Valley County commissioners deny petition to vacate segments of Old Council Road

Valley County commissioners denied a petition on June 22 to vacate and validate two short segments of Old Council Road after county staff and multiple agencies said the revised proposal did not demonstrate a clear benefit to the public or meet road-design standards.

The board’s staff recapped a second revised petition filed June 12 that would vacate “Segment 1” and validate “Segment 2,” realign the road to meet West Mountain Road and convey a 70-foot fee interest in the new segment to the county in exchange for a proposed $10,000 contribution toward rebuilding the vacated portion. Staff said negotiations with neighbor Monty/Monte Post were not finalized and the petition lacked the engineering specifics the county would need to accept a deeded right-of-way.

“Since the staff report was completed … the negotiations with Monte Post broke down,” county staff said, noting that a final survey and land-swap would be necessary before any approval. The staff report also listed agency input: Idaho Fish and Game urged that Old Council Road remain open for public recreation access to West Mountain; the FAA reported no airspace issues; and Valley County Road & Bridge and the recreation district raised operational concerns.

Valley County Recreation District director Dave Bingaman told the board the road is one of the few access points out of the valley used for winter grooming and snowmobile access. “The reason that we went after that road … was to maintain public access to West Mountain,” Bingaman said, stressing winter grooming and parking needs.

Road & Bridge Director Kirsten Dietrich told the board the application “just isn’t quite there yet” because it did not provide minimum engineering details or show how the right-of-way and drainage would meet county standards. Road staff recommended that any new alignment be conveyed in fee (70 feet) and that construction and drainage meet the Valley County minimum standards for public roads. Dietrich and the county engineer also urged either a dedicated recreational parking area or other measures so users would not be displaced onto West Mountain Road.

Applicant representative “Mister Squire” described the proposal as negotiable and said Hartsell Creek LLC was willing to adjust alignment and work with the county on a design that meets county needs. “The $10,000 is negotiable,” he told the board, and said the preference was for the county to perform improvements if that proved administratively simpler.

A public commenter, Jean of the Heartland chapter of the Backcountry Horsemen, urged the board to preserve recreational access, warning that routing roads into private property can limit users and that parking should be near the access point rather than on the highway. “Access is getting to be really harder and harder in Valley County,” Jean said.

After public testimony, the chair closed the hearing and opened deliberation. The chair said he saw no public benefit at this moment in vacating a county road that had recently been validated and expressed concern about losing existing winter parking and groomed access. Commissioner discussion repeatedly emphasized that the proposal lacked sufficient engineering detail, that a $10,000 contribution “does not get you very far” in road construction, and that the county should not assume long-term maintenance costs.

Commissioner (speaker 5) moved to deny the petition to vacate; the motion was seconded and approved by voice vote. Commissioners told the applicant the county would entertain a revised petition that provides clear engineering plans, demonstrates how drainage and a new alignment would meet minimum standards, and incorporates a solution for recreational parking and access. The applicant said he would continue negotiations off the record and could return with a revised proposal.

The board’s action: denial of the current petition; applicant may return with a revised proposal addressing engineering standards, parking and formalized land-swap/survey.