IMAGINE…

On February 24, 2026, True Pearce held a town hall meeting at the Vendome in Weiser, Idaho. Early in the presentation and buried between a few comments he stated “they don’t like change,” but did not further define what specific changes he was referring to. This has left many residents asking an important question: what changes are being discussed, and how do they affect our county?

Here is our attempt to understand what “change” he may have alluded to and show you some of the collateral damage caused by the unilateral implementation of the new agenda that is sure to turn Washington County into a city sooner than you had hoped.

We are local residents—your neighbors—who care deeply about Washington County, our community, and our quality of life. Over the past several months, many citizens have attended county meetings, reviewed public documents, and participated in the public process in an effort to better understand recent decisions and their implications.

Our goal is to present information in a factual and respectful manner. If additional information or documentation provides further context or clarification, we welcome it.

The following is what we have found during our investigation.  We will start with the larger view and then drill down into the details.

From 1960 through the 1980’s, cities across the United States, like Portland for example, were dealing with something called “urban sprawl.” It was cheaper to buy farmland in rural areas, away from the city, and build houses in the field, than it was to buy land in the city and build houses in the city. The main reason was most cities required developers to pay for required amenities, schools, emergency services, and road and utility improvements, while un-prepared rural areas unwittingly left the added cost to be paid by the local taxpayers.

The developer would take his profits and move on to the next small town. Schools were undersized and overwhelmed. The new residents would drive to the cities on roads and highways that had never been considered as part of the new development. Small towns eventually learned from their mistakes. As a result, counties and small towns across the United States started creating planning and zoning boards to try to protect their local communities from rich developers and the changes of large, unplanned population growth.

That is roughly the timeframe when Washington County, Idaho created their Planning and Zoning (P&Z) Board. They created a comprehensive plan to help protect Washington County and our local communities. 

The board was made up of local volunteers from across our county, mostly native Idahoans. Its purpose was to represent the interests of Washington County as a whole.  The task was daunting.  Every citizen of Washington County has a different opinion of the best way forward, and, how the community should be protected. 

For example, consider the speed zone on Highway 95 through Midvale, Idaho.  If you are driving, it is a nuisance. If you live along the highway with kids, it is a necessity. There is no one-size-fits-all answer. 

The P&Z Commission worked to balance property rights with the need to protect farmland, public safety, and community infrastructure. Over time, policies were developed to help address the impacts of growth, including considerations related to roads, schools, emergency services, and water systems. You would not want your neighbor’s sewage making its way into your drinking water. While not perfect, these efforts reflected an ongoing attempt to plan responsibly and consider a wide range of community needs.

In recent years, several decisions related to planning and zoning have prompted public discussion and, at times, concern.

Actions taken by prior Boards of County Commissioners regarding personnel and development decisions including those related to the County Building Inspector and the Gentry Lane project—have been the subject of differing interpretations and public feedback. Available records indicate that there were disagreements about whether certain projects should proceed through the subdivision process, and these differences contributed to legal and procedural challenges.

In November 2024, True Pearce was elected as Washington County’s new Prosecuting Attorney.  He took office on January 13, 2025. Starting in mid-February, True Pearce began attending the monthly P & Z meetings, stating that he alone would be the legal advisor for them.  The former legal advisor (a well-respected attorney who was an expert in land use matters) was fired by Mr. Pearce, even though the contract and associated budget were not under Pearce’s authority, and no record exists of the BOCC requesting or directing Pearce to take this action. The P&Z members were told by Pearce that they did not correctly understand Idaho Open Meeting laws and that they needed to change the way they conduct meetings which included holding executive sessions after each public hearing.  Numerous attorneys had served as legal counsel to the Washington County P & Z and had NEVER suggested the need for executive sessions out of the public eye. The P&Z Board wanted transparency and voted not to move to an executive session after each of two hearings.  They wanted all discussion to be public. They recognized that they are an advisory board to the BOCC, not decision makers.

During the May 12, 2025 BOCC meeting, two commissioners referred to True Pearce’s “new” interpretation of county code, which appeared to grant a building right for every 20 acres or more on A1 ground. The record shows the commissioners then moved to direct the P&Z Administrator to follow the code as written, based on the Memorandum of Opinion issued by County Prosecuting Attorney True Pearce. The new interpretation also recommended eliminating the definition of “residential subdivision” where it exists in two sections of code, as well as making other code changes. This caused alarm among many county citizens. 

County residents began to ask questions. They were not convinced the law had been interpreted incorrectly for forty-plus years by countless boards, commissioners, P&Z Administrators, citizens, and lawyers.  They were alarmed by Mr. Pearce’s “new interpretation.”  Private citizens thought that the issues needed to be carefully evaluated and proposed a moratorium on A1 ground permits proposing more than four splits of original parcels while the situation was being considered, rather than implementing the change to code without the public hearing process required by law. 

Ron Jaeger, attended a BOCC Meeting with three other citizens and discussed a proposed moratorium on A1 ground permits.  He was supporting a moratorium on A1 ground permits only related to more than four original parcel splits while any code issues were resolved.  He gave his opinion on how he interpreted applicable state law and county code.  A few days later, Ron was served a letter by the Washington County Sheriff’s Office from True Pearce that he was in danger of charges of usurpation and practicing law without a license for his role in introducing the concept of a temporary moratorium on the Prosecutor’s new interpretation. 

Similarly, Delton Walker, acting in his personal capacity as a private citizen, forwarded a copy of a legal opinion on county land use code, prepared by an independent attorney, to a commissioner.  He was quickly sued by True Pearce for sending that opinion.  Why was it so important to keep that opinion away from the Commissioners?  Why sue the messenger? 

During this same period, questions were also raised regarding how and when legal guidance would be provided to the P&Z Commission, including discussions about whether certain topics should be addressed in executive session. On June 17, 2025, members of the P&Z Commission present at that meeting voted “no confidence” in the Prosecuting Attorney. This action reflected a breakdown in trust and differing perspectives on legal interpretation and process.

The existing P&Z Board members were removed by two of the county commissioners on July 10, 2025. Nate Marvin stated that the members were welcome to reapply to the P & Z Commission.  BOCC proposed they would change the standard to serve on the board from five years of residence, to two years of residence, and reduce the number of board members from nine to five. Enough citizens pushed back to keep the existing standards. Why do you suppose the two commissioners wanted those changes? 

Although the existing P&Z Board was removed on July 10, 2025, the county went eight months without a commission. The BOCC appointed a new eight-member P&Z Commission on February 9, 2026. Despite four well-qualified applicants from Cambridge having been interviewed in January 2026, Cambridge remained without representation until March 16, 2026, when a member from Cambridge was finally appointed, bringing the commission to its full nine members. The newly appointed board held its first meeting on March 17, 2026.

So, what is the “change” referred to by True Pearce on February 24 th , 2026, at a town hall meeting at the
Vendome, and what is the catalyst to the upheaval in Washington County?  We believe it is the new
interpretation, introduced by True Pearce and implemented by two county commissioners, which made it
possible to build one house on every twenty acres, and implement other codes changes, without public
hearings.  There are nearly 1,000,000 acres in Washington County, Idaho.  If you divide that by 20, you get
50,000 homes.  If you have two parents and two kids per house, that is 200,000 people.  Equally disturbing, is
that P&Z members, County employees, and concerned residents, appear to have been threatened or intimidated
for questioning this unilateral change that is set to not only eliminate the quality of life in Washington County as
you know it but accelerate the rate at which that happens.  Washington County is now for sale, with less or no
structure to this potential development.  The manifestation of this can already be witnessed on top of Midvale
Hill where twenty-acre ranchettes, with building rights, are now for sale.  Under True’s interpretation, the tax
payers are left to pay the cost to improve the roads and other infrastructure and services without the county
being able to collect money from the developer.

This website provides information and documentation to help you make an informed decision. As members of this community, we encourage you to review the information carefully and consider what is best for the future of Washington County. Your voice matters, and this recall election is an important opportunity to be heard.