COMMISSIONERS MEETING                                           JANUARY 17, 2006

 

The Elmore County Commissioners met in regular session on the above date in the basement of the Elmore County Courthouse, 150 South 4^th East, Mountain Home, Idaho 83647.

 

Present at the meeting were Chairperson Mary Egusquiza and Commissioners Larry Rose and Connie Cruser.  Also present at the meeting was Clerk Gail Best.

 

Chairperson Egusquiza read the Certificates of Residency into the record: Jeffrey Dillon Upchurch, and James Doan Upchurch III.  Motion by Rose, second by Cruser, to approve the Certificates as read and direct the Chair to sign them.

EGUSQUIZA - AYE

ROSE - AYE

CRUSER        - AYE     Motion carried and so ordered.

 

Motion by Egusquiza, second by Cruser, to approve the minutes of December 19, 2005.

EGUSQUIZA - AYE

ROSE - AYE

CRUSER        - AYE     Motion carried and so ordered.

 

Correspondence received by mail was reviewed by the Board.

 

Commissioner District alignment was discussed.  The discussion was then tabled due to the arrival of the 10:30 agenda appointment.

 

Len Perkins, P.O. Box 33, Atlanta, Idaho, who introduced himself as a concerned citizen of Atlanta appeared before the Board to discuss issues in Atlanta.  Mr. Perkins requested that the County provide recycling bins to hold aluminum cans and glass to be separated into green, brown and white glass.  Chairperson Egusquiza telephoned Brett Silver to see if he could provide the recycling containers for Atlanta and he indicated he could.  Mr. Perkins stated that they would store cans in plastic bags for the winter and begin the project next spring.

 

Mr. Perkins briefed the Board on several issues in Atlanta, including but not limited to, the fact that Boise County would like to set up a Highway Commission, someone to pursue a revision of the State law regarding Highway District voting, and a revision of the taxing district information appearing on the tax bills to reflect the Atlanta Highway District.

 

Motion by Egusquiza, second by Rose, to recess the meeting for lunch.

EGUSQUIZA - AYE

ROSE - AYE

CRUSER        - AYE     Motion carried and so ordered.

 

At 1:30 p.m. the Commissioners met in Executive Session pursuant to I.C. 67-2345(d) on a motion by Egusquiza, second by Cruser, with Social Services Director Marianne Bate. 

EGUSQUIZA - AYE

ROSE - AYE

CRUSER        - AYE     Motion carried and so ordered.

 

The following decisions were made:

 

K-06-05-09 Motion by Rose, second by Egusquiza, to dismiss the case as Elmore Medical Center has withdrawn their appeal.

EGUSQUIZA - AYE

ROSE - AYE

CRUSER        - AYE     Motion carried and so ordered.

 

K-01-04-14, K-04-04-12, and K-12-01-01 A letter was received from the sister of the applicant.  The Commissioners asked Ms. Bate to write a letter to the sister asking for more information before a decision is made on repayment.

 

K-08-05-03 Ms. Bate explained the case to the Commissioners.  The file will be given to the Prosecutor as the hospital is asking for pre-litigation on this case.

 

K-05-05-03 Motion by Egusquiza, second by Cruser, to approve the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law on the case.

EGUSQUIZA - AYE

ROSE - AYE

CRUSER        - AYE     Motion carried and so ordered.

 

Regular session resumed.

 

The next agenda item was to open the Fuel Proposal Bids.  Chairperson Egusquiza opened two bids that were received.  One from Hawley’s Automotive Incorporated and one from Hiler Brothers.  The Commissioners reviewed the bids and a decision will be made at the January 30^th meeting at 2:00 p.m.

 

Correspondence was reviewed.

 

The Confined Animal Feeding Ordinance (CAFO) workshop followed.

 

Nick Nettleton, 18542 Wilson Road, Glenns Ferry, appeared before the Board to offer some comments on the proposed CAFO Ordinance.

 

Mr. Nettleton started with the CAFO definition, we now have a medium CAFO defined.  He feels this would affect Page 6 - Non Conforming CAFO’s - making non-conforming CAFO’s register, which they haven’t had to in the past.  Also on Page 8, REGISTRATION PROCESS FOR EXISTING CAFOs, going back to the medium CAFO’s, they would have to register which in turn would require a public hearing, and who would be responsible for the cost of the public hearing?  It would also add to the work load of the Growth and Development Department and the Commission.  On Page 8, B. the last sentence reads: The Commission shall review each Registration Notice and shall make a determination regarding the completeness and accuracy of the Registration Notice within thirty (30) days of the meeting.   Mr. Nettleton is not sure the Commission can meet that 30 day time frame.

 

On page 10, VI, PROCESS OF NOTICE AND APPLICATION HEARING FOR CAFO PERMIT APPROVAL: The Commission shall review the CAFO Permit Application for completeness.  Upon determining the same is complete and accurate, the Commission shall conduct a minimum of one (1) public hearing.   The public hearing is what we use to determine if it is accurate.  Discussion followed on rewording the paragraph.  Commissioner Rose suggested combining the public hearings on the applications.  Mr. Netttleton said we still need to notify neighbors and have publications.  Commissioner Rose asked are there that many medium CAFO’s out there?  Mr. Nettleton replied there are a few by where he lives that could possibly be a medium sized CAFO but they would have to be reviewed.  Mr. Nettleton asked what we were gaining by defining a medium CAFO?  Commissioner Cruser stated it was on the definitions we received from Idaho Association of Counties.  Mr. Nettleton said he was just trying to get standards that we can work with.  Discussion followed on why we have included medium CAFO’s. Mr. Nettleton said he does not recommend we regulate medium CAFO’s.  The operations that concern us the most are dairies.  Discussion followed on whether we should keep the medium CAFO definition.   

 

On page 6, under NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT PLAN, Mr. Nettleton questioned the third party recipients sentence that was added, he does not understand.  Commissioner Cruser stated the third party must meet the same requirements as the original party.  Mr. Nettleton brought up set backs requirements.  The third party is a farmer and this is nutrients that he is applying to his ground which is normal farming operations and he doesn’t know what setbacks and removal would have to do with this.  Commissioner Rose explained it keeps the farmer that has sagebrush or rocky ground from spreading it there.  Mr. Nettleton stated the Nutrient Management Plan takes care of that.  Commissioner Cruser stated that no agency has control over third party recipients, that is why we added it.  

 

On page 10, number 9, Mr. Nettleton thinks it should be an “a” instead of “the” in this sentence: All land upon which animal waste will be applied shall be part of “the” Nutrient Management Plan.  Discussion followed.  It was decided that “the” would be O.K.

 

On page 9, A. 2. it reads “The Site Plan shall clearly delineate a line enclosing all CAFO improvements”.  Mr. Nettleton feels it should read CAFO Facility Area.  Discussion followed and it was decided by all parties it would remain CAFO improvements.

 

Mr. Nettleton thanked the Board for their time and for taking into consideration his input on the ordinance.  The Commissioners thanked Mr. Nettleton for coming.

 

Under CAFO FACILITY AREAS, a minor typographical error will be fixed.

 

Discussion followed on the items that Mr. Nettleton reviewed.

 

Discussion followed on the Medium CAFO definition.   On page 3 it was decided that in the definition of CAFO, after Medium CAFO,  this phrase would be added: (at the time of the adoption of this Ordinance). 

 

The thirty day time frame Mr. Nettleton addressed has not changed from the current CAFO Ordinance and it was decided to keep it the same.

 

Clerk Best brought an Email to the Board regarding County owned vehicles which employees took home at night.  A fringe benefit calculation was discussed.  The Commissioners asked Deputy Clerk Steele to have Clerk Best contact our auditors for their opinion on the matter.

 

The work session on the CAFO Ordinance resumed. 

 

A closure plan and bond was discussed. 

 

Under definitions the following will be added: BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES: Practices as defined in Title 22, Chapter 49, Idaho Code or other practices, techniques, or measures that are determined to be a cost-effective and practicable means of preventing or reducing pollutants from point or non-point sources to a level compatible with state environmental goals.

 

Under CAFO SITE ADVISORY TEAM, the new definition will read: Team authorized by Idaho Code § 67-6529C and § 67-6529G consisting of representatives of Idaho state agencies that review a site and information regarding a proposed CAFO and issues an opinion regarding environmental risks and that site’s suitability for a CAFO, and designee of Elmore County.

 

Page 4 - CAFO SITE ADVISORY TEAM: add “and designee of Elmore County” at the end of the sentence.

 

On page 9, under Section V, number 2, add h.: A map showing all private and community domestic wells, irrigation wells, injection wells, irrigation conveyance and drainage structures, monitoring wells, wetlands, streams, ponds and reservoirs which are within one mile of the facility.

 

Under section V, add number 3 to read: Best management practices shall apply to an Animal Waste Management System, a Nutrient Management Plan, an Odor Management Plan, and a Pest Abatement Plan per Idaho Code § 3803(2) and a copy provided to the Commission and Board.

 

The present number 3 becomes number 4, number 4 becomes number 5, etc.

 

The new number 8, first sentence, under the same section will read: If the regulatory agencies requiring Nutrient Management and/or an Odor Management/Pest Abatement Plan accepts preliminary plans at the design stage, the Applicant shall submit a preliminary plan.

 

The closure plan and bond will be addressed at the next CAFO work session.