Let’s Talk About the County Jail (and Other Things)
It’s been a while since we’ve had a double-whammy with a city and county update in one report! We cover some important ground this week between city property approvals and some pretty serious discussions at the county.
Read the full transcript of the video below:
How’s it going y’all. Aiden Anderson here with the Moscow Minutes. We’ve had a bit of a break from our normally scheduled city reporting, we are back this week, and it comes from an update from the county as well, so… let’s get started.
The City meeting began with public comment delivered by Kent Salisbury, who updated the council on the graffiti situation he had previously complained about as well as on future graffiti related documentation he intended to put together. This was followed by the presentation of the mayor’s golf tournament proceeds, which totaled $1,939.32 this year, and which will be going towards the West Side Food Pantry.
Next up, Cat Harner gave the annual report on the Parks and Recreation Commission. The commission this year has focused on a new pesticide-free park and on outreach programs to help get more citizens involved in their activities. They look forward to the possibility of getting new pickleball courts for Mountain View Park, and they are looking for sponsorships to help with funding in that regard.
Action Item number one for this meeting: the final plat and PUD for the Wildrose Court subdivision. Previously this year, the council approved a bunch of stuff on this 2.5 acre property, including an annexation, a comp plan use designation, a zoning change, and preliminary plat and PUD. This was the final piece of paperwork for this process, and included with it were some examples of the planned units for the property and a recommendation to approve from Planning and Zoning. The council in turn unanimously approved this item, with Councilor Bryce Blankenship in particular explaining his reasoning for changing his position, as he had previously been opposed to it.
For Action Item number two, just think of Action Item number one, but a few steps back in the process. 2-GM LLC had applied for an annexation, a comp plan use designation, a zoning change, and preliminary plat and PUD on what they called the SOMO property. This is a 51-acre property across the highway from the SEL building in Moscow.
The applicant intends for a business park to be constructed there, and as such, applied for the property to be annexed into the city of Moscow, a designation of auto-urban commercial, a zoning change to motor-business, as opposed to a mix of motor business and ag forest zoning, and preliminary plat and PUD for possible lots.
All this required a public hearing, and this hearing received only one person’s testimony. David Hall spoke up in concern of the failing aquifer in relation to city expansion and infrastructure projects. When it came time for council deliberations, questions were addressed about remaining industrial zoning and floodplain grading for pieces of the property. At the end of all this, each piece of the item was voted on individually, but as a whole the actions were approved unanimously by the Moscow City Council.
If you thought the construction south of Moscow was gonna get better soon, think again.
Some context for this final item. Earlier in the year, the city entered into an Memorandum of Understanding with the Moscow School District to look over a property on West Palouse River Drive that might serve as the location of a future school along with playfields. At this city meeting, Bill Belknap explained that the district has selected Lombard Conrad Architects to conduct a planning study on the property to determine the feasibility of putting a school there. Now that the school district had approved this group, the city needed to approve them as well — and approve them they did.
Let’s pivot over to the county. Though they had an otherwise typical week, the commissioners held two discussions that y’all should be more broadly aware of.
First up, the commissioners have been conducting something of a speaking tour, going from city council meeting to city council meeting in the county to present on the concept of a county housing authority to help alleviate some of the housing difficulties that folks are facing in the county itself. Commissioner Lafortune gave some background on the issue, explaining that it began in conversations with some of the local housing non-profits and that it is focused on those folks who are extremely rent-constrained, and are facing difficulties in this increasingly expensive housing and rental market.
Most recently, the commissioners visited Bovill to deliver their pitch, and have several other rural cities on their schedule in the coming weeks. The city of Bovill asked to table the discussion in order for them to get more information on the concept before consenting to anything going forward.
Commissioner Lamar expressed hope that the legal metrics for justifying the creation of a housing authority had been successfully gathered and articulated, and mentioned that it would be a joint effort between the cities and the county to get members appointed to a housing authority board. Lafortune expressed her desire to see the rural cities get their fair share on this issue, and that any negative responses to the idea of a housing authority would be addressed. The commissioners then spent some moments divvying up the remaining rural cities amongst themselves for speaking engagements.
Now for the second discussion.
The second discussion the commissioners had was in regards to the future of the Latah County Jail. This discussion was publicly precluded by a couple of different events. The first that some heard of the issue was through a posting on James Fry’s campaign facebook page on October 2nd. James Fry is, of course, a candidate for Latah County Sheriff, and is the former Moscow City police chief.

Fry’s post alluded to rumors he’d heard from a variety of law enforcement officers about the possibility of the county jail closing, questioning the transparency of the conversation and lack of communication under incumbent Sheriff Richie Skiles’ leadership. The next day, Chris Middleton, another candidate for sheriff, made his own post about the jail situation, and the county also sent out a press release announcing a public discussion to be held on the matter the following week.

Now, obviously, there’s no way to say that Fry’s facebook post provoked a response from the county; that discussion could have already been scheduled for that time. But you can’t deny coincidental timing, nor can you deny concerns about abrupt announcements regarding law enforcement infrastructure, especially with the sheriff election and Kohberger trial looming large in people’s minds.
At any rate, a discussion was held in the county commissioner chambers with a livestream link provided for folks who could not be there in person. Sheriff Skiles and his deputy framed the conversation: the county jail is 51 years old and is failing in several areas, particularly when it comes to fire egress in the cells themselves. The building has to be in compliance with Idaho State Code standards regarding jails in order for it to stay open.
The costs for making the repairs necessary to keep the jail in good standing are significant. Just replacing the doors will be hundreds of thousands of dollars, and additional storage is needed to help address fire safety concerns. The sheriff’s office explained that Latah County is not alone in this situation; other counties across the state are looking at the same question regarding their jail, which is, are all these repairs even worth it? Is it better to close the jail for now?
At this time, no decision has been made. However, the sheriff has been looking at a plan for both future operations and inmate relocation should the commissioners decide to close the jail.
Commissioner Lamar commented that it seems that a number of insufficiencies are coming together at about the same time, and Commissioner Lafortune agreed on the need for contingency plans in a “what if” situation. What makes this issue difficult is that while the sheriff is responsible for keeping and maintaining the jail as per Idaho statute, it’s actually the commissioners’ job to fund it. Given the county’s current financial situation, it’s difficult to say that such funding is feasible at the moment.
To get more funding, state law would have to be changed, and while this option is on the table, it will take time to get implemented. So while things may be trending that direction as far as the county jail is concerned, the county is still looking at at least a year’s displacement from their current situation. If that’s the case, the commissioners and the sheriff’s office agreed that some options need to be laid out, and some plans need to be formulated, in order for the county to come up with a quick solution.
It’s not clear from the available details how long the county has been sitting on this discussion about the jail. If this is all coming out as expected, that’s one thing. It’s another thing though if they were expecting the situation to remain invisible.
That being said, is the jail going to close? At this point, it’s still unclear, but if the situation is as urgent as it sounds, I’d imagine the county will be looking to develop and implement a plan to attack the situation soon. The question that follows is, when they develop a plan, will they be upfront and transparent about it?
That about wraps it up for this week. We’ve got more county interviews to tackle this month, and I look forward to sharing those conversations with you. As always we’ll have the relevant links posted with this video, and if you have any questions, please reach out. I’m Aiden Anderson with the Moscow Minutes. See you next time!