07/10/2025 BOCC minutes

The Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, Idaho, does hereby meet this 10th day of July 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 Nate Marvin led the Pledge of Allegiance. Gordon Wilkerson gave the invocation.

IN THE MATTER OF PROSECUTING ATTORNEY)

True Pearce, Prosecuting Attorney, met with the Board. Pearce stated there was a need for an executive session. Also discuss items under Idaho Code a, b, & f

Nate Marvin moved, seconded by Gordon Wilkerson, to go into executive session at 9:04

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 9:56 a.m.

Harberd stated, “No final action or decision was made during executive session. We will now return to the regular agenda.”

Nate Marvin moved, seconded by Gordon Wilkerson, to repeal the moratorium effective today and the reason is to mitigate potential litigation against the County. Motion carried with all in favor.

Marvin stated the next item on the agenda is hiring of Attorney’s.

Pearce stated there are a few things the Board needs to understand. The County was served on Monday with a Federal lawsuit. The lawsuit names two Commissioners under

U.S.C. 1983 which is a Federal Constitutional Action. Pearce further stated that this is a personal lawsuit where in your personal property is at stake, so you are being sued personally. There are also two county employees named in the lawsuit as well as the County. Pearce stated he has been advised by the Bar, and it is his opinion as well, that

“each of you in this situation, needs to hire legal counsel individually. Pearce stated this should be at the County’s expense as this was done in your official capacity. Pearce further stated that the Commissioners have conflicts of interest when it comes to voting on funds to be used. So the other two commissioners at that time will have to vote on the matter. Pearce stated that he felt the Board should discuss their duties as Commissioners and controlling the budget and county finances. Pearce stated this will be expensive as these are special attorneys that are required to be able to practice in Federal Court with expertise in 1983 actions. Pearce told the Board they will need to discuss hourly rate limits and approve budgets and “identify money for how that is going to be paid for.” Pearce stated that he guessed the Board would have a hard time finding any attorneys locally that can handle this situation. Pearce stated he and his deputy would email a list of law firms to the Board that they think could handle the lawsuit. Pearce further stated that a retainer will likely be required at an estimated $10,000.00 to $20,000.00 each. Pearce suggested that the hourly rate be between $300.00 and $500.00. Pearce said that it may not be in the best interest of the County because of the knowledge that he has, for him to represent the County in the lawsuit and he will see if he can find another County to conflict the case to as far as defending the County’s portion of the lawsuit. Pearce told the Board that there may be a need to reimburse that county for any expenses incurred. Pearce continued and stated there may be issues with conflict of interest when choosing an attorney for representation. Pearce encouraged the Commissioner to co-ordinate regarding firms they talk to. Pearce cautioned the Board regarding Open Meeting Law Violations as two Commissioners makes a quorum. Pearce stated that in his opinion, this is a personal issue and if the only thing discussed is what attorneys you are going to interview with for potential hire, it would be appropriate for two commissioners to discuss without that being an Open Meeting Law Violation. Pearce stated that he could not and will not give legal advice as far as the Commissioners part in the lawsuit. Pearce reiterated that the Board needed to discuss hourly attorney rates. Pearce stated this would be authorization for the employees listed on the lawsuit as well.

Harberd suggested $400.00-$500.00 per hour for attorney rates.

Pearce stated that when the Commissioners find an attorney they would like to retain, they will need to put on the agenda to discuss the hire of attorney to represent the Board members. Peace suggested to set a cap on the hourly rate.

Nate Marvin moved, seconded by Gordon to put a cap on the hourly rate for attorneys at

$500/hour cap to include Danny Roark, Bonnie Brent, Jim Harberd and Nate Marvin. Motion carried.

Marvin stated they will have to meet with the Clerk, to discuss use of funds. Marvin suggested using the Commissioner Contingency or Emergency funds to cover the costs of the lawsuit.

Nate Marvin stated, “My staff and I have put together some talking points. These are just my opinions; I would like to go through them.” Marvin stated he would like to read through his notes.

Marvin read the following on the record:

“The Board of Commissioners is considering re-structuring the Washington County Planning and Zoning Commission for the following reasons. Idaho Code 67-6504 recommends that Planning and Zoning Commissioners serve no more than two consecutive terms. This ensures other county residents have the opportunity to participate in local government. Some of our members have served for many years. We currently have a nine-member Board, and it is becoming difficult to manage. One example, meetings are longer due to more participants speaking, trying to get a consensus. It is harder consistently to reach a quorum. One of the proposed ideas would be a five- member Board. It is more efficient, focused, reduces scheduling conflicts, aligns better with the size and needs of our county. One of the other suggestions was a seven-member Board. That would be our two options if we decide we want to change it.

Legal considerations: The County is facing significant legal expenses due a new Federal lawsuit against the County, two commissioners, and several county employees and numerous tort claims filed this year. The County has the responsibility to taxpayers to look for ways to save money and operate efficiently.

One of the disadvantages of a large Board; we pay 70 cents per mile for travel reimbursement and there are other costs associated for training, etc. Of course, it just makes sense that if you had a five-member board or a seven-member board that mileage reimbursement would go down. We would have more time in staff resources supporting longer meetings. If we had shorter, more efficient meetings. It would be less costly to the county residents.

We have talked to other counties, we talked with the Association of Idaho Counties and their recommendation is that we look at a five or a seven-person board. My experience working with City Council with six it is hard to get a consensus, sometimes it is hard to get a majority to vote on something and the mayor has to break the tie. I am in favor of dropping to five or seven, whatever the commissioners decide. The reason the Association of Idaho Counties recommends smaller Planning and Zoning Boards is better efficiency, improved consistency, more manageable meetings, and that’s kind of the trend in smaller counties to have smaller boards.

We do want to show our respect and appreciation for the current Planning and Zoning Board. They have devoted many hours to reviewing the applications, participated in lengthy meetings, they have worked hard to serve our community, and they all do this without pay, it is volunteered by each member other than the trivial amount they get for mileage. It was not my intent when we put this together to avoid singling out individuals. I do not want to single out specific members, create public controversy over who should stay and who should leave. Removing the entire board and inviting everyone to re-apply, we would promote some fairness, avoid speculation about the individual performance, and keep the process professional and respectful. All current members are encouraged to reapply if this comes to fruition. The Board also welcomes new applicants from the

public. The goal is to build a Planning and Zoning Commission that represents diverse perspectives, operates efficiently and professionally, works collaboratively with the Board and legal counsel.

This action is not personal. It reflects the County’s commitment to strong, lawful governance, protecting taxpayers from unnecessary expense, ensuring fair and consistent processes for citizens and applicants. I think that is definitely an area we can work on and improve on. This is one of the ideas we are looking at taking to and ensure the County is prepared for future challenges.

We sincerely appreciate the dedication and hard work of every single Planning and Zoning Board member. We value your time, energy, and commitment to this community. This proposed change is about restructuring and improving efficiency, not about individuals. We encourage all current members to reapply and remain involved in county service.”

Gordon Wilkerson stated, “To be clear, I myself, and I believe we, are in no way interested in eliminating the Planning and Zoning Commission.”

Marvin stated, “No, we are not.”

Wilkerson stated that he had also reached out to other counties on this issue. Wilkerson stated that at one time Gem County had nine to ten board members on their Commission and they couldn’t even get people to come in. They could never reach a quorum. Wilkerson stated that Gem County now have it down to four or five and their Commission is running considerably smoother. Wilkerson stated he reached out to former County Commission and now Sheriff in Twin Falls County, Jack Johnson, who informed Wilkerson that they had had huge issues with their Planning and Zoning Commission in the past. Wilkerson said that Twin Fall has a seven-member board. Wilkerson further stated, “That is a very large and very, land mass not so large, but very diverse county in the fact they go from minor land and farming practices to major farm practice, to major industry. They handle their issues that arise with seven. In our county I feel, well thought out, well strategically placed, you might say, individuals of five on our board would be sufficient to handle our issues.” Wilkerson stated that he has strongly considered reaching out to the Idaho Association of Counties for what you might consider third party or independent training classes. “Idaho Association of Counties offers that. I think ICRMP used to offer it when I first started three years ago, and they don’t anymore. Idaho Association of Counties over time has now picked up that opportunity and I think that is something we should look into. I am not in favor of eliminating Planning and Zoning Commission as Idaho County has chosen to do. It is a huge task, it takes a lot of time, and I appreciate the work that they put forward.”

Jim Harberd stated that he is not in favor of eliminating the Planning and Zoning and that he never has been. Harberd stated, “If it will in fact, improve the efficiency of the commission, I would say seven would be the better number.” Harberd said he had thoughts on a lot of things but was not going to express them now.

Marvin stated that one of the things he noticed when reading Land Use Planning Code 67-6504, on the County application states a person needs to live in the county for five years, State Code says two years. Marvin said that was something the Board needed to look at in the new ordinance. Marvin stated he had a proposed Ordinance for the Board to discuss and choose a hearing date. Marvin stated a legal notice will have to be published. A time and location for the hearing will need to be set so people can come in and speak for or against the proposed ordinance. Marvin further stated that the Board would have to determine the deadline to receive written comments.

Pearce informed the Board they were discussing two different things: removing current Board and reducing membership from nine to five and to change the number of years required by the County to serve on the Board from five to two so that it is in line with State Code as we are out of compliance. Pearce stated the Board could address that on Monday in order to get it to the paper.

Nate Marvin moved, seconded by Gordon Wilkerson, that the Board of County Commissioners hereby vacate all current appointments to the Washington County Planning and Zoning Commission, effective immediately, in order to reduce the size of the commission and improve its efficiency and operations. “We sincerely thank each member for their contributions and invite all current commissioners, as well as interested residents, to submit application for the new five-member Planning and Zoning Commission.” Wilkerson Aye; Harberd Nay; Marvin, Aye. Motion carried.

Marvin provided a copy of the proposed amended Ordinance to Title 1, Chapter 7 regarding the Planning and Zoning Commission. The proposed Ordinance reads as follows:

1. : Definitions:

As used in this chapter, the following words and terms shall have the meaning ascribed in them to this section:

APPOINTIVE MEMBERS: All members of the commission.

COMMISSION: The Washington County Planning and Zoning Commission created by this chapter.

GOVERNING BOARD: The Washington County Commissioners. (Ord. 47, 12-26-2000, eff.3-1-2001)

1. : MEMBERSHIP; APPOINTMENT; TERM OF OFFICE:

The commission shall consist of: five (5) nine (9) representatives appointed by the chairman of the Washington County Board of Commissioner and confirmed by the Washington County Board of Commissioners. All representatives will be appointed at large from within Washington County. Provided, however, that no more than one-third of the members shall reside within the incorporated city of one thousand five hundred (1,500) or more population, at least one-half (1/2) of all members must reside outside the boundaries of any one incorporated city and its area of city impact. All members must have been residents of Washington County for at least two (2) five (5) years prior to their appointment and must reside within Washington County while serving on the commission.

The term of office for the appointed members shall be four (4) years. No person shall serve more than two (2) full consecutive terms, without specific concurrence by two- thirds (2/3) of the board adopted by motion and recorded in the minutes. All appointments will be made during the month of March of each year with the newly appointed member’s term to begin April following. Members may be removed for cause by a majority vote of the board of county commissioners. All vacancies shall be filled in the same manner as original appointments. Members shall be selected without respect to political affiliation, sex, nationality, religion or creed, and shall serve without compensation, but shall be reimbursed for the mileage to attend meeting or other lawful business of the commission.

Nate Marvin moved, seconded by Gordon Wilkerson, to publish in the next edition of the Weiser paper and Cambridge paper Title 1, Chapter 7, Planning and Zoning Commission and 1-7-2: Membership; Appointment; Term of Office. Wilkerson Aye, Harberd, Aye, Marvin, Aye. Motion carried.

Marvin stated he would like to add the matter to the next agenda to set a date for the hearing. The Board decided to add the item to the agenda.

Nate Marvin moved, seconded by Gordon Wilkerson, to go into executive session at 10:39 a.m. in accordance with I.C. 74-206(1) (a & b) to consider hiring a public officer, employee, staff member or individual agent. This paragraph does not apply to filling a vacancy in an elective office, (b) to consider the evaluation, dismissal or disciplining of, or to hear complaints or charges brought against, a public officer, employee, staff member or individual agent, or public school student; Motion carried unanimous. Gordon Wilkerson, Aye; Jim Harberd, Aye; Nate Marvin, Aye.

Jim Harberd stated they were out of executive session at 11:43 a.m.

Harberd stated, “No final action or decision was made during executive session. We will now return to the regular agenda.”

There was discussion regarding the July 14, 2025, agenda.

Motion by Nate Marvin, seconded by Gordon and unanimously carried to recess at 11:57

a.m. until July 14, 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.