07/23/2025 BOCC minutes - Recall True Pearce

June 23, 2025

The Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, Idaho, does hereby meet
this 23rd day of June 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.

Nate Marvin reported that he attended the FEMA meeting held at City Hall last week.
Marvin stated that it appeared that the nursery north of Weiser may be removed from the
flood plain. Changes could take up to two years for changes to be implemented.

Jim Harberd reported that he attended the FEMA meeting as well and will attend the
Southwest District Health Board meeting this week.

Jim Harberd moved, seconded by Gordon Wilkerson, to approve a demand warrant
payable to Ridley’s Family Market in the amount of $919.59 for the Weed Department.
Motion carried.

Matt Thomas, Sheriff, discussed the Zoning Violation Complaint on a towing company
that was received with the Board.

Marvin stated he believed that the company needed a Special Use Permit.

Thomas stated that per Planning and Zoning, as long as the owner removed signs and
used the property as a storage yard, there was no violation.

IN THE MATTER OF MINUTES)

The minutes of the Board not heretofore approved of June 18, 2025, were approved as
written.

The minutes of the Board not heretofore approved of June 16, 2025, were approved as
written.

Washington County Commissioner Minutes 1

June 23, 2025

IN THE MATTER OF CLAIMS)

The Auditor was authorized to issue warrants totaling $200,743.21 for general expenses
by a motion of Jim Harberd, 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. Odoms
provided a department update to the Board. Odoms informed the Board that he plans to
attend the Fall Solid Waste Conference to be held September 30 through October 2, 2025,
in Boise. Odoms further stated that the Road Conference will be in November in Boise.

There was discussion regarding the use of a shredder at Solid Waste and the
demonstration that was previously held at the Weiser Solid Waste site. Odoms stated that
the monthly cost to rent the shredder would be approximately $12,000.00.

Marvin inquired if Odoms had placed the markers on Gentry Lane. Odoms stated that had
been done.

Odoms reported that the mower will not be repaired as it is an expensive repair. Odoms
estimated the repairs to the rear axle to be approximately $7,000.00.

IN THE MATTER OF JUVENILE PROBATION)

Dahlia Stender, Juvenile Probation Supervisor, met with the Board. Stender presented the
Passthrough Funds Recipient Agreement regarding the Community Based Alternative
Services (CBAS) Program, and the Substance Use Disorder Services (SUDS) Program to
the Board for approval. Stender provided an explanation to the Board of the use of funds
through the Agreement.

Nate Marvin moved, seconded by Gordon Wilkerson, to approve and sign the
Passthrough Funds Recipient Agreement regarding the Community Based Alternative
Services (CBAS) Program, and the Substance Use Disorder Services (SUDS) Program.
Motion carried.

IN THE MATTER OF EMPLOYEE PER DIEM PROPOSAL)

Shelly Craig with the Sheriff’s Office met with the Board. Also present was Matt
Thomas, Sheriff. Craig presented documentation regarding Statewide Per Diem Options
to the Board for review. Craig stated that the Sheriff’s office would like to set a per diem
per day for employee meals when traveling. Craig discussed suggested changes and
stated they would like to begin the program as a trial period for the 2026 budget year for
law enforcement only. Craig stated that if the meetings are less than 80 miles from
Weiser, employees would be expected to travel each day instead of the County paying the
lodging expense. Employees would be expected to drive a county vehicle.

Washington County Commissioner Minutes 2

June 23, 2025

Marvin stated he liked using the GSA (General Services Administration) Rate.

Craig will prepare and submit a policy to the Board for consideration in August 2025.

IN THE MATTER OF HISTORICAL PRESERVATION COMMITTEE BUDGET
REQUEST)

Tony Edmondson met with the Board. Coleen Grant was also present. Edmondson
provided an explanation of fund usage to the Board. Edmondson further stated that the
budget line for the Historical Society and Museum has not increased for fifteen years.
Edmondson said funding from the national level will likely be frozen. Edmundson stated
that the organization is thankful for the funding received. Edmondson shared how
funding has been used and suggested that the Board consider doubling the budgeted
amount. Many grants require matching funds, and the budgeted amount does not cover
the matching costs.

Grant told the Board she could not imagine the City of Weiser without the Train Depot or
the Pythian Castle. Without the funding, much of the work could not be completed.

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

Mayor, Mark Loveland, and City Clerk, Sandra McKee, met with the Board. Mayor
Loveland stated that the City of Cambridge had approached the Board last November.
Loveland said that since that time, they realized their Area of Impact was too large.
Loveland told the Board that the City was told the Area of Impact should be a designated
area, that within a five-year period may indicate possibilities of where the city may
expand. Loveland told the Board boundaries have been retracted. Property lines were
reviewed. Loveland requested the Board identify the proposed Area of Impact for the
City of Cambridge.

Sandra McKee stated the law was passed in the 2024 legislation. McKee stated that the
City of Cambridge wanted to re-look at the Area of Impact after consideration of that
law. McKee read the following from the Unity and Continuity for Growing Cites,
Municipal Annexation on the record:

“The area of impact must be established before a city may annex adjacent territory as
provided by Idaho Code. A new law taking effect July1, 2024 made major changes to the
area of impact process in Idaho Code.

Cities and counties must review their existing areas of impact and reestablish those in
conformity with the new law by December 31, 2025. Failing to conduct that review and
reestablishment by the deadline nullifies any existing areas of impact and requires the
city and county to start at the beginning of the process.

Modifying or confirming the area of impact boundary, may be initiated by either one city
or multiple cities, or the county. The county must adopt an ordinance to modify or

Washington County Commissioner Minutes 3

June 23, 2025

confirm the area of impact boundary after published and mailed notice and public
hearing, including mailed notice to property owners within the area proposed to be
modified. The county commissioners are not required to receive a recommendation from
the Planning and Zoning Commission before enacting the ordinance modifying or
confirming an area of impact.

The county’s comprehensive plan and land use policies apply in the area of impact, but
the county may adopt specific provisions applying to a particular area of impact. The
county must provide the city with notice of upcoming development hearings concerning
the area of impact.”

McKee discussed information from Givins Pursley that stated, “Which Plans and
Ordinances apply? The city and county are required to adopt coordinated ordinances
establishing that ACI’s (Area of City Impact) boundary and specifying what planning and
zoning ordinances will apply. They are free to select either the city’s, the county’s, or
some combination or variation. Whatever plans and ordinances are made applicable
within the ACI, they will be enforced by the county. This is true even if the city’s
ordinances are declared applicable.”

McKee told the Board that the proposal they were presenting was not only on the
boundaries, but with a proposal about going with the city’s zoning and subdivision
ordinances and having those apply in the impact area instead of the counties.

McKee provided a copy of Idaho Statute 67-6526 – Areas of Impact to the Board for
review. McKee also presented the current County Ordinance for the Area of City Impact
for the City of Cambridge. McKee provided a copy of the current, future, land use map
that the city has that shows the current area of impact. McKee discussed the map
indicating the proposed Area of Impact with the Board. McKee stated that with their
comprehensive plan, the City of Cambridge is required to have a future land use map that
includes areas of residential, commercial, industrial, and agriculture. McKee stated that
Cambridge does not have an A2 zone. McKee told the Board that updates were made to
the Comprehensive Plan and one of those updates was in the land use section. McKee
stated that they added a new agricultural transition definition in the Comp plan and plan
on using it in their zoning. McKee stated that Cambridge would like to change
‘agriculture’ to an agricultural transition, A2 designation. McKee read the definition of
Agricultural Transition as follows: “Land zoned A2 is for agricultural purposes but due to
its size and/or environmental conditions, it would be better suited for rural residential
development. Due to its proximity to the City of Cambridge and prime agricultural land,
land zoned as Agricultural Transition is suited as a transition between single-family
residential neighborhoods, and lands used primarily for the growing, raising, or
production of agricultural, horticultural, viticultural, and vegetable crops, poultry and
poultry products. livestock, including equine, field grain, seeds, hay, apiary, and dairy
products.” McKee told the Board that they are proposing that Cambridge not have A1
land in the impact area, and that it would be considered A2 Transitional.

Washington County Commissioner Minutes 4

June 23, 2025

McKee presented a draft of a proposed Ordinance and stated that the City of Cambridge
would like the Board to consider adopting the drafted ordinance. McKee told the Board
that a legal description will need to be added to the draft ordinance. McKee stated that
the ordinance shall not apply to any parcel of land 20 acres or larger and used solely for
agriculture. McKee said the city would like to see the enforcement of the Land Use
Ordinance within the Impact Area. The County would have to enforce city code. McKee
told the Board that they would like to at least have the boundaries set by the end of the
year. The documentation was sent to True Pearce, Prosecuting Attorney on June 17,
2025, via email.

Harberd stated that Pearce would need to review the documentation and see if the
Assessor’s Office can write the legal description.

McKee told the Board that they were trying to take the area of impact, the boundaries,
and a lot of prime agricultural land out of it. The top priority for both the County and the
City is to preserve agriculture land. We were trying to preserve some of that prime
farmland.

IN THE MATTER OF MORATORIUM DISCUSSION)

Tony Young with T Young Inspections, LLC, met with the Board. Young stated he had
been told, per the moratorium, no building permits can be issued but that is not what he
sees in the writing of the moratorium. Young read a portion of the moratorium on the
record: Number one, it says emergency moratorium imposed. “A temporary moratorium
is hereby imposed on the acceptance, processing, or approval of any application or
request for land use development or land division involving properties zoned A1,
Agricultural under Washington County zoning code.”

Number two, exemptions. “This moratorium shall not apply to applications that were
previously approved prior to May 27, 2025, and
applications submitted pursuant to and in
accordance with a binding settlement agreement approved by the Board and subdivisions
or development on land zoned A2 agricultural.”

Young told the Board there are a lot of people who would like to do a remodel on their
home. Young discussed a situation where a person had purchased a home with the intent
of fixing it up and selling it. Young reiterated that it is his understanding that a building
permit cannot be issued even on a remodel or an addition, or a porch edition, or putting a
foundation under a manufactured home. Young told the Board that these are existing
homes, existing buildings and that he does not feel that these fall under this moratorium.
Young requested clarification from the Board. Young stated that Central Produce would
like to build a steel building to process onions. He stated he did not feel that fell under the
moratorium. Young questioned building a detached shop on property that has no land
divisions. Young told the Board he is seeing that citizens are going to start building
without a building permit. Young said he is concerned that things will get done without
building permits and proper inspections. Young told the Board he did understand the
issue of verifying land splits to make sure they fit under State Code regarding the number
of allowed splits.

Washington County Commissioner Minutes 5

June 23, 2025

Marvin stated he would like to check with legal counsel and make sure before he told
Young something wrong. Marvin said it was his understanding it (the moratorium) was
just for land splits and divisions of property.

Harberd stated that was not their intentions. The Board with get back to Young.
IN THE MATTER OF BOARD OF EQUALIZATION)

There were no matters brought before the Board.

IN THE MATTER OF EIVIDENCE ROOM EXHAUST FAN)

Debbie Moxley-Potter, Assessor, and Matt Thomas, Sheriff met with the Board. Moxley-
Potter stated there was a bad odor from the Sheriff’s Office last week due to the
confiscation of marijuana.

Matt Thomas, Sheriff, stated there is an air return on the roof unit of the building.
Thomas told the Board that Comfort Zone will look at changing the air return or install a
vent. The Board requested a quote for the expense.

IN THE MATTER OF COUNTY CODE CHANGES AND MORATORIUM
DISCUSSION)

Planning and Zoning Chairman, Ron Jaeger, and Debbie Warren met with the Board.
Jaeger addressed the Board. Jaeger stated there were three topics they would like to go
over – the moratorium, the memorandum that Mr. Pearce did on the codes.

Debbie Warren addressed the Board and read the following statement to the Board:

“Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Debbie Warren, 3448 Thomason Lane,
Cambridge. Thank you for letting me address you today.

One of the marks of an excellent leader is to understand and appreciate those he leads. If
he is new to an organization, he needs to sit back a bit and get to know the people he is
working with. He needs to understand their strengths and weaknesses. He also must
compliment their knowledge, accomplishments, and history in the organization. In other
words, he heeds to earn their trust.

On June 17, the Washington County Planning and Zoning Commission unanimously
voted ’no confidence’ in the leadership of our current Prosecuting Attorney. We know
that it has no legal standing. However, we want you, the Commissioners, and the public
to understand that we do not trust him in matters of Planning & Zoning. Here are the facts
that governed our decision on Tuesday evening.

Mr. Pearce read a letter into the County Commissioners’ record on May 5, stating that his
office had devoted hundreds of hours analyzing the Washington County Code. I have
submitted a public records request for a search on the Clerk’s minutes. There was never a

Washington County Commissioner Minutes 6

June 23, 2025

request made by you, the Commissioners, for that analysis on the record. Idaho Code 31-
2604 (3) clearly states the prosecuting attorney is “to give advice to the board of county
commissioners, and other public officers on his county, when requested in all public
matters arising in the conduct of the public business entrusted to the care of such
officers.” Neither was there a request, or a motion made by the County Commissioners to
obtain an outside legal opinion of Mr. Pearce’s memorandum at the expense of nearly

$10,000 of county funds. And yet, Mr. Pearce had already submitted his memorandum to
Holland & Hart on April 7, 2025.

In the letter from Holland & Hart, they say “the Memo…outlines recommended revisions
to the code. Adoption of the changes would enhance the legal defensibility of the
County’s zoning and development regulations and practices moving forward.” The
phrase “adoption of changes” generally means that public hearings are required-first
through Planning and Zoning, and then with the County Commissioners, who decide if
the meaning, intention and application of the wording of the code align with their
citizens’ wishes for the present and future enforcement regarding the invaluable rural
ground in this county.

The Holland and Hart letter did not direct the County to immediately change the long-
standing interpretation of the current Code. Yet, that is exactly what transpired
immediately after an executive session on May 12, 2025. On that date, Nate Marvin
moved, seconded by Gordon Wilkerson, “to direct Bonnie and the Planning and Zoning
Department to honor the settlements that were negotiated by the current Prosecuting
Attorney and to further direct Bonnie and Planning and Zoning to follow the code as
written as per the Memorandum of Opinion from the current County Prosecuting
Attorney, and if P&Z has any legal questions, to contact the County Prosecuting
Attorney.” Motion carried unanimous. Bonnie Brent, Planning and Zoning Administrator,
asked for clarification on exactly what you were requiring. Nothing was specified by you,
the Commissioners.

Again, the Memorandum of Opinion has never been released. Not to the Planning and
Zoning Commission, not to the public. Mr. Pearce denied the public records request for
the document, stating it was ‘attorney/client privilege. Do you completely understand the
April 7th Memorandum? Does the Memorandum allow unlimited 20-acre splits on A-1
land? Does it allow building permits with each 20-acre split? Did you hand over your
responsibility as County Commissioners and oversite of Planning and Zoning to the
Prosecuting Attorney? Do you think that dramatic changes in County Code interpretation
(unlimited splitting of ground-beyond what Idaho Code limits) should side-step public
hearings and dialogue besides from attorneys? Let me remind you that Planning and
Zoning lies directly under your supervision by Idaho Code 67-6504.

On May 19, four concerned County residents presented the urgent need to place a
moratorium in place for any 20-acre splits that were to be allowed by the new
‘interpretation’ of County Code. A well-written moratorium was given to you at that
time. You decided not to proceed with the moratorium. At that time, Mr. Soulen
questioned whether building permits will be granted to every person with twenty acres of

Washington County Commissioner Minutes 7

June 23, 2025

land that applies. Wilkerson responded to Soulen’s question and stated, ‘No”. Does that
seem like clear direction to you? How is the Planning and Zoning Administrator
supposed to know how to proceed?

On May 23, Ron Jaeger was ‘served’ a letter from the Prosecuting Attorney and accused
of all things, “reading legal interpretation of Idaho statutes and county code into the
record’ and unauthorized practice of law ‘which is a criminal offense’. That is completely
false.

On May 27, more argument was given for the moratorium and at that time. A motion was
made and passed for an emergency moratorium.

On June 2, Nate Marvin stated that he would like to exempt A2 zoning to exclude
subdivisions from the memorandum and to reflect that it be effective for up to 182 days.
Nate Marvin moved, seconded by Jim Harberd, to instruct True Pearce, Prosecuting
Attorney, to amend the Moratorium to exempt A2 zoning and to reflect that it be in effect
for up to 182 days. Motion carried.

Whereas the original moratorium allowed for A-1 splits and building permits on the
‘former interpretation’ of County Code, allowing all those who had ‘administrative
(allowed) splits’ could apply and receive a split and building permit during the
moratorium. Mr. Pearce’s amended moratorium passed on June 9 effectively shut down
all land division involving property zoned A-1. Mr. Wilkerson stated at that time that he
had been advised by legal counsel that the Emergency Moratorium is unlawful, even after
being written by the County Prosecuting Attorney. Rumors have been quickly spread that
the concerned citizens and Planning and Zoning were responsible for this. Let me be
perfectly clear — that cannot be further from the truth. And why . . why would anyone
ever be against taking a step back to fix something that may or may not be broken?

Gentlemen, we have now wasted nearly 30 days in the 182 days allotted by the
moratorium. The Planning and Zoning Commission is eager to correct any loopholes in
the County Code that will help to preserve the precious limited agricultural land in
Washington County. The commission has not been given the Prosecutor’s Memorandum
of Opinion, even though it has been requested repeatedly. The work on the codes MUST
begin with the Planning and Zoning Commission.

The Prosecutor has sent a threatening letter to Mr. Jaeger which required Mr. Jaeger to
obtain legal advice at his own personal expense. Bonnie Brent-Dowell and her staff have
not been given clear direction on how to process and determine splits and building
permits. The direction given, I think you will admit, is not clear to you either. The
Planning and Zoning Commission was never given a chance to review codes before this
new ‘interpretation’ was released, which would have been the proper channel to take. We
should be able to ask for legal advice about code matters without constant need for
executive sessions. Mr. Pearce did not share his research efforts he expended on radically
different interpretation of county codes with Planning and Zoning.

Washington County Commissioner Minutes 8

June 23, 2025

As I stated last Tuesday, this is an incredibly sad state of affairs. Mr. Pearce appears to
think that 9 long-time community members who volunteer their time, spend hours
studying County code, Idaho code and applications, and love this county are not to be
trusted. He does not know us. He seems to have a dislike for the Planning and Zoning
department and has taken on responsibilities that are not his. If he does not trust us, and
because of the history I have given you, we cannot trust him. I am asking you to obtain
outside legal counsel for Planning and Zoning for at least a short period of time.”

The Board made no response to Warren’s statement.

Ron Jaeger addressed the Board and stated that the amended Moratorium that was put in
place on June 9th is nothing like the draft that he had presented, and the Board passed on
May 27th. Jaeger submitted a copy of the original moratorium ordinance to the Board.

Jaeger told the Board that the original moratorium only put a moratorium on A1 zoned
land and only if it was above the three splits into four parcels, and not in a subdivision.
Jaeger stated that the moratorium he had presented had dealt with the item Marvin was
concerned with. Jaeger further stated that the only thing that needed to be added was the
duration and the effective date. Jaeger told the Board that it seems that Mr. Pearce took it
upon himself to re-write and change the scope of the moratorium that you approved.

Jaeger said that one can only guess his reason for doing so. The effect of the changes he
made closes all building and development in A1 zones, which is most of the county.

Jaeger told the Board that you heard from the building inspector here a little bit ago that
we now have people going around the county blaming P & Z for shutting down the
County, when the blame should be squarely laid at Mr. Pearce’s feet. In light of the above,
Jaeger requested that the Board amend the moratorium back to the original as presented
with the 182 days and the May 27th effective date, and the exemption for the settlement
agreements.

Marvin confirmed that Jaeger was requesting the Board reconsider the original
moratorium that he had previously submitted.

Jaeger stated that was correct. The original moratorium would allow Planning and
Zoning, building, and everything to continue as they have for the last 45 years until the
code can be reviewed.

Harberd stated that it was not the Board’s intention to shut everything down but have
been informed that is what they have done. Harberd told Jaeger the Board is working on
one now to relieve that problem, as far as the building on existing matters of remodels
and everything else like that. Harberd said that the main focus is for A1 splits.

Jaeger stated the original one as presented would have allowed that to keep going.
Harberd said, “We’ll look at it. We’re going to get something done, we want to make sure
it’s right’. Harberd further stated, “We don’t have to keep going back and forth all the
time. That was the whole purpose of the moratorium is to have clarity added to it. Some
things need to be cleared up or cleaned up a little bit. So be it. But it needs to be done in a

Washington County Commissioner Minutes 9

June 23, 2025

fashion that we are not back in this same spot all the time, because it’s taken a lot of time.
There is no sense wasting the time if it’s not going to be right”.

Jaeger stated that the moratorium was put in place for us to have time to evaluate, and if
needed to make changes to the code. As you are aware, the State Code 67-6511 states that
requests for changes to the Zoning ordinance shall be submitted to the Planning and
Zoning Commission. Idaho Code 67-6509 indicates that you can’t act on them until you
have a recommendation of Planning and Zoning. We are already a month in, and still
have not received Mr. Pearce’s opinion. Jaeger told the Board, “We need to get started.

With that in mind, as Chairman of Planning and Zoning, I appointed a committee to start
work, whether we have that memorandum or not. We will have our first meeting on
Wednesday. Our work could be much more efficient if we had that opinion. Once again, I
request that you release it to the Planning and Zoning as soon as possible”.

Jaeger continued and said that as far as the code, he did not know if the Board had looked
through the changes that were proposed to them back
in July of last year. Jaeger said the
proposed changes do verify, simplify or make it more clear. Jaeger told the Board that he
believed that this committee is going to have real short work of it, and it’s going to be real
short because “I think it’s already been done.” Jaeger reiterated that the Planning and
Zoning Commission needs to see the memorandum to make sure that everything in it is
covered. Jaeger told the Board that the only thing they know is it is about 16 pages. “I
can’t stress that enough”.

Jaeger requested an executive session to discuss personnel issues.

Jim Harberd moved, seconded by Nate Marvin, to go into executive session at 11:20 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. Gordon Wilkerson, Nay; Jim
Harberd, Aye; Nate Marvin, Aye.

Jim Harberd stated they were out of executive session at 11:45 a.m. Harberd stated, “No
final action or decision was made during Executive Session. We will now return to the
regular agenda.”

Jaeger stated that the Prosecuting Attorney has repeatedly stated that outside
representation cannot be hired without his approval. Jaeger told the Board that the State
Constitution states that the county can hire outside counsel, you have to show necessity
and that it is not to be for a long period of time. Jaeger discussed Idaho Code 67-6504,
regarding the formation of Planning and Zoning, the rules, membership, records,
expenditures and staff.

Jaeger read a portion of 67-6504 as follows: “Expenditures by the Commission shall be
within the amounts appropriated by the Governing Board within such limits, any

Washington County Commissioner Minutes 10

June 23, 2025

commission is authorized to hire or contract with employees, technical advisors,
including but not limited to planners, engineers, architect, and legal assistants.”

Jaeger told the Board he would assume that legal assistants would be a lawyer. Jaeger
reiterated that he is requesting different representation for the Planning and Zoning
Department, and the Planning and Zoning Commission.

Debbie Warren told the Board that one of the reasons Mr. Pearce has given Planning and
Zoning to go into executive session repeatedly was that they could be sued individually.
Warren stated that she had recently found in a training from Idaho Association of
Counties that talks about protection under the Idaho Tort Claims Act. Warren told the
Board that Idaho Code Title 6, Chapter 902 talks about what an employee is, and
Planning and Zoning Commission members would be under that. Warren stated that
Chapter 903 talks about providing a defense for those employees. Warren questioned why
Planning and Zoning would need to constantly go into executive session by frightening
volunteers, who are trying to do the things they need to do in the County.

Jaeger stated that the same Statute includes the Commissioners.

Jaeger requested that the record show that he provided a copy of the letter he received
from Pearce and Jaegers’ attorney’s response to Pearce’s letter to the Board. Jaeger again
asked that the Board re-consider the original moratorium that he presented, so the County
can continue to operate as it has for the last 45 years. Jaeger said that in order to work on
the code, they need the Memorandum of Opinion from the Prosecuting Attorney. Jaeger
stated again, that he would like to have different legal counsel for Planning and Zoning.

IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING AND ZONING)

Bonnie Brent-Dowell, Planning and Zoning Administrator, and Sam Dowell met with the
Board.

Jim Harberd 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. Motion carried. Gordon Wilkerson, Nay; Jim
Harberd, Aye; Nate Marvin, Aye.

Jim Harberd stated they were out of executive session at 11:58 a.m. Harberd stated, “No
final action or decision was made during Executive Session. We will now return to the
regular agenda.”

IN THE MATTER OF PROSECUTING ATTORNEY)

True Pearce, Prosecuting Attorney, met with the Board. Also present was Sean
Jorgenson, Deputy Prosecutor.

Washington County Commissioner Minutes 11

June 23, 2025

Marvin discussed a Zoning Complaint that was received on a towing company located on
the Weiser Flat by the Sheriff’s Department.

Pearce stated he had not seen the complaint.

Harberd stated that Sheriff Thomas was aware of the complaint.

Marvin provided copies of the complaint letter to the audience. Pearce stated that he
could not comment until an investigation was conducted.

Marvin stated the Building Inspector had asked if permits could still be issued on
remodels, decks, barns, etc. Marvin said it is our understanding that due to the
moratorium, that as long as there are no land use or property divisions, permits could be
issued.

Pearce stated the moratorium was done orally by motion. Pearce told the Board that a
motion was made for a moratorium and an ordinance be put in place, and we specifically
read directly from Bonner County’s moratorium, which, in effect, put a moratorium on
everything in the county. It didn’t specify A1 or A2 ag ground. At that time, it was put on
the record that I had advised you not to do that by Mr. Wilkerson. Pearce stated that he
did not feel that it was legal or met the requirements of the statute. Pearce said the Board
then pointed out that it covered everything and asked Pearce to add some amendments to
what had originally been done. Peace told the Board he had added amendments. “Based
on what this says, emergency moratorium imposed, a temporary moratorium is hereby
imposed on the acceptance, processing, or approval of any application or requests for
land use development or land division involving property zoned A1. So, I believe you’re
correct that it’s for land use development or land division, so it would be, like, actual new
buildings. I think, a porch, a remodel would probably be fine under this as it currently is.”

Marvin stated he forwarded a letter from a surveyor to Pearce. Marvin stated it was his
understanding that would be under the moratorium.

Pearce stated that it was a land division.

Pearce reviewed his 2026 budget request with the Board. Pearce stated that he was
requesting an increase to Other Personnel to $82,000.00. Pearce requested the 4%
increase to the Prosecutor’s salary that was left off in 2024. Travel increased to 6,500.00
due to more training. Pearce stated the rent lease line could be removed.

Harberd stated that funding for building repairs and maintenance may be needed.

Pearce stated there should be excess funds in regular salaries. Pearce asked if the Board
had considered a cost-of-living increase.

Marvin stated no decision has been made at this time. Marvin stated other departments
have requested 3%.

Washington County Commissioner Minutes 12

June 23, 2025

Pearce stated he was requested by the Board to give a legal opinion on code due to
pending lawsuits and pending questions before the County. Pearce further stated that the
memorandum that was submitted to the County Commissioners is and was and remains
attorney/client confidentiality. Pearce told the Board that he personally, cannot release the
memorandum. Pearce told the Board that he is governed by the ethics bars that do not
allow him to release to the public, attorney-client privilege. The only people that can do
that are the client. Pearce stated that in this case, the County Commissioners are the client
that have the ability to release the memorandum.

Jim Harberd moved, seconded by Gordon Wilkeson, to go into executive session at 12:24

p.m. in accordance with I.C. 74-206(1)(c) to conduct deliberations concerning labor
negotiations or to acquire an interest in real property which is not owned by a public
agency; 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 1:25 p.m. Harberd stated, “No
final action or decision was made during Executive Session. We will now return to the
regular agenda.”

Pearce stated that the Moye lawsuit was discussed as well as purchasing property in
executive session.

Pearce told the Board that if they would like to discuss impact areas, he would like to
know what the Board would need from Pearce in advance.

Motion by Gordon Wilkerson, seconded by Nate Marvin, and unanimously carried to
recess at 1:37 p.m. until July 7, 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.

Washington County Commissioner Minutes 13

June 23, 2025