10/14/2025 BOCC minutes

The Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, Idaho, does hereby meet this 14th day of October, 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. Gordon Wilkerson gave the invocation.

IN THE MATTER OF CORRESPONDENCE/MEETINGS AND REPORTS)

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

Jim Harberd reported he will be attending the Southwest District Health Board meeting in Boise this week.

Sabrina Young, Treasurer, and Niki Houser, Deputy Assessor, met with the Board to present Resolution 25-07 for approval authorizing irrigation charges to be added to the tax roll. Young stated that Washington County collects irrigation fees for two drainage districts and fifteen irrigation districts. This does not mean that there are not more drainage or irrigation districts within the county, these are the districts that their boards have approved collecting their annual bills through the county tax roll and present them to the Commissioners as is allowed through State Statute. Young stated that the difference between a drainage district and an irrigation district lies within their function and structures. Irrigation districts are Special Purpose Districts to develop large irrigation projects allowing them to own water rights and distribute water efficiently. Drainage Districts manage water supply systems for drainage and conservation purposes, focusing on preventing flooding and managing overflows. Both types of districts report their charges and minutes yearly to the Assessor’s Office by October first for import and balancing.

Jim Harberd moved to approve and read Resolution No. 25-07 on the record authorizing irrigation charges to be added to the tax roll. The motion was seconded by Nate Marvin. Motion carried.

The Board discussed a start date for Bridget Felmley as the Planning and Zoning Administrator. Marvin stated that the Board should draft a list of priorities for Felmley.

The Board held an agenda discussion.

Jim Harberd read a letter of resignation dated October 2, 2025, from Maria McConnell, Deputy Clerk, Recorder on the record.

IN THE MATTER OF MINUTES)

The minutes of the Board not heretofore approved of October 6, 2025, were approved as amended.

Marvin clarified that the bid received from Gladhart LLC for the beef barn at the fairgrounds was $72,500.00 not $72,000.00.

Jim Harberd moved, seconded by Nate Marvin, to amend the minutes of October 6, 2025, regarding the hours to be worked by the Planning and Zoning Administrator from 8:30 to 5:00 to 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., five days a week.

IN THE MATTER OF CLAIMS)

The Auditor was authorized to issue warrants totaling $196,825.59 for general expenses for fiscal year 2025 by a motion of Nate Marvin, seconded by Gordon Wilkerson. Motion carried unanimous.

The Auditor was authorized to issue warrants totaling $203,162.91 for general expenses for fiscal year 2026 by a motion of Nate Marvin, 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. Also presented was Damian Arnold, Solid Waste Supervisor.

Odoms discussed the purchase of an older 1960’s model belly dump truck trailer. Odoms stated he and the shop foreman had driven the truck trailer and stated he would like to purchase the truck trailer for $10,000.00. Odoms stated some hoses and possibly tires would need to be replaced.

Marvin questioned if there was money in the Road and Bridge budget to cover the cost.

Donna White, County Clerk, stated that she had not reviewed the Road & Bridge budget. Odoms has stated that he reviewed his budget. White stated, “You guys approved the budget, so as long as he stays within the parameters of his budget.”

Nate Marvin moved, seconded by Jim Harberd, to approve Road and Bridge to purchase the used belly dump from a local landowner in the amount of $10,000.00. Motion carried.

Odoms told the Board he was notified last week and was asked to write a letter in support and matching funds for a declaration for a historical building in Washington County as mitigation for Cove Bridge. Odoms stated that he thought that was a misprint and that the request was for Unity Bridge, not Cove Bridge. Odoms told the Board that ITD (Idaho Transportation Department) failed to catch this in the MOU (Memorandum of

Understanding) that was signed back in 2021. Odoms stated historical mitigation for Cove Bridge was a sign for $10,000, which is ready to be installed. Odoms stated it was estimated $30,000 for a historical review project of sites around the county and $20,000 for the engineering of the project for one hundred to one hundred fifty sites. Odoms reported that twenty of those were done and then they ran out of funding. Odoms further stated that Federal Highways Administration (FHWA) contacted LHTAC (Local Highway Technical Assistance Council) last week and said that because the threshold was not met, the funding for Cove Road Bridge is now in question. Odoms said that FHWA is now requesting the local Historical Preservation Committee, in order to mitigate that, if submit a letter for the Shamrock Club to be put on the National Historic Registry, and the County pay the $25,000 application fee. Odoms told the Board that the County would only be paying the match. The County would pay out $25,000 and would receive just less than 8% of that back. The mitigation for Cove Road Bridge would then be considered complete. Odoms stated no funding has been withheld at this time.

Nate Marvin moved, seconded by Gordon Wilkerson, that Washington County Road and Bridge enter into an agreement with LHTAC, ITD, and the Federal Highway Administration for funds for mitigation for the Shamrock Club building on Weiser River Road. Motion carried.

Odoms discussed the purchase of the loader from Arnold Equipment for Solid Waste 2026 Volvo L60 H2 Wheel Handler with attachments in the amount of $297,110.00 with a lease purchase option. Odoms stated there would be five annual payments of

$69,888.41 with a one-dollar buyout option at the end of the lease. Odoms discussed the equipment rotation with the Board.

Nate Marvin moved, seconded by Gordon Wilkerson, to proceed with the lease purchase of the 2026 Volvo L60 H2 Wheel Handler with attachments at a total purchase price of

$297,110 with an annual lease payment of $69,888.41. Motion carried.

Odoms reviewed the proposed fee schedule for Road and Bridge and Solid Waste with the Board. Odoms stated the fee schedule was drafted from the engineering report.

Odoms suggested a potential hearing date on the proposed fee schedule for late November.

IN THE MATTER OF ATTORNEY FEE DISCUSSION)

Lawerence Wasden met with the Board. Wasden stated that, “on behalf of Delton Walker and Lyndon Haines I am requesting that the county pay the attorney fees for Mr. Walker and Mr. Haines, as they are incurred in the case of Moye versus the State of Idaho and includes Washington County and a number of Washington County officials as defendants. All of the events alleged in the Moye complaint were occurrences during the term of office of both Mr. Walker and Mr. Haines and that’s the basis for our request. I did want to thank all of you, actually, Idaho Constitution Article 1, Section 10 provides that the people have the right to instruct their representatives, and I appreciate your willingness to listen to us as, uh, on behalf of Mr. Walker and Mr. Haines, that we instruct you as to

what is going on. Um, in a previous case, Dickerson vs. Washington, the county commissioners address this issue and authorize the payment of attorney fees for both current and former Washington County officials at the rate of $500 per hour and that’s reflected in the minutes that I submitted to you on, uh, the minutes of, uh, your minutes of July 10, 2025, on pages 1 and 2. So that’s basically what we are requesting, is coverage of attorney’s fees incurred in this case. I wanted to take a moment, and there are two video, excuse me, audio clips from the motion for summary judgment hearing earlier in this case that I thought were relevant and appropriate for commissioners to hear. I believe that your IT person is prepared to play them. The first one’s about… less than 4 minutes, I think the second one is about the same. So, with your permission, I would ask that your IT person play first, the first audio clip, and then I will make a few comments, and then the second audio clip. If that’s all right with you, I would ask that we do that now.”

Harberd, “That’ll be fine by me. Commissioners?” Marvin, “Is it necessary? Do we need it?” Harberd, “Can you tell us…?”

Wilkerson, “What’s it pertain to?”

Wasden, “Yes. Judge VanderVelde addressed the very issue that we’re talking about and said that the county had the legal and ethical duty to provide legal counsel for both Mr. Walker and Mr. Haines.

Um, so I wanted you to hear that from the judge’s lips.”

Marvin, “I’ve read that report somewhere, so I don’t know if I need to hear the recording.” Wilkerson. “I don’t need to hear it.”

Wasden, “Okay? Well…” Harberd, “I’ve never heard it.”

Marvin, “If you want to hear it, go for it.” Harberd, “I’d like to hear it.”

Wasden, “All right, I asked then that your IT, uh, folks play that hearing.” Harberd, “Go ahead, Trine.”

The audio contained statements made by Deputy Prosecutor, Sean Jorgensen, to Judge VanderVelde during the October 29, 2025, court hearing. Sean Jorgensen, Chief Deputy Prosecutor, stated that he does not represent Mr. Walker or Mr. Haines as they are no

longer county officials. A full audio recording of the hearing on Case No. CV44-25-0273 is available upon request at the Washington County Clerk’s Office.

Wasden, “I could not hear the audio. Were you able to hear the audio? I still can’t hear it. I… If you’ve heard it, I’ve listened to it, so I know what it says, but I… I just wanted to verify that you were able to hear the audio. So, you were able to listen to it?”

Harberd, “Yes.”

Wasden, “So there are a couple things that… that we learned from that. First of all, the judge’s view is that the county has the legal and ethical duty to provide representation for Mr. Walker and for Mr. Haines. And we also know a couple of other things. First of all, the prosecuting attorney has disqualified himself from representing Mr. Walker, because the prosecutor filed a separate lawsuit against Mr. Walker and therefore, the prosecutor has an unwaivable conflict of interest, and not only the prosecutor himself but also all the members of his office. And that’s under the Idaho Rules of Professional Conduct Rules

1.7. through 1.10. We also know that the prosecuting attorney has disqualified himself from representing Mr. Haines because, uh, that is the statement that Mr. Jorgensen made directly to the court. And also, because Mr. Jorgensen. told Mr. Haines that the county would not represent him, in part because they said they do not have malpractice insurance. And in any event, uh, the prosecutor has, at this point, completely undermined any semblance of attorney-client relationship with Mr. Haines. So, then the question is, do you, as the county commissioners, have the authority to make that decision? And I sent you an outline of some Constitutional and statutory provisions. I don’t want to read them all to you, but I want to point out a couple of things. Idaho Constitution Article 18, Section 6, among other things, says that the county commissioners may employ counsel when necessary. This is one of those times when that is necessary. Also, under Title 31, Chapter 8, which is entitled Powers and Duties of Board of Commissioners, Section 31- 802 says it is the duty of the board to supervise the official conduct of all county officers that are charged with assessing, collecting, safekeeping, management, or disbursement of public monies, and so forth. And, we’ll talk about that in a moment. Uh, under Idaho Code, Section 31-810, it says that uh, it is the power and duty of the Board of Commissioners to examine, settle, and allow all accounts legally chargeable against the county and order warrants to be drawn on the County Treasurer therefore, providing the issuing of the same. Also, in Idaho Code section 31-813, it is the, it’s entitled, Control of Suits and, uh, this is under, again, Title 31, Chapter 8, powers and duties of the Board of Commissioners. You have the power and duty to direct and control the prosecution and defense of all suits to which the county is a party and interest, and that applies here, and employ council to conduct the same with or without the prosecuting attorney as they may direct. And here, the county prosecutor could not and cannot represent Mr. Haines or Mr. Walker and therefore, you have authority to appoint an attorney to pay for the legal counsel. Also, I would, uh, point out that the Idaho Constitution Article 5, Section 18, concerning prosecuting attorneys, and, kind of a quirk of Idaho history, is that this comes not in the executive section, but in the judicial section of our code. Just kind of an interesting quirk. But it says that the prosecuting attorney shall perform such duties as may be prescribed by law. And one of the duties of the prosecuting attorney under section

31-2604 is to prosecute or defend all actions in which the people or the state or the county are interested or are a party. That language applies here because, in fact, the, uh, the county was named as a party, and County officials were named both in their individual and their official capacity. That means as they acted with their authority that is imposed upon them. And, uh, just so that you, I tie up the last point under subsection 5, that it is the duty of the prosecutor to settle with the auditor and pay over all money that’s collected by them. So, I wanted you to take a moment and think about what, what are we asking, and why are we asking it? And at some point, you’re no longer going to be in office and so, the question is, what happens to you? What happens when someone sues you for the actions you’ve taken as a county commissioner, but you’re no longer in office? Are you left without an attorney to defend the actions you took as a public officer, are you going to be left on your own? Mr. Haines and Mr. Walker should not be punished and unprotected by incurring legal fees, for actions that they undertook, official actions that they undertook within the bounds of the law, while they were in office. So I, and I also mentioned this, based upon the language that Judge VanderVelde has spoken, we really are at a position where we’re making this request, we’re making this sincerely, and if you choose not to do that, we really have, would have to bring some sort of action to seek those attorney fees. And I, I don’t do that as a threat, I just do that simply so that you have all of the relevant information upon our, about our request. And so, our request is that you pay the attorney fees for both Mr. Walker and for Mr. Haines. Thank you.”

Harberd, “Thank you very much.”

True Pearce, Prosecuting Attorney, “Mr. Chair? May I make a couple of clarifications for the record, please?”

Harberd, “Come on up.”

Pearce, “Just to be completely clear here, I think that this discussion and the amount of detail we’ve gone into is unnecessary. I don’t think there’s anyone arguing that the county has a duty to indemnify former officials. I don’t think that that’s a question here at all. Uh, based on what has been put on the record, though, I think we need to clarify a couple of things, that when the county responded to this lawsuit Mr. Walker had not accepted service. In fact, he dodged service for a, a fairly long time. I’m not sure how long after the county was served, it was, but I believe it was several months. It’s my understanding that they had to finally go chase him down and serve him in church. Uh, Mr., and he has never, up until this time, come and requested that the commissioners pay for an attorney. The same thing with Mr. Haines. They have a duty, if they’re sued personally, to come and request of the commissioners that the county indemnify them, and that they pay for those legal fees and come and ask for that to happen. So, I don’t think there’s any question here that we believe that they, we have a duty as a county to indemnify those officials.

The issue is, is that they’ve, up until this time, they’ve never come and requested that happen. Um, and certainly when things were happening, Mr. Walker had not yet been served. So, I think it’s just important that we clarify that, that the county is in no way, uh, it’s my understanding from having discussed this with you guys, suggested, or nor have I suggested, that the county should not or would not indemnify or represent, uh, these, uh,

former officials in a lawsuit. That is not the situation here at all. So, I think it’s just important that we have that clarity for the record, um, but they do have a duty to come and ask. Uh, in the situation that’s already been mentioned, which is the Dickerson lawsuit, the federal lawsuit, that was a federal lawsuit, and that was taken up immediately as to how attorneys would be appointed and paid for. You guys voted on that. This is sort of an after-the-fact situation. So, I would even suggest that, um, the order of things here has been suggested that somehow we’ve done something wrong, when in fact has not been requested.”

Harberd, “I have a question True. Would it, would it not been the normal thing to do to contact these….”

Pearce, “So, Mr. Chair, without disclosing something that would get me disbarred, the prosecutor’s office has information based on this, uh, that would… prevent us from being able to even speak to those two, uh, due to attorney-client relationships with the county, and the county’s defense against the lawsuit. So, uh, no, it is something that they would need to have come and requested that they be indemnified, that they get to hire an attorney. Uh, they would be requesting how much those… what you’re going to budget for that. Uh, certainly something they should have got on the agenda and come and spoke with you about. That answer your question?”

Harberd, “Yes.”

Wasden, “Mr. Chairman?” Harberd, “Yes.”

Wasden, “Uh, first of all, uh, the restoration of facts is, uh, coming from a particular source. It’s not necessarily accurate. There’s always at least two sides to every story. However, uh, there was no suggestion at any time that the county has done anything wrong. What we have done is complied with the requirement of the request to the County Commissioners. Mr. Walker and Mr. Haines are coming to you making this request. The statute which requires that request does not have a time requirement. It doesn’t say before the, uh, the costs are incurred, it doesn’t say within a certain time period, it just simply says upon request. And Mr. Walker and Mr. Haines are making that request presently.

And, uh, as we have indicated, there are reasons why, uh, the prosecuting attorney cannot represent either Mr. Haines or Mr. Walker.”

Harberd, “So, where does this leave us?”

Wasden, “This leaves you in a position where uh, there was a request before you for the payment of attorney’s fees. Uh, the fees have yet even to be determined because the case is not completed. And so, that is where you are. You, the request is for you to authorize Mr. Haines and Mr. Walker to be, uh, to have their attorney’s fees paid for the Moye case.”

Marvin, “Mr. Chairman, I’d like to, I’d like to make a comment or make a motion. I’m gonna try to put this into words, but um, I think this, this, my motion is that this board understands there’s some obligation from Washington County to help with legal fees for Delton Walker and Lyndon Haines, since this litigation started when both of them were still in their office prosecutor, and county commissioner. Uh, under Idaho Code 6-903, the county may provide for the defense of current or former officer for acts alleged to have occurred while in public service. The Board further finds the Moyes case is a state court civil action, not a federal 1983 matter. The plaintiffs chose to be their own legal counsel. They did not hire any attorneys to defend them. Also, the board did not pre- authorize Mr. Wasden’s engagement or Mr. Walker didn’t request it, nor did Mr. Haines, um, for whatever reason. Uh, comparable to county defense work including the related 1983 litigation handled by Canyon County has been compensated at approximately $185 an hour. Uh, the requested $500 per hour rate substantially exceeds prevailing Idaho Public Sector defense rates and I do not feel it’s reasonable for this matter. Um, so I would further, if, put a cap of $185.00 per hour on this for Mr. Haines and Mr. Walker. I would also like to have an itemized billing so we can see what we’re being charged for on this um, for both Mr. Haines and Mr. Walker. Any work that’s performed outside of this scope, um, the authorized hourly rate shall not be paid without express board approval.

Meaning, Washington County Commissioners will review the, the invoice, or statement. This authorization only applies to the current Moye’s uh, litigation and may not be construed as pre-authorization for any other matter or rate, um, so that would be my motion.”

Wilkerson, “I’ll second that.”

Harberd, “With discussion. So, my question on this is, uh, what is the, when was it discussed for the, you’ll have to refresh my memory, for the hour, were the hourly rates set for the other people named in this lawsuit?”

Marvin, “No, because they’re being handled by, uh, True Pearce, Prosecuting Attorney’s Office. The only one, the only hourly rates that were discussed, Mr. Chairman, were for the, uh, Dickerson um, case. Correct, Gordon?”

Wilkerson, “Correct.”

Harberd, “I don’t believe I was in at the time when these were served. When were they served? When were you served. Before the first of the year?”

Wilkerson, “No. We were served after the, after the first of the year.”

Marvin, “I can’t remember. I can’t remember the date. So, we did not discuss the hourly rates.”

Harberd, “There’s been a motion, and a second to approve the hourly rates for former Commissioner Haines and former Prosecuting Attorney, Delton Walker the amount of

$185 per hour. All those in favor?”

Wilkerson, “Aye”; Harberd, “Nay”; Marvin; “Aye.”

Motion carried.

IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEMBERSHIP)

Marvin stated he had asked that this matter be put on the agenda. “I’ve been accused of not providing cause for why the former members were let go. One of the reasons I had was not following the direction of the county commissioners. They went outside of county commissioners’ approval and hired an outside attorney. Uh, and also, they gave a vote of no confidence in our current P.A. Prosecuting Attorney. I don’t know if you guys want to just talk about that. Um, I am not willing to bring the former board back on with the exception of one person that didn’t vote for the no vote of confidence. Um, the rest of them, I think, can reapply if they want back on. We discussed that, I think, the day we made the decision or I made the motion to disband Planning and Zoning. I think that option was on the table at that time, uh, but I would like to proceed with going ahead and opening it up for applications. I would like to have some interviews, the people that apply so we can decide, you know, if they have the best interest of the county and try to get that going here fairly soon. Uh, Association of Idaho Counties is having some training coming up in November and, I would like to have our new board and our new Planning and Zoning Administrator attend, um, this training. Um, there’s a lot of good subjects there. Open meeting law, Public Records Act, Ethics in Government. Um, s, anyway, that’s… that’s what I would like to see, is my opinion. Um, and then I think before, before we end the discussion today, that we need to decide if we’re gonna leave it a nine-person board, or if we’re gonna make it a five-person board. Um, I heard from a number of members of the community that they think we should leave it at nine, and I’m okay at nine, um, but I’d like to hear from you two.”

Harberd, “I’m in favor of reinstating the board. And through this process, there’s probably going to be several people that were on the board that will not reapply. And if we make the, then if we make the final decision on the number of people on the board, some of that can be taken up that way. One thing we face, if you read the code, is that people can be nominated in March and elected the first of April for these positions. That’s an annual, that’s the annual time, the way I understand it, that it is done. So, we’re gonna sit for another, well, four or five months without anybody on the board.”

Marvin, “We could change that by uh, and have a public hearing and change that if the commissioners decide that’s what they want to do. It’s, takes, takes a couple weeks for the advertising and whatever.”

Harberd, “I’m well aware of that, but where are we on our other public hearings? We haven’t made any decisions on some of them as of yet. So, I think we’re better off to just put them back in and go with it. And work with it, because we are going to have some more stuff come up and these people can go. I don’t agree with what had been talked about of five, that’s not enough for this county. Five and a couple opinions were, and no realtors involved in it. I don’t know if that’s an insecurity issue of some of us making the

decisions that if the realtor is on a board. I think the realtors are far more in tune on what prices and stuff are, and what’s the pulse of a lot of the things in the Planning and Zoning. And we’re limited, too, on how many people in the city can be on it. And then there’s a number of how many county people or outside the city limits. A minimum. There’s a lot of things to be considered in that. Commissioner Wilkerson, do you have anything?”

Wilkerson, “This has been a very heavy, heavy weight on me. I have been back and forth. Until recently, I put a timeline to this, and I’ll start with the timeline. There was a new prosecuting attorney elected in the county that everybody was well aware of, that he was going to be the legal counsel for the Planning and Zoning. Planning and Zoning was understood to follow legal counsel. They refused to take advice from the duly elected prosecuting attorney. And before they ever took any advice from him, or any, got, received any direction from him, they voted unanimously, with the eight members in the meeting, no confidence in the prosecuting attorney and requested outside legal counsel from us. They were denied. Then there’s been information that I have seen where members of the Planning and Zoning attained outside legal counsel, and had a moratorium drafted, and presented to the commissioners, requesting that this moratorium be implemented because there was imminent peril in an emergency at stake.

The Planning and Zoning members applied enough pressure that eventually the Commissioners did implement the moratorium, Which, in turn, triggered a 1983 Federal civil lawsuit. Because, for whatever reason, the Planning and Zoning Department refused to issue a building permit to an applicant that was entitled to. Since then, it’s my understanding that Planning and Zoning has, members of Planning and Zoning, have held meetings by invitation only. Sounds like an executive session to me. Members of the community have reached out to the three (inaudible) to me. I don’t know about the other two commissioners; I understood that they have been talked, or they have been asked to consider taking these, or reapplying or reinstating these Planning and Zoning Commissioners. They’ve also requested that we talk to the prosecuting attorney to have a meeting with those released members. I do not feel that the Planning and Zoning members that we released have been working in good faith. I don’t think they’re here to tell, to help us guide. They’re here telling us how to guide and for that reason, I’m not in favor of reinstating them.”

Harberd, “I’d like to add to that. I want to do a little clarification on this. As far as my knowledge goes, what Commissioner Wilkerson said there at first about being aware of that the new prosecuting attorney was going to take over all the legal proceedings for the Planning and Zoning Commission, that was never, to my knowledge, ever came forward till after the swearing-in in the 1st of January, of the date when we were sworn in. Uh, that’s when it was brought to my attention, anyway, as a commissioner through one of our meetings. Um, and as far as somebody from the Planning and Zoning applying pressure to the two of us commissioners that put the moratorium in, I never received any pressure. Commissioner Marvin was along with me in voting that in. I don’t know if he did or not from P and Z, but I never did in any way. They did present a model of what we could use. Um, we’ve varied from that.”

Wilkerson, “Mr. Chairman, to be clear, what was brought to us was prepared by outside legal counsel without our authorization which is classified as usurpation.”

Harberd, “As what?”

Wilkerson, “Usurpation, which is illegal.”

Harberd, “Okay, you’re talking about what Ron brought in and he paid for.” Wilkerson, “Correct.”

Harberd, “It had never had any influence on me. Period. I don’t, and I know that goes back to your planning and zoning issues, but as far as actually doing that. And I feel that if we would have had some legal help as far as the moratorium that was put into place. There’s things that needed changed on it, but we did not have any help in that aspect, except to rescind the motion. That was what was recommended to us.”

Wilkerson, “To be clear, I remember Prosecuting Attorney, True Pearce, making the corrections that the two commissioners requested.”

Harberd, “What I’ve gathered from all of that is the only way to fix it is to resend it.”

Marvin, “I remember specifically talking to the prosecutor and he advised not to do the moratorium. Uh, he would not be able to represent us if we went against his recommendation. I did receive phone calls from people telling us we need to put the moratorium in place. I received one phone call that said I needed to back you on the moratorium. You were doing the right thing for the county, and I needed to support you on this. And I regret doing that now, because it got us into a lawsuit that cost the county money. But that’s water under the bridge and we need to move on and get back to doing the business of the county. And if it means changing the code so we can appoint a new P&Z board, then that’s what we need to do. I’m, I’ve thought about this a lot, and this has caused some heartaches. I’ve lost some good friends over this. Um, but I still think that I did the right thing. So, I would, I would like to go ahead and proceed with trying to get a new Board, not Board. A Planning and Zoning Commission put in place the sooner than later. And if anybody that was on that previous board wants to apply, I would encourage them to.”

Harberd, “Commissioner Wilkerson? Any thoughts or comments?” Well, I’m not in favor of it.”

Marvin, “I’m assuming we need a motion to move forward.” Harberd, “I would think so.”

Marvin, “I’ll take a stab at it. I would make a motion that we go ahead and open it up for new membership for Planning and Zoning Commission. I would say let’s leave it at nine

members. And I would like to have our prosecutor help us, uh, with the wording for a ordinance or resolution, whatever we need, to change the wording in the county code that only allows to accept Planning and Zoning members in March and April. Change that at, at-will so we can do it whenever we need to. So, if we have a vacancy in Planning and Zoning, we can do it as the need arises.”

Harberd, “Is that not State Code?”

Marvin, “I don’t think so. The thing, well, that’d be, that’d be my first motion. Then we could talk about the, the two-year or five-year thing after that.”

Wilkerson, “I’ll second that.”

Harberd, “There’s been a motion and a second to open up, accept applications for the Planning and Zoning Commission, leaving it to nine members. Those in favor?”

Wilkerson, “Aye.” Harberd, “Nay.” Marvin, “Aye.”

Harberd, “Motion carries.”

Marvin, “And as far as the two-year or five-year residency requirement, I think it was pointed out that Idaho Code says two years. I’d like to ask our legal counsel, can we be more strict and make that five years as it is now?”

Pearce, “Um, I think you probably can get away with that, if that’s what you wish to do.”

Marvin, “That seemed to be the consensus when we had our public hearing, is people thought five years was better.”

Wilkerson, “So, I guess I’d like to discuss my feelings on that.

I guess I’m not opposed to the five-year, but, taken the required residency from the state statute two years to five years as a half full glass. I can give you an example up in my end of the county, where a young family who’s moved back into the area that grew up on a ranch. Went to the University of Idaho, gained an education in agriculture, was based in agriculture in northern Idaho for several years, comes back to the ranch with very valuable information. Now you’re going to require this guy to be a resident of our county for five years with no ability to be on the Board.”

Marvin, “Good point.”

Wilkerson, “I also know of individuals that have moved into our area from other areas that are faced, or did face, the situations that we have and are facing right now that have

great insight and they’ve only been here a year and a half. And they’re gonna have to be here for a period of time before they can be able to be on the commission. The three of us sitting up here are elected officials. Our residency requirement is one year. And we’re the ones that make the decisions. I’m not gonna fight over the five-year. Those individuals that I am talking about, I would suggest strongly that we reach out as the Commission and as the Chairman, as the commissioners, and as the,as the governing body to reach out to these people, to be part of an advisory to the Commission, if that’s what they need to have. So, I’m not gonna fight the five-year residency. The people spoke. It’s not my, my desire to have that argument. I’ll listen, and I’ll take the people’s words. And five years works.”

Harberd, “My opinion, two years, no matter where you came from, is not enough time to become in tune with the county, what’s going on within our county. I strongly support the five years. Uh, as far as the people speaking, that’s what they want, but the people always, the majority of the people, also spoke not in favor of getting rid of the Planning and Zoning Board, and they wanted it reinstated. By an overwhelming majority. We can entertain a motion now, if you’d like.”

Wilkerson, “I’ll make a motion that we retain the five-year residency requirement to…”

Marvin, “Just a second. Clarification? It’s already in our code, right? Five years. I don’t know if we even need to make a motion, Gordon. We’re just gonna leave it at 5 years.”

Wilkerson, “Because we had a public hearing, do we have to…”

Pearce, “It won’t hurt if you simply clarify that you’re going to leave at five years. I think you’re fine to make a motion clarifying that you’re doing that.”

Marvin, “Okay, sorry to interrupt you.”

Wilkerson, “I’ll make a motion that we, we not modify the five-year residency and hold it at five years to be a Planning and Zoning Commission member.”

Harberd, “Second that. Any discussion? Motion and a second to leave the Planning and Zoning Commission time at five years. Those in favor?”

Wilkerson, “Aye.” Harberd, “Aye.” Marvin “Aye.”

Harberd, “Motion carried.” “Okay. Anything else?”

Marvin, “Yeah, I would. Oh, I already made, I think my motion included having the prosecutor look at revisiting the ordinance for the, uh, dates when we can appoint PN & Z members. So, I think we’re all… we’ve taken care of everything that we needed to.”

Harberd, “All right.”

IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING AND ZONING NON-CONFORMING LOT SIZE)

Danny Roark, Building Inspector, met with the Board. Roark discussed an application for a building permit on a non-conforming lot size on a 5-acre parcel. The applicant had presented a letter drafted by the former Planning and Zoning Administrator. Roark told the Board he had been directed to honor any letters drafted by the former Planning and Zoning Administrator regarding building permits. Roark further stated that the plans had been approved and the building permit is ready to be issued. Roark stated, “This will kind of open up a can of worms if I issue this to all other five-acre parcels that have been split before. It was changed to the one-acre parcel. So, I’m bringing this for your guys’ approval, to go ahead and issue this permit.”

Wilkerson, “Mr. Chair, I’d like to ask a question. Have you brought this to our attorney’s attention yet?

Roark, “No, I have not.”

Wilkerson, “Why not? This is a legal matter.”

Roark stated the matter was just brought to his attention.

Marvin stated that he thought it should go to legal before coming to the Board.

Wilkerson stated that Roark had been directed to take these issues to legal before it comes to the Board.

Roark stated he was directed to honor letters from the former Planning and Zoning Administrator by the Board.

Wilkerson, “If there’s a legal question, you’re directed to take it to legal counsel and then, if at that point, he sends it back to us.”

Marvin stated the letter was from June 2024 and that he did not feel they needed to discuss the matter further until Roark received an opinion from Prosecutor Pearce. Marvin further stated that the letter Roark had presented to the Board on October 6, 2025, should be presented to legal counsel as well.

IN THE MATTER OF PROSECUTING ATTORNEY) -CANCELLED

Motion by Jim Harberd, seconded by Gordon Wilkerson, and unanimously carried to recess at 11:22 p.m. until October 20, 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.