The Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, Idaho, does hereby meet this 21st day of July 2025.

IN THE MATTER OF ROLL CALL)

Brenda Lee, Deputy Clerk, called roll call: Gordon Wilkerson, present; Jim Harberd, present; and Nate Marvin, present.

Jim Harberd opened the meeting. 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.

Gordon Wilkerson reported that he had attended the Annual Weiser Tractor Pull. He noted that they had a great attendance and commended the job done singing the national anthem at the event. Wilkerson made comments concerning the Lava Fire Tour that he recently attended.

Jim Harberd moved, seconded by Nate Marvin, to approve an Alcohol Beverage Catering Permit Application for Sunnyside Farm & Events doing business as Sunnyside Sips to be used August 3, 2025. Motion carried.

Nate Marvin moved, seconded by Gordon Wilkerson, to approve a Certificate of Residency for Alex Lazaro. Motion carried.

Nate Marvin moved, seconded by Gordon Wilkerson, to approve a demand warrant payable to Ridley’s Family Markets in the amount of $19.67. Motion carried.

Nate Marvin moved, seconded by Gordon Wilkerson, to approve a demand warrant payable to the Zions Bankcard Center in the amount of $246.88. Motion carried.

Nate Marvin moved, seconded by Gordon Wilkerson, to approve a Certificate of Residency for Tristan Moxley. Motion carried.

Nate Marvin moved, seconded by Gordon Wilkerson, to approve a demand warrant payable to Zions Bankcard Center in the amount of $18.71. Motion carried.

Nate Marvin moved, seconded by Gordon Wilkerson, to approve a demand warrant payable to Wex Bank in the amount of $401.29. Motion carried.

Nate Marvin moved, seconded by Gordon Wilkerson, to approve a demand warrant payable to Zions Bankcard Center in the amount of $462.76. Motion carried.

Nate Marvin moved, seconded by Gordon Wilkerson, to approve a demand warrant payable to the State Tax Commission in the amount of $321.05. Motion carried.

Bonnie Davis appeared before the Board to present the Noxious Weed Spraying Agreement between the United States Forest Service and Washington County. The value of the agreement was set at $6,500.00.

Nate Marvin moved, seconded by Gordon Wilkerson, to have the Chairman sign the Noxious Weed Spraying Agreement between the United States Forest Service and Washington County. Motion carried.

IN THE MATTER OF MINUTES)

Amendments to the Minutes from July 7, 2025, were presented. Approval of the minutes was tabled for a later meeting.

Amendments to the Minutes from July 14, 2025, were presented. Approval of the Minutes was tabled for a later meeting.

IN THE MATTER OF ROAD & BRIDGE/SOLID WASTE)

Jerod Odoms, Road and Bridge/Solid Waste Supervisor, met with the Board.

Odoms presented the Application and Permit to Use Right-of-Way Utilities from LMAC Land and Cattle, LLC to the board for review and signature. Odoms stated that they will be boring under the road and installing waterlines.

Jim Harberd moved, Gordon Wilkerson seconded, to approve the Application and Permit to Use Right-of-Way Utilities from LMAC Land and Cattle, LLC.

Odoms presented the Right of Way Encroachment and Approaches Application from Wyatt & Morgan Turner to the Board for review and approval. Odoms stated that the application was for a new installation of a new driveway approach for a residence located on Crane Creek Reservoir Road.

Nate Marvin moved, Gordon Wilkerson seconded, to approve the Right-of-Way Encroachment and Approaches Application from Wyatt & Morgan Turner on 1634 Crane Creek Reservoir Road. Motion carried.

Odoms presented the Application and Permit to Use Right-of Way Approaches and Other to the Board for review and signature from Larry Roberson at 2280 Waite Road, Midvale, Idaho. He stated that this was a new approach on a parcel. Odoms stated that there are two spots under consideration. One of the spots will require a culvert and the other spot will not require a culvert. There has not been a decision regarding the culvert, and it was not specified on the application  The owner will be required to purchase the culvert if

needed. Odoms stated that the parcel where the house will be located at will be in the Midvale City Limits. He has been in contact with the Midvale City Clerk as to the standards that they would be required to follow. He was told by Midvale City that the city would follow the standards set by Road & Bridge. Odoms stated that the roadway is a separate parcel that belongs to the same landowner that is in the county.

Gordon Wilkerson moved, seconded by Nate Marvin, to approve the Application and Permit to Use Right-of-Way Approaches and Other for Larry Roberson located at 2280 Waite Road, Midvale, Idaho. Motion carried.

Odoms updated the Board on general operations. He stated that the crusher was operating, and the crew is now preparing for chip seal. To reduce transportation costs, they will be hauling chips to temporary sites, stockpiling in a couple places south of Weiser. They will pull out of the Sweet Pit for the Lower Mann Creek area, and they will pull out of the Pound Pit for Upper Mann Creek, Grunke, Jackson, and Carr areas. Odoms stated that the broom machine is up and running in preparation of chip seal and to stay ahead of the Durapatcher. Chip seal is set to begin on August 4, 2025.

Odoms further advised that the shop crew is trying to keep things going through the end of the current fiscal year. They have been working diligently on necessary repairs and getting the equipment back on the road. Odoms stated that the fuel pump went out on the #15 Water Truck. It was sent off, rebuilt and is currently up and running. One of the Internationals that was previously purchased was converted to a small 1000-gallon water truck. This water truck is currently being used at the crusher and being utilized for dust control. In the upcoming week, they will begin watering the chip piles in preparation of chip seal.

Nate Marvin requested an update on Cove Road Bridge. Odoms responded and stated that a letter was sent out to the engineer. The engineer for CENI has been working with LHTAC to get things set up. He noticed that they had begun to pull out equipment from Cove. He assumed this meant that the gas company must be getting close to beginning their process. Odoms stated that he has not heard of a start date for the bridge.

Jim Harberd questioned Odoms as to what engineers he typically uses. Odoms responded and stated that he uses several different engineers depending on the project. Harberd noted that a surveyor may be needed to survey an impact area that is set to be discussed later today. Odoms stated that Dean Coon, Stricker and HDR could possibly do a survey of an impact area. He noted that HDR is currently doing Gentry Lane.

Odoms stated that he had a meeting with LHTAC Historical Group, the State and the Local Historical Society regarding Unity Bridge. He stated that there was money available from the State to move the bridge. They will use roughly 50% of those funds to move the bridge to the new location and the remaining money will be used for other projects slated by Historical Society. Odoms stated that they were all in agreement with the terms. He believed this to be a huge step in the right direction.

IN THE MATTER OF BUILDING INSPECTOR UPDATE)

Danny Roark, Building Inspector, met with the Board.

Roark stated that since the last meeting they have received seven inspections, and six sets of plans have been dropped off at the office for approval. He noted that not one packet had been given out at the office. Roark stated that six of the permits have been issued but to his knowledge only two of the permits have been picked up. He anticipated that two more would be coming in this morning.

Roark stated that the Planning & Zoning Office remained open both Thursday and Friday. He only closed when he left for an inspection. Roark anticipated that the office staff should all return this week.

Harberd questioned if there were plans that were approved sitting in the office. Roark stated that he has issued a permit on all approved applications. The parties have been notified but not all the permits have been picked up.

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

Sandra McKee, Cambridge City Clerk, met with the Board.

McKee questioned if the Board had reviewed the information provided and if they had looked into the matter any further.

Nate Marvin advised that he had invited Debbie Moxley-Potter, Washington County Assessor, and True Pearce, Washington County Prosecuting Attorney, for input to determine how to get the impact area survey done. Moxley-Potter had indicated to him that she does not have the expertise to conduct the survey, and it could be a conflict with the other title companies. Marvin noted that McKee had previously indicated that she thought the survey should be at the expense of Washington County. He stated that they needed to determine who would be financially responsible for the survey, and who would be doing the work.

Mckee responded and stated that the City of Cambridge had already spent an enormous amount of time and money on trying to figure out a new proposal. Noting that Cities and Counties typically work together on these matters. Mckee further stated that they have spent quite a bit of money with the city attorney to compile their thoughts and put it into a draft for the Commissioners to consider. She reminded the Board that it was their ordinance, not the City of Cambridge’s ordinance. She further noted that the City of Cambridge would ultimately have to re-do their comprehensive plan, and they must make a future land use map. Both projects will be at an additional cost to the City of Cambridge.

McKee stated that since the legislature changed the law, what was previously just four sections, has become even more complicated.

McKee noted that she had previously provided the Board with a copy of the old Washington County Ordinance. There was also a proposed ordinance that included their suggested changes to the Washington County Ordinance.

Jim Harberd advised that he had reached out to two different counties. These counties had hired surveyors to do the legal description for the area of impact. Gem County used a consultant in these matters. A Gem County Commissioner stated that “in his opinion, that there is probably going to be more time available to do this process”. However, Harberd noted that Washington County needed to continue to move forward on the matter.

McKee stated that she was not aware of any additional time that has been provided. She stated that she did discuss the matter with Judy Boyle, who advised that the legislature gave the counties a year and a half to complete the process. She noted that it passed in the 2024 legislative session.

McKee questioned if the Commissioners had reviewed the boundary proposals. Nate Marvin stated that the boundary proposal she submitted was very good.

Gordon Wilkerson believed that the proposal was adequate.

True Pearce appeared before the Board. He stated that he had printed off the statute and after review, he would agree with Sandra McKee that it is the county’s financial responsibility. He advised that he was not an expert on this matter and noted that it had never been litigated since it was a relatively new statute. Pearce stated that he had quickly reviewed the statute, and that he believed that the statute made it pretty clear that Washington County would be responsible. Pearce read aloud the statute for the record. After reading the statute, he stated that it appears that the County governs the area of impact.

Pearce further stated that an Area of Impact should be based on the ability and likelihood of a city or cities to annex lands in that area of impact in the near future. He stated that the statute further went into following the notice and hearing procedure provided in Section 67-6509. That in accordance with the provision of Section 4 of this section, the Board of County Commissioners of each County shall adopt, by ordinance, a map identifying the area of impact within the unincorporated area of the County for each city located in the county. Pearce stated that he could not find anything in his quick review of this statute that there was any requirement for a legal description. Pearce stated that they would not be allowed to split parcels, which would mean that they would not need a survey. He further stated that Areas of Impact have to be within two miles of the city limits. This does not mean that they need to go that far. However, he noted that they could not exceed that distance unless it was going to split a parcel. If splitting a parcel

was required, you could go further than two miles. In that situation, Pearce did not see anything that indicated that they would need a legal description or a survey.  Pearce stated that they would have to adopt a map by ordinance and there would be a notice procedure that they would have to follow. Pearce stated that they do not need a P & Z Commission to do this, nor does it require a recommendation from the P & Z Commission. Pearce stated that this is something that the Commissioners can do on their own. He stated that he may change his mind on this as he investigates it further, but he advised that they could literally take a map with all the parcels on it and draw with a highlighter/marker where the boundary is going to be, publish that, and adopt that into their ordinance.

McKee stated that the matter of needing a legal description was a result of them drafting it off the old ordinance, which had a legal description attached.

Mr. Pearce did not believe that this should be as onerous as they are making it. He stated that he did not dig into this. He stated that he did not know that he was on the agenda until this morning, so he just quickly printed it and looked through it. However, he did not see anything in the new statute, that was updated in 2024, that suggested that they need to do a survey or a legal description. The statute says that a map is required. Since they are not splitting parcels, they should just be able to draw the boundaries.

McKee stated that Niki Houser had already done the outline of the new boundaries.

Pearce stated that he could be wrong, however, after his quick review, this is what he had determined.

Pearce stated that there were options for sending notices to the people, and the City would be required to reimburse the county for this expense. He believed that the statute was clear on what the City would be responsible for in a certain situation. The statute certainly does not say that this would be their responsibility to pay for the rest of the process.

Pearce stated that after reviewing the statute, other than the notice that the City would be responsible for, the County would be responsible for all other costs incurred.

Pearce suggested that they take some time and make sure that they are following the notice requirements. He suggested that they do the map, turn it into an ordinance after there is a public hearing on the matter. Pearce stated that he has not been a part of this until now. He stated that he was aware of the proposal/suggestion as to where they believe the boundaries should be.

Mckee agreed and stated that they also provided suggestions on how they would like to see the area of impact handled between the city and the county. She noted that some will go by city ordinance and some will go by county ordinance. McKee stated that the County has the ultimate jurisdiction and will make the final decision.

Pearce questioned McKee if she came across anything in statute or case law that would suggest that they can do a mixture of those two things.

McKee stated that she has addressed this in three different meetings with the Board.

Marvin stated that if the county makes any changes to the A1 and A2 Zones, this could directly affect what the City of Cambridge is willing to do.

Pearce stated that it was clear in the statute that they can go back anytime to make changes. However, they are required to update it every five years but also added that there is no limit on how often they can go back. He stated that according to statute, this would need to be wrapped up before December 31, 2025, but again noted that they would be able to make changes before the end of the year, if necessary.

McKee stated that the last time she was before the Board, she had requested that they get the boundaries in place and complete what is required by the new legislative action. The rest could be worked on later. However, if they were ready to proceed on the full thing, that would be great.

Mckee stated that she was previously working on this with Bonnie Brent. Brent had some questions, and Mckee asked her to forward her questions to Pearce. As far as she knows, Brent never received a response from Pearce. She understood that this conversation took place back in February.

Pearce did not recall seeing any correspondence on this matter from Brent.

Marvin questioned Pearce if he would like some time to review this and come back to give a recommendation.

Pearce stated that he would need to know the direction that the Board would be heading. He stated that the Givens & Pursley Opinion was not based on statute. Pearce reviewed the footnote on the document. He stated that they are probably safe to proceed that way if they want to, but the simplest way would be to say that the county code still applies, or they could make the city code apply, as well.

Pearce reviewed and read a portion of the Givens & Pursley Opinion. He stated that the city and county are required to adopt coordinated ordinances established in the boundary and specify what Planning & Zoning ordinances would apply. Pearce continued and read a portion of Idaho Code 67-6526(a) where it states that they are free to select code from either the city, county or some combination/variation of both.

Pearce advised that it did not state this in the statute at all. He referred to the Givens & Pursley footnote and stated that technically 67-6526(a)(1) speaks only to Planning & Zoning ordinances adopted under this chapter. However, provisions in Title 50 make clear that city subdivision ordinances may also be made applicable within the area of impact.  Pearce stated that the City is talking about subdivision ordinances, not

necessarily their code. He stated that it was something that they are safe to do. However, that is not what the statute says.

McKee stated that they were talking about city ordinances under twenty acres and using their zoning/subdivision ordinance.

Pearce stated that he would need to go read Title 50. He stated that they are quoting

67-2526(a). Pearce stated that it did not say that in there at all. Pearce advised that they need to investigate this further. Pearce stated that he does not have a problem either way. He further stated that it depends on what direction they want to go in or what they are leaning towards.

McKee stated that their city ordinance proposal would apply for twenty acres or less and the county ordinance would apply for twenty acres or more. She added that the county would have ultimate jurisdiction on that.

Pearce questioned the Board if they had reviewed the city ordinances for twenty acres or less and if they were comfortable with applying that law.

Marvin stated that he had not reviewed the city ordinance for twenty acres or less.

Pearce advised the Board that reviewing the city ordinance would be something that they would want to do if they are interested in considering adopting/following that inside the city area of impact. He also encouraged them to work collectively across the county. Meaning, they should probably do something similar for the City of Weiser and the City of Midvale.

McKee stated that Valley County/McCall have a combined ordinance that they go by. Cascade and Donnely do not have a combined ordinance, Cascade/Donnely go by county ordinance. McKee stated that the City of McCall goes by city and county ordinance. McKee further stated that if you went by city and county ordinance, you would have to have a Planning & Zoning Commission, and it would be proportionately represented in the area of impact as well as within the city limits.

Pearce stated that he did not disagree with that statement. Pearce stated they should do the same changes in all three cities in Washington County, rather than trying to keep track of who does what and where. Pearce stated that was just something for them to think about. Pearce stated that it was ultimately their decision on how they want to deal with that. He stated he did not think that they would want a separate P&Z that has to have people from that area of impact.

McKee stated that one of the reasons they are looking at the new proposal is that they do not feel the current way things are being done is working. She does not know of any other county that does it this way and it is not necessarily done according to code. McKee stated that the city would hold the first hearing on the area of impact. It is then supposed to go to the Board instead of the Washington County Planning & Zoning

Commission hearing it. However, at that hearing, because your code states you go by Washington County ordinances, all they can typically say is that it does not apply to city code. But then they have to give the Board a recommendation of approval because it goes by Washington County ordinance. McKee stated that they feel that they are spinning their wheels. She stated that they do not get the funds from the permits that they are issuing (i.e. special use permits). McKee stated that in the past, Bonnie Brent in Planning & Zoning would pay for the advertising. But the city would be responsible to hold the public hearing. They have to have specialized minutes, prepare Facts & Findings, as well as a staff report. She noted that the county also does a staff report. McKee stated that the staff reports are pretty much similar. However, a majority of the time they say it does not go by city ordinance, but it goes by county ordinance – Therefore, we recommend that you pass it. McKee further stated that they feel that they do not get any more input than what state code already allows cities. She further stated that f you do not go by city ordinances and you do not have a system like that, the county is required to give each city notice to be able to give comment for that public hearing.

McKee stated that they do not feel that they are getting any more input by going through this whole process than if they just gave their staff report or public comments at the hearing. She stated that they cannot say that they do not like it or want to go by it or that they cannot recommend it because ultimately it is the county’s ordinance.

Pearce questioned if by adopting the city ordinance inside the impact area, whether it would give the city more control, more say and make them feel like they are more a part of the process.

Mckee stated that they feel like they are going through an expensive process, and they have no input on the final decision.

Pearce stated that the county code may not fit in well with what the city code is, as far as growth.

McKee stated that if the Board is not willing to go by the city ordinance as it is recommended, then they would ask that they consider changing the process to whatever is required by state law, where the city would be notified and they would have input.

Pearce questioned if the City of Cambridge already had code in place to deal with parcels that are not a subdivision, inside the area of impact.

McKee stated that it is defined in code for those scenarios. She stated that part of the proposal is that they be able to make it transitional from A1 to A2. However, they are waiting on the Board to see if they are interested in that proposal before the City of Cambridge makes changes.

Pearce questioned if the county was to adopt the City of Cambridge proposal for this area of impact and they use city code inside the area of impact; would the City of Cambridge have code that is ready to be applied to that A1 ag ground that is out there. Meaning, the

county would agree to use their rules so it would not matter that it was A1. Pearce stated that they would not even have to have it be re-zoned A2 because it would follow your rules inside the area of impact. He questioned if the city had code in place to deal with that, other than subdivision code.

McKee stated that they do have code right now in place, but it may need to be adjusted a little bit to make it more applicable to be transitioned. Currently, it is more strict on A1 ground.

Marvin stated that they should meet again in a couple of weeks after Pearce and the Board has had a chance to review. The City of Cambridge will need to look at their code and see if it is going to apply to the bigger parcels.

McKee stated that they could inform the Board of what the current code is or what they would like it to include. However, they do not want to make any changes if the Board does not ultimately approve. She stated that they would then have to look at alternatives.

Marvin stated that he would be comfortable with the City of Cambridge ordinances on the parcels smaller than twenty acres, just for discussion purposes. He stated that no decision could be made today. Marvin stated that he understood why the City of Cambridge would like to feel that they have a say in what is decided in their area of impact.

Pearce questioned McKee regarding the twenty acres inside the impact zone. Pearce was not sure if the acreage amount would even matter at that point if the Board was to adopt their ordinance. He stated that the City of Cambridge could possibly have its own code within the impact zone.

McKee stated that they were just thinking that the smaller stuff would be in the city and the larger stuff outside the city. She noted that the reason that they chose twenty acres was due to that being the size that was previously set.

Marvin stated that he would be interested in looking at a modified ordinance that would address all the property in the impact area.

Wilkerson stated that his opinion was that the cities would have a better idea of where and how to structure their area more than the county would. He stated that the city should have input on how that is done.

Jim Harberd agreed and added that all three cities should have input.

Wilkerson stated that Pearce was correct in saying that it would not be a good idea to have each municipality have their own ordinance that they would have to navigate through, since the Board has to make the final decision.

Pearce recommended that rather than some using county code and some using city code, that the Commissioners look at doing it the same throughout the county.

Marvin questioned if the City of Cambridge was to bring a code section that addresses everything in that impact area, if it would ever come before the Commissioners after that.

Pearce stated that it would because the city Planning & Zoning would make the first recommendation. However, because it is still county, the Board of County Commissioners would have the final say on whether it would be approved. He stated that he would assume that they would submit to the Board their Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, that they would do a good job and the Board could read through that and see how the proposal meets their code and ordinances. He did not believe that it would be too erroneous for the Board to review and determine if it met the requirements. Pearce stated that it would be a bad idea to relinquish so much control. But in this situation the statute really does require that the city be able to provide services out there within the next few years. Therefore, if the city is going to take it over, then the Commissioners will need to look closely at that map boundary and make sure that they are not giving more than what the city is actually going to be able to take care of (water, septic, etc.). Pearce noted that the City of Midvale is having issues with their water supply. He stated that it would be a really bad idea to have them extend their impact area out when they cannot provide for what they have currently.

Pearce stated that these were all things that they would need to look at. Assuming the area of impact boundaries are appropriate for what the cities actual growth will be, in his opinion it would make a lot of sense for them to use their codes so that they have better planning ability. He stated that the county code is obviously limited currently to one acre or twenty acres. That is not fantastic for a city that is trying to plan development.

Marvin questioned the board members as to how they should proceed.

Pearce stated that before they decide, they need to determine if the City of Cambridge is prepared to take that over with code. The Board should probably see the proposed code from Cambridge. Pearce further advised that they should look at the map and re-affirm with Cambridge before they draw the map and make formal notice. They need to determine if it is really something that the city of Cambridge can handle.

McKee stated that they are currently at 60-65% capacity with water and sewer. She stated that they still have room in their systems to grow.

Pearce questioned Mckee regarding the percentage of growth that they anticipate with their proposal.

McKee stated that they are taking out about 1/3 of what is already in the impact area to shrink it and to make it more realistic.

Pearce reviewed the proposed map from the City of Cambridge and questioned if it would quadruple the size of the impact area.

McKee agreed and noted that they took into consideration the possibility of the mines coming in and the impact it would have on the area. She stated that they are somewhat land locked in. There are a lot of big landowners that are not willing to sell and want to keep things in the family. This affects the growth of the city. She stated that the regular growth rate will be fairly small. Adding that there is just no property in the area to buy.

McKee stated that they needed to figure out the impact area just like the one the Board approved last week. She noted that even though the Board approved it, the party cannot get a permit. They have asked her how they can get the permit or even a letter to be able to give to their funding agency in order to begin their project. McKee stated that they really need to look at the area of impact and if it qualifies.

Marvin stated that he did not understand why they could not get their permit and questioned if that was from Washington County Planning & Zoning.

McKee stated that she understood that there is no one in the office that is able to fulfill the request and there is currently no Administrator. She stated that she is instructing them to call the county to see about getting something for their funding agency.

Harberd questioned if they had already picked up a packet.

McKee stated that it was done a while ago. She stated that she was not certain where they were in the process. McKee stated that she spoke to the Building Inspector, Danny Roark, and he told her that Charlie Downey is not able to provide that and that may be something that the Commissioners could handle.

Pearce stated that if it has been approved, there should not be an issue.

Marvin agreed and seemed to recall that this specific special use was approved last week.

Pearce questioned if the party was aware that it was approved. Pearce stated the first step would be for them to come in and get a permit package and fill it out. He stated that if this has already been done, and they are still not getting anything, the Commissioners should be alerted.

McKee stated that she believed that they needed something that indicated that their Special Use Permit in the impact area was approved for funding.

Marvin stated that information should be in the minutes of the meeting.

Pearce stated that the Commissioners already voted on it. He stated that one of them can do an administrative thing. This has been voted on, so they are not outside of their limits

to have one of you go down there and tell them that the Commissioners voted on this, it is approved, it is done and have them write a letter for these people.

Wilkerson stated the chairman should go down to the office.

Pearce reminded the Commissioners that this does not need to be on the agenda and that this has already been voted on. Pearce advised that it would be the proper thing for the Chairman to advise them that it was already approved and instruct them to go ahead and write the letters that are needed for lending and/or to get the process started.

McKee was thankful for movement in the matter.

Mckee stated that as far as going by their code, they were waiting on the Commissioners to see what they were looking at regarding the twenty acres or less. She asked if that was something that they could all work on but work separately on getting this boundary approved so that they are in line with the legislature.

Pearce did not see any reason why they should not be able to do that.

Pearce stated that they would need to do notice before they adopt the boundary/map. He stated that they should probably go through the statute. He stated that he would get them copies of the statute, so that they can all look at it, but he noted that there is a notice requirement.

Marvin questioned McKee if a target completion date had been determined.

McKee stated that as soon as they can make movement on the boundaries, that would be good. They would then need two to three weeks to begin discussing the twenty acres or less, or the twenty acres or more. She further stated that they should possibly wait on that until the Commissioners figure out what they are doing.

Pearce stated that the Board needed to make a decision on whether to approve the map or make changes to the map. He stated that they would then need to do notice and publish the notice for two weeks (they need to go look at the exact requirements). He stated that each landowner would need to have notice as well (city’s responsibility). Pearce stated that after all of that has happened and they have had a public hearing, they can then adopt as an ordinance and a map. They need to have something mailed out to people such as the proposal. Pearce advised that the Commissioners needed to be in agreement with the city. The Commissioners will have the final decision on the matter, but they should want the city’s input.

Pearce stated that they could be looking at a couple hundred percent growth, which the City of Cambridge could not handle if that actually happened. He stated that there are a lot of landowners that do not want to sell or split anything.

Harberd, Pearce and McKee had discussion regarding the proposed map.

Pearce advised that they should probably re-schedule to allow time to review and discuss further.

McKee presented some additional maps that were reviewed.

Pearce suggested that they use the map she presented and highlight the parcels in pink to assist the Commissioners in making a decision. He stated that the previous map was not helpful, since they would not be able to see where the splits are located. He requested that McKee prepare additional maps that show the parcels, forward copies to himself and the Board. Pearce stated that the matter would need to be rescheduled.

McKee stated that their Future Land Use Map should show all of the parcels on it.

Debbie Moxley-Potter stated that she would prepare some maps with labels and send them out to the parties.

Pearce advised the Board that after they review the maps and have a discussion and decide if that is what they want, they will then have to publish notice and send notice to all of the landowners that would be affected. Then they will have to have a public hearing. After all of that is over with, they can then adopt the map and the ordinance making this the impact zone.

Marvin questioned if they should meet in a couple weeks.

McKee stated that time should be sufficient if all they are going over is the map. She stated that once the boundaries are figured out, they can then work on what they want to do with the ordinances.

Pearce clarified for the record that the Idaho Code referenced in today’s hearing was 67- 6526.

Marvin requested that the matter be continued and placed on the agenda for August 4, 2025, from 10:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m.

McKee stated that she will try and get the Mayor of Cambridge to attend the meeting as well.

IN THE MATTER OF AMBULANCE)

Jim Harberd moved, seconded by Gordon Wilkerson, to recess as the Board of Washington County Commissioners and convene as the Board of the Weiser Ambulance District. Motion carried unanimous.

Brenda Lee, Deputy Clerk, called roll call: Gordon Wilkerson, present; Jim Harberd, present; and Nate Marvin, present.

Alan Foster, Ambulance District Director and Claudia Licht, Administrative Assistant, met with the Board. Order No. 25-40 for payroll expenses in the amount of $29,975.01 and Order No. 25-41 for general expenses in the amount of $9,268.67 was presented to the Board for review.

Nate Marvin moved, seconded by Godon Wilkerson, to approve Order No. 25-40 for payroll expenses in the amount of $29,975.01. Motion carried.

Nate Marvin moved, seconded by Gordon Wilkerson, to approve Order No. 25-41 for general expenses in the amount of $9,268.67. Motion carried.

Foster presented to the Board their most up to date budget for the last nine months. He noted that the Ambulance District has stayed consistent with what they have budget for. Foster stated that they recently discovered some actions over the last four to five years that are putting them in a financial deficit. They reviewed previous year’s budgets and noticed that in the past three years that they broke even.  In reality, there was a

$177,000.00 deficit for 2023 and $104,000.00 deficit for 2024. This has resulted in them having to use their funds balance and reserve funds.

Foster stated that the previous administration used the ambulance fees to balance the budget instead of using what was actually coming in on average. He stated that in the previous year there was an estimated $735,000.00 in ambulance fees, when there was only $486,000.00 that was actually received.

Foster stated that another contributing factor was a result of the ambulance purchase in 2023. They received a grant for $266,000.00. That was included in their expendable income instead of it being listed as a capital expense.

Foster stated that transports are way down and they need approximately eighty billable calls per month to sustain. They have had months that they were half of that. Foster stated that he had increased staffing at the beginning of the year to include one EMT and has also increased their hours. This was done in an attempt to possibly secure some of the hospital transfer fees. Hospital transfer fees is guaranteed money for the ambulance averaging $1000.00 to $2500.00. Compared to an average 911 call, where they typically receive approximately $308.00. Foster stated that they were able to pick up a few more hospital transports, however, there was not enough to offset the additional cost of staffing. As a result, he has had to reduce staffing due to their financial situation.

Foster presented a list from the hospital of total transfers for the year. He calculated that those potential transports could bring roughly $300,000.00 to the ambulance. However, he noted that they would have to staff two full-time ambulances to be able to pick up the majority of those transports. Foster stated it was not feasible for them to do at this time.

Licht reviewed the Cash Flow Report with the Commissioners. She noted that they will receive tax revenue in January. However, it is highly likely that they will be in a cash flow deficit in November/December.

In an attempt to mitigate this situation, Foster stated that he is back working forty-eight- hour shifts and office time. He is working approximately sixty hours per week with no change in salary. They have reduced the full-time EMT’s back to a thirty-six-hour work week, with twelve hours of on-call work, and they have eliminated all of their over time. Foster noted that this all affects staffing and the potential to pick up transports.

Foster stated that they are currently looking for grant assistance. However, that can take some time. He advised that grants typically do not cover personnel matters.

Foster stated that he has been emailing the Idaho State Tax Commission concerning options for a levy over-ride, temporary levy or bond. They are still waiting on a response. Foster stated that he had met with Donna White, Washington County Clerk, and it was determined that in previous years they did not levy for the max amount which has resulted in them being behind in their levy rate. Even if they were able to levy, it would not benefit them for another year. Foster stated that they currently receive roughly

$300,000.00 in tax income each year. A levy over-ride would probably increase that amount by $30,000.00.

Foster stated that he is looking into other options. One to include expanding the taxing district to include the entire county (Midvale and Cambridge). At first glance, this would be the quickest way to increase their income and sustainability.

Marvin stated that this had been looked at previously and it did not pencil out. Cambridge had stated that if it was to be done, they would need to be added to the tax rolls and take over the ambulance service.

Foster responded and stated that they would have to come up with something to supplement them with financial assistance. In reading through tax laws, he stated that the cities would have the option to opt out of annexation.

Marvin agreed that something needs to be done and advised that it may be an uphill battle. Marvin questioned if they were at their max levy limit.

Foster stated that they requested the maximum three percent which only added approximately $12,000.00.

Marvin questioned Foster if rather than a tax override, if a permanent override would be a better option.

Foster responded and stated that even a permanent override limits what they can ask for. He stated the max he could request would be six percent. Foster stated that this should have all been done years ago.

Marvin stated that they should set this matter on the agenda again next week.

Licht stated that they are still waiting for a response from the Idaho State Tax Commission and would appreciate any guidance from the Board.

Foster stated that something has to change. He stated that it would not benefit the community if they had to go to a bare minimum staff, staffing only one ambulance crew per day, where they do not take any transfers and where they only take 911 calls and where they have no back-up ambulance crew.

Marvin stated that transfers have always been a juggling act.

Harberd questioned if Midvale and Cambridge had their own paramedics.

Foster responded and stated that Midvale and Cambridge do not have paramedics. They strictly have EMT’s.

Foster advised that the Cambridge Ambulance relies heavily on donations and minimal ambulance fees.

Licht requested that they continue with the budget since it would need to be published in the paper in time for the public hearing.

Foster and Licht reviewed budget information with the Board.

Marvin stated that he would like to continue the conversation in the next week or two in order to work towards a permanent solution.

Marvin moved, seconded by Gordon Wilkerson, to allow the Weiser Ambulance District to publish the Notice of Budget Hearing set for August 25, 2025. Motion carried.

Jim Harberd moved, seconded by Gordon Wilkerson, to recess as the Board of the Weiser Ambulance District and reconvene as the Board of Washington County Commissioners. Motion carried unanimous.

Brenda Lee, Deputy Clerk, roll call: Gordon Wilkerson, present; Jim Harberd, present; and Nate Marvin, present.

IN THE MATTER OF PROSECUTING ATTORNEY)

True Pearce, Prosecuting Attorney, met with the Board.

Pearce updated the Board regarding the Dickerson lawsuit. He was advised that Marvin was having issues with retaining an attorney. Pearce stated that his office has provided Commissioner Marvin with a list of potential attorneys, and his office has reached out to the Idaho State Bar.

Marvin stated that he has been looking on-line for potential attorneys. He stated that he has also left messages with the Idaho State Bar and has paid them $35.00 for attorney recommendations.

Harberd stated that he had already retained an attorney.

Pearce stated that they should put the attorney update on the agenda the following week.

Marvin questioned if a special meeting should be scheduled since they are coming up on the twenty-one-day service deadline in that case.

Pearce agreed. He stated that the attorneys need to be finalized, and the answers need to be filed in the case. Pearce questioned if Bonnie Brent and Danny Roark were able to retain counsel.

Harberd understood that they both had retained attorneys.

Marvin stated that he tried to reach out to Bonnie Brent but has not heard back from her.

Pearce wanted to make certain that Brent knew that the Board of Commissioners authorized her to retain an attorney.

Harberd stated that he would reach out to Brent again.

Pearce stated that they have conflicted the counties portion of the lawsuit out to Canyon County. He anticipates hearing something from Canyon County this afternoon as to whether they will take the case. He stated that the Idaho State Bars has made it clear to him that due to the circumstances, he cannot represent the county in the lawsuit because of the legal advice that has been given.

Harberd stated that he had a potential attorney that would take the case.

Pearce stated that it would be significantly cheaper to have another County take the case.

Marvin reminded Pearce of a letter authorizing them to pursue attorney representation for the county.

Pearce understood and stated that he would email the letter to the Board.

Pearce requested that they go into executive session to discuss the Moye lawsuit.

Marvin advised that he may also need to take up a matter in executive session on the Dickerson matter.

Pearce stated that he may or may not be able to advise him on that matter. They can decide once they are in executive session.

Pearce requested that they go into executive session to discuss pending lawsuits and personnel matters (under A, B and F).

Nate Marvin moved, seconded by Jim Harberd, to go into executive session at 11:26

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; 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 12:05 p.m.

Harberd stated that no final action or decision was made while in executive session. They will now return to the regular agenda.

Pearce stated for the purpose of executive session minutes, they discussed the Moye and Dickerson lawsuits. He was made aware by the Commissioners that the county had been served with another lawsuit and there was a discussion concerning this new lawsuit.

Marvin provided his copy of the newest lawsuit to Pearce for review. Marvin requested that the clerk send him another copy via email

Marvin moved, seconded by Wilkerson to set a Special / Emergency Meeting on July 24, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. to approve the Attorney Fees in the Dickerson lawsuit. Motion carried.

Pearce stated that he may not be available for the Special meeting. He reminded the Board that they could not vote on approval of their own attorney.

The Board indicated that they understood.

Pearce stated that he should hopefully have an answer from Canyon County on that day as well. He advised that they may have to sign a Representative Agreement between Washington County and the Canyon County Prosecuting Attorney at that time. He stated that they should not charge a retainer fee and should be billed by the hour. Pearce noted that the cost should be significantly cheaper than hiring a law firm.

Pearce stated that they needed to capture on record what the attorney’s rate of pay would be and if a retainer would be required.

Brenda Lee reviewed the upcoming agenda for July 28, 2025.

The Board requested that an Executive Session be set for July 28, 2025, at 11:00 a.m. to have a discussion with counsel.

Motion by Marvin, seconded by Wilkerson, and unanimously carried to recess at 12:12 p.m. until July 24, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. for a Special / Emergency Meeting.

Chairman, Board of County Commissioners

ATTEST:

Clerk

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