The Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, Idaho, does hereby meet this 23rd day of June 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 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.

Nate Marvin reported that he attended the FEMA meeting held at City Hall last week. Marvin stated that it appeared that the nursery north of Weiser may be removed from the flood plain. Changes could take up to two years for changes to be implemented.

Jim Harberd reported that he attended the FEMA meeting as well and will attend the Southwest District Health Board meeting this week.

Jim Harberd moved, seconded by Gordon Wilkerson, to approve a demand warrant payable to Ridley’s Family Market in the amount of $919.59 for the Weed Department. Motion carried.

Matt Thomas, Sheriff, discussed the Zoning Violation Complaint on a towing company that was received with the Board.

Marvin stated he believed that the company needed a Special Use Permit.

Thomas stated that per Planning and Zoning, as long as the owner removed signs and used the property as a storage yard, there was no violation.

IN THE MATTER OF MINUTES)

The minutes of the Board not heretofore approved of June 18, 2025, were approved as written.

The minutes of the Board not heretofore approved of June 16, 2025, were approved as written.

IN THE MATTER OF CLAIMS)

The Auditor was authorized to issue warrants totaling $200,743.21 for general expenses by a motion of Jim Harberd, seconded by Gordon Wilkerson. Motion carried unanimous.

IN THE MATTER OF ROAD & BRIDGE/SOLID WASTE)

Jerod Odoms, Road and Bridge/Solid Waste Supervisor, met with the Board. Odoms provided a department update to the Board. Odoms informed the Board that he plans to attend the Fall Solid Waste Conference to be held September 30 through October 2, 2025, in Boise. Odoms further stated that the Road Conference will be in November in Boise.

There was discussion regarding the use of a shredder at Solid Waste and the demonstration that was previously held at the Weiser Solid Waste site. Odoms stated that the monthly cost to rent the shredder would be approximately $12,000.00.

Marvin inquired if Odoms had placed the markers on Gentry Lane. Odoms stated that had been done.

Odoms reported that the mower will not be repaired as it is an expensive repair. Odoms estimated the repairs to the rear axle to be approximately $7,000.00.

IN THE MATTER OF JUVENILE PROBATION)

Dahlia Stender, Juvenile Probation Supervisor, met with the Board. Stender presented the Passthrough Funds Recipient Agreement regarding the Community Based Alternative Services (CBAS) Program, and the Substance Use Disorder Services (SUDS) Program to the Board for approval. Stender provided an explanation to the Board of the use of funds through the Agreement.

Nate Marvin moved, seconded by Gordon Wilkerson, to approve and sign the Passthrough Funds Recipient Agreement regarding the Community Based Alternative Services (CBAS) Program, and the Substance Use Disorder Services (SUDS) Program. Motion carried.

IN THE MATTER OF EMPLOYEE PER DIEM PROPOSAL)

Shelly Craig with the Sheriff’s Office met with the Board. Also present was Matt Thomas, Sheriff. Craig presented documentation regarding Statewide Per Diem Options to the Board for review. Craig stated that the Sheriff’s office would like to set a per diem per day for employee meals when traveling. Craig discussed suggested changes and stated they would like to begin the program as a trial period for the 2026 budget year for law enforcement only. Craig stated that if the meetings are less than 80 miles from Weiser, employees would be expected to travel each day instead of the County paying the lodging expense. Employees would be expected to drive a county vehicle.

Marvin stated he liked using the GSA (General Services Administration) Rate.

Craig will prepare and submit a policy to the Board for consideration in August 2025.

IN THE MATTER OF HISTORICAL PRESERVATION COMMITTEE BUDGET REQUEST)

Tony Edmondson met with the Board. Coleen Grant was also present. Edmondson provided an explanation of fund usage to the Board. Edmondson further stated that the budget line for the Historical Society and Museum has not increased for fifteen years. Edmondson said funding from the national level will likely be frozen. Edmundson stated that the organization is thankful for the funding received. Edmondson shared how funding has been used and suggested that the Board consider doubling the budgeted amount. Many grants require matching funds, and the budgeted amount does not cover the matching costs.

Grant told the Board she could not imagine the City of Weiser without the Train Depot or the Pythian Castle. Without the funding, much of the work could not be completed.

IN THE MATTER OF CITY OF CAMBRIDGE AREA OF CITY IMPACT)

Mayor, Mark Loveland, and City Clerk, Sandra McKee, met with the Board. Mayor Loveland stated that the City of Cambridge had approached the Board last November. Loveland said that since that time, they realized their Area of Impact was too large. Loveland told the Board that the City was told the Area of Impact should be a designated area, that within a five-year period may indicate possibilities of where the city may expand. Loveland told the Board boundaries have been retracted. Property lines were reviewed. Loveland requested the Board identify the proposed Area of Impact for the City of Cambridge.

Sandra McKee stated the law was passed in the 2024 legislation. McKee stated that the City of Cambridge wanted to re-look at the Area of Impact after consideration of that law. McKee read the following from the Unity and Continuity for Growing Cites, Municipal Annexation on the record:

“The area of impact must be established before a city may annex adjacent territory as provided by Idaho Code. A new law taking effect July1, 2024 made major changes to the area of impact process in Idaho Code.

Cities and counties must review their existing areas of impact and reestablish those in conformity with the new law by December 31, 2025. Failing to conduct that review and reestablishment by the deadline nullifies any existing areas of impact and requires the city and county to start at the beginning of the process.

Modifying or confirming the area of impact boundary, may be initiated by either one city or multiple cities, or the county. The county must adopt an ordinance to modify or

confirm the area of impact boundary after published and mailed notice and public hearing, including mailed notice to property owners within the area proposed to be modified. The county commissioners are not required to receive a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission before enacting the ordinance modifying or confirming an area of impact.

The county’s comprehensive plan and land use policies apply in the area of impact, but the county may adopt specific provisions applying to a particular area of impact. The county must provide the city with notice of upcoming development hearings concerning the area of impact.”

McKee discussed information from Givins Pursley that stated, “Which Plans and Ordinances apply? The city and county are required to adopt coordinated ordinances establishing that ACI’s (Area of City Impact) boundary and specifying what planning and zoning ordinances will apply. They are free to select either the city’s, the county’s, or some combination or variation. Whatever plans and ordinances are made applicable within the ACI, they will be enforced by the county. This is true even if the city’s ordinances are declared applicable.”

McKee told the Board that the proposal they were presenting was not only on the boundaries, but with a proposal about going with the city’s zoning and subdivision ordinances and having those apply in the impact area instead of the counties.

McKee provided a copy of Idaho Statute 67-6526 – Areas of Impact to the Board for review. McKee also presented the current County Ordinance for the Area of City Impact for the City of Cambridge. McKee provided a copy of the current, future, land use map that the city has that shows the current area of impact. McKee discussed the map indicating the proposed Area of Impact with the Board. McKee stated that with their comprehensive plan, the City of Cambridge is required to have a future land use map that includes areas of residential, commercial, industrial, and agriculture. McKee stated that Cambridge does not have an A2 zone. McKee told the Board that updates were made to the Comprehensive Plan and one of those updates was in the land use section. McKee stated that they added a new agricultural transition definition in the Comp plan and plan on using it in their zoning. McKee stated that Cambridge would like to change ‘agriculture’ to an agricultural transition, A2 designation. McKee read the definition of Agricultural Transition as follows: “Land zoned A2 is for agricultural purposes but due to its size and/or environmental conditions, it would be better suited for rural residential development. Due to its proximity to the City of Cambridge and prime agricultural land, land zoned as Agricultural Transition is suited as a transition between single-family residential neighborhoods, and lands used primarily for the growing, raising, or production of agricultural, horticultural, viticultural, and vegetable crops, poultry and poultry products. livestock, including equine, field grain, seeds, hay, apiary, and dairy products.” McKee told the Board that they are proposing that Cambridge not have A1 land in the impact area, and that it would be considered A2 Transitional.

McKee presented a draft of a proposed Ordinance and stated that the City of Cambridge would like the Board to consider adopting the drafted ordinance. McKee told the Board that a legal description will need to be added to the draft ordinance. McKee stated that the ordinance shall not apply to any parcel of land 20 acres or larger and used solely for agriculture. McKee said the city would like to see the enforcement of the Land Use Ordinance within the Impact Area. The County would have to enforce city code. McKee told the Board that they would like to at least have the boundaries set by the end of the year. The documentation was sent to True Pearce, Prosecuting Attorney on June 17, 2025, via email.

Harberd stated that Pearce would need to review the documentation and see if the Assessor’s Office can write the legal description.

McKee told the Board that they were trying to take the area of impact, the boundaries, and a lot of prime agricultural land out of it. The top priority for both the County and the City is to preserve agriculture land. We were trying to preserve some of that prime farmland.

IN THE MATTER OF MORATORIUM DISCUSSION)

Tony Young with T Young Inspections, LLC, met with the Board. Young stated he had been told, per the moratorium, no building permits can be issued but that is not what he sees in the writing of the moratorium. Young read a portion of the moratorium on the record: Number one, it says emergency moratorium imposed. “A temporary moratorium is hereby imposed on the acceptance, processing, or approval of any application or request for land use development or land division involving properties zoned A1, Agricultural under Washington County zoning code.”

Number two, exemptions. “This moratorium shall not apply to applications that were previously approved prior to May 27, 2025, and applications submitted pursuant to and in accordance with a binding settlement agreement approved by the Board and subdivisions or development on land zoned A2 agricultural.”

Young told the Board there are a lot of people who would like to do a remodel on their home. Young discussed a situation where a person had purchased a home with the intent of fixing it up and selling it. Young reiterated that it is his understanding that a building permit cannot be issued even on a remodel or an addition, or a porch edition, or putting a foundation under a manufactured home. Young told the Board that these are existing homes, existing buildings and that he does not feel that these fall under this moratorium. Young requested clarification from the Board. Young stated that Central Produce would like to build a steel building to process onions. He stated he did not feel that fell under the moratorium. Young questioned building a detached shop on property that has no land divisions. Young told the Board he is seeing that citizens are going to start building without a building permit. Young said he is concerned that things will get done without building permits and proper inspections. Young told the Board he did understand the issue of verifying land splits to make sure they fit under State Code regarding the number of allowed splits.

Marvin stated he would like to check with legal counsel and make sure before he told Young something wrong. Marvin said it was his understanding it (the moratorium) was just for land splits and divisions of property.

Harberd stated that was not their intentions. The Board with get back to Young. IN THE MATTER OF BOARD OF EQUALIZATION)

There were no matters brought before the Board.

IN THE MATTER OF EIVIDENCE ROOM EXHAUST FAN)

Debbie Moxley-Potter, Assessor, and Matt Thomas, Sheriff met with the Board. Moxley- Potter stated there was a bad odor from the Sheriff’s Office last week due to the confiscation of marijuana.

Matt Thomas, Sheriff, stated there is an air return on the roof unit of the building. Thomas told the Board that Comfort Zone will look at changing the air return or install a vent. The Board requested a quote for the expense.

IN   THE    MATTER    OF   COUNTY   CODE   CHANGES   AND   MORATORIUM DISCUSSION)

Planning and Zoning Chairman, Ron Jaeger, and Debbie Warren met with the Board. Jaeger addressed the Board. Jaeger stated there were three topics they would like to go over – the moratorium, the memorandum that Mr. Pearce did on the codes.

Debbie Warren addressed the Board and read the following statement to the Board:

“Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Debbie Warren, 3448 Thomason Lane, Cambridge. Thank you for letting me address you today.

One of the marks of an excellent leader is to understand and appreciate those he leads. If he is new to an organization, he needs to sit back a bit and get to know the people he is working with. He needs to understand their strengths and weaknesses. He also must compliment their knowledge, accomplishments, and history in the organization. In other words, he heeds to earn their trust.

On June 17, the Washington County Planning and Zoning Commission unanimously voted ’no confidence’ in the leadership of our current Prosecuting Attorney. We know that it has no legal standing. However, we want you, the Commissioners, and the public to understand that we do not trust him in matters of Planning & Zoning. Here are the facts that governed our decision on Tuesday evening.

Mr. Pearce read a letter into the County Commissioners’ record on May 5, stating that his office had devoted hundreds of hours analyzing the Washington County Code. I have submitted a public records request for a search on the Clerk’s minutes. There was never a

request made by you, the Commissioners, for that analysis on the record. Idaho Code 31- 2604 (3) clearly states the prosecuting attorney is “to give advice to the board of county commissioners, and other public officers on his county, when requested in all public matters arising in the conduct of the public business entrusted to the care of such officers.” Neither was there a request, or a motion made by the County Commissioners to obtain an outside legal opinion of Mr. Pearce’s memorandum at the expense of nearly

$10,000 of county funds. And yet, Mr. Pearce had already submitted his memorandum to Holland & Hart on April 7, 2025.

In the letter from Holland & Hart, they say “the Memo…outlines recommended revisions to the code. Adoption of the changes would enhance the legal defensibility of the County’s zoning and development regulations and practices moving forward.” The phrase “adoption of changes” generally means that public hearings are required-first through Planning and Zoning, and then with the County Commissioners, who decide if the meaning, intention and application of the wording of the code align with their citizens’ wishes for the present and future enforcement regarding the invaluable rural ground in this county.

The Holland and Hart letter did not direct the County to immediately change the long- standing interpretation of the current Code. Yet, that is exactly what transpired immediately after an executive session on May 12, 2025. On that date, Nate Marvin moved, seconded by Gordon Wilkerson, “to direct Bonnie and the Planning and Zoning Department to honor the settlements that were negotiated by the current Prosecuting Attorney and to further direct Bonnie and Planning and Zoning to follow the code as written as per the Memorandum of Opinion from the current County Prosecuting Attorney, and if P&Z has any legal questions, to contact the County Prosecuting Attorney.” Motion carried unanimous. Bonnie Brent, Planning and Zoning Administrator, asked for clarification on exactly what you were requiring. Nothing was specified by you, the Commissioners.

Again, the Memorandum of Opinion has never been released. Not to the Planning and Zoning Commission, not to the public. Mr. Pearce denied the public records request for the document, stating it was ‘attorney/client privilege. Do you completely understand the April 7th Memorandum? Does the Memorandum allow unlimited 20-acre splits on A-1 land? Does it allow building permits with each 20-acre split? Did you hand over your responsibility as County Commissioners and oversite of Planning and Zoning to the Prosecuting Attorney? Do you think that dramatic changes in County Code interpretation (unlimited splitting of ground-beyond what Idaho Code limits) should side-step public hearings and dialogue besides from attorneys? Let me remind you that Planning and Zoning lies directly under your supervision by Idaho Code 67-6504.

On May 19, four concerned County residents presented the urgent need to place a moratorium in place for any 20-acre splits that were to be allowed by the new ‘interpretation’ of County Code. A well-written moratorium was given to you at that time. You decided not to proceed with the moratorium. At that time, Mr. Soulen questioned whether building permits will be granted to every person with twenty acres of

land that applies. Wilkerson responded to Soulen’s question and stated, ‘No”. Does that seem like clear direction to you? How is the Planning and Zoning Administrator supposed to know how to proceed?

On May 23, Ron Jaeger was ‘served’ a letter from the Prosecuting Attorney and accused of all things, “reading legal interpretation of Idaho statutes and county code into the record’ and unauthorized practice of law ‘which is a criminal offense’. That is completely false.

On May 27, more argument was given for the moratorium and at that time. A motion was made and passed for an emergency moratorium.

On June 2, Nate Marvin stated that he would like to exempt A2 zoning to exclude subdivisions from the memorandum and to reflect that it be effective for up to 182 days. Nate Marvin moved, seconded by Jim Harberd, to instruct True Pearce, Prosecuting Attorney, to amend the Moratorium to exempt A2 zoning and to reflect that it be in effect for up to 182 days. Motion carried.

Whereas the original moratorium allowed for A-1 splits and building permits on the ‘former interpretation’ of County Code, allowing all those who had ‘administrative (allowed) splits’ could apply and receive a split and building permit during the moratorium. Mr. Pearce’s amended moratorium passed on June 9 effectively shut down all land division involving property zoned A-1. Mr. Wilkerson stated at that time that he had been advised by legal counsel that the Emergency Moratorium is unlawful, even after being written by the County Prosecuting Attorney. Rumors have been quickly spread that the concerned citizens and Planning and Zoning were responsible for this. Let me be perfectly clear — that cannot be further from the truth. And why . . why would anyone ever be against taking a step back to fix something that may or may not be broken?

Gentlemen, we have now wasted nearly 30 days in the 182 days allotted by the moratorium. The Planning and Zoning Commission is eager to correct any loopholes in the County Code that will help to preserve the precious limited agricultural land in Washington County. The commission has not been given the Prosecutor’s Memorandum of Opinion, even though it has been requested repeatedly. The work on the codes MUST begin with the Planning and Zoning Commission.

The Prosecutor has sent a threatening letter to Mr. Jaeger which required Mr. Jaeger to obtain legal advice at his own personal expense. Bonnie Brent-Dowell and her staff have not been given clear direction on how to process and determine splits and building permits. The direction given, I think you will admit, is not clear to you either. The Planning and Zoning Commission was never given a chance to review codes before this new ‘interpretation’ was released, which would have been the proper channel to take. We should be able to ask for legal advice about code matters without constant need for executive sessions. Mr. Pearce did not share his research efforts he expended on radically different interpretation of county codes with Planning and Zoning.

As I stated last Tuesday, this is an incredibly sad state of affairs. Mr. Pearce appears to think that 9 long-time community members who volunteer their time, spend hours studying County code, Idaho code and applications, and love this county are not to be trusted. He does not know us. He seems to have a dislike for the Planning and Zoning department and has taken on responsibilities that are not his. If he does not trust us, and because of the history I have given you, we cannot trust him. I am asking you to obtain outside legal counsel for Planning and Zoning for at least a short period of time.”

The Board made no response to Warren’s statement.

Ron Jaeger addressed the Board and stated that the amended Moratorium that was put in place on June 9th is nothing like the draft that he had presented, and the Board passed on May 27th. Jaeger submitted a copy of the original moratorium ordinance to the Board.

Jaeger told the Board that the original moratorium only put a moratorium on A1 zoned land and only if it was above the three splits into four parcels, and not in a subdivision. Jaeger stated that the moratorium he had presented had dealt with the item Marvin was concerned with. Jaeger further stated that the only thing that needed to be added was the duration and the effective date. Jaeger told the Board that it seems that Mr. Pearce took it upon himself to re-write and change the scope of the moratorium that you approved.

Jaeger said that one can only guess his reason for doing so. The effect of the changes he made closes all building and development in A1 zones, which is most of the county.

Jaeger told the Board that you heard from the building inspector here a little bit ago that we now have people going around the county blaming P & Z for shutting down the County, when the blame should be squarely laid at Mr. Pearce’s feet. In light of the above, Jaeger requested that the Board amend the moratorium back to the original as presented with the 182 days and the May 27th effective date, and the exemption for the settlement agreements.

Marvin confirmed that Jaeger was requesting the Board reconsider the original moratorium that he had previously submitted.

Jaeger stated that was correct. The original moratorium would allow Planning and Zoning, building, and everything to continue as they have for the last 45 years until the code can be reviewed.

Harberd stated that it was not the Board’s intention to shut everything down but have been informed that is what they have done. Harberd told Jaeger the Board is working on one now to relieve that problem, as far as the building on existing matters of remodels and everything else like that. Harberd said that the main focus is for A1 splits.

Jaeger stated the original one as presented would have allowed that to keep going. Harberd said, “We’ll look at it. We’re going to get something done, we want to make sure it’s right’. Harberd further stated, “We don’t have to keep going back and forth all the time. That was the whole purpose of the moratorium is to have clarity added to it. Some things need to be cleared up or cleaned up a little bit. So be it. But it needs to be done in a

fashion that we are not back in this same spot all the time, because it’s taken a lot of time. There is no sense wasting the time if it’s not going to be right”.

Jaeger stated that the moratorium was put in place for us to have time to evaluate, and if needed to make changes to the code. As you are aware, the State Code 67-6511 states that requests for changes to the Zoning ordinance shall be submitted to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Idaho Code 67-6509 indicates that you can’t act on them until you have a recommendation of Planning and Zoning. We are already a month in, and still have not received Mr. Pearce’s opinion. Jaeger told the Board, “We need to get started.

With that in mind, as Chairman of Planning and Zoning, I appointed a committee to start work, whether we have that memorandum or not. We will have our first meeting on Wednesday. Our work could be much more efficient if we had that opinion. Once again, I request that you release it to the Planning and Zoning as soon as possible”.

Jaeger continued and said that as far as the code, he did not know if the Board had looked through the changes that were proposed to them back in July of last year. Jaeger said the proposed changes do verify, simplify or make it more clear. Jaeger told the Board that he believed that this committee is going to have real short work of it, and it’s going to be real short because “I think it’s already been done.” Jaeger reiterated that the Planning and Zoning Commission needs to see the memorandum to make sure that everything in it is covered. Jaeger told the Board that the only thing they know is it is about 16 pages. “I can’t stress that enough”.

Jaeger requested an executive session to discuss personnel issues.

Jim Harberd moved, seconded by Nate Marvin, to go into executive session at 11:20 a.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. Motion carried. Gordon Wilkerson, Nay; Jim Harberd, Aye; Nate Marvin, Aye.

Jim Harberd stated they were out of executive session at 11:45 a.m. Harberd stated, “No final action or decision was made during Executive Session. We will now return to the regular agenda.”

Jaeger stated that the Prosecuting Attorney has repeatedly stated that outside representation cannot be hired without his approval. Jaeger told the Board that the State Constitution states that the county can hire outside counsel, you have to show necessity and that it is not to be for a long period of time. Jaeger discussed Idaho Code 67-6504, regarding the formation of Planning and Zoning, the rules, membership, records, expenditures and staff.

Jaeger read a portion of 67-6504 as follows: “Expenditures by the Commission shall be within the amounts appropriated by the Governing Board within such limits, any

commission is authorized to hire or contract with employees, technical advisors, including but not limited to planners, engineers, architect, and legal assistants.”

Jaeger told the Board he would assume that legal assistants would be a lawyer. Jaeger reiterated that he is requesting different representation for the Planning and Zoning Department, and the Planning and Zoning Commission.

Debbie Warren told the Board that one of the reasons Mr. Pearce has given Planning and Zoning to go into executive session repeatedly was that they could be sued individually. Warren stated that she had recently found in a training from Idaho Association of Counties that talks about protection under the Idaho Tort Claims Act. Warren told the Board that Idaho Code Title 6, Chapter 902 talks about what an employee is, and Planning and Zoning Commission members would be under that. Warren stated that Chapter 903 talks about providing a defense for those employees. Warren questioned why Planning and Zoning would need to constantly go into executive session by frightening volunteers, who are trying to do the things they need to do in the County.

Jaeger stated that the same Statute includes the Commissioners.

Jaeger requested that the record show that he provided a copy of the letter he received from Pearce and Jaegers’ attorney’s response to Pearce’s letter to the Board. Jaeger again asked that the Board re-consider the original moratorium that he presented, so the County can continue to operate as it has for the last 45 years. Jaeger said that in order to work on the code, they need the Memorandum of Opinion from the Prosecuting Attorney. Jaeger stated again, that he would like to have different legal counsel for Planning and Zoning.

IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING AND ZONING)

Bonnie Brent-Dowell, Planning and Zoning Administrator, and Sam Dowell met with the Board.

Jim Harberd moved, seconded by Nate Marvin, to go into executive session at 11:53 a.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. Motion carried. Gordon Wilkerson, Nay; Jim Harberd, Aye; Nate Marvin, Aye.

Jim Harberd stated they were out of executive session at 11:58 a.m. Harberd stated, “No final action or decision was made during Executive Session. We will now return to the regular agenda.”

IN THE MATTER OF PROSECUTING ATTORNEY)

True Pearce, Prosecuting Attorney, met with the Board. Also present was Sean Jorgenson, Deputy Prosecutor.

Marvin discussed a Zoning Complaint that was received on a towing company located on the Weiser Flat by the Sheriff’s Department.

Pearce stated he had not seen the complaint.

Harberd stated that Sheriff Thomas was aware of the complaint.

Marvin provided copies of the complaint letter to the audience. Pearce stated that he could not comment until an investigation was conducted.

Marvin stated the Building Inspector had asked if permits could still be issued on remodels, decks, barns, etc. Marvin said it is our understanding that due to the moratorium, that as long as there are no land use or property divisions, permits could be issued.

Pearce stated the moratorium was done orally by motion. Pearce told the Board that a motion was made for a moratorium and an ordinance be put in place, and we specifically read directly from Bonner County’s moratorium, which, in effect, put a moratorium on everything in the county. It didn’t specify A1 or A2 ag ground. At that time, it was put on the record that I had advised you not to do that by Mr. Wilkerson. Pearce stated that he did not feel that it was legal or met the requirements of the statute. Pearce said the Board then pointed out that it covered everything and asked Pearce to add some amendments to what had originally been done. Peace told the Board he had added amendments. “Based on what this says, emergency moratorium imposed, a temporary moratorium is hereby imposed on the acceptance, processing, or approval of any application or requests for land use development or land division involving property zoned A1. So, I believe you’re correct that it’s for land use development or land division, so it would be, like, actual new buildings. I think, a porch, a remodel would probably be fine under this as it currently is.”

Marvin stated he forwarded a letter from a surveyor to Pearce. Marvin stated it was his understanding that would be under the moratorium.

Pearce stated that it was a land division.

Pearce reviewed his 2026 budget request with the Board. Pearce stated that he was requesting an increase to Other Personnel to $82,000.00. Pearce requested the 4% increase to the Prosecutor’s salary that was left off in 2024. Travel increased to 6,500.00 due to more training. Pearce stated the rent lease line could be removed.

Harberd stated that funding for building repairs and maintenance may be needed.

Pearce stated there should be excess funds in regular salaries. Pearce asked if the Board had considered a cost-of-living increase.

Marvin stated no decision has been made at this time. Marvin stated other departments have requested 3%.

Pearce stated he was requested by the Board to give a legal opinion on code due to pending lawsuits and pending questions before the County. Pearce further stated that the memorandum that was submitted to the County Commissioners is and was and remains attorney/client confidentiality. Pearce told the Board that he personally, cannot release the memorandum. Pearce told the Board that he is governed by the ethics bars that do not allow him to release to the public, attorney-client privilege. The only people that can do that are the client. Pearce stated that in this case, the County Commissioners are the client that have the ability to release the memorandum.

Jim Harberd moved, seconded by Gordon Wilkeson, to go into executive session at 12:24

p.m. in accordance with I.C. 74-206(1)(c) to conduct deliberations concerning labor negotiations or to acquire an interest in real property which is not owned by a public agency; 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 1:25 p.m. Harberd stated, “No final action or decision was made during Executive Session. We will now return to the regular agenda.”

Pearce stated that the Moye lawsuit was discussed as well as purchasing property in executive session.

Pearce told the Board that if they would like to discuss impact areas, he would like to know what the Board would need from Pearce in advance.

Motion by Gordon Wilkerson, seconded by Nate Marvin, and unanimously carried to recess at 1:37 p.m. until July 7, 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.