***Monday, July 27, 2020, at 9:00 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.

Commissioners gave the opening invocation and said the Pledge of Allegiance.

9:00 a.m., Road and Bridge Department Co-Superintendents Renee Nelson and Randy Morris joined the meeting to give the department report. A written report was submitted. Mr. Morris said they’re starting work on Ruby Creek Bridge #3 as soil stabilization was done last week. In attendance at the site were: the Local Highway Technical Assistance Council (LHTAC), the City of Rexburg personnel, Bonner County personnel, David Evans & Associates, HDR Inc, HMH Engineering, and Coeur d‘ Alene Paving, according to Ms. Nelson. Mr. Morris commented that everyone was there to learn about this type of project. Trout Creek Bridge is approximately 35 feet and Chairman Dinning questioned if we could’ve done this type of work to that bridge. It was said that Myrtle Creek Bridge will be more technical. Ms. Nelson said Mr. Morris has been working on roads to chip seal and hot mix patch.

Deep Creek Bridge #3 bid documents have been reviewed by County Civil Attorney Tevis Hull and are ready to go.

The meeting with Ms. Nelson and Mr. Morris ended at 9:10 a.m.

Clerk Poston presented Commissioners with the proposed budget for fiscal year 2020-2021.

Commissioners tended to administrative duties.

Airport Manager Dave Parker joined the meeting via conference call.

9:30 a.m., County Civil Attorney Tevis Hull joined the meeting via conference call and those present discussed matters pertaining to airport ground/hangar leases. Attorney Hull said the one issue that came up pertains to a real estate agent who is interested in buying a hangar with the plans of leasing a portion of this hangar to someone else. Attorney Hull said his understanding is this is a non-commercial lease and the potential buyers won’t be using the hangar full time and they want to lease it out to other people. Mr. Parker said that is also his understanding. Attorney Hull said his concern is that the lease the county has is very inexpensive and in this case it would be someone who is leasing the hangar who would turn around and basically lease it to someone else. The county does have a sublet portion in the lease, but it has to be with Commissioners’ written permission. Just knowing that the people want to have it for a commercial venture and whether or not the amount they lease it for offsets or goes over the lease amount, doesn’t seem right that they do this, according to Attorney Hull. Mr. Parker said he feels this is going to become more common. Chairman Dinning said someone might want to come and build a lot of hangars and then lease them out, but it’s not a big industry yet. Chairman Dinning added that we might be stuck as we already allow this to occur from what’s been described. Attorney Hull said yes, and he’s aware that some of the existing leases do share in the hangar, but the concern is that this is just an outright commercial venture. It just seems that people don’t want to go to the expense of leasing the ground and putting up a hangar so there’s a business there leasing it. Mr. Parker said when considering a commercial hangar location, the Airport Board looks at where cars are going to park, does the site need septic, and public access so there are a lot of questions that come into play. The Airport Board discussed this and if it’s sharing space, it’s not really a commercial venture, but if the hangar is getting leased out, the Airport Board feels that is a commercial use. Chairman Dinning asked what the difference in rate is. Mr. Parker said right now there is no difference, but the insurance is higher for a commercial lease. Mr. Parker added that the airport has never really had a commercial space rental hangar so maybe that’s what we should be looking at. Mr. Parker commented that it might be time to look at increasing ground/hangar lease payments. Chairman Dinning said the county could say in its lease that the lease amount is “X” if it’s for private use, but if it’s a commercial lease, the rate could be greater.

9:38 a.m., Road and Bridge Department Co-Superintendents Renee Nelson and Randy Morris returned to the meeting.

Attorney Hull said he understands cost sharing and feels that is what may be happening right now, but the concern he‘s focusing on is if you have a business and you bring in a T-hangar, which is larger and can house more planes, if we have this lease space, people can fly in, stay there and pay the fee, and that original lease holder is generating that as business revenue in excess of the county’s hangar lease payment. Commissioner Cossairt said he’s curious what other airports do. The Coeur d’ Alene Airport considers this to be an agreement between two people, as long as there is no advertising, etc., and the Moscow/Pullman Airport allows it as long as the airport manager knows who is on the field. Mr. Parker said if there is a formal written agreement, it requires additional insurance called hangar keepers insurance and it’s expensive, but it covers more than liability insurance, etc. Mr. Parker was asked to do more research and find out how the Airport Board feels.

Mr. Parker questioned the status of the Fixed Base Operator Agreement (FBO) that is expired.

The call to Mr. Parker ended at 9:43 a.m.

Ms. Nelson informed Commissioners of two issues regarding road naming. Attorney Hull said County Mapper Olivia Drake had been working on amendments to the Road Name Ordinance to find out where we are on a consistency standpoint. There is also the Road Standards Ordinance that is getting worked on for a variance issue. Attorney Hull added that there was discussion as to what the ordinance says and what was done in the past and there was no consistency. The county needs to come up with a consistent procedure and what was put together at the time doesn’t really fit the process now. It’s created confusion as to how to do road name changes and the procedure for that.

Commissioners briefly discussed the topic of property purchases requested by Cabinet Mountains Water District.

Commissioner Kirby moved to sign the Professional Services Agreement with T-O Engineers (Work Order 20-02) for construction administration of the airport snow removal equipment building pending review and approval by the County Civil Attorney. Commissioner Cossairt second. Motion passed unanimously.

Commissioner Kirby moved to sign the Construction Agreement with BF Builders for the airport snow removal equipment building. Commissioner Cossairt second. Motion passed unanimously.

Clerk Poston inquired about a specific tort claim.

Ms. Nelson and Mr. Morris stepped away from the meeting momentarily.

Commissioner Kirby moved to go into executive session pursuant to Idaho Code 74-206(1)b, to consider the evaluation, dismissal or disciplining of, or to hear complaints or charges brought against, a public officer, employee, staff member or individual agent, or public school student. Commissioner Cossairt second. Commissioners voted as follows: Chairman Dinning “aye”, Commissioner Cossairt “aye” and Commissioner Kirby “aye”. Motion passed unanimously. The executive session ended at 10:00 a.m. No action was taken.

Attorney Hull ended his call at 10:00 a.m.

Commissioner Kirby moved to approve the minutes of June 29 & 30, 2020. Commissioner Cossairt second. Motion passed unanimously.

Ms. Nelson and Mr. Morris returned to the meeting to discuss needing communication to continue working on a remedy for the addressing computer issue.

Mr. Morris and Ms. Nelson left the meeting at 10:04 a.m.

Commissioner Cossairt moved to sign Certificates of Residency for Luke Levesque, Mallory McLeish and Jordan Young. Commissioner Kirby second. Motion passed unanimously.

Commissioner Cossairt moved to grant an extension of time to receive year 2019 taxes for parcel #MHM0130000022VA and to accept payments of $50.00 on the first of every month until the tax amount due it paid. Commissioner Kirby second. Motion passed unanimously.

Commissioner Cossairt moved to grant an extension of time to receive year 2019 taxes for parcel #MH62N02E182380A and to accept the tax amount due by August 13, 2020. Commissioner Kirby second. Motion passed unanimously.

Commissioners discussed approving an agreement for Lars Jacobson to lease a piece of county property, but are proposing to postpone the annual lease payment until a couple months after the Canadian border opens. The lease payment was going to be based on the amount of property tax, which is $211.00 year. Commissioners agreed and Chairman Dinning will contact Mr. Jacobson.

Commissioners will postpone the resolution to adopt increased Planning and Zoning application fees until next week.

Chairman Dinning addressed the State of Idaho Contract Amendment No. 1 pertaining to the mosquito surveillance study.

Commissioner Cossairt moved to sign the State of Idaho Contract Amendment No. 1 regarding the West Nile virus mosquito surveillance study. Commissioner Kirby second. Motion passed unanimously.

Commissioner Cossairt moved to sign the Agreement for Maintenance Services with Valence Inc, dba Valence Mission Critical Technologies for the Sheriff’s Office at a cost of $16,650.00. Commissioner Kirby second. Motion passed unanimously.

10:16 a.m., Treasurer Sue Larson joined the meeting to review her quarterly report of county accounts. Treasurer Larson said this is information prior to sending out funds to the various taxing districts. The state pool is still fairly good and it’s comparable from last year to this year at about the same time.

Treasurer Larson briefly mentioned FDIC insurance for up to certain amounts.

Commissioner Kirby moved to accept the Treasurer’s quarterly report of Boundary County accounts dated June 30, 2020. Commissioner Cossairt second. Motion passed unanimously.

Treasurer Larson left the meeting at 10:23 a.m.

10:30 a.m., Commissioners discussed quotes for a new furnace at the armory. Chairman Dinning reviewed the quotes from Pend Oreille Mechanical with a total of $3,466.00, Trademark with a quote of $4,845.00, and a quote from Cool-It totaling $3,775.00. Chairman Dinning said the only difference he can see between the low bid and Cool-It is that Cool-It will do all the work necessary involving gas and not charge extra.

Commissioner Cossairt moved to accept the quote of $3,775.00 from Cool-It to install a new furnace at the armory. Commissioner Kirby second. Motion passed unanimously.

Chairman Dinning said he would contact Courthouse Maintenance John Buckley about proceeding with the furnace project.

10:41 a.m., Commissioners contacted Eric Forsch with the Idaho Department of Commerce about the process of handling challenges to the applications submitted associated with the State of Idaho Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security (CARES) Act Broadband grant. Mr. Forsch said the timeline in which to provide responses to the challenges is three business days from when they reached out, which was late Friday so the deadline is Wednesday, July 29, 2020 by 5p.m. Mr. Forsch provided Commissioners with the email address in which to submit their responses. The call to Mr. Forsch ended at 10:43 a.m.

Commissioners will hold a special meeting at 10:30 a.m., on Wednesday to consider challenges and responses to the State of Idaho CARES ACT Broadband grant as this is a time sensitive matter.

11:00 a.m., Resident Lee Knight joined the meeting to discuss waste to energy plants. Mr. Knight said he wanted to bring attention to lots of interest in bringing a waste to energy plant to Boundary County. Mr. Knight said about a year ago he was in the Spokane area and spoke with the operations manager for Waste Connections, who operates the Spokane Regional Solid Waste System and he learned that a lot of people are interested in getting a waste to energy plant in Boundary County. The preference is to build a state of the art waste to energy plant instead of building more landfills. Mr. Knight said he understands that this is a topic that has come up before and Idaho is generally easier for permitting than Washington and Montana. Boundary County is placed well logistically to service the region and we have a low population density. Mr. Knight explained the two main types of plants, such as a traditional system and a gasification system, which is a synthetic form of natural gas (syngas). Most plants that are designed to be self-sufficient generate their own energy from syngas and they don’t require the water.

Mr. Knight said Sierra Energy might be the company that Commissioners want to look up. If a plant were to be built, it would not be less than $2,000,000.00. People’s main concerns are the dioxins, which is a carcinogenic and he listed the three main categories that put off dioxins. There are concerns about this, but there are also many ways to filter those out. The plants would have to meet standards. Mr. Knight said the industry as a whole wants to do the best they can and they would probably want to exceed Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standards. Mr. Knight listed the benefits of having a waste to energy plant, the types of multiple industries seeking this form of disposal and he discussed how carbon and tax credits work and provided three working models. The pros for gasification and cons for gasification and traditional systems were briefly reviewed. Commissioner Kirby asked what is done with the material that doesn’t burn. Mr. Knight said for a plant this size, it wouldn’t be just material from Boundary County. Clerk Poston asked if wood products from mills would be used, such as hog fuel. Mr. Knight said from his understanding, the more biomass the better off it would be. In the late 1980s or 1990s, there was waste energy, but there wasn’t the wheel in which to disperse electricity east of Spokane and Mr. Knight said he doesn’t know if that’s been corrected. The traditional system would produce electricity. Chairman Dinning said other than electricity, what is generated. Mr. Knight said syngas is generated. Chairman Dinning said that may meet EPA guidelines for discharges, but with the smelter in Newport, Washington, what is the cumulative effect of the small pieces as he doesn’t see any real data yet. Mr. Knight said a waste to energy plant in Boundary County could cover northwest Montana and Idaho and maybe Canada if that’s allowed. Commissioners asked if a plant in Boundary County would be in competition with the plant in Spokane and Mr. Knight said not really. The Spokane plant can’t burn all the garbage they receive and they have to ship some of the garbage to Robanco. Clerk Poston questioned how much property a project like this would require. Commissioner Cossairt said he agrees that sooner or later we’re going to have a plant like this and it’s just a matter of what kind of plant and when. Chairman Dinning said they would take our wood waste, but would they take our tires? Mr. Knight said he doesn’t see why not.

The meeting with Mr. Knight ended at 11:32 a.m.

Commissioners recessed for lunch.

1:30 p.m., Commissioners reconvened for the afternoon session with Chairman Dan Dinning, Commissioner Wally Cossairt, Commissioner Walt Kirby, Clerk Glenda Poston, and Deputy Clerk Michelle Rohrwasser.

1:30 p.m., Restorium Administrator Karlene Magee and Assistant Restorium Administrator Diana Lane joined the meeting to give a Restorium report.

Commissioner Cossairt moved to approve an increase to room rates of 4.9% for existing Restorium residents, to approve an increase of 8% for new incoming residents and to approve holding a public hearing for the 8% increase. Commissioner Kirby second. Motion passed unanimously.

Ms. Magee discussed matters pertaining to an alarm system provided by Bee Safe.

Ms. Magee said she did contact Panhandle Health District and was advised to wear the surgical style masks versus cloth masks and to change them every four hours or sooner if they were soiled. Staffing is a big concern at the Restorium, according to Ms. Magee. A full-time personal services assistant (PSA) has turned in their notice so Ms. Magee said she has an advertisement for a position vacancy in the newspaper. Ms. Lane spoke of certain resident accounts that are slowly getting caught up.

The meeting with Ms. Magee and Ms. Lane ended at 1:44 p.m.

Commissioners contacted County Civil Attorney Tevis Hull via telephone.

1:46 p.m., Commissioner Kirby moved to go into executive session pursuant to Idaho Code 74-206(1)f, to communicate with legal counsel for the public agency to discuss the legal ramifications of and legal options for pending litigation, or controversies not yet being litigated, but imminently likely to be litigated. Commissioner Cossairt second. Commissioners voted as follows: Chairman Dinning “aye”, Commissioner Cossairt “aye” and Commissioner Kirby “aye”. Motion passed unanimously. The executive session ended at 1:45 p.m. No action was taken.

The call to Attorney Hull ended.

2:02 p.m., Boundary County Emergency Services Manager Andrew O’Neel, Boundary County Sheriff Dave Kramer, North Bench Fire Department Chief Gus Jackson, and South Boundary Fire Protection District Chief Tony Rohrwasser joined the meeting to discuss and propose a transfer of ownership and responsibility of the county-wide Fire 1 simulcast system.

Mr. O’Neel said the Communications Group have had a couple meetings about this system and are proposing a transfer of ownership and maintenance. There were a lot of questions as a result of their last meeting and they’re still looking for some answers. The reason for this meeting today is that part of this proposal has to do with budgeting for annual maintenance of the system. The budget for this next year is pretty much set, but is it possible to work the annual maintenance costs into the next year’s budget if Commissioners felt this was a good idea. A lot of questions were answered pertaining to cost and the biggest expected annual cost is maintenance, which consists of two people going up to the four towers to inspect them once per year. The maintenance cost is primarily the cost of labor for those technicians, which is $5,000.00 per year and Chief Jackson got quotes from two different companies. Another cost would be insurance coverage, such as if the county was able to add approximately $530,000.00 worth of equipment to insurance protection under the Idaho Counties Risk Management Program (ICRMP). That is an unanswered question and Clerk Poston hasn’t heard back from the county’s insurance agent just yet. That is really one of the main driving factors for putting this system under the county as the county has insurance, and this is expensive equipment to repair, but it’s critical to county fire and emergency medical services. The deductible is $1,500.00 per incident so it might be smart to budget for one incident per year, whether that comes from the simulcast group or the county, according to Mr. O’Neel. A lightning strike hitting a tower is an example of an incident. Other costs is the equipment’s life cycle. Chief Rohrwasser will speak with the designer of this system as he has worked with him so he will ask about the expected life span, expected replacement costs and costs down the road. The reason for the meeting today is to see what Commissioners’ feelings are about taking ownership of the system and if they’re in favor, could a budget for a certain amount be set up for next year. That way if this all works out, there are funds already there for maintenance.

Sheriff Kramer said there is a lot to work out before the county can take over ownership. There are some verbal agreements with the Border Patrol regarding simulcast system on their tower. The Border Patrol works with this system and has cleaned up the towers. When the Border Patrol was asked about their tower at Dawson Ridge, this tower was very overloaded so the Border Patrol got quite heavily involved and did reverse engineering on the whole system to see if it was still overloaded, etc. The results came back as surprisingly good and the Border Patrol said the simulcast system could be put on their tower. The site and building at Dawson Ridge belongs to the Border Patrol so there probably wouldn’t be any issues getting something in writing from them for the purpose of the system. The City of Bonners Ferry had a verbal agreement to put up a building to house equipment and allow space on their tower. When it came down to it, the city had provided a large container with half of the use for the city’s future growth and the other half for this simulcast system. The city changed its mind and they allowed the system to be in this building at no charge, but they won’t pay into the system. Chairman Dinning asked if the city uses the simulcast system and Chief Rohrwasser said yes. There is the South Boundary tower at their station in Falls Creek and South Boundary would allow this system as it operates now for no charge and that is in writing. There are four towers and the tower at Copper Falls is a solar tower so only one of two frequencies are being used due to lack of power.

Chairman Dinning asked who owns the equipment. Chief Rohrwasser said technically, South Boundary owns the system, but all agencies have an equal share. Chief Rohrwasser will look to see if the equipment is covered by insurance. Sheriff Kramer said as far as funding the simulcast group, all fire agencies, with the exception of Mt. Hall Fire Department have paid into this system. The Ambulance Service District has paid approximately 50% into this system as costs are based on usage so the Ambulance District pays 50%. Sheriff Kramer mentioned trying to dedicate funds through the Ambulance District at a later date. Commissioner Kirby said his thought is that the county needs this system and it needs to be more cohesive and when it comes paying a share, some have been paying and some haven’t so we have to get to where everyone needs to pay.

Clerk Poston said she and Mr. O’Neel had spoken about this and where we are sitting with this at the moment, there isn’t a plan. The county budget is done and the month for submission of budgets was in May. A goal to work on would be next May if Commissioners want to take this on. It was questioned if one user of the system doesn’t participate. Chairman Dinning said you can’t cut them off. Chairman Dinning said the first thing to do is to get this equipment covered. Secondly, to wrap this up and he asked if there are funds to be spent right now. Sheriff Kramer said maybe just the annual maintenance in a couple years. Sheriff Kramer added that $2,500.00 is what the simulcast group has in the budget. Commissioner Kirby said some of these questions need to be answered. Clerk Poston said the county receives $.25 per vehicle that is licensed in the county and those funds go into the emergency medical services budget, which can be used for this purpose. Funds have been used to purchase pagers for Search and Rescue, but nothing has been purchased lately. Mr. O’Neel asked if those funds could be used in the next year’s budget for the EMS fund. Sheriff Kramer said with maintenance, we will want to see what is coming up for repairs, such as battery replacements, radios, and anything else that is expected. Clerk Poston commented that she shows a check of approximately $4,000.00 made to the Fire Chief’s Association and Chief Rohrwasser said that is due to the joint powers agreement. Clerk Poston reviewed the invoice paid by the various entities for this the system for an amount of $7,633.04. Chairman Dinning asked if the county budgeted for this through the Ambulance Service District’s budget. Clerk Poston said we’re fine. Chairman Dinning said the Ambulance Service District would need to receive an invoice to pay, then we can take more time for the transfer of ownership, etc. Clerk Poston said she believes it was Chief Rohrwasser who sent out the invoices. Mr. O’Neel questioned if the insurance premium could be incorporated and recalculated into an invoice. Sheriff Kramer mentioned if the group could send out an invoice, they could find out about maintenance and look at what is coming up in the future. They will get an estimate of the insurance coverage costs. Chairman Dinning said that sounds like a good way to go. Commissioner Cossairt and Commissioner Kirby also agreed.

The meeting to discuss the simulcast system ended and Sheriff Kramer, Chief Rohrwasser and Chief Jackson left at 2:31 p.m.

Commissioner Cossairt moved to extend the Disaster Emergency Declaration related to COVID-19 until October 27, 2020 at 11:59 p.m. Commissioner Kirby second. Motion passed unanimously.

Those present briefly discussed Coronavirus Financial Advisory Committee (CFAC) information.

Mr. O’Neel left the meeting at 2:50 p.m.

Chairman Dinning informed Commissioners that North Idaho College (NIC) is inquiring if Veterans Memorial Hall can be used as classroom space for adult education classes and if the rental fee could be waived. NIC holds class two times per week during the day and/or night. Clerk Poston clarified that this is Veteran’s Memorial Hall; not Boundary County and she added that the veterans do use that room for their meetings. Clerk Poston said one thing to ask is who would be responsible for cleaning the room after use as well as the cost of gas and electricity. This room is also used for elections and the Fair Board is responsible for paying bills during that time. Clerk Poston said NIC paid $25,500.00 annually to lease the NIC outreach center and she did send them an invoice prior to knowing they were going to close this center. Clerk Poston said she knows that Veterans Memorial hall is used for a lot of things. Commissioner Cossairt will contact NIC about this as NIC had stated they would be at the NIC Outreach Center until fall.

Commissioner Kirby left the meeting at 3:00 p.m.

3:15 p.m., there being no further business, the meeting recessed until tomorrow morning at 10:30 a.m.

***Wednesday, July 29, 2020, at 10:30 a.m., Commissioners met in special session with Chairman Dan Dinning, Commissioner Wally Cossairt, Commissioner Walt Kirby, Clerk Glenda Poston, and Deputy Clerk Michelle Rohrwasser. The purpose of the meeting was to consider challenges to applications received and responses to those challenges as it pertains to the Idaho Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security (CARES) Broadband Grant project.

Mike Kennedy and Patrick Whalen with Intermax joined the meeting. Participating via telephone were Stephanie Franke and Kevin Lederhos with EL Internet Northwest.

Chairman Dinning explained that Boundary County is the applicant for this project and that is how Commissioners will handle that. Commissioners have received the challenges and will review them.

Commissioners addressed the challenge submitted by Ziply Fiber (Ziply) and he commented that Ziply sent their challenge to the Idaho Department of Commerce and didn’t necessarily name the project areas they were challenging, but they did provide maps. Chairman Dinning said Ziply submitted a challenge to project #4246, which is an EL Internet project and in this challenge they chose the Bonners Ferry area and the map shows their service locations and existing coverage. There is also a challenge to Copeland with the reason being that the Copeland area project proposed by EL Internet has a pending 2020 Connect America Fund grant (CAF) site on the north side. The next map is a map of Clark Fork. Ziply is also challenging the Eastport project, which is a pending project, and they’re showing the Naples area as they have coverage there. Chairman Dinning stated that Ziply submitted maps for Osburne, Potlatch, Sandpoint and Wallace.

Mr. Lederhos said for clarification with regard to the map with a circle on it, and that might be Intermax’s map, Mr. Kennedy said that is the O’Callaghan project. Ms. Franke said Project #4246 is EL Internet’s Naples project. Ziply is challenging O’Callaghan and the Copeland/Porthill project, but EL Internet calls that stretch the Copeland/Camp Nine area. For Intermax it’s called Porthill/Camp Nine. Chairman Dinning said he will give the benefit of doubt. EL Internet calls the Naples area the Naples/Deep Creek project. Mr. Lederhos said some of the names got changed around during the application process. Ms. Franke added that those are actually two different applications and they fall within the Naples/Highland Flats area. Chairman Dinning said after that is map of other areas outside of Boundary County.

Chairman Dinning said this proves that everything is under service, but just because someone provides service it doesn’t mean they take care of the area the county wants serviced. In all of these cases they generally follow the highways, except for Naples and Bonners Ferry. There was no application to provide this type of service. Commissioners asked what CAF stands for and Mr. Kennedy said they are funds from the federal government through the Connect America Fund. Mr. Lederhos said he concurs with that. Chairman Dinning spoke of needing to have an explanation to the Department of Commerce and the map proves underserved areas exist, even though there might be service. It was said the CAF funding is proposed and is behind schedule. That would be the O’Callaghan, Copeland, Clark Fork, Eastport, and Naples areas, according to Chairman Dinning. Chairman Dinning added that he has another document from Ziply that list these challenges. Chairman Dinning concluded that Ziply is challenging both EL Internet and Intermax projects. Commissioners need to reaffirm that the maps prove these areas are underserved and this is for the potential of the future.

Commissioners have a challenge from Intermax against the EL Internet Meadow Creek and O’Callaghan projects. In this case, with those two challenges, as well as five others, the challenges use the same language for all projects so Commissioners will deal with them in that fashion. The same challenge is cited for the Meadow Creek and O’Callaghan projects, which pertains to the accuracy of cost per household, study on a more granular level on addresses, etc. The Mapping Committee report was discussed and the end user was talked about as far as delivering capability. There is talk about broadband polycons, granular data for Idaho broadband community, maps, census block, which this inaccuracy is common in Idaho, deployment data, terrain challenges, etc. The application failed to provide information to define the scope or scale of the budget. No information was provided for equipment, etc., so how can verification be made as to what was installed and has been completed. Why was this information not provided? The challenge also states the projects show the exact same schedule when showing different approaches for each. Chairman Dinning listed the reasons for the challenge, such as for the 35 applications, they all show the exact grant budget and there is no emphasis placed. The final challenge failed to consider the existing grant with Intermax from year 2018. If Intermax is admitting in the meeting that these funds are in hand, why are they applying for these funds? Part B of the challenge states the applicant failed to consider the loss of funds to the community through the CARES Act grant.

Commissioners read a letter from Intermax regarding EL Internet submitting duplicate challenges stating the same arguments. It was stated in the letter that Intermax has not submitted challenges and that EL Internet is questioning Commissioners’ methodology, even though EL Internet was in the room and participated in the discussion. EL Internet attempts to cast doubt. The letter states that Google Earth is not accurate enough as a source and that Intermax uses Google Earth and other means, but confirms sites with a technician. EL Internet has submitted challenges, but they do not back up their challenges with data.

Chairman Dinning spoke of using radios, which has more near line of site capabilities. This is part of the record, according to Chairman Dinning. Mr. Kennedy said on page two of the mapping challenges they apply to EL Internet as well. Chairman Dinning said we’re looking at the challenges for Meadow Creek and O’Callaghan projects. Chairman Dinning asked for comments, then said when Commissioners and the providers were all in the same room, both companies could not guarantee serving 100% of the people in the area due to terrain and that is Commissioners’ logic of having multiple companies for broader coverage. Due to hills, one company might not be able to serve an area where another provider can so Commissioners would stand by what they said the first time. Commissioner Kirby said he agrees on that point.

Chairman Dinning said he’s hearing the EL Internet challenges for Meadow Creek and O’Callaghan projects, but Commissioners are going to affirm their original decision. Commissioner Cossairt and Commissioner Kirby agreed.

Mr. Lederhos voiced the intent of EL Internet and he commented about the matter in that when the application was made it didn’t include that data in the application. EL Internet is not trying to attack Intermax’s discussion they had in the meeting. Chairman Dinning commented that he was writing a note stating that nothing has changed to the service area from the original plan submitted. Chairman Dinning said the process is that a committee with the Idaho Department of Commerce will review these challenges and will have access to all the documents in order to make a decision so this process does not stop here. Chairman Dinning said to be truthful, he gets lost in the technicalities that these companies deal with it all the time.

The next five challenges by EL Internet pertain to Intermax’s Porthill, Copper Ridge, Camp Nine Road, Naples and Curley Creek areas. Commissioners asked for clarification in that they determined that the data supplied and the reasoning for the challenges were the same for all of these projects. Mr. Lederhos said that was correct. Chairman Dinning reviewed the challenge for the Porthill project and he mentioned that it applies to the other areas. Chairman Dinning commented on the ranking letter. Priority was given to the end users in totality. Mr. Lederhos said it wasn’t an attempt to qualify any one area, it’s just difficult for Commissioners.

Chairman Dinning mentioned highlighted areas that he has referencing granular data, coverage maps, Federal Communication Commission’s (FCC) statement, broadband transmission, and consumer input validity. Commissioners were tasked with looking at these, the project area and what we feel best suits the community and Chairman Dinning said he’s sure these comments will be reviewed at the state level. There’s information talking about the scope of work and budget. Every project applied for had end budget costs. Chairman Dinning commented that retaining local jobs was mentioned in other challenges also. Commissioners do like to support local jobs and we are looking at this from the standpoint of what would benefit the local people. It’s not an easy decision, but it had to be made. An existing grant and loss of funding had been mentioned in a challenge and Chairman Dinning said he understands, from a business perspective, where these challenges come from. With that, in dealing with the issues, Commissioners need the prioritization and we looked at the areas of the most and greatest underserved or not-served areas and then Commissioners looked at the provider proposals. Chairman Dinning said the factual information, analysis provided and geospatial information will be reviewed by the Idaho Department of Commerce’s committee to make sure there are no errors, he’s sure. At the end of the day every project has to meet the requirements of the grant or it will not be funded. Chairman Dinning added that he feels this higher look is for the committee or the state. Mr. Lederhos said EL Internet agrees 100%. Chairman Dinning referred to #4 regarding local jobs and he said if Commissioners were just considering local jobs, they would be giving high criteria in having EL Internet get every project. Commissioners had to make other considerations and decisions and the State of Idaho will look at this information. Commissioners’ consideration is to look at providing wireless internet to the most underserved customers and choosing priority areas and projects by company. Commissioner Cossairt agreed. Commissioner Cossairt and Commissioner Kirby said they had nothing further to add. Chairman Dinning commented on Intermax’s responses and listed by project name.

Commissioners said we have challenges to Porthill, Copper Ridge, Camp Nine, Naples, and Curley Creek projects. Commissioners can uphold their decision, amend the application or withdraw the application. Commissioner Cossairt said he would like to uphold their previous decision on those mentioned. Commissioner Kirby said he concurred that Commissioners should uphold their decision.

Commissioner Kirby moved to deny Ziply Fiber’s challenges regarding the O’Callaghan, Copeland, Eastport and Naples projects regarding the EL Internet and Intermax applications. Commissioner Cossairt second. Motion passed unanimously.

Mr. Lederhos said EL Internet had requested that information on those challenges would use combined wording as used by EL Internet and Intermix.

Commissioners said the next is challenge submitted by EL Internet pertains to Meadow Creek and O’Callaghan.

Commissioner Cossairt moved to uphold their decision regarding EL Internet’s challenge against Intermax for the Meadow Creek and O’Callaghan projects. Commissioner Kirby second. Motion passed unanimously.

Commissioners addressed the challenge from EL Internet against Intermax for the Porthill, Copper Ridge, Camp Nine, Naples, and Curley Creek project areas. Commissioner Cossairt moved to uphold Commissioner’s prior decision. Commissioner Kirby second. Motion passed unanimously.

Chairman Dinning said Commissioners also received a challenge to the application from EL Internet that refers to the application missing variable things and that will be a part of the record. Mr. Lederhos said one document was missing, which was a requirement. A letter of prioritization was missed when Boundary County Economic Development Director Dennis Weed sent in the application related to EL Internet. Mr. Lederhos said there were just two others and the county did send it, but the state didn’t post the document online. Chairman Dinning said Eric Forsch with the Department of Commerce informed Commissioners that everything was okay, but will confirm that.

Mr. Kennedy said there were some odd connections for Bonner County and Boundary County and the wrong budget was connected, but the Department of Commerce is fixing that. Mr. Lederhos commented on the response to Ziply that there is currently no broadband, referring to areas including Eastport and Copeland. Mr. Lederhos said Ziply’s challenge regarding the Naples area related to their map showing 11.5% coverage, which is still underserved.

Commissioners said they would draft a response to the Department of Commerce by 4:00 p.m. mountain time today. Some challenges were received Monday and Mr. Forsch with the Department of Commerce informed Commissioners that they have three days from date a challenge was received to return their response. Commissioner have until Thursday to address challenges received later, but they would take care of addressing all challenges today. Clerk Poston commented that she received eight emails from Ms. Franke last night. Mr. Lederhos replied that was regarding Ziply and why they were incorrect in their challenge. Mr. Forsch had sent correspondence that challenges were received on time.

Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Whalen left the meeting at 11:34 a.m.

Commissioners resumed their meeting regarding challenges to broadband grant applications.

12:22 p.m., Commissioner Kirby moved to sign the letter to the Idaho department of Commerce regarding challenges to the State of Idaho Broadband Grant applications. Commissioner Cossairt second. Motion passed unanimously.

There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 12:29 p.m.

_______________________________
DAN R. DINNING, Chairman

ATTEST:

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