commissioner Cossairt moved to appoint Clerk Glenda Poston as the authorized agent for the City of Bonners Ferry building permit application for the armory. Commissioner Kirby second. Motion passed unanimously.
Clerk Poston informed Commissioners that she will submit the application to the city today.
Commissioner Kirby moved to prepare a letter requesting the City of Bonners Ferry waive their portion of the permit fee. Commissioner Cossairt second. Motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner Kirby moved to approve the minutes of December 16 & 17, 2019. Commissioner Cossairt second. Motion passed unanimously.
County Civil Attorney Tevis Hull contacted Commissioners via telephone at 9:41 a.m.
Commissioners, Clerk Poston and Attorney Hull discussed matters regarding insurance coverage as it pertains to Boundary Community Hospital and Boundary County. Attorney Hull said the county and the hospital have nothing to do with each other, other than Commissioners appointing the Hospital Board of Trustees as it’s a separate entity. The county does contribute more to the hospital than just levy dollars as a result of covering insurance. Clerk Poston said the hospital’s payroll is more, but their assets are estimated about the same. Commissioners discussed receiving a quote for insurance coverage from Sage Dixon with Redman & Company, but Commissioners want to inform Mr. Dixon that they’re fully satisfied with Idaho Counties Risk Management Program (ICRMP) and are not interested in entertaining offers at this point.
Chairman Dinning informed Attorney Hull that he received a call regarding herd districts. Attorney Hull said he met with a constituent about this matter and would be getting back to him about it after the first of the year.
The call with Attorney Hull ended at 10:00 a.m.
10:00 a.m., Clerk Poston informed Commissioners that she needed to address a matter regarding the Boundary Ambulance Service District as it pertains to Boundary Ambulance Service’s request for an advance of funds.
Commissioner Kirby moved to recess as the Boundary County Board of Commissioners and to convene as the Boundary County Ambulance Service District Governing Board to address a time sensitive matter. Commissioner Cossairt second. Motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner Kirby moved to authorize the transfer of funds totaling $35,649.36 to Boundary Ambulance Service. This is an amount that is outside of the contract and it is a time sensitive matter. Commissioner Cossairt second. Motion passed unanimously.
10:03 a.m., Commissioner Kirby moved to adjourn as the Boundary County Ambulance Service District and to reconvene as the Boundary County Board of Commissioners. Commissioner Cossairt second. Motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner Cossairt moved to sign Certificates of Residency for Jordan Dally and Shereen Leyden. Commissioner Kirby second. Motion passed unanimously.
10:04 a.m., Commissioners held a public hearing to consider Planning and Zoning Application #19-177. This is an application for an amendment to Ordinance 9B18LOV2 requested by the Boundary County Planning and Zoning Commission. Present were: Chairman Dan Dinning, Commissioner Wally Cossairt, Commissioner Walt Kirby, Clerk Glenda Poston, Deputy Clerk Michelle Rohrwasser, Planning and Zoning Administrator John Moss, David Nicholas, Elizabeth Nicholas, Pamela Jacobs, John Keller, John Poland, Cassie Tauber, James Embree, Chris Embree, and Tony Jacobs. The hearing was recorded.
Chairman Dinning reviewed the hearing procedures. This is an application for amending Land Use Ordinance 9B18LOV2 and Commissioners will review the specific changes in conjunction with the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Chairman Dinning explained that this application is a legislative matter and conflicts of interest do not apply.
Commissioners opened the hearing and asked Mr. Moss for an opening statement.
Mr. Moss presented an opening statement and said the information Commissioners have before them is a summary of changes from the Planning and Zoning Commission and the thrust of these changes is to correct some of the sections to be more appropriate and to correct typos in the document. There have been updates to definitions in Sections 4, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 188.8.131.52., 15, 18, and 20. Out of respect for the number of changes, Mr. Moss requested Commissioners look over Section 6 first, then go back and look at how Section 6 fits into the rest of the ordinance. Section 6 pertains to commercial/industrial placement permits and penalties for violations. Mr. Poland said we’re here for other aspects as well, such as personal property limitations, etc.
Chairman Dinning said of extreme importance is the moratorium that is in place so we need to get that taken care of due to time limits. Mr. Moss said Section 11.3.7., refers to urban subdivisions and the issue is that there is no reference to density. The proposed change is that the ordinance will state that if someone wants to create an urban subdivision, the parcel will need to be within certain mentioned zone districts. Chairman Dinning said he had concerns about the statement, “or by private well”. The ordinance needs to tie that matter to the daily standard gallons per minute, but he doesn’t know if that is according to Panhandle Health District or for someone’s well. Chairman Dinning added that years ago he thought the standard was six gallons per minute in a 24 hour basis. Mr. Moss questioned if the mention of the standard gallons per minute requirement needs to be referred to in a central location in the ordinance or in each section. Chairman Dinning said the requirements of the standard gallons per minute need to be identified. It was said that in Section 11.3.7, the mention of sewer or Panhandle Health District approved septic system was added. Chairman Dinning said we’re looking at urban subdivisions and in one section it talks about sufficient electrical services, but is there a situation in which someone would not want services. Mr. Moss said it can change to say “may”. Section 184.108.40.206, talks about water and wells and we need to clarify minimum flows, if that information is available. Commissioner Cossairt and Commissioner Kirby had no questions.
Chairman Dinning asked for public comments regarding proposed changes for Section 11.3.7., from those in favor, uncommitted and opposed. No one spoke.
Mr. Moss said Section 6 is easy to discuss and Section 6.6., pertains to utility use permits. The reason for this proposed change is that there are occasions where an address is requested for a location that has no structure on it and there have been several of these requests, according to Mr. Moss. There is no similar process to follow for this situation. The proposed change is to provide a mechanism for providing an address in this scenario. Mr. Moss said because it’s possible for someone in the future who already has an address to put in a residence, but they already have a utility permit so they wouldn’t get a residential placement permit like the county requires. Mr. Moss explained a process of having a coupon with a timeline in which the property owner has already paid for the utility permit and would still need to turn in a residential placement permit, but they wouldn’t need to pay for the residential placement unless they didn’t turn in the coupon within the timeline. Mr. Moss said it was advised that there should not be an open ended timeline. Clerk Poston said there would need to be something in the Planning and Zoning budget that would have to be an expense to bear as a refund at one point. Mr. Moss said this is a new section.
Commissioners asked for public comments. Cassie Tauber said she would like to get an address for her tree farm, but she doesn’t relish the timeline. The only reason she would get an address for a non-residence is for electrical services and deliveries so there shouldn’t be a huge fee. Ms. Tauber said when she builds on the property in 10 or so years, applying that fee makes more sense to her. Or make it a one-time fee. Ms. Tauber asked if Boundary County uses the 911 system for residential addresses. Chairman Dinning replied that addresses are linked to the 911 system and it’s in the exact distance in mileage. Mr. Moss said concern was expressed that there is no incentive, but there would be an incentive in having the applicant get their surcharge or money, back. Mr. Moss reiterated that the intent is encouragement for the property owner to get their money back. Chairman Dinning said he doesn’t know if the county can add an additional fee so Commissioners will have to think about that part and talk to the county civil attorney as we’re dealing with standards and fees that need to be what our actual costs are. Ms. Tauber asked if a person is required to have a residential placement permit for a residence and the reply was, yes. Ms. Tauber commented about having the permit information in the computer and having it so it doesn’t expire. Commissioner Kirby asked what the cost is for a residential placement permit and Mr. Moss said it is $35.00. Ms. Tauber said the issue is that if someone gets an address prior to the residence being constructed, the house may not be built at that location so it should be one shot. Commissioner Kirby said we’re not talking about serious money. Commissioners said they would think this over and come back to it. Mr. Moss said the reason for mentioning this section up front is because it is brought up all throughout the section.
Commissioners asked for public comment and no one spoke in favor, uncommitted or opposed.
Definitions were discussed. David Nicholas asked if this information will be methodically reviewed versus reviewing the more pertinent section. Mr. Nicholas explained to Commissioners that this is the first time he was able to get a group of people together for the hearing. Mr. Nicholas referenced Section 2.15., pertaining to shipping containers and he said that although this section is in the process of being developed, there is the definition relating to containers. There needs to be a standard for shipping or tractor trailer containers, etc. Mr. Nicholas said the first thing is to define container and then define standards. There is nothing under Section 10 yet so before getting to definitions and seeing if there are standards, the Planning and Zoning Commission needs to review the process and set standards and that has not happened. The definition here is just for container. Chairman Dinning reviewed aloud the definition of container. It was said that this is the definition that Planning and Zoning recommends.
Chris Embree, Cassie Tauber and John Poland were in favor of the definition. No one from the public spoke as uncommitted or opposed to the definition. 2.37., is the definition for impoundment. Mr. Moss reviewed the proposed definition. Chairman Dinning asked if there is any vehicle that doesn’t have to be licensed. Mr. Moss said a tractor. Chairman Dinning commented that farming equipment is dealt with separately and Mr. Moss said yes, it’s not a vehicle. It was asked if the proposed definition for impoundment is okay. Those present discussed the definition of vehicle and how it ties into licensing. Chris Embree questioned the term impoundment referencing government property versus private property and questioned why it’s relevant. Mr. Moss said it’s relative when looking at automobile graveyards.
Commissioners asked for public comments on the term impoundment. Mr. Poland said he doesn’t have comments on impoundment, but he commented about going back to Section 2.18., regarding derelict vehicle and then returning to what a definition of vehicle is.
Mr. Nicholas questioned if it could be a judgement of authority, such as the Sheriff, to decide as someone could have farming equipment that’s not licensed. Mr. Moss referenced the definition of junkyard in the ordinance and Chairman Dinning read aloud the definition. Section 2.40., refers to junk yard and it’s a newly proposed definition. This definition also refers to 2.65 for refuse and 2.6., for automobile graveyard. Chairman Dinning said some of the things he has concerns with, and in his experience over the years with litigation, is what one person considers worthless, another person would not. It can become a judgement call so we need to be careful of the verbiage on that. Chairman Dinning said it becomes who is the determining factor of refuse. Mr. Moss said they’re trying to establish junk yard as an auto graveyard or place for scrap. Mr. Moss added that if it’s an impoundment lot, it’s an auto graveyard. The definition is meant to incorporate what the definition of junk yard is. The Planning and Zoning Commission felt commercial versus non-commercial wasn’t necessary as it’s a junk yard either way. Chairman Dinning said using the proposed definition of junk yard and referring to 2.65., what is it that he can or cannot put in a junk yard? Who is going to make a determination that something is worthless and rubbish? Chairman Dinning said he doesn’t want Boundary County to be the arbiter.
Commissioner Kirby commented about creating a nuisance with someone’s belongs and he said he has a building to house his cars in that this neighbors otherwise wouldn’t like. Commissioner Kirby said his cars are licensed, insured, etc., and you can’t legislate this too fine. Commissioner Kirby added that he would much rather have the junk yard than to find junk in the creek when he goes fishing. Chairman Dinning said the intent for the Planning and Zoning Commission is to separate out vehicle junk yards from what? Mr. Moss said that is why it’s either/or so there is no question. It’s understood that all of those words are in the definition of refuse as there is so many descriptions for refuse. Chairman Dinning commented that he doesn’t down play the work the Planning and Zoning Commission has put into this application. Mr. Moss said by pulling out the terms commercial or non-commercial, junk yard is prohibited.
Chairman Dinning asked for general comments from the public.
Ms. Tauber said it seems like additional definitions are good, but they should not be a replacement. By instinct, you know that when you walk into a junk yard that it’s a junk yard. If the intent of the junk yard is to sell the items, then you should tell someone and get a permit for it and it should not be in her agricultural back yard. Ms. Tauber added that, like Commissioner Kirby said, there is a place for it. Chairman Dinning questioned if there is no intent to sell the item. Ms. Tauber said the new definition requires a conditional use permit. Ms. Tauber said she’s in an agricultural zone and her property values are directly tied to being in that zone and she doesn’t want to change those things. Chris Embree discussed provisions.
Chairman Dinning said he’s going to go off script for those who have taken time out of their day to attend this hearing as these are the issues people want to get to.
Chairman Dinning asked for comments in favor of the proposal for Sections 2 regarding definitions, Section 10 for standards and Section 15 for the exclusion of junk yards in several zones. Commissioners asked for general comments. Mr. Nicholas said this segways into the definition of junk yards and if it’s junk or personal property. Mr. Nicholas presented a letter dated December 30, 2019, that he read aloud at the hearing. The letter references a need to change county regulation 15.2.11.
Elizabeth Nicholas spoke and said she used to be able to go to her neighbor’s house and sit on the back porch and it was farm land and forest. Now that area looks like a commercial terminal across the way. Ms. Nicholas explained that there are many rows of gigantic trailers on the ground and it’s not known what is in those trailers or it’s a storage depot and it looks like a commercial business emerging. The containers are on 60 acres and they’re spreading.
Ms. Tauber said relative to that, the commercial aspect is coming and going with trucks and the impacts to this road is significant. There are multiple, multiple stacks of cargo containers. Trucks are coming and going with significant loads on McArthur Lake Road and strangers are coming with them. It’s a threat to the neighborhood and to the county. It’s significant, according to Ms. Tauber.
Mr. Poland said he’s very much effected and he asked if Commissioners read his letter to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Commissioners said the letters are included in the packet received from Mr. Moss. Mr. Poland said to summarize his opinion, he’s in favor of most of what the Planning and Zoning Commission has done. It hinges critically on the definition of junk yard and refuse and if those two matters are not done better, it will undermine everything in the ordinance. Mr. Poland added that he attempted to clarify that by providing a lengthy description and he listed definitions used in the east coast. Ms. Poland said his concern is that if this ordinance passes, he would be happy, provided the definitions are right. Mr. Poland reiterated that if those definitions are worked out, he would be happy with the ordinance.
Chris Embree said from what he understands, there are current regulations, but the county is unwilling or unable to enforce them due to the attorney’s enforcement ability, but if that is wrong, he would like to know. It seems there is something in that an injunction can be started and they want compliance. Mr. Embree said on this topic, behind his fence line at 332 Doe Road, is an assortment of vehicles, containers and a fire truck and that is currently in violation today. As personal property, someone has 20,000 square feet in which to have all of this, but Mr. Poland is using 10 acres. It’s basically a storage facility in an agricultural zone. If the county can pass these changes soon, property owners can get into compliance. The attorney can send a letter for an injunction, etc. It’s more than just having to work together with the county attorney and there is nothing in Section 15 to get the county in court. Mr. Moss said the Planning and Zoning Commission realized there is no regulated use so they came up with Section 15.17., which has to do with storage excess. Mr. Moss read the definition for this section to include the mention that the property owner shall have 30 days to respond and correct a violation within an agreed upon time frame.
Section 4.2., in the existing ordinance was referenced and Chairman Dinning said this process may seem simple, but it is fairly complex. Mr. Embree commented about writing a letter to the property owner requesting they come into compliance. Mr. Embree said if there is any current ordinance that equates to a violation, just send a letter. This could kick start the process for the property owner to look for some other location.
John Keller said it seems obvious that there is a shipping container storage site in an agricultural zone and who knows what is stored in these containers. It could be explosives, narcotics, etc. These containers are used all over the world and people who use them don’t want other people to know what’s inside. Ms. Tauber said it’s public safety. Chris Embree said this is out of place and way out of line. James Embree added that it’s zoning and he questioned if what is pertinent for the zone is identified. In most cities the zone is set and most people know what the zone means and know what they can’t do. Why are the regulations only somewhat regulated, because it’s a small town? If current definitions are not clear enough to compel action, the county can come up more specific wording. If what we’re looking at doesn’t fit with what is on the books, then come up with a mechanism.
Chairman Dinning said Commissioners did receive letters from Mr. Poland approximately one year ago, but they have to allow these processes so they cannot say “let’s do this to this person” as that would be out of line. In this case, it’s a legislative issue and conflicts of interest don’t apply, but Commissioners have not inserted themselves into this so we will look at what needs to be done, and look at what is not allowed for enforcement and what needs to be corrected, but Commissioners cannot do it today. Ms. Tauber said it seems like when Commissioners make their review, they will come up with a good definition and will make compliance happen. Ms. Tauber mentioned having seen things go by the wayside as there no way to enforce them and she asked Commissioners to please work on this so we don’t end up in lawsuits.
The hearing was continued to Monday, January 13, at 10:00 a.m.
The portion of the hearing addressed today ended at 11:40 a.m.
11:42 a.m., Restorium Administrator Karlene Magee and Assistant Administrator Diana Lane joined the meeting. Those present discussed a matter regarding a resident’s account. Ms. Magee said the check was deposited in June 2019 and it said paid in full. Chairman Dinning informed Ms. Magee that County Civil Attorney Tevis Hull said there is no recourse. Attorney Hull had also suggested changes to the Restorium Admissions Policy that states if a resident leaves the Restorium without giving 30 days’ notice, they will be liable for the cost of the remaining days. Chairman Dinning said having the resident initial or sign the Admissions Policy and this particular section is a good idea. Commissioners said Attorney Hull would look over the changes once they’ve been made. Commissioners mentioned not accepting the checks that are written as paid in full if there is a disagreement. Ms. Magee discussed a matter regarding old time sheets that are no longer pertinent.
Ms. Magee said the Restorium now has 36 residents and they’ve called people on the waiting list. Some people aren’t yet ready to move to the Restorium and others want a private room with a private restroom. Ms. Magee said she has five, half rooms available.
The meeting with Ms. Magee and Ms. Lane ended at 11:56 a.m.
Commissioner Cossairt moved to grant an extension of time to pay year 2019 taxes for parcel #MH61N02E04391AA and to accept the tax amount due by April 29, 2020. Commissioner Kirby second. Motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner Cossairt moved to grant an extension of time to pay year 2019 taxes for parcel #MH61N02E04391BA and to accept the tax amount due by April 29, 2020. Commissioner Kirby second. Motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner Cossairt moved to reappoint to Scott Fuller to the Boundary County Planning and Zoning Commission with a term to expire January 31, 2024. Commissioner Kirby second. Motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner Cossairt moved to reappoint John Cranor to the Boundary County Planning and Zoning Commission with a term to expire January 31, 2024. Commissioner Kirby second. Motion passed unanimously.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 12:10 p.m.
DAN R. DINNING, Chairman
GLENDA POSTON, Clerk
By: Michelle Rohrwasser, Deputy Clerk