10/20/2025 BOCC minutes

The Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, Idaho, does hereby meet this 20th 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. Nate Marvin 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 that he attended the Southwest District Health Board meeting last week in Boise and provided a brief overview of issues discussed at the meeting.

Nate Marvin moved, seconded by Gordon Wilkerson, to remove the 10:15 a.m. agenda discussion with Jeri Soulier from the agenda. Marvin stated the prosecutor, the attorney general, and the county clerk can help with open meeting law violations, etc. Wilkerson seconded the motion.

Jim Harberd stated he was not in favor of removing the scheduled discussion.

Wilkerson stated he did not believe this was an item that needed to come before the Commissioners. Wilkerson said if there are open meeting law violations or records request problems, they need to go to legal counsel.

Marvin stated that “at the very least, it should go to our County Clerk.”

White stated that when records requests come to the Clerk’s Office, she does not decide whether or not they can make that request, information is provided if it is available through the Clerk’s office. White said that as far as what is on the agenda and that person wanting to speak to you, that is not up to her. White stated that the Clerk’s Office provides any information that is public record upon request. White further stated that people already come to the Clerk’s office for Public Records Requests.

Marvin said any open meeting law violations should go to the prosecutor’s office. Marvin stated that if the Board has done something wrong, “he will bring it to our attention.”

Harberd stated that it may be viewed as the Board is trying to hide something. That would be the next suspicion to come forward.

Wilkerson stated it would be taken to legal counsel, if there is a problem, he will bring it forward.

Marvin stated everything is recorded, there are minutes available from every meeting. Marvin stated that he printed and reviewed the Open Meeting Law Manual over the weekend. Marvin said he did not believe anything had been done and that it had not been brought to the Boards’ attention by the prosecutor. Marvin stated he had discussed the matter with the Prosecutor.

Harberd questioned if they could remove an item from the agenda. Marvin, “Yep, I checked with the prosecutor.”

Harberd, “Those in favor?” Wilkerson, “Aye.” Harberd, “Nay.” Marvin, “Aye.” Motion carried.

Marvin stated he felt that the letter of resignation should have been addressed last week in executive session. Marvin stated, “I don’t think we need to be doing our dirty laundry in open meeting. It should have probably been done in executive session. “

Harberd stated it was done under Mail and Correspondence in General Business.

Jim Harberd moved to approve and read the Data Purchase Agreement between CTC Enterprises doing business as Timberline Title and Escrow and the Washington County Clerk’s Office. The motion was seconded by Gordon Wilkerson. Motion carried.

Jim Harberd moved, seconded by Nate Marvin, to approve the Washington County Subscription Agreement between Washington County and CTC Enterprises doing business as Timberline Title and Escrow. Motion carried.

Harberd asked if the Commissioners were willing to give gift certificates to employees this year. Marvin stated he felt it should continue.

Nate Marvin moved, seconded by Gordon Wilkerson, to approve Holiday Gift Certificates for County Employees in the amount of $25.00 per employee. Motion carried.

Jim Harberd read the proposed notice regarding accepting applications for Planning and Zoning Commission members. It was decided to post the notice in the newspaper for two weeks and on the County website.

The Board discussed the agenda for October 27, 2025.

IN THE MATTER OF MINUTES)

The minutes of the Board not heretofore approved of April 14, 2025, were approved as amended.

IN THE MATTER OF ROAD & BRIDGE/SOLID WASTE)

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

Harberd stated that a rancher has requested that open range signs be posted on Weiser River Road due to increased traffic and the speed of the traffic.

Odoms stated he would be willing to post the signs when he receives information regarding placement of signs.

Odoms discussed the change order received from ITD (Idaho Transportation Department) regarding additional concrete removal for the Cove Road Bridge project.

Nate Marvin moved, seconded by Gordon Wilkerson, to approve the change order on the Cove Road Bridge for additional concrete removal in the amount of $2,386.00. Motion carried.

Odoms discussed a Right-of-Way Permit and presented the application to the Board.

Jim Harberd moved, seconded by Gordon Wilkerson, to approve the Application and Permit to use Right-of-Way for Utilities submitted by Idaho Power/T & D Construction to be place on North 9th Street. Motion carried.

Odoms stated the Preliminary Design on the Crane Creek Bridge has been received. Odoms informed the Board that the Beaver Creek Bridge on Old Highway has an estimated start date of November 14th and an estimated completion date March of 2026. Odoms discussed historical mitigation on Unity Bridge. Odoms reported that they are on schedule for construction in 2026 on Unity Bridge.

Odoms informed the Board that the trailer from the Midvale Solid Waste site is out for repair. Odoms discussed items to be considered for auction. Odoms discussed the possible trade of the pugmill with Windall Wendell Highway District.

Harberd stated that he had communicated with a Commissioner from Payette County regarding fee changes at Clay Peak Landfill.

Odoms requested to be included in any changes regarding the liability insurance discussion at 9:45 a.m. today.

IN THE MATTER OF REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION)

Lawrence Wasden, met with the Board.

“My name is Lawrence Wasden. I’m here on behalf of my clients, Delton Walker and Lyndon Haines. Mr. Chairman, Thank you for your time and attention today. Thank you, Commissioners, for your willingness to listen to me for a third time. And I also wanted to pay a compliment to uh, the clerk and her office, very professional. I’ve worked with offices all around the state on many different issues, and they are professional and well, they do a great job, and you ought to be proud of the work that they do.

My purpose in being here today is to ask for your reconsideration of a decision you made concerning the hourly rate of attorney’s fees to be paid in the Moye case, and I’ve given you some documents in that regard. First of all is a public record from which Commissioner Nate Marvin read last time, and there were a number of issues there that I thought should be at least addressed. And, uh, first of all, uh, the claim, statement that the Moyes case is a State Court Civil Action, not a Federal Section 1983 matter. The answer is yes, it is filed in State Court, and, um, however, it’s not true that it is not a 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 action. Not only are the pleadings and the complaints styled as a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action, but during the oral argument on the motion to dismiss, the plaintiffs argued 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. That is the argument that they were making. And in his order, granting the State of Idaho’s motion to dismiss, Judge Vandervelde wrote, quote, ‘At oral argument Plaintiffs also argued that the State of Idaho is required to comply with Civil Rights Law and is therefore subject to the enforcement of the law under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983.’ That’s what the judge has held is, yes, this is a Section 1983 case. The fact that, uh, it is filed in State Court, rather, Federal Court, does not alter the complexity of the case as it has to be litigated. Furthermore, we’ll talk in a few moments that, that it can be filed in either of those two courts. Now, second statement was that the plaintiffs are pro se, and that is true. They are pro se, that is, that they represent themselves but that doesn’t simplify the case. It actually makes it more complicated, and I’ve given you a couple of examples of instances in which the plaintiffs make complaints and allegations that are not true allegations. The problem is that it requires time, effort, and money to combat those false allegations. As an example, uh, they made the allegation in paragraph 40E that Mr. Walker, as well as the commissioners, voted for themselves to receive a pay raise. That is simply not true. It’s not true, because at the time, Mr. Walker was the Prosecuting Attorney, and it is only the Board of County Commissioners who vote on that matter. Mr. Walker did not and could not under the law. Similar kind of experience with Mr. Haines, and these are not the only examples in the complaint, by the way. Uh, they make the allegation that Mr. Haines was a Board Member of the Weiser Rural Fire Department. He’s not, and he never has been. He’s a fireman, he helps put out fires but he has no responsibility for any of the administrative matters undertaken by the Weiser Rural Fire Department. Uh, thirdly, the Board has not pre-authorized Mr. Wasden’s engagement and Mr. Walker didn’t request it. It’s true that there was not a request for a pre-authorized request for, uh, for hiring me. However, pre-authorization is not required. Idaho Code Section 31-2014 provides that any County Elected Official with the approval of the Board of County Commissioners, may hire an attorney to act as his legal advisor. It

doesn’t require pre-authorization. It doesn’t require post-authorization. It doesn’t set a time period. So, pre-authorization is not required, and further, in this case, there are two elements that make it far more difficult for pre-authorization to have been acquired. First, it is because the County Prosecutor filed a lawsuit against Mr. Walker, therefore disqualifying the Prosecutor from representing Mr. Walker. Secondly, under the Idaho Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 12A, there’s a 21-day period in which the defendant has to answer. We, from the beginning of our request for attorney’s fees in this matter, we’re almost at 21 days already. And so, in order to respond timely, you have to respond timely. There isn’t the opportunity for delay in getting a pre-authorization decision. Second, or fourth, for the comparable county defense work, including the related Section 1983 litigation handled by Canyon County has been compensated at approximately $185.00 per hour. Although I’m not privy to the rate at which Canyon County was compensated for the 42 U.S.C. 1983 litigation. This is not a reliable or appropriate measuring stick.

The Moye case does not involve one county representing another. Instead, it is an attorney in the private sector representing persons who were but are no longer government officials. This is not the typical set of circumstances. This is not comparable to the arrangement made between Washington County and Canyon County. And item number 5, the requested $500.00 per hour rate substantially exceeds prevailing Idaho public sector defense rates, and it is not reasonable for this matter. The, uh, $185.00 an hour is substantially below the market rate. I’ve included a reference to the Clio Study about attorney compensation rates in Idaho. And in that study Idaho lawyers charged between $96.00 and $594.00, that is between $100.00 and $600.00 per hour, with the average being $304.00. And, uh, $500.00 is within that typical range. And as even the average rate of $304 per hour is 165% of the $185 that you approved. So, I recommend the Clio Study to your review. Incidentally, in the Clio study, the average civil litigation average rate is $307.00 per hour, and Civil Rights and Constitutional Law Litigation, which is akin to what this case is, is $327.00. In addition, there are some other things that matter in the Moye case. There’s a request for a million dollars punitive damages per defendant, forfeiture of wages and PERSI retirement, injunctive relief, injunctive reversal of land use decisions, and building permits. Ten million dollars from the State of Idaho.

Significantly different from what was requested by the plaintiffs in the Dickerson case. So, the Dickerson case itself does have some elements of similarity but, um, should not be the only basis upon which Attorney’s fees are set, but should be compared, because the actions are comparable. I have another series of matters in that letter that I would recommend to your reading. With the limited time that I have available, I did want to say well, one thing. There was a claim last week that, uh, Mr. Walker intentionally avoided service. It wasn’t a matter, really, that’s relevant to this matter I didn’t decide to combat the facts, but that’s simply not true. He learned of, he was out of the country when the case was filed, he came back, he heard about it, but it’s an obligation of the plaintiffs to serve the defendant. And he just worked his life as it normally is, and ultimately he was served. I included a couple of other documents that I thought would be helpful for your review. One of them is, uh, it’s Exhibit A, and I have some language outlined in yellow, it’s in subsection 2, a government entity shall provide a defense to its employee, including defense and indemnification against any claims that are related to the course and scope of his employment. This applies in this instance. But it’s just as important in subsection 3 that’s on page 2 of Exhibit A. The defense of its employees by the government entities

shall be undertaken whether the claim and civil lawsuit is brought in Idaho District Court under Idaho Law, or is brought in a United States Court under Federal Law. Meaning that the statute doesn’t draw a distinction between State Court and Federal Court. They can be brought in either place and the claims are of equivalent nature. I also have included in Exhibit B, simply, the first two pages of the July 10, 2025, minutes of this Board. Uh, the entire matter has previously been submitted, but I wanted to point out some language, and that is on page 2 of Exhibit B. Uh, in their discussion, uh, the Mr. Pearce suggested that the hourly rate be between $300.00 and $500.00 per hour. Uh, that is at the top in that long paragraph, and then Commissioner Harberd suggested $400.00 to $500.00 per hour for attorney rates, and then, Commissioner Nate Marvin moved, seconded by, uh, Gordon, to put a cap on the hourly rate for attorneys at $500.00 an hour to include Danny Roark, Bonnie Brent, Jim Harberd, and Nate Marvin, and that motion carried. So, what I’m pointing out is this, is the determination that this Board made with regard to the hourly cap, hourly rate cap of $500.00 per hour in a similar 1983 action. I also have included Exhibit C, which is a Combined Transaction Detail. These are bills that have been paid by Washington County to Shep Law Group, Ferguson Durham, Canyon County Prosecuting Attorney, and Masingill Law. I would like to turn to Exhibit D now, and this is the bill from Shep Law Group and there are 5 pages. On page 1, you will see an entry on July 27, 2025. And it’s drafting an answer for Nate and a variety of other things. And then it says, Susan Mimura two hours. The rate is $400.00 per hour. Susan Mimura and I were in law school at the same time. She was admitted to the bar in 1983, I think, and I was admitted in 1985. So, we have the same kind of experience in terms of time. I have some additional experiences, having been a Prosecuting Attorney, as well as the Attorney General for 20 years. Uh, but that’s the rate at which Susan Mimura was compensated.

Also, on page 3, it’s the second billing, and I’ve outlined a number of instances in which Susan Mimura was compensated at the rate of $400.00 per hour. And this is a bill that has been paid by the county. I would turn, then, to Exhibit E. This is a bill from Masingill Law, and even Masingill has been involved in that, and he is an attorney, good attorney, but he has considerably less experience than I do, and if you will notice in the first category. It says, Case, Jim Harberd, the date is 7-18-25, and the rate is $300.00 per hour, and that is consistent throughout that billing, paying at the rate of $300.00 per hour. I would then turn to Exhibit F. This is a bill from Fisher, Hudson, Brown, and Horton.

Marta Mae Horton represents Bonnie Brent. And you will notice in the 1, 2, 3, 4, 5th line down, there’s an entry on 8-12-2025, and the initials MMH. That is Marta Mae Horton, and you will notice that her billing rate is $355.00 per hour, and that is consistent throughout that entire billing. There are other entries for other persons that are not attorneys in that firm. But Marta Mae Horton, who is the attorney in that case, bills at

$355.00 an hour. So, I submit to you, and ask your reconsideration on the rate at which you’ve agreed to compensate Mr. Walker and Mr. Haines, and that rate you’ve set is

$185.00. I submit to you that is well below the market, and the market is in, much higher than that and $500.00 is a reasonable rate. So, Mr. Chairman, with that, I submit that to you.”

Harberd, “Repeat that last part, would you please? You just, I was looking at some of these figures here.”

Wasden, “Okay, what I said was uh, simply, I draw this matter to your attention and request your reconsideration of the rate of $185.00 per hour, it is well below market.”

Harberd, “I believe we’ll go over this. I think we better do a little more homework, and we’ll have some discussions and let you know where we land.”

Wasden, “All right. Thank you. I appreciate your time. I hope this has been helpful.”

IN THE MATTER OF LIABILITY INSURANCE for LAND USE)

Marvin stated he had requested this be added to the agenda. Marvin stated that Planning and Zoning issues are not covered by ICRMP (Idaho Counties Risk Management Program), he had talked with Mary Kummer with ICRMP. Kummer said she would be willing to provide contact information on insurance companies that may be able to provide the coverage. Marvin stated he would reach out to Mary Kummer with ICRMP.

Wilkerson stated he would contact a local insurance company on the matter.

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.

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

Alan Foster, Ambulance District Director, met with the Board. Also present was Claudia Licht, Administrative Assistant. Order No. 26-2 for payroll expenses in the amount of

$25,995.12 and Order No. 26-3 for general expenses in the amount of $ 7,671.92 was presented to the Board for review. The Weiser Ambulance District Budget vs Actual report was submitted to the Board for review.

Foster reported that he has a meeting with the LOR Foundation regarding possible funding for the district.

Harberd requested that bank and credit card statements be presented to the Board for review in the future. Harberd suggested contacting Valley County regarding grant funding and the override levy.

Licht stated they will submit a letter of interest to the Mellon Foundation for funding.

Foster stated that he had met with the CEO of Weiser Memorial Hospital. The hospital is in support of the levy override. Foster discussed the progress of the Community Paramedic Program with the Board. Foster stated that due to the government shutdown, Medicare/Medicaid billings are being held.

Jim Harberd moved, seconded by Gordon Wilkerson, to approve Order No. 26-2 for payroll expenses in the amount of $25,995.12. Motion carried.

Jim Harberd moved, seconded by Gordon Wilkerson, to approve Order No. 26-3 for general expenses in the amount of $7,671.92. Motion carried.

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

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

IN THE MATTER PUBLIC RECORDS REQUESTS, OPEN MEETING LAW VIOLATIONS)

Harberd asked Marvin if he would like to explain what was done regarding the 10:15 agenda discussion. Soulier asked to comment and was denied.

Marvin, “Yeah, I made a motion that we take that off the agenda for today. It was seconded by Gordon. Any public records requests or open meeting law violation discussions can be handled with our county clerk and our prosecuting attorney. We’ve got a full agenda today, and I think this needs to be… taken off there, so that was my motion.”

Harberd, “And it was passed. Seconded by Commissioner Wilkerson.” Soulier, “May I speak Mr. Chairman?”

Harberd, “I don’t think so.”

IN     THE     MATTER     OF     CAMBRIDGE     FIRE     PROTECTION     DISTRICT ANNEXATION)

Ron Jaeger representing Cambridge Fire Protection District as Commission Chairman, met with the Board. Jaeger presented documentation indicating the proposed area of annexation to the Cambridge Fire Protection District, Jaeger stated a Public Hearing was held October 9th where the Order for Annexation was adopted.

Jim Harberd moved, seconded by Nate Marvin, to approve the Order of Annexation into the Cambridge Fire Protection District as submitted. Motion carried.

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

Jim Harberd opened the hearing at 11:04 a.m.

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

Harberd read the Notice of Public Hearing on the record as follows:

LEGAL NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Washington County Board of County Commissioners will hold a public hearing on Monday, the 20th day of October, 2025 at 11:00 a.m. in the Commissioners meeting room, in the basement of the Washington County Courthouse, 256 East Court, Weiser, Idaho. Enter through the west door of the building.

The purpose of this hearing will be to receive comment on the following matter.

City of Cambridge, Area of City Impact per changes to Idaho Code 67-6526 (6) as stated below:

Cities and counties shall review their existing areas of impact and shall reestablish the areas in conformance with the provisions of this section by December 31, 2025. Failure to timely conduct such review and reestablishment shall nullify the current area of impact boundaries and require the city and county to go through the process set forth in subsection (2) of this section.

All interested persons are invited to attend the hearing and comment or submit written comment prior to or at the hearing. The hearing will be accessible via zoom. The connection to the meeting is not restricted. Citizens interested in listening to the Board of County Commissioners hearing may do so by accessing it through the URL (https://zoom.us/j/499630910) and connect with a computer, iphone or android phone (you will need to download an app).

No written comment was received.

Mark Loveland, Mayor, City of Cambridge, addressed the Board. Also present was Corey Morgan, City Manager.

Loveland told the Board, “From the direction of our legislature and from your legal counsel, we’ve tried to shrink up our area of impact. Um, the guidelines are that it would not be any larger than any area that we might annex within a five-year period. And so, we’ve brought it way down, as you can see from the map, what it was to what it’s come down to, and we would just like you to approve that.

Morgan stated, “For clarification, that map is the shrunk down, so the pink areas are what we shrunk down from. Previously, we were, uh… Consider the four sections. Four sections that Cambridge lies in, so, um… So, we shrunk it down… eh, pretty much, yeah. Um, to… yeah, try to include… just the areas where we thought we would have residential and commercial, not really… trying to stay out of the agricultural part of it.”

Harberd requested comments for those in favor of the proposed area of impact.

Robert Bennatts, “I have some questions, uh, previously in your commissioner’s meeting there’s been discussion about county codes applying to this area? Uh, has there been any further considerations on that matter? Are we, is the county liable for the zoning

laws that will control this area?”

Marvin, “I think that’ll be the next discussion we have. Uh, there was suggested by our legal counsel, we have this Public Hearing and then we’ll have another discussion to decide if it’s going to be Cambridge Code or County Code in this area, so yeah. Correct? Am I wrong?”

Harberd, “What I know is, and you’re probably correct in that aspect, but it’s State, it’s mandated by the State that it falls under County.”

Wilkerson, “The way we understand it, and we’ll get clarification on this, but I think it makes the statement in state statute that it falls under county ordinance, not city.”

Bennatts, “But that’s not for certain? and… Marvin, “Yeah, we haven’t finalized that yet.”

Bennatts, “That was my only consideration, thank you.”

Ron Jaeger, “I’m Ron Jaeger, I live in Cambridge. I actually live in the current impact area, but in the shrunken one, I won’t be. Um, which I’m, I’m not sure. As a landowner, maybe that’s a good thing. Uh, as my experience in planning, I think it’s a little silly, but because my opinion is, being that I border the city limits that it probably, I would have, I would have put it in. If I was doing it purely as a… planning tool, or what a person. So, anyways… Um, and, you know, I look at their map and stuff, and some of it makes sense to me, and some of it doesn’t, but Um, I’m looking more at the… I look at… I have a copy of the state statute that they talk about, and… Uh, and of course, it specifically addresses that it will be under your control. Uh, and it… but it also says that you’re allowed to put, you’re allowed to adopt a different code for those areas, but you still have to stay in control of it. And, there was a time a few years back, and I’m not sure how many, because I spent a time outside of Planning and Zoning, but way back when I was on it before, um, the state law allowed for the cities to negotiate codes in those areas. And then they apply them as the Planning and Zoning, and then you guys would make this final decision. That’s not in State Code where I can find it anymore. Um, anyways, as far as… being for or against this, you know, depending on what code you come in there. I better stop right there, or I’m gonna get in trouble. Um, so, Yeah.”

Harberd, “Anyone else? Anyone really care?”

Clarence Stark, “And it’s not that I want to go on record as being someone that doesn’t care, but I just, uh, I was involved with the City of Weiser and their reduction of impact area. And from, uh, well, when this first came down from the legislature, my first thought was, this is much more applicable to larger areas, impact areas in larger cities, and we, in the smaller counties are just kind of getting caught in the fallout from what the state has passed. And what I look at it is that in the City of Weiser and probably here too, where, if there is an area, currently, somebody wants to do something, they go to the city. First, they get the P & Z, get their approval, they go to the City, get their approval, then they finally come to you. And that’s three steps. And if somebody wants to do something that is outside of the impact area, that would eliminate that, um, dealing with the city itself.

So, I see it as a benefit, losing one less step and the time that it takes to get an approval through for whatever your project is. So, just kind of a little clarification there, and I’ll… leave you to your decision.”

Hearing closed at 11:15 a.m.

Gordon Wilkerson moved, seconded by Nate Marvin, to approve the Cambridge Impact Area Map as presented. Motion carried.

IN THE MATTER OF PUBLIC HEARING, 2025 FISCAL YEAR BUDGET ADJUSTMENT)

Jim Harberd opened the Public Hearing at 11:31 a.m.

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

Nate Marvin read the Notice of Public Hearing on the record as follows:

Pursuant to established procedure, NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Washington County Board of Commissioners will hold a public hearing in the County Courthouse on October 20, 2025 at 11:30 a.m. The purpose of the hearing is to consider 2025 Fiscal Year Budget adjustments for needed changes and to increase spending authority to the Opioid Settlement Fund for the purpose of balancing the budgeted line at fiscal year-end. The adjustment or adjustments to the 2025 Fiscal Year Budget to be considered will not affect levied property taxes.

The hearing officer shall be authorized to impose a three-minute limitation on any oral testimony. If testimony is anticipated to exceed that three-minute limit, it may be submitted in writing in advance to the Clerk’s office to be part of the record.

Any person needing special accommodations to participate in the above noticed meeting should contact the Clerk’s office at the County Courthouse seven days prior to the meeting.

Jim Harberd read Resolution No. 25-06 on the record as follows:

Resolution No. 25-06

THE BOARD OF WASHINGTON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WASHINGTON COUNTY, IDAHO

BUDGET ADJUSTMENT FISCAL YEAR 2024-2025

WHEREAS, on August 26, 2024, the Washington County Commissioners adopted the 2024-2025 fiscal year budget for Washington County.

WHEREAS, after the budget was adopted, Washington County became aware of unanticipated expenses that was not budgeted in the 2024-2025 Washington County Budget, and

WHEREAS, pursuant to IC § 31-1605, the county has the authority to re-open its budget if any unforeseen contingency arises so it can be expended by the county during the current fiscal year, and

WHEREAS, on October 20, 2025, Washington County did hold a public hearing to consider re-opening the 2024 -2025 fiscal year budget to include $26,450.66 from the Opioid Settlement fund balance and to make needed adjustments in budget amounts.

BE IT RESOLVED, that the Washington County Auditor is hereby ordered to open the 2024-2025 Washington County Budget to show an adjustment in the amount of twenty- six thousand, four hundred fifty dollars and sixty-six cents ($26,450.66) to balance the budget in the Opioid Settlement Fund. The adjustment does not affect taxpayer dollars.

Robert Bennatts addressed the Board. “Yes, Commissioners, my name is Rob Bennatts from Cambridge. And I signed up, uh, because I wasn’t sure what this was all was about, addressing, but, uh, I’m assuming you’ve done some work, and you’ve found some extra money laying around that we could use for the county budget to kind of lift up some of the programs that weren’t finance this, uh, this year? Is that true?”

Donna White, County Clerk. “A few years ago, the State Attorney General’s Office filed a settlement case against pharmaceutical companies. Washington County opted to receive funds for that, and that money can only be used for drug enforcement, training, and things such as classes. We have overspent the amount that was originally put in the budget. We have money on the revenue side to move into the budgeted side of that from the settlement money to balance that line out before year-end. The money cannot be used for general county expenses. It has to go for specific things as stated in the settlement that was filed by the Attorney General.”

Bennetts, “Okay, that’s good information. Do we have, uh, a program that can use those funds?”

White, “We have sent members of the Sheriff’s Office to training when we had had classes. We have had other, um, agencies within the county ask for use of those funds. It’s restricted money, it doesn’t affect taxpayers’ dollars and we’ve received the revenue, we have the revenue on the revenue side of the budget to move over to balance this line.”

Bennatts, “All right, that sounds good to me. Um, and I, I don’t know, uh, I think most every decision here in this Commissioner’s meeting affects taxpayer money. Uh, so when you use that phrase, it, uh… kind of irks me, because I think that’s what it’s all about, is meeting the needs of the county.”

White, “It is not money collected through property taxes. It is money received through this settlement that was filed through the State of Idaho.

Bennatts, “I understand what you’re saying. Yeah, I understand that. I’m just saying, when you use a phrase, it will not affect, I mean, everything we do affects taxpayer money, whether it’s the road or bridge, still comes from the taxpayer. So, but anyway, thank you for doing your part. Good job.”

Nate Marvin moved, seconded by Gordon Wilkerson, to approve Resolution No. 25-06 as read into the minutes at the Washington County Commissioners Public Hearing on this date to increase the budget of $26,450.66 from the Opioid Settlement Fund. Motion carried.

Hearing closed at 11:41 a.m.

IN THE MATTER OF PROSECUTING ATTORNEY)

True Pearce, Prosecuting Attorney, met with the Board. Pearce stated the ordinance the Board had asked him to prepare was not placed on the agenda. Pearce told the Board that he had emailed the draft ordinance to them. Pearce stated the Board would probably need to add the ordinance to the agenda as an action item.

Pearce informed the Board that the meeting with Wasden was not on the agenda that was published on the county website. Pearce further stated that the meeting with Wasden will need to be rescheduled on the agenda and published on the county website.

Pearce stated that he needed to meet with the Board in executive session.

Gordon Wilkerson 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; 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 12:17 a.m. “No final actions or decision were made in executive session. We will now return to our regular agenda.”

Marvin stated he would not be attending the afternoon portion of the meeting. IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING AND ZONING ADMINISTRATOR)

Bridget Felmley met with the Board.

Harberd stated that the Board had a letter for Felmley to sign should she accept the position as the Planning and Zoning Administrator. Harberd read the letter on the record. Harberd read expectations submitted by Commissioner Marvin.

Wilkerson discussed the scheduled work hours. Felmley would prefer 8:30 a.m. to 5:00

p.m. half-hour lunch.

Wilkerson moved, seconded by Harberd, to amend the letter changing the hours worked from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. with an hour lunch to 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. with a half-hour lunch. Motion carried. Felmley’s start date will be October 21, 2025.

Motion by Jim Harberd, seconded by Gordon Wilkerson, and unanimously carried to recess at 1:16 p.m. until October 27, 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.