Packer John Park Upgrades, Real Estate Deals, and Road Safety
Commissioners opened the December 29 meeting by discussing ongoing planning for the Packer John Park project, including installation of a vault toilet, road access improvements, and additional amenities such as picnic tables and fire rings. A letter confirming $10,000 in matching funds to support a $200,000 grant application was approved, with a public meeting to be scheduled for community input. Members noted the park’s natural appeal but lack of visibility, agreeing that improved facilities, signage, and future promotion could significantly increase public use, with restroom facilities identified as a key need.
Former County Commissioner Mike Paradis attended the meeting and raised concerns about DF Development following reports of large-scale subdivisions in Valley County using administrative splits to avoid full review. Planning and Zoning Official Meredith Fisher said DF has met informally with Adams County regarding land near Little Mud Creek but has not submitted a formal application.
Fisher noted that similar proposals were previously denied for noncompliance with county ordinances and that any high-density or mixed-use development in Adams County would require a Planned Unit Development, including detailed plans, public review, and a development agreement. Fisher stressed that while DF may develop its private land, any proposal must follow county standards and not place additional burdens on taxpayers.
The discussed Little Mud Creek project could include about 610 multifamily units on 295 acres near New Meadows, raising concerns about scale, infrastructure impacts, and coordination with the city of New Meadows for water, fire protection, and services. While DF has suggested using a HUD-supported price-controlled housing model to address workforce housing and limit rural gentrification, commissioners expressed skepticism and noted the need for more details. Overall, the board emphasized a cautious, informed approach—working with the developer through a structured development agreement while ensuring county interests and long-term impacts are fully addressed. To be sure, no formal proposal has been submitted yet to Adams county for this project.
Waste Management Official Steve Shelton provided brief updates on pending items, including a new compactor expected on December 12, noting slightly reduced costs. Well monitoring results were satisfactory, with quarterly monitoring to continue. Additionally, possible new software to improve C&D waste tracking and reduce paperwork, though costs and equipment needs still need review.
Commissioners held a public hearing on Ordinance 2025-04 modifying the city of Council’s area of impact boundaries, explaining that the change was required by recent state legislation and does not involve annexation or alter property rights. Commissioner Viki Purdy clarified that inclusion in an area of impact does not mean annexation, forced or otherwise, and that annexation procedures remain unchanged and voluntary.
Prosecuting Attorney Peter Donovan explained that the revised boundaries are smaller than before and reflect areas the city believes are most likely to be annexed within five years, as required by law. Development within the area of impact remains under county authority, with cities receiving notice but having no approval power. Water, sewer, zoning, and development standards continue to be governed by county ordinances and health districts unless a property is voluntarily annexed.
Property owners in attendance expressed concerns about annexation, development impacts, livestock operations, and access to ordinances. Commissioners reassured attendees that agricultural uses and livestock would not be affected, no forced annexation is planned, and ordinances are available on the Adams County website, and the city’s ordinances are available through the city clerk upon request. After discussion and public testimony, the board emphasized the ordinance is largely a statutory formality required every five years and does not change zoning, taxes, or land-use rights. General consensus from the public was positive, and attendees left the room feeling relieved with a better understanding.
The board moved on to approve the real estate purchase and sale agreement with the city of Council for two buildings and two vacant lots, totaling $840,000 ($250,000 and $120,000 for the buildings, and $110,000 each for the lots). City Clerk Ashley Scott gave some insight into the city’s plans to hold an auction soon.
The board approved two surplus resolutions for the Sheriff’s Office: one to dispose of an unused 1999 snowmobile from search and rescue storage, and another to surplus outdated dispatch desks. A silent auction is planned for January or February.
Sheriff Ryan Zollman also discussed increasing fingerprint and concealed weapons fees to match state costs. Donovan clarified that the sheriff has the authority to set these fees based on actual processing costs, recommending that the county resolution be updated or rescinded to avoid future conflicts.
Finally, Zollman presented commissioners with the revision of the county’s commercial vehicle chain ordinance, originally enacted around 2011, which currently classifies violations—such as operating in icy conditions without chains—as misdemeanors, requiring drivers to return to court. After some time, Zollman believes this penalty is overly harsh, particularly for out-of-area commercial drivers, and he proposed to amend the ordinance so that the first offense, or first two offenses, are treated as infractions that include a set fine payable by mail, while only repeat offenses escalate to misdemeanor. This would allow deputies to enforce compliance effectively without burdening drivers with court appearances, while still maintaining road safety. Although questions remain about whether a county ordinance can be an infraction, there are precedents, and if a misdemeanor is required, a “payable misdemeanor” option could be used to achieve the same outcome. The discussion emphasized that the goal is safety and compliance, not punitive measures, and any repeat offenders who disregard warnings would still face stricter consequences.
