[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6521233,"mediaKeyId","5108723-9e35a2ab738a91d742f6db33e45ec0e2","parentId",5108723,"title","Valley Soil & Water outlines grants, $17,663 state match and seeks MOU with county","audioSeconds",754,"startMs",4383910,"endMs",5138330,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5108723-9e35a2ab738a91d742f6db33e45ec0e2&start=4383&end=5138","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5108723-9e35a2ab738a91d742f6db33e45ec0e2/thumbnail_4383910.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6521233/Valley-County/Idaho/Valley-Soil-Water-outlines-grants-17663-state-match-and-seeks-MOU-with-county","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6521233-4d76f093af16c42bbddf3d44f66d4195/orig.mp4?Expires=1771150926&Signature=Nvx1tUFHfYUIISFp~~F6EDLYsRaONfydHnNy1SHNWJB6FuH3~QrFwZfeNvh2wtRUu37hzWidMoW4LtJwDrPiyEPc4PNp6h~fuXdmo8C~7i1A2CuipomeSFRKnWgr5QyHIyjjOPPvo2PrEJe1I1YAspm6cz7ryZ1h3VVnnohegWfWaqCjf6WSKv7oVGvHb0K0x-ZYX6LGAPcPsZ408jRvZMndJfG4afupnACDhJ9AIXv5KWSa64-tXnA7HzI6-AdSl9qEjTbDG8SyMK2hpnufkQiBJHPUAG1wKg~u4kvDRoMvOT~SjyMKTKKUUTITB-HnwBx-FFdevfDQ7bQpyDXbsg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Valley County","date","2025-06-30T22:32:26.447Z","article","The Valley County Board of Commissioners received an annual update from Valley Soil and Water Conservation District on Tuesday, during which district leaders described grant activity, state matching funds and the district's request for clearer formal agreements with the county.

John Mulahog, a board supervisor, and Dorena Farr, district manager, told the commissioners that the Idaho State Soil Commission reported a $17,663 total return to the county for fiscal 2024, which reflects both the county’s $8,500 cash contribution and in‑kind matches such as office space, meeting room use and staff time. Farr said the district uses those county contributions and in‑kind resources to leverage state matches and to attract other grant funding.

The district summarized recent activity: it has helped secure roughly $2 million in grants over the past two years for projects ranging from riparian fencing and culvert replacement to water‑quality monitoring. Specific project notes included a roughly $88,000 technical‑assistance award for well monitoring in the South Lake area, a reimbursable culvert grant that yielded a $35,000 reimbursement after completion, and partnership work with federal agencies including the Bureau of Reclamation, Fish and Game and the Forest Service.

Farr confirmed the district now meets the state's audit threshold for organizations with more than $150,000 in receipts and has completed required financial reporting; she said the district passed its audit with no recommendations that affect program continuity. Commissioners welcomed the detail but said they need a formal MOU to document expectations and oversight when the county contributes taxpayer funds. The chair asked county legal staff to draft an MOU template and asked the district to seek examples from other districts and from the state Soil & Water Commission.

Ending: The district agreed to work with county staff and legal counsel to develop an MOU and to return before August 16 with the match report required by the state; commissioners said they would consider a more regular briefing schedule to follow the district's grant activity and outcomes.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Valley County Board of County Commissioner Meeting June 30, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Representatives from the Valley Soil and Water Conservation District reported recent grant activity and state matching funds, outlined a near $2 million run‑rate in grant awards over recent years, and discussed the need for a memorandum of understanding with the county to document in‑kind and cash contributions.","taxTitle","Valley County, Idaho","taxId",51032,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6521236,"Road funding uncertainty pushes Valley County to weigh chip sealing, contractor paving and possible levy",1427,1219910,2646940,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5108723-9e35a2ab738a91d742f6db33e45ec0e2&start=1219&end=2646","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5108723-9e35a2ab738a91d742f6db33e45ec0e2/thumbnail_1219910.jpg","/articles/6521236/Valley-County/Idaho/Road-funding-uncertainty-pushes-Valley-County-to-weigh-chip-sealing-contractor-paving-and-possible-levy","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6521236-bbe4235170247282557480a1349d7223/orig.mp4?Expires=1771150926&Signature=ANdC7sW2XTDwIHYCmDUMihUZ0ZmQ504roefCIGsnnhHYiINFp~pgSgKG8JYm6mK2YG43khq15sDJieBHopUjMQKMO4ABK8BNepCGfZYd39KrCcFWR5py4YIqq8mZRtytcfqtATJipTjy~1V8TZT-tpbyJ3m3phv9V05~Wk4dKxIentk5JrxutQNivv02C9Y3HbR0ATufLbJI7tsNeBIWPd816wWOOGMMk6huy9vfjy8UTYLsH3sa6O6o43rQmnHKcvv5gvqYGZ~vqAEv1686aSIgL7hVfEI8woT9x1WGwOv0HtyuL3op5UMsNp-KEAOWexNxVAaY3tMgC7LA7FbozA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Valley County’s road department told commissioners on Tuesday that revenue uncertainty for fiscal 2026 will require tradeoffs between in‑house maintenance and contractor work and could prompt a discussion about a voter levy in the next election cycle.

Dan (road department) and county staff reviewed projected revenue lines. The county has collected $2,310,000 so far in the highway user gas tax and was awaiting a fourth‑quarter payment that will influence a recommended projection of $3.7 million for fiscal 2026. Staff cautioned that 2024’s total was unusually high (about $6 million) and said commissioners should await the incoming payment before finalizing projections.

Commissioners and road staff discussed multiple funding sources and grants: a proposed LTAC safety contract likely to reimburse about $95,000; a 319 watershed grant with Valley Soil and Water expected to reimburse roughly $35,000; no Forest Service grant anticipated for Forest Service road improvements this cycle (reduced to 0 in projections); and the department’s plan to deploy $40,000 in projected vehicle sales revenue. Staff also noted there is approximately $3.8 million in LA CTF funds identified to support a new road building project, with an estimated final building cost of $4.2 million.

On maintenance strategy, the road director proposed reducing county chip‑sealing and increasing contractor paving until funds recover. He said county chip equipment is aged and less efficient and that the department intends to train staff and progressively expand in‑house sealing in future years, but conceded turnover and retraining will limit near‑term efficiency. Commissioners asked for a clear maintenance plan and timeline; one commissioner suggested considering a road levy and requested an agenda discussion on timing and steps, possibly beyond the November ballot.

Capital and operating priorities were discussed at length: a proposed $1 million paving program was highlighted as insufficient for full needs but feasible given current projections; the capital equipment plan and a planned building project may free some carryover funds for additional paving if final costs come in under estimate. Commissioners directed staff to refine revenue projections once the remaining state payments arrive, and to prepare a roadmap for a potential levy and for combining county and contractor paving to manage immediate road needs.

Ending: Road department staff will update the commissioners after the highway user gas tax fourth‑quarter payment is posted and return with a refined maintenance plan, revised revenue projections and options for a levy or other funding mechanisms.","The Valley County road department outlined projected revenue uncertainties — notably a lower highway user gas tax and unknown state strategic payments — and proposed prioritizing contractor paving while reducing county chip sealing until funding stabilizes; commissioners discussed a potential future road levy.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6521239,"Valley County commissioners delay salary decisions, ask HR for detailed justification of new positions",674,17650,691930,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5108723-9e35a2ab738a91d742f6db33e45ec0e2&start=17&end=691","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5108723-9e35a2ab738a91d742f6db33e45ec0e2/thumbnail_17650.jpg","/articles/6521239/Valley-County/Idaho/Valley-County-commissioners-delay-salary-decisions-ask-HR-for-detailed-justification-of-new-positions","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6521239-6d048d28490a74d906f38a92d93c88df/orig.mp4?Expires=1771150926&Signature=Nn9547jVV3H~y3-0RhEIgH8um8JOOG4S29vogkvjljBFbfEaV7v1zduwH0DOgVZscw7~F5X-ca9311B7LI~BgSL5X~uDB8HLQ0i7D6VYhOZXAJVXDK5O1IH3a427lPVWOgoFJsKpRgNWTQFRiV5pI-Pqbw5FHglDqbRlRbuArEJte0lv7hebGs-jKR3SMTRZxJ9WwZEqK-pv5f6pGXO8VNfD5zMzM-vJB-mV-gmSSsagGYelFA0ObgKvrVPqJ6iRQI2ra2Yx9Xu4ja6-RtXsDVvKQvo43YCmZDLAcVxBNtKo~fkE87FDuJrQF6yid1zduMpTRtefMq1WUErV15GY9w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Valley County commissioners on Tuesday reviewed recommended wage changes and a list of requested new positions from the county HR director but did not approve raises or new hires, saying they need more written justification and projected budget numbers before making decisions.

The discussion centered on a draft compensation plan from HR director Mike Savoy and a separate spreadsheet listing proposed positions. Savoy presented a plan that would give all employees either a 3% pay increase or a $1.00‑per‑hour raise, “whichever is greater,” and estimated the change would cost the county “below 4%” overall. He also said the proposal would lift the county’s lowest hourly rate from $17.50 to $18.00 and that people earning roughly $33.33 per hour or more would receive the 3% increase instead of the flat dollar bump.

Commissioners pressed for detail on how newly requested roles would change service levels and where the funding would come from. They noted some requested positions are already in process — for example, a payroll specialist that “we’ve already hired” — while others are constrained by state requirements, such as an appraiser position that “the state steps in and says you need another appraiser” when caseloads rise. Commissioners raised concerns about adding new positions when existing vacancies remain unfilled.

Savoy recommended compiling complete documentation and returning the item to the board at a follow‑up workshop on July 16. He asked departments and elected officials proposing new positions to provide “star sheets” that explain why each position is critical, what service level would improve, and the fiscal impact. The chair directed that those materials be shared with commissioners before the next meeting.

Discussion also considered overall revenue pressures that will constrain raises and hiring. Commissioners and staff referenced several revenue lines — including new construction and building‑permit receipts — that are below prior projections. One commissioner noted new construction would add roughly $230,000 in taxable value, but that, combined with a typical 3% budget increase, would still not cover the full cost of the proposed raises and new positions. The group flagged the county’s use of Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) to backfill the general fund and debated whether more PILT should be budgeted as projected revenue rather than reserved for future capital needs.

No formal vote or adoption occurred. Commissioners directed HR to prepare the requested justification materials, asked that elected officials and department directors who proposed positions attend the July 16 workshop, and reserved final action until after updated revenue figures and the requested position justification are available.

Ending: Commissioners emphasized timing: they do not expect to approve a final salary schedule or add new positions until they have the written “star sheets,” updated revenue projections and the July 16 follow‑up discussion. Several commissioners noted they want to avoid compressing existing pay scales and to preserve remaining cash for emergencies.","The Valley County Board of Commissioners reviewed Human Resources recommendations for salary increases and a list of requested new positions, but held off on approvals and asked HR and elected officials for more written justification and service‑level explanations before the July 16 follow-up.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Valley Soil & Water outlines grants, $17,663 state match and seeks MOU with county

Road funding uncertainty pushes Valley County to weigh chip sealing, contractor paving and possible levy

Valley County commissioners delay salary decisions, ask HR for detailed justification of new positions