The Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, Idaho, does hereby meet this 27th day of May 2025.

IN THE MATTER OF ROLL CALL)

Donna White, Clerk, called roll call: Gordon Wilkerson, present; Jim Harberd, present; and Nate Marvin, present.

Jim Harberd opened the meeting and Gordon Wilkerson led the Pledge of Allegiance. Nate Marvin gave the invocation.

IN THE MATTER OF CORRESPONDENCE/MEETINGS AND REPORTS)

Correspondence received by the Board was reviewed and disseminated as required.

The Board reviewed a May 23, 2025, Demand for Issuance of Building Permit submitted by Naylor Hales on behalf of Divid C. Dickerson and Kristy L. Burnett.

IN THE MATTER OF MINUTES)

The minutes of the Board not heretofore approved of May 12, 2025, were approved as written.

The minutes of the Board not heretofore approved of May 19, 2025, were approved as written.

IN THE MATTER OF CLAIMS)

The Auditor was authorized to issue warrants totaling $279,196.94 for general expenses by a motion of Jim Harberd, seconded by Nate Marvin. Motion carried unanimous.

IN THE MATTER OF ROAD & BRIDGE/SOLID WASTE)

Jerod Odoms, Road and Bridge/Solid Waste Supervisor, met with the Board. Odoms presented Applications for the Placement of Culverts/Approaches to the Board for approval. Applications were submitted by Odo Grandi, Renee Frank, and Bill Gladhart.

Nate Marvin moved, seconded by Gordon Wilkerson, to approve the Applications for the Placement of Culverts/Approaches as presented by Odoms. Motion carried.

Odoms reported that the Region 3 ITD (Idaho Transportation Department) meeting was held last week. Odoms reviewed items to be addressed by ITD. Odoms informed the Board that ITD is working with the City of Weiser regarding the turn lanes to be installed on Highway 95 near Ridley’s.

IN THE MATTER OF MUSEUM BUDGET REQUEST)

Lynn Issacson met with the Board. Issacson informed the Board of the maintenance work that has been required at the Museum. He reported that floors, ceiling and electrical work had to be done. Issacson requested funding from the Board in the amount of $9,000.00 from the 2026 fiscal year budget.

IN THE MATTER OF MISDEMEANOR PROBATION)

Wade Dishion met with the Board. Dishion discussed relocating the Misdemeanor Probation Office to the building currently being used by the detectives.

Matt Thomas, Sheriff, stated that the detectives are currently relocating to the Annex Building.

Dishion discussed quarterly reports and stated that he will compile the reports and meet later with the Board.

IN THE MATTER OF FOREST SERVICE UPDATE)

Dana Harris met with the Board. Patrick Schon, Paul Klasner, and Ray Bilboa were also present.

Schon submitted and reviewed the 2025 Seasonal Outlook Report with the Board. Snowpack, water levels, and run off, were discussed. Schon also discussed the 2024 Energy Release Component (Fuels) 20-year average. Schon reported there were 88 fires on Payette National Forest land last year with 118 total fires reported. Schon reviewed the 3-month Seasonal Perception Outlook with the Board. Schon continued and discussed staffing for the 2025 season. Schon stated that the Forest Service is approximately at 80% staff level for the 2025 fire season.

Wilkerson inquired on the implementation of House Bill 389 for the upcoming season. Schon stated the Forest Service will honor the Bill and will work with Ray Bilboa regarding the use of Rural Protection Agencies (RPA).

Bilboa confirmed that the RPA will be utilized during the upcoming season.

Schon discussed concerns of road closures and reported that bridges are scheduled to be replaced near Four Bit Creek. Schon reported salvage logging is in process.

Wilkerson inquired on the count of lost livestock during the last fire season. Klasner stated Randy Bumgarner would likely be able to provide those number. Wilkerson discussed mining exploration within Washington County. Wilkerson stated he would like to see timber sales on a contract basis.

Wilkerson questioned the status of prescribed fires. Klasner stated spring prescribed burns are near completion.

Marvin inquired on Good Neighbor Projects. Klasner stated that they are working with IDL (Idaho Department of Lands) on upcoming projects.

IN THE MATTER OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY)

Robert Peterson, Information Technology Director, met with the Board. Peterson requested approval to donate ten used computers to the school districts. Peterson informed the Board that some computers at the schools are over twelve years old.

Gordon Wilkerson moved, seconded by Jim Harberd, to allow Peterson to donate the used computers to the School Districts within Washington County. Motion carried.

IN THE MATTER OF BUILDING PERMIT MORATORIUM DISCUSSION)

Dan Leuthold addressed the Board. Leuthold stated that he was here to oppose Harberd publicly and the ambush committee that was here last week. Leuthold read the following statement: “If the truth offends, you’ve strayed from it.” Leuthold asked, What is the truth and said that as County Officials, and residents of Washington County, we have a truth that we abide by, it’s written code.” It’s County Ordinances, State Code and the Constitution”. Leuthold told the Board that he has seen nothing but problems since we have commissioned the Planning and Zoning to “set up shop” in the County. Leuthold said that in the 70’s the National Government insisted that we have a P & Z and their guidelines were set. Leuthold stated there are “good people on the P & Z Commission”, but he thinks the people are misguided and we all have to pay. Leuthold stated he would like to call for a moratorium on the P & Z Commission, they are not needed. Leuthold further stated that he is not opposed to a Commission but is opposed the long-tendered nature of those who are there. Leuthold discussed the responsibilities of the P & Z Commission. Leuthold told the Board to do away with the commission and get more people on there who agree “with me.”

IN THE MATTER OF BUILDING PERMIT MORITORIUM)

Ron Jeager addressed the Board. Jaeger stated he received a letter from the Washington County Prosecuting Attorney after the close of business last Friday. Jaeger read the letter on the record. A full copy of the letter is available upon request.

Jaeger then read the following letter to the Board as follows:

“Commissioners,

I just read you a letter that I received after business on Friday. I believe this was an attempt to intimidate and bully me into not speaking today. He claims I introduced myself as P & Z Chairman when in fact I said I was a concerned citizen that happened to be P & Z Chairman. I stated in an exchange with Commissioner Wilkerson that I was

there as a citizen not as P & Z Chair. I stated facts and gave my personal opinion only. All those things I stated about P & Z are public records. I referenced and quoted State Statutes. The things I said about them were clear and didn’t need any interpretation.

I resent that he called me a liar by suggesting that I wrote the moratorium myself. I offered to give you his name and info at the end of the letter I read and presented.

If he wants the names and info of all the commissioners, prosecuting and other attorneys, P & Z members, and members of the public that I have talked to about code “interpretation”, he’s going to have wait a while. I’ve been at it for 20 years. I could go on, but we have other important thing to get to.

In light of the above, I respectfully request that you direct the Prosecuting Attorney to

‘back off’.

Oh, but the way, P & Z Commissioners are required by State and County law to advise the County Commissioners on planning and zoning matters.”

Jaeger stated he was here to address the proposed moratorium. Jaeger informed the Board that changes had been made to the proposed moratorium original draft. Jaeger submitted documentation from the Idaho Regulatory Takings Act Guidelines which states a moratorium may be used as a planning tool. Jaeger requested that the Board put a moratorium in place.

Royce Schwenkfelder read the following on the record:

“As we work our way through the difficult task of figuring out what the impact of new zoning code interpretations or historical old interpretations of the same codes, it has left the taxpayers and citizens of this county with lots of questions and few direct answers. It seems that every time it is asked what the code interpretation of 20-acre splits come up, there is a lot of silence and no direct answers because apparent litigation threats and attorney client privilege issues. We need to get answers and transparency back into this discussion in some way soon. If we go forward with splitting up more valuable farmland while this is all up in the air, some folks are going to have their way with cutting up more valuable farm ground. Their predecessors could not do it and after ‘code rewrites’ the folks that come later won’t get similar splits either. This seems discriminatory, which leaves litigation for unfair treatment a new, and very real issue. After this gets resolved, it will be hard to say no to any code variance applied for on this issue in the future because of this new interpretation. Let us not put a moratorium on the way traditional codes were applied or building permits were issued historically. Let’s only put a moratorium on this new interpretation and how it applies to splits going forward. That is an emergency and on that cannot be ignored. Let us get this issue out in the open, as that will need to be eventually done anyway. Please work with the Planning and Zoning Department, and the process, to get our land use plans improved and more clearly applied. Threat of litigation can’t keep the County from doing its business but makes it understandably more complicated. Transparency will need to happen at some point. The Ranching and

Framing taxpayers deserve some honest, and straightforward information, not executive sessions and more confusion as to this Commission’s real values pertaining to Ag land. Thank you for the opportunity to comment.”

Jase Roberts read the following statement on the record:

“I come from a long line of agricultural producers in this valley. My great-grandfather and grandfather’s families were among the first to level farm ground along the Snake River Valley for siphon irrigation. On my grandmother’s side, her father raised Hereford and Angus cattle, selecting for genetics suited to survive in the arid desert hills and mountains in which many of us take residence. Their work laid the foundation for much of what we still rely on today. That legacy—and the land they helped shape—is what inspires me to speak out. Because we are not just dealing with property boundaries, land splits or code interpretation; we are talking about the preservation of an endangered resource.

According to the 2017 USDA Census of Agriculture, Washington County had approximately 468 thousand acres of farmland, with about 79 thousand acres classified as cropland—roughly 17% of the total. This land is the backbone of our economy, our culture, and our contribution to the broader food and fiber system in the United States.

But we’re seeing dangerous patterns emerge. From 2017 to 2022, Idaho lost 144,000 acres of working lands, and we’re on track to lose another 113,000 acres by 2040, with 83% of that projected loss affecting our most productive farmland (Idaho Farm Bureau, American Farmland Trust).

That’s not just a statistic—that’s a warning. And it’s one we’ve seen unfold in the Meridian, Star, and Boise area, where unplanned growth rapidly transformed ancient fertile Snake River working farm soil into housing tracts. This soil is not abundant, especially in the west economy, and development is irreversible. I fear Washington County is heading down the same path unless we take thoughtful, deliberate action.

At the heart of this issue is clarity and integrity in our land use code. If we truly want to preserve agriculture in this county, we cannot allow piecemeal interpretations or quiet shifts in legal meaning to undercut that goal. Our zoning codes must protect the wholeness of farm operations, preventing agricultural land from being fragmented into chunks that no longer support viable production.

This doesn’t mean we oppose growth or development. It means we believe growth should be intentional, strategic, and balanced-directing toward areas near existing services, not haphazardly scattered across our most fertile ground.

We also need to recognize that many people are moving to this valley because they value the rural lifestyle—open spaces, agricultural views, and a slower pace of life. Preserving that experience means protecting the land and operations that make it possible, and it also requires education. As rural communities grow, and newcomers seek residency, we must

ensure that all understand and respect the realities of agriculture—that it includes early mornings, farm equipment on roads, livestock sounds, and seasonal fieldwork. Those things aren’t nuisances—they’re signs of a working landscape worth preserving.

I urge the commissioners to take this issue up formally with Planning and Zoning, and the changes that need clarification in the code, let them come through the proper process with public input, transparency, and a firm commitment to preserving agriculture for future generations.

This land supported my great-grandfather’s work, my ancestors livelihood, and today it supports countless families. Let’s not squander it to short-term decisions that we may one day regret.

Thank you for your time and your service to our county.”

Tristan Winegar addressed the Board. Winegar stated he comes from a long line of statesmen, politically active family members. Winegar further stated that his grandma was a scholar of the Constitution. He also stated that he served as an intern for Monte Pearce. Winegar continued and said that personal property rights are extremely important. Winegar stated he is here representing Farm Bureau, and they want to be a part of this moving forward. Winegar said he has seen what has happened to beautiful farm ground. Ada county is destroying A1, prime farm ground at a rate of 10 square miles per year. Winegar said he didn’t want that to continue, and that growth needs to be directed. Winegar told the Board that Farm Bureau would like the opportunity to participate in hopefully changing the code, adding some clarity, defining different types of farm ground and ag ground and hopefully clean this up once and for all.

Frank Schwartz read the following email that he sent to the Board on the record:

Thank you for listening to a number of us on Monday, May 19, on the topic of A1 Ag and the topic of the moratorium. I respectfully request that you put the moratorium in place to allow time to sort out the issues people (including the County Attorney) have with the current ordinances. There is a huge risk with the decision made two weeks ago, changing direction without a change in ordinance.

I am not able to yet access the meeting minutes from the May 12 Commissioner Meeting, so I am just using what I heard Commissioner Marvin read from his notes regarding the decision and direction to Planning and Zoning. I also do not have the attorney memorandum referred to, so I am extrapolating a little. I see the following problems coming out of that May 12 direction.

First, my understanding is that the County Attorney has recommended interpretation of the County Code that are different from the actual language contained in the code. So, the memorandum in effect changes code. The Commissioners have instructed Planning and Zoning to implement the Attorney’s memorandum, (“adopted”), without formally changing the code and without holding the required public hearings associated with that

process. This Commissioner action violates a number of Idaho Statutes including the Administrative Procedures Act and some Statutes specific to the County Ordinances and changes.

Next, the Commissioners directed Planning and Zoning to obtain any necessary clarifications or interpretations directly from the County Attorney when implementing this change. This relegates the decision authority that is supposed to be held only by the Commissioners to the Attorney. This is another clear violation of the Idaho Statutes.

Finally, the decision and advice on A1 ag ground is entirely ignoring the three split (four parcel) aspect of the Ordinances contained in 5.1.2 C8 that applies. You can’t look at 5.4 in a vacuum. This decision violates our County Ordinances.

The least risky path forward is to immediately put a moratorium in place on the issuance of certain permits or actions. Allow your Planning and Zoning to provide you advice on exactly which classes of permits should be paused, since you likely don’t need to pause everything. The correct authority for the moratorium is 67-6523, not 67-6524. As a County, we need to get this sorted out before a bigger mess is made. Putting a pause on some classes of actions immediately will at least provide some damage control.

We appreciate the efforts of the County Commissioners and want to help you do this right and reduce litigation risk. I am more than willing to commit as much time as needed to work with the Planning and Zoning Department and the P & Z Board to make any necessary clarification to the to the County Ordinances that are needed to make the code clear and reduce litigation risk.”

Nate Marvin stated he had received a lot of communications supporting a moratorium. Marvin had asked if someone could explain what the imminent peril to public health, safety and welfare that the county would deal with if the moratorium were passed. Marvin read a definition of imminent peril: “A situation in which something very bad is likely to happen at any moment.”

Schwenkfelder stated it would be discrimination because we haven’t been able to do this for forty some years. You are going to have a period of time that you will discriminate against folks if you change the interpretation of code going forward. Until this gets hammered out, things will happen that are unintended. You can’t turn people down if you say it’s okay for a minute. Schwenkfelder stated that the imminent peril is discrimination to someone out there and it won’t be unnoticed. It is not life threatening, but it is just as threatening as the litigation expense to the County. Schwenkfelder stated that if we were talking about a school bond or a new road, it would be imminent peril because someone might go broke if they were taxed more. If 20 million dollars is making us move in a direction because of possible litigation to make this decision, that could be unlimited.

Marvin agreed that farm ground needs to be protected, but stated it needed to be done correctly and legally.

Jaeger told the Board that in the letter he provided last week, he talked about imminent peril. Jaeger stated that it is not just health or safety, it is also the general welfare. Jaeger questioned the referenced lawsuit of 20 million dollars, and if the county had to pay, that could bankrupt the county. That is something that every one of us will end up paying and that is directly or indirectly the result of doing the specific thing that was done before; like allowing 20-acre splits as they did before with the Lancaster matter. Jaeger told the Board, “That is why you are under the lawsuit right now.” Jaeger stated this is an imminent peril to all citizens in the county.

Winegar asked if the code were to be changed, how quicky could it be resolved?

Marvin stated he thought it could be done in 90 days. Marvin further stated that Planning and Zoning had previously submitted proposed code changes. The matter was put on hold and no action has been taken.

Gordon Wilkerson stated one would think we have thrown out all the codes and not following any of them. That is not necessarily the case. Wilkerson said that to put an emergency moratorium in place, would last 6 months. Wilkerson said he agreed with Marvin, that if we would get together, we could have this done inside of six months. Wilkerson stated he did not see how a moratorium would help. Wilkerson said he is in favor of working together in “correcting this thing the way it will fit our county best.” Wilkerson further stated that he is not in favor of putting a moratorium on and putting the county in another possible legal lawsuit. Wilkerson said doing so, puts him in personal legal jeopardy.

Jaeger stated that the whole reason for moratorium is to stop what’s wrong, and then we have months to fix it.

Jim Harberd stated he is not against growth, and that he hates to see agricultural split up. Harberd told the group that both the other commissioners have said they want to fix this. Harberd stated he wants to fix it as well. Harberd asked what will happen if we keep going the way we are, how many more will come through the door on property splits? If you have a piece a ground currently and have so many splits allowed and someone comes in for a split, what happens? Harberd said irrigated ground will probably be the first to go. That will take the heart out of this valley if we start letting our 20-acre pieces on all irrigated ground go. Harberd said if we can do it in 90 days, why not put a moratorium for 90 days. Other business can proceed, and this is going to take some time.

Jaeger stated that if you put a moratorium in place for 180 days, it can be ended at any time. Jaeger state that there is a process in place to split land through the subdivision ordinance. This gives all concerned agencies (Fire, Sheriff, EMS, etc.) the chance to say what will or will not work.

Harberd stated that we are not going to stop growth but need to be able to deal with it in a regulated fashion.

Schwartz asked if the Board could rescind the May 12th motion and let the 90-day process work.

Marvin read his May 12th motion on the record. Marvin stated he wanted to support the moratorium, but Harberd would need to show him imminent peril.

Harberd referenced the Bonner County Ordinance that was recently adopted. Harberd stated that he felt there is cause for a moratorium. There is a great potential of lawsuits. If put in place, it will stop the madness. Harberd stated a lot can transpire in 90 days.

Jaeger far as public health, there have been instances on Gentry Lane when the Ambulance could not get to the residence

Wilkerson stated that Gentry Lane is not county road.

Jaeger stated Gentry Lane could have been a county road. Lancaster was going through the subdivision process and if he had been allowed to continue, there would have been a county road there. Jaeger stated that that decision is what started the headache. If we continue to do development without direction, there will be more and more of those types of things.

Schwenkfelder stated precedence has been set. What do we do while the cat is out of the bag. Schwenkfelder told the group that what Jase Roberts referred to earlier today is very real, that is a threat to ag land. Schwenkfelder further stated that this is what is happening in neighboring counties and on the Weiser Flat. People come to Washington County because the feel is “open spaces”. Unless we do this right, what Jase referred to is going to happen. The investors are looking.

Harberd asked Winegar what kind of effect will this have on the APA (Agriculture Protection Area).

Winegar stated that no applications have been received. Farm Bureau would like to get things fixed. It does not help the APA.

Harberd said the Prosecuting Attorney reached out to a Commissioner in Canyon County for an opinion on this. That Commissioner state the farmers in Canyon County were able to justify paying the higher price for their land than what agriculture would support.

Harberd read a portion of the Bonner County Ordinance establishing a Moratorium on the record as follows:

“Whereas, in accordance with Idaho Code 67-6523, the Board of County Commissioner finds that an imminent peril to public health, safety or welfare exists due to the continued approval of Minor Land Division applications without a clear and enforceable regulatory framework.”

Harberd stated that sounds familiar.

Marvin stated there were good comments made today. Marvin said there are things that have happened that make him think some of these items would fit in a moratorium.

Wilkerson stated that he had read that the State does not feel that minor code changes stand up to imminent peril. Wilkerson said there have been a lot of opinions on code interpretation. Wilkerson stated there is ambiguity in code.

Schwenkfelder stated that seems like imminent peril.

Harberd stated he could not think of better way than through a moratorium. Harberd said it will not take that long and code can be cleaned up.

Jaeger stated that if this were to go to court, the court would look at precedence.

Jim Harberd moved, to uphold a moratorium as read and written to stop the splits that we are experiencing right now until we can clean them up.

Marvin stated that is in reference to 5-4-1 #1. Harberd stated that was correct. Marvin stated he felt the motion needed to include why.

Jim Harberd amended the motion to include that whereas the removal of these provision will allow Washington County to establish a more consistent regulatory framework that aligns with infrastructure standards, public safety needs, and sustainable growth policies. Whereas in accordance with Idaho Code 67-6523, the Board of County Commissioners finds that an imminent peril to public health, safety, or welfare exists due to the continued approval of Minor Land Division applications without a clear and enforceable regulatory framework. Now, therefore, be it ordained by the Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, Idaho that the following be and is hereby adopted as an ordinance of Washington County. The motion was seconded by Nate Marvin.

Harberd clarified that the moratorium will be in place for up to 180 days.

Wilkerson stated he could not support the moratorium and felt in would put the county in danger.

Roll call vote: Gordon Wilkerson, Nay; Jim Harberd, Aye; Nate Marvin, Aye. IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION)

Ron Jaeger, Planning and Zoning Commission Chairman, addressed the Board. Jaeger stated that per the By-Laws of the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Chairman is to keep the lines of communication open between the Planning and Zoning staff and the County Commissioners. Jaeger told the Board that he will be meeting with them from time to time.

Jaeger requested that the Board release the Prosecuting Attorney’s Memorandum to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Jaeger told the Board the Commission needs a copy of the Memorandum, so they know what items to address/fix in the code. Jaeger further stated that the proposed code changes were submitted to the Commissioners. Jaeger requested that the Board allow the Commission to send the proposed changes to Chris Meyer for review.

Marvin stated he was not comfortable sending the proposed changes to Chris Meyer.

True Pearce, Prosecuting Attorney, stated that the Memorandum that the Board received from his office is attorney/client privilege. Pearce stated the Board can waive that, Pearce cannot. Pearce stated that the Board could release the Memorandum if they chose to do so. Pearce stated that it is not lawful for the Board to hire outside counsel without Pearce’s permission.

Pearce told the Board he thought is was applicable to talk about the fact that Memorial Day was yesterday. It’s a time in this country when we celebrate. Blood that’s been shed, people’s lives that have been sacrificed. People that have given up everything for freedom, for this great country. People that fought and died for the Constitution and the freedoms that we enjoy every single day as American citizens. Part of that Constitution talks about elections, and we have constitutional elections in this county. Pearce further stated that he was elected as the prosecuting attorney in this county, and as such, it is his statutory and constitutional duty to give legal advice to this county. Pearce stated that it is not legal for the Board to replace him as prosecuting attorney, and to go seek legal advice from outside attorneys. Pearce stated it is not lawful for the Board to approve hiring outside counsel without his permission.

Jaeger requested permission to speak with Dan Leuthold regarding his statements made earlier.

Marvin discussed the memorandum received from Holland & Hart and said that after review, he felt there are things that need to be addressed.

Jaeger stated Special Meetings can be held. Jaeger again stated that in order to address the issues from the Prosecuting Attorney, the P & Z Commission would like the Prosecutor’s Memorandum be released.

Jaeger stated the Commission will need a goal as to where the Board would like to end up.

Wilkerson inquired what attorney had assisted with the drafting of the moratorium Jaeger submitted to the Board.

Jaeger stated the firm was Morrow & Fischer.

IN THE MATTER OF PROSECUTING ATTORNEY)

True Pearce, Prosecuting Attorney, met with the Board.

Marvin question if the previous motion should be amended. Pearce stated he did not want to discuss the matter in open meeting.

Gordon Wilkerson moved, seconded by Jim Harberd, to go into executive session at 1:09

p.m. in accordance with I.C. 74-206(1) (a & b) to consider hiring a public officer, employee, staff member or individual agent. This paragraph does not apply to filling a vacancy in an elective office, (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; and (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. The mere presence of legal counsel at an executive session does not satisfy this requirement. Motion carried unanimous. Gordon Wilkerson, Aye; Jim Harberd, Aye; Nate Marvin, Aye.

Jim Harberd stated they were out of executive session at 2:20 p.m.

Pearce stated executive session included an update on current lawsuit. The Sheriff and Jerod Odoms were present. Pearce stated personnel discipline and a new pending lawsuit against the County was also discussed.

Motion by Nate Marvin, seconded by Gordon Wilkerson, and unanimously carried to recess at 2:30 p.m. until June 2, 2025, at 8:45 a.m.

Chairman, Board of County Commissioners

ATTEST:

Clerk

A full audio recording of the Commissioner Meeting is available at the Clerk’s Office upon request.