Bonner County commissioners voted Dec. 30 to restore the fair manager's direct reporting line to the Bonner County Fair Board and directed the county prosecutor's office to prepare a written legal opinion clarifying the duties and responsibilities of the two bodies.

Why it matters: The dispute centered on how Idaho's fair statutes (Title 22) are interpreted and on who is responsible for day‑to‑day operations, maintenance and budget oversight at the fairgrounds. Commissioners said clarity is needed because the county bears legal and financial liability for county property and because the fair runs year‑round activities that produce revenue and costs outside the annual fair week.

Legal context and debate: Nate Adams of the Bonner County Prosecutor's Office told the commission that he did not agree with memos alleging the Fair Board acted outside Idaho statutes. "I originally did not approve, legally, the memos that had been proposed by Commissioner Korn," Adams said. "I feel that the Fair Board does and has been operating within the statutory authority given to it." Robert Abel, also representing the prosecutor's office, cautioned that Title 22 is poorly written and said the statutes repeatedly refer specifically to "the fair," so reading the code with that focus helps but does not foreclose other legal readings.

Motion and sequence: Earlier in the meeting a commissioner moved that the prosecutor's office prepare a written legal opinion summarizing the separation of duties between the Board of County Commissioners and the Fair Board; the motion was seconded and taken up for public comment. Later, after public comment and extended discussion about staffing, budgets and the scope of "fair events," the board considered and passed a motion to reverse a prior Dec. 4 administrative change that had directed the fair manager to report to the county commissioners. The board recorded the outcome as a 2‑1 vote in favor of returning the reporting relationship to the Fair Board.

Board statements and next steps: A commissioner who sponsored the legal‑opinion motion told the board he sought clarity because the Fair Board had presented draft budgets showing significant deficits: "the initial draft budget was, I believe, a $65,000 projected deficit ... actual ... about $41,000 deficit," he said during public deliberations. Commissioners agreed that, to avoid further confusion, the prosecutor's office should produce a written opinion defining the separation of duties and that no additional structural changes should be implemented until that opinion is delivered and reviewed.

Local reaction and practical effects: Fair Board members and volunteers urged caution. Fair Treasurer Stacy McBrayer told the board the fair "cannot function without staff" and pointed to an existing 2023 legal opinion she said covered many of the same questions. Community members — particularly 4‑H leaders and volunteers — warned commissioners that changes to staffing and reporting arrangements could jeopardize low‑cost youth programs and year‑round events that provide the fair's revenue base.

What's next: The board directed staff to work with the prosecutor's office on a written, scoped legal opinion to be shared with both the BOCC and the Fair Board. Commissioners said they would use that written guidance as the foundation for any further decisions or formal changes to job descriptions, contracts or budget responsibilities.