Where is Washington County going from here?

While the historic interpretation of Washington County’s zoning code was upheld in 2021 in a second opinion from Givens Pursley LLP, the board of county commissioners requested at that time the P&Z commission review the potentially ambiguous language in the ordinance and report back their recommendations, which were completed and submitted last July.

 Requests from the P&Z  commission that the Board hold public hearings on their recommendations from  last year have been unsuccessful. At the same time, and as has been reported, the new BOCC and prosecuting attorney seated this past January have held unprecedented numbers of executive sessions.

 Instead, our new prosecuting attorney sought yet another legal opinion on the unrevised version of code from a different firm (Holland and Hart) which apparently suggests there may still be some ambiguity in the code. The lack of transparency in leadership and a very vocal minority has undermined the credibility of our planning and zoning  commission and department staff, fueling additional lawsuits, the veracity of  which remains to be determined in court. 

 As with the BOCC, the prosecuting attorney also instructed P&Z commissioners that legal questions of any nature needed to be asked in private, during even the most  common P&Z application situations. The prosecutor felt anyone in any P&Z hearing may become a plaintiff in a lawsuit in the future, and allowing them to hear all discussions might give them potential insight into a claim, thus putting all work under the executive session criteria of imminently likely litigation. The P&Z commissioners independently felt that what had always been open to the public to hear any and all communication during an applicant’s time must remain completely open. Again, the P&Z commission holds hearings, takes testimony,  asks questions regarding the application, and then gives a recommendation to  the BOCC, who make the ultimate decision in each case. 

 Exacerbating the tension and likely influencing decision making is the reality that ICRMP, our state liability carrier, does not provide legal defense coverage in land use matters! What and who our prosecuting attorney can or is willing to defend also seems unclear, potentially leaving our elected officials, staff, and  commissioners personally liable for some of these lawsuits. In fact, Mr. Pearce has even filed suit against our former prosecuting attorney for providing a BOCC member a copy of a “legal opinion,” an identical copy of one the commissioner had already been in possession of during his time in office.  

 Really? An elected official suing his predecessor for trying to resolve this chaos? Is this tactic what’s really been  fueling much of the other litigation? Has the real goal here been about instituting a new order through legal intimidation regarding who will determine our land use  regulations in Washington County or actual legitimate redress? The pattern  appears to be, since January, that if you don’t have a split left on your land, and you are not willing to use a process in code that will, if approved, get you that split, and cost you something for oversight by SWDH, etc. – then just file a tort claim or a lawsuit.  Just wait a bit, and a permit will magically appear, and the lawsuit will be  declared as “settled.” 

 I very much empathize with the pressure on our Board of County Commissioners, and they have my respect and appreciation for fulfilling their elected duties. But we should all be concerned when the law is weaponized against the officials we elect, especially when it comes from within. We deserve better and so do our volunteers and staff.

Glenn Johnson

Midvale, Idaho