[0:00] Evening

[0:04] and welcome everyone. We'd like to like

[0:07] to welcome you to the regular city

[0:09] council meeting. The date is August 20th

[0:11] and the time is 6 pm. Let's please start

[0:14] out with the roll call. Aubriana

[0:17] >> Bates

[0:18] >> here.

[0:18] >> Mango

[0:19] >> here.

[0:19] >> Nicholls

[0:21] >> here.

[0:21] >> Satderfield

[0:22] >> here.

[0:22] >> Swanson

[0:23] >> here.

[0:24] >> Dquist

[0:24] >> here. And if you would please rise and

[0:27] join me in the pledge of allegiance. If

[0:30] you'd remain standing after the pledge,

[0:32] we will have the invocation offered by

[0:34] Tony Cycle representing Port of Sanka.

[0:39] >> I pledge algiance to the flag of the

[0:42] United States of America and to the

[0:44] republic for which it stands. One nation

[0:48] under God, indivisible, with liberty and

[0:51] justice for all.

[0:55] » [snorts]

[0:59] » I invite you to close your eyes as we

[1:01] bring our attention to our breath and

[1:03] body.

[1:05] Standing here recognizing our breath.

[1:10] This present moment and recognizing that

[1:13] we are in the present moment.

[1:15] This moment is precious because it gives

[1:18] us the opportunity to make skillful

[1:20] choices for the future based on our

[1:23] highest aspirations.

[1:26] We give thanks for this precious body

[1:28] and precious human life. We reaffirm our

[1:31] desire to serve our fellow human beings.

[1:34] May all of us in this meeting continue

[1:37] to hold this strong intention to serve

[1:39] others, to be a bridge for those with

[1:42] rivers to cross, a ship for those with

[1:45] oceans to cross, a shelter for the

[1:48] homeless, a safe refuge for those in

[1:51] danger, and a hand of hope for those who

[1:54] feel no hope. May our health continue to

[1:57] support our efforts. May we welcome

[2:00] adversity as readily as success. May all

[2:03] of us be free from suffering. May we

[2:06] live with ease of being.

[2:09] May all those suffering in war and

[2:12] oppression find peace and those grieving

[2:15] find solless and those who are ill

[2:19] have compassionate treatment and health.

[2:22] May all beings without exception be free

[2:24] from enmity, danger, hatred, and

[2:27] despair. May all beings be free from

[2:30] suffering and the causes of suffering.

[2:33] May our efforts here today benefit all

[2:35] of the citizens of Pocutella.

[2:38] I'd like to close this meditation again

[2:41] with a quote from the Buddha. The

[2:44] dedication of a virtuous act for all

[2:46] beings is like adding a drop of water to

[2:50] the ocean. As long as the ocean exists,

[2:53] the drop of water exists. So too, a

[2:56] small positive action when directed

[2:58] toward the benefit of all beings will

[3:01] endure forever.

[3:03] I invite you to open your eyes now so

[3:05] that you can begin your important work

[3:07] on behalf of the people of Pocutello.

[3:09] Mayor Dulquist and members of council,

[3:12] thank you for your continued service to

[3:14] the people of Pocutello.

[3:17] >> Thank you very much, Tony.

[3:22] Agenda item three is the consent agenda.

[3:25] The following business items may be

[3:28] approved by one motion and a vote. If

[3:30] any one member of the council so

[3:32] desires, any matter listed can be moved

[3:35] to a separate agenda item. A minutes.

[3:39] Council may wish to wave the oral

[3:41] reading of the minutes and approve the

[3:42] minutes from the following meetings.

[3:44] clarification in regular city council

[3:47] meetings of June 4 and June 18, 2026 and

[3:51] city council budget development meetings

[3:53] of June 1 and June 2, 2026.

[3:57] B. Material claims. Council may wish to

[4:00] approve the material claims for the

[4:02] period of August 1 through August 15,

[4:05] 2026.

[4:06] C. Treasures report. Council may wish to

[4:09] approve the treasurer's report for June

[4:12] 2026 showing cash and investments as of

[4:15] June 30, 2026.

[4:18] D. City Council decision short plat

[4:21] approval for HAC subdivision. Council

[4:24] may wish to adopt its decision approving

[4:27] the short plat for the HAC subdivision,

[4:30] which subdivides approximately 9.11

[4:33] acres of parcel RPCP1388512

[4:39] into four lots subject to conditions. E.

[4:43] City Council decision short plat

[4:45] approval for Greyside subdivision.

[4:48] Council may wish to adopt its decision

[4:50] approving the short plat for Greyside

[4:52] subdivision which subdivides

[4:54] approximately.70

[4:56] acres of parcel into three lots subject

[5:00] to conditions. And at this time I'd ask

[5:03] our CFO Rich Morgan to come forward and

[5:06] present the treasurer's report.

[5:11] Mayor and Council, thank you for this

[5:14] opportunity.

[5:16] Couple of things. I'll first present the

[5:18] report

[5:20] the what you're used to and then I'd

[5:22] like to show you at the end

[5:25] um how to get into openg and if anyone's

[5:29] watching they'll be able to see that and

[5:31] how it goes.

[5:37] All right.

[5:39] Well, maybe we'll just go from here. Oh,

[5:42] there we go.

[5:47] Okay,

[5:51] just remind you that it's Idaho code

[5:54] that gets us here. So, and also always

[5:56] will remind you this is the official

[5:58] report.

[5:59] Uh if someone asks for the report,

[6:01] that's what they're going to get, not my

[6:03] presentation, but sometimes the analysis

[6:05] is helpful in in what we're doing. We

[6:07] begin with 111 almost $112 million. Our

[6:11] receipts were 15.5 million

[6:14] dispersements. This this month we're 18

[6:17] of June were 18.5 million. We ended with

[6:21] about 109. So the net change was about 3

[6:24] million.

[6:27] Again I just listed the um

[6:32] differences for those operating funds

[6:35] that we have.

[6:38] And then this is our cash balance. I did

[6:40] want to go over this uh just so you know

[6:42] how that works. Um again, and hopefully

[6:45] you're getting familiar as we go through

[6:46] this. So, US Bank, we have about $24

[6:49] million sitting right now in US Bank.

[6:52] That's because in July, we did this is [clears throat] representative

[6:56] of 817. The the percentages we go

[6:59] through are through June, but this

[7:01] [clears throat] represents that second

[7:03] payment of property tax on the

[7:06] remittance that we get. We estimate our

[7:09] payroll accounts payable. We do have

[7:11] outstanding checks. And so the available

[7:14] from that uh 24 million is about 14 and

[7:17] a half. We have 15 million in the LGIP.

[7:21] Uh that's the local government

[7:23] investment pool. It's run by the state.

[7:26] U most municipalities do park extra cash

[7:29] with the LGIP. It's very safe. And we

[7:32] also uh finished implementing our

[7:35] investment strategy with Clearwater.

[7:38] That's the 80 million. You can see that

[7:41] we have acred about $746,000

[7:46] of interest so far. That's really that's a really good thing. Uh we're

[7:51] excited about about the opportunities we

[7:54] have there with Clear Water.

[7:57] Really quick, we're 83% of the year

[7:59] through. Um, two more months to go

[8:02] citywide. This does reflect the last

[8:05] budget amendment. I've updated for

[8:06] those. So, the budget was 154 million.

[8:10] Uh, we've collected 124. You can see the

[8:13] general street recreation, sanitation,

[8:15] water, and WPC numbers. It's We're all

[8:19] in the sweet spot. It's really nice.

[8:21] Sanitation is a little bit high. They

[8:23] did receive some reimbursement monies

[8:25] that I just heard of. Uh that's why

[8:27] they're a little bit high on the on the

[8:29] revenue side. They probably will go over

[8:31] the 100% because of that. Um

[8:35] which is great.

[8:38] Summary of our expenses. Again, we're

[8:39] 83% through the year, 174 million in the

[8:43] budget. We've spent 116, so we're 66%

[8:46] through. Remember, this is our busy

[8:49] time. If you look at uh the general fund

[8:52] or or sanitation, those are pretty

[8:56] steady

[8:58] regular expenses, they're in that sweet

[9:00] spot. Uh if you look at water, you might

[9:03] think, well, it's a little low, but

[9:05] remember those are cyclical and and

[9:08] water will catch up in the summertime.

[9:13] So then you want to look at or you can

[9:17] look at you want to make sure that your

[9:20] revenues are ma or matching or exceeding

[9:22] your expenses. That's what this one does

[9:24] for you. Um we have 150 million

[9:29] budgeted revenues and we're at 76% on

[9:32] our expenses. Again, 83% through the

[9:35] year. So a nice sweet spot to be in. It

[9:38] all looks really good. I don't I didn't

[9:40] have any concerns or anything that I

[9:42] wanted to point out in the way of

[9:44] concerns, just that this seems to be

[9:47] reassuring.

[9:48] Um, we've got a thing a a good thing

[9:51] going here. We've got great management

[9:53] and that's what it is. It's we've got

[9:55] good departments doing what they need to

[9:57] do with with what they've got. I did

[10:01] include the financial performance

[10:03] metrics. You can look over those uh if

[10:06] you have any questions. We've gone over

[10:07] them. They didn't change a whole lot.

[10:09] It's all the It's all the same. I think

[10:11] it'll be really interesting as we go

[10:13] forward. We can peg these for fiscal

[10:16] year 26 and then start comparing our

[10:20] fiscal year 27 to them. And I think

[10:21] that'll be a good discussion to have.

[10:25] All right.

[10:33] So, I wanted to really quick just I just

[10:36] wanted to take a minute.

[10:39] If you go to our website, looks like

[10:41] it's already up,

[10:43] but [snorts] if you're on Google or any

[10:46] other like duck, whatever, you just type

[10:49] in city of Pocutello, it'll take you to

[10:51] the website. There's two ways to do

[10:53] this. You can scroll

[10:57] down and you'll see Pocutello news the

[11:00] calendar and then you see Pocutello

[11:03] spotlights and under stay informed

[11:07] we've put a connection here that says

[11:09] view proposed budget. If you click there

[11:12] it takes you to

[11:16] the dashboard. And I wanted to point out

[11:18] that we're no longer This is open gov.

[11:21] You can see up there in that line, it it

[11:24] looks like Pocutello. We've paid for

[11:26] this branding. We want them to recognize

[11:29] us. So, it looks like Pocutello, but

[11:31] this is Open Gov. You can go to the

[11:33] table of contents,

[11:35] which is um

[11:38] look up every department. You can you

[11:41] can drill down into those departments.

[11:42] You can see their line items.

[11:45] This is the budget overview.

[11:49] kind of gives our philosophy what's

[11:51] going on.

[11:53] That is not the one I was thinking.

[11:55] Sorry.

[11:57] There we go. It's got a

[12:00] beautiful picture of downtown,

[12:02] beautiful picture of the council mayor.

[12:06] Kind of gives our philosophy. This is

[12:08] the dashboard that the public would see

[12:10] and they can go into those departments

[12:12] and drill down. You can also get there

[12:15] just really quick.

[12:19] If you go back

[12:22] and someone's on our main page,

[12:25] instead of scrolling through, how do I

[12:28] get home?

[12:30] Oh, there we go.

[12:34] Forgot where I was. If you're on your

[12:36] main page, if you go to government, you

[12:38] go to finance,

[12:41] and you drill down

[12:47] budget and fees. You collect you you you

[12:50] click on the budget and fees.

[12:53] You'll see this

[12:56] budget fiscal year 2027, the proposed.

[13:00] If you click on that again, you're going

[13:03] it'll take you to that open gov link. So

[13:06] you'll see what's in open gov.

[13:09] I did want to point out to the council

[13:11] that if you start

[13:15] at Google

[13:17] and type in open gov,

[13:20] this is something for the council.

[13:27] and you have all received a login and

[13:30] you go to government login.

[13:34] You type in your email address, hit

[13:37] continue, your password, and that'll

[13:38] take you to Open Gov 2. It does look a

[13:41] little different, but it's all the same

[13:44] information. You can drill down in

[13:46] there, you could play with the

[13:47] information there. And that's something

[13:49] that we've provided as as as

[13:53] council members to get into actual open

[13:55] gov instead of just that dashboard.

[13:59] So

[14:00] all right, I think that's all I have.

[14:03] >> Yeah, great. I just encourage members of

[14:05] the public to take a look at this and

[14:07] council members as well to go into that too. Um, but I think it's it's a

[14:13] big upgrade and compliment your staff,

[14:16] Rich, for spending so much time

[14:19] converting this over. I think it is a

[14:21] tool that just makes things so much more

[14:23] transparent.

[14:24] >> Thank you.

[14:27] >> All right. [clears throat] And with

[14:28] that, I would entertain a motion to

[14:30] approve the consent agenda.

[14:32] >> Mr. Mayor,

[14:33] >> yes.

[14:34] >> I would move that we approve the consent

[14:36] agenda. Agenda item three, items A, B,

[14:40] C, D, and E as outlined.

[14:42] >> Second.

[14:43] >> Thank you. We have a first from

[14:44] Councilman Mangum, a second from

[14:47] Councilman Pollson. Aubriana, please

[14:49] call the role.

[14:50] >> Hang,

[14:51] >> yes.

[14:51] >> Pollson,

[14:52] >> yes.

[14:52] >> Bates,

[14:53] >> yes. [clears throat]

[14:54] >> Sfield,

[14:55] >> yes.

[14:55] >> Swanson,

[14:56] >> yes.

[14:57] >> Agenda item six is items from the

[14:59] audience. This time has been set aside

[15:02] to hear items from the audience not

[15:04] listed on the agenda. Items which

[15:07] appeared somewhere else on the agenda

[15:09] will not be discussed at this time. The

[15:11] council is not allowed to take any

[15:13] official action at this meeting on

[15:15] matters brought forward under this

[15:17] agenda item. Items will either be

[15:20] referred to the appropriate staff or

[15:22] scheduled on a subsequent agenda. You

[15:26] must sign in at the start of the meeting

[15:27] in order to be recognized. Please note

[15:30] you have a maximum of three minutes per

[15:32] speaker. Um, with that, we've had two

[15:35] people sign in this evening. Um,

[15:37] Stephen, if you'd like to come forward

[15:39] and you'd like to talk about a flock

[15:41] public hearing.

[15:46] Sorry.

[15:47] >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor, members of the

[15:49] council.

[15:53] In the course of human events of our

[15:55] forefathers made a voyage to this land

[15:59] to seek freedoms that they did not have

[16:01] the privilege of in their prior

[16:04] homeland.

[16:05] They sought the freedom to be a free

[16:08] people. Freedom of worship, freedom of

[16:13] taxation without representation

[16:18] along with other freedoms that were

[16:20] granted in the Bill of Rights of the

[16:21] Constitution of the United States. One

[16:24] of their most prized freedoms that they

[16:27] dealt with is they wanted freedom from a

[16:31] tyrannical government who once would

[16:34] invade their person's homes p pap pap pap pap pap pap pap pap pap pap papers

[16:38] and effects without reasonable lawful

[16:41] causes and without lawful warrants to

[16:44] search their possessions. Their intent

[16:47] of the bill of rights was to protect a

[16:50] good people from tyranny. The Fourth

[16:53] Amendment is timeless. We should not be

[16:57] confused with past Supreme Court cases

[17:01] that do not directly relate to the ALPRs

[17:05] now in questions. When lawful people are

[17:08] indiscriminately tracked from point to point and their travels are

[17:14] logged, then they have lost their right

[17:17] as a free and lawful people to travel

[17:21] without incumbrances or concerns.

[17:25] security in how the information is

[17:28] stored and access has been a historic

[17:31] issue, including how free access is

[17:36] allowed by flock safety to use at will

[17:40] in contract sections

[17:44] identified as 4.2 and 5.3.

[17:48] We the people must be entered into the

[17:51] scope of how our government runs its

[17:54] business for protection.

[17:56] $120,000

[17:58] a year is being spent on questionable

[18:01] technology when it could be spent on

[18:04] officers who could act in a legal and

[18:07] lawful manner. Benjamin Franklin once

[18:10] said, "Those who would give up essential

[18:14] liberty to purchase a little temporary

[18:16] safety deserve neither liberty nor

[18:19] safety." In the spirit of liberty and

[18:23] representation

[18:25] from our taxation, we the people ask

[18:29] that a public hearing be held on clock

[18:32] safety camera and the subsequent

[18:35] contract considerations before any

[18:37] future related contracts are considered.

[18:41] Thank you very much.

[18:43] >> Thank you, Stephen.

[18:45] Next, we have David Pearson. All right.

[18:47] He's here to discuss Highline and Pearl

[18:50] intersection.

[18:55] [cough and clears throat]

[18:56] Thank you guys for giving me the

[18:59] opportunity to get to express my

[19:03] concerns. I live on Willard Avenue

[19:07] between Griffin and uh Pearl. My

[19:11] backyard is the construction site that's

[19:14] going on right now.

[19:16] They they got it detourred right now

[19:20] that is actually going right in my down

[19:24] my street. Um my concerns are is with

[19:28] all this additional traffic that is

[19:30] going down Willard and the school

[19:33] district as schools are opening up. Um

[19:37] I've got real strong concerns that

[19:40] safety. I see the kids going up and

[19:42] down. I see parents and they're go

[19:45] traveling, dropping their kids off and

[19:48] kids are running down the street, you

[19:49] know, down the sidewalks and, you know,

[19:52] kids sometimes don't have the best

[19:54] judgment.

[19:55] And I would really appreciate it if we

[19:59] actually have a police presence there

[20:03] during the time in the mornings and at

[20:05] noon and and when the school's out be

[20:11] and just just to have them there.

[20:15] They do a really a good job on Griffin

[20:18] and Willard, you know, the school

[20:20] district does by having traffic, you

[20:23] know, somebody guiding, you know, the

[20:26] parents and the kids and stopping the

[20:29] traffic. My concern is Pearl.

[20:33] Well, right now I get honked at and

[20:38] gesture, you know, some gestures flown

[20:40] at my way just because I'm trying to

[20:43] turn and pull into my driveway. You

[20:46] know, these they just I mean,

[20:50] I I'm concerned and I just would

[20:53] appreciate the, you know, to look at

[20:57] this and give some kind of forethought.

[21:02] All right. Thank you.

[21:02] >> Yeah. Thank you, David. Really

[21:04] appreciate you bringing us up to speed

[21:07] with that. Um, I'll have a conversation

[21:10] with our police and we'll see what we

[21:12] can do there. Thank you. I have to

[21:15] circle back a little bit on the agenda.

[21:17] That agenda item number four, there's no

[21:20] proclamations this evening. So, we'll

[21:22] jump to agenda item five. Sorry, a

[21:24] little bit out of order. Um, but on the

[21:27] calendar review council meetings,

[21:30] September 3rd at 5:30 p.m. we do have

[21:33] the council clarification meeting. Then

[21:35] at 6 PM is the regular city council

[21:38] meeting. September 10th at 9:00 a.m. is

[21:41] the city council work session. Other

[21:44] events are as follows. August 23rd, Ross

[21:47] Park Aquatic Center. Believe it or not,

[21:49] that's the last day of the season.

[21:52] August 24th from 400 pm to 700 p.m.

[21:56] Welcome back orange and black event for

[21:58] ISU students at Lookout Point in

[22:00] historic downtown. Then from August 24th

[22:04] to September 7th, annual maintenance for

[22:07] community recreation center, the front

[22:10] desk will remain open, but all other

[22:12] areas will be closed for maintenance.

[22:14] August 29th, it's the annual Portner

[22:17] River Cleanup from 10:00 a.m. to noon.

[22:20] Meet at the Pacific Recycling Trail

[22:22] Head. Bring work gloves and other tools

[22:24] to help clean the river of trash and

[22:27] debris. Contact the science and

[22:29] environment division for more

[22:30] information. I'll be at that event and I

[22:33] hope to see see you all there. Open

[22:36] burnband

[22:38] urban interface area that continues.

[22:42] And then due to the extreme heat we're

[22:44] experiencing, the following city

[22:46] facilities will serve as cooling

[22:48] shelters through the end of August.

[22:50] Hours are at city hall Monday through

[22:53] Friday, 7:30 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. and

[22:57] Saturdays and Sundays here at city hall,

[22:59] 10:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. The animal

[23:01] shelter is another site that's from

[23:03] Monday through Friday at 10:00 a.m. to

[23:06] 5:00 p.m. Saturdays from 11:00 a.m. to

[23:09] 5:00 p.m. Close Sundays. Pets are

[23:12] welcome at that location. Then there's

[23:14] the Marshall Public Library. Hours there

[23:17] are Monday through Thursday 10:00 a.m.

[23:19] to 6:00 p.m. Friday and Saturday from

[23:22] 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. and closed on

[23:24] Sundays. Schools will be starting soon.

[23:27] Please slow down in school zones. And I

[23:30] think David would especially appreciate

[23:32] that. Um, looking ahead, September 7th,

[23:36] city offices will be closed for Labor

[23:38] Day. However, garbage, yard waste, and

[23:40] recycle pickups will continue as

[23:43] scheduled.

[23:44] >> Mr. Mayor,

[23:45] >> yes.

[23:45] >> May I add one thing?

[23:46] >> You [clears throat] sure may.

[23:47] >> Yeah. This evening, um, at Jim Dandy,

[23:49] there's a fundraiser for the Pocutello

[23:50] free clinic. I'm going to run over and

[23:53] bid on a few things. Um, so I'd

[23:55] encourage you to, if you can, uh,

[23:58] support this really essential service

[24:00] here in our city. Thank you.

[24:02] >> Great cause. Thanks for pointing that

[24:04] out.

[24:07] Okay. Agenda item seven, that's a

[24:10] resolution expressing opposition to M44

[24:14] cyanide devices. Council may wish to

[24:17] adopt the resolution expressing formal

[24:19] opposition to any continued assembly,

[24:23] manufacture, and distribution of M44

[24:26] cyanide devices within the m municipal

[24:29] limits of the city of Pocutello.

[24:32] Um, with that, we do have members of the

[24:35] Mansfield family here tonight, and

[24:37] they're gonna come forward and talk

[24:39] about that.

[24:44] [clears throat]

[24:44] >> If you could each introduce yourselves,

[24:46] if you would.

[24:47] >> Yeah, I got a speech.

[24:50] [laughter]

[24:50] >> Mayor Dalquist and members of the city

[24:52] council, thank you for the opportunity

[24:54] to speak before you today. My name is

[24:55] Canyon Mansfield, and alongside me are

[24:57] my parents, Theresa and Mark. Uh, as

[25:00] many of you may know, nine years ago, I

[25:02] was the boy who triggered an M44 cyanide

[25:04] bomb that poisoned me and killed my

[25:06] two-year-old lab, Casey. We are here to

[25:08] support the city of Pocutello's proposed

[25:10] resolution against the supply of M44

[25:12] cyanide devices from our city in the

[25:14] hope that it marks the beginning of the

[25:16] end of their distribution from

[25:17] Pocutello.

[25:18] There's a cruel, tragic irony in the

[25:20] fact that the very device that poisoned

[25:22] me and forced me to witness my dog's

[25:23] death was manufactured and built only

[25:26] miles from my home in my city that used

[25:28] to feel so familiar. Stranger still,

[25:30] that depot responsible was the sole

[25:32] supplier for the entire United States.

[25:34] My sense of sanctuary was shattered and

[25:36] my safe hometown became just an illusion

[25:38] of the past. Perhaps it was predictable,

[25:40] or rather tragically unsurprising, that

[25:43] the supplier manufacturing these

[25:44] poisonous devices posed the greatest

[25:46] danger to the residents nearby,

[25:48] eventually being triggered by the

[25:49] innocent curiosity of a 14-year-old boy.

[25:52] Their building is deliberately

[25:53] inconspicuous, located merely blocks

[25:55] away from ISU, and continues to threaten

[25:57] our community in silence. However,

[25:59] despite the bitterness that still grips

[26:00] me when I happen near it, I still hold

[26:02] much faith for my city. Faith that my

[26:04] family's suffering wasn't in vain. faith

[26:06] that Casey's death was would enact

[26:08] change. The faith that you who have been

[26:10] entrusted to lead bear our community's

[26:12] best interest in mind. And so I have

[26:13] come here guided by this sense of faith

[26:15] to stand here and ask that when you cast

[26:17] your vote, you prove this faith right.

[26:19] Thank you.

[26:20] >> Thanks, Ken.

[26:26] These devices pose a very serious and

[26:29] unacceptable threat to public safety and

[26:33] I urge your continued leadership in

[26:34] opposing them. In 2017 when I moved to

[26:38] Pocutello, I I always loved Pocutello

[26:41] and I always said we live in the

[26:42] greatest place on earth. But in 2017

[26:44] when this happened,

[26:47] I received that same love from our

[26:49] community, from this city and it changed

[26:52] me forever. This community has rallied

[26:54] around this issue.

[26:57] For the past nine years, my family and I

[27:00] have advocated for an end to the use of

[27:03] a deadly wildlife poison, the M44

[27:06] cyanide ejector that killed our family

[27:09] dog and nearly killed my son. In a

[27:14] single moment, this M44 cyanide bomb set

[27:17] by the US Department of Agricultures

[27:19] Wildlife Services Program stole a

[27:23] cherished member of my family, an

[27:26] irreplaceable piece of my son's innocent

[27:29] and our entire Pocutello community's

[27:32] sense of security.

[27:35] to wildlife services, animal damage

[27:37] control, our beloved dog was just a

[27:39] non-target take [clears throat] and our

[27:42] heartbreak merely a public relations

[27:44] problem.

[27:45] Rather than evaluating how communities

[27:47] like Pocutello could be made safer so

[27:51] that other families would not have to

[27:52] suffer the painful aftermath of M44

[27:55] cyanide bombs. The federal agency

[27:58] continues to make unsupported claims

[28:01] about the need for every tool in the

[28:03] toolbox to be made available and

[28:06] supposedly the targeted nature of M44

[28:10] cyanide bombs.

[28:12] But no tool can indiscriminately poison

[28:15] a child, kill a family pet and devastate

[28:19] a family

[28:21] belong in a toolbox. No tool belong like

[28:23] that belongs in a toolbox. A device that

[28:26] cannot distinguish between its intended

[28:29] target and a child or a dog cannot

[28:33] reasonably be called targeted.

[28:40] Again, this is fundamentally a public

[28:42] safety issue. Although Canyon's story

[28:45] received worldwide attention, it was a

[28:47] local reporter, Shelby Harris, who

[28:51] discovered that these devices are

[28:52] manufactured right here in Pocutello.

[28:55] The Pocutello Supply Depot is the sole

[28:59] manufacturer and distributor of the M44

[29:03] devices and sodium cyanide capsules for

[29:06] the entire United States.

[29:09] As Canyon said, there's a painful irony

[29:11] in that the device that nearly killed my

[29:14] son just outside my Pocutella home was

[29:18] manufactured here in our town, in our

[29:21] community.

[29:24] But perhaps that gives Pocutello

[29:26] a unique responsibility and an

[29:29] opportunity to lead.

[29:32] It makes me feel like we're meant to do

[29:34] it.

[29:36] We're meant to do something.

[29:40] Cyanide bombs endanger people, pets, and

[29:43] wildlife.

[29:45] And they have no place in our city, on

[29:47] our lands, or anywhere.

[29:51] Indeed, we must ask ourselves, how many

[29:55] families must be harmed before

[29:57] meaningful action is taken?

[30:00] How much collateral damage are we

[30:02] willing to accept when it comes to

[30:04] efforts to kill so-called nuisance

[30:06] animals?

[30:08] Should hikers, hunters, children, and

[30:12] families of Pocutello have to fear

[30:14] encountering a cyanide device while

[30:16] they're out enjoying our community and

[30:18] our public lands?

[30:21] Is it going going to take the death of a

[30:23] child to ban this antiquated

[30:26] indiscriminate device?

[30:30] Wildlife services has been afforded

[30:32] countless opportunities to re in its own

[30:36] deadly practices. Yet the public has not

[30:39] been made any safer.

[30:42] It's clear that legislative inter

[30:45] intervention is necessary as the cyanide

[30:48] bombs are coming back to our lands right

[30:51] now as we speak.

[30:54] This is why this resolution carries such

[30:58] a great weight.

[31:01] I'm powerless to change what happened to

[31:04] my son, but this resolution is

[31:08] meaningful.

[31:13] Speaking for the Mansfield family, I

[31:15] would like to thank Mayor Dalquist and

[31:17] the members of the Pocutello City

[31:18] Council for standing with our family and

[31:21] our community.

[31:23] I would like to encourage solidarity

[31:25] with a unanimous vote in passing this

[31:28] resolution

[31:30] and for support of Canyon's Law.

[31:33] Thank you.

[31:34] >> Thank you.

[31:36] >> Well, I I the fight isn't over. I mean,

[31:39] we're still we think we won one battle

[31:42] and then it's reversed and if we can

[31:45] just chip away and especially if our

[31:47] community stands up and says, you know,

[31:49] we don't want these devices made in our

[31:52] downtown pretty much, you know, it's

[31:54] close to where my kids did gymnastics.

[31:58] It's not far from Ross Park Drive-In

[32:00] where we have taco spaghetti and

[32:01] milkshakes and the zoo and like Canyon

[32:05] said, you you don't even know it's

[32:06] there. I I had no idea it even existed.

[32:09] I happened to find it because we were at

[32:11] we went to St. Vincent to Paul or I

[32:13] can't remember how, but it's hidden, you

[32:16] know, and so I feel like this is just

[32:18] the fight isn't over. And if we can just

[32:20] chip away, then it shows a lot. It shows

[32:24] a lot for our community, too, and how

[32:26] strong we are.

[32:30] » Thank you. Thank you for sharing this

[32:32] story and your initiatives. And I know

[32:34] the last several years have been um real trying, but you've been an advocate

[32:40] and hung in there and I know you've

[32:42] talked to lots of folks including our

[32:44] legislative federal officials. So So

[32:47] thank you for your advocacy.

[32:50] >> Thank you.

[32:51] for listening.

[32:52] >> Yeah, thank you for listening.

[32:53] >> And with that I any discussion or I

[32:57] would entertain a motion. If not, mayor.

[33:00] >> Yes. I would move to approve agenda item

[33:02] number seven, the resolution expressing

[33:04] opposition to M44 cyanide devices as

[33:07] outlined.

[33:08] >> Second.

[33:09] >> Okay. Thank you. We have a first from

[33:11] Councilman Pollson, a second from

[33:13] Councilwoman Swanson. Aana, please call

[33:16] the role.

[33:17] >> Pollson,

[33:18] >> yes.

[33:18] >> Swanson,

[33:19] >> yes.

[33:26] >> Okay. With that motion passes,

[33:28] congratulations. get the resolution

[33:30] signed.

[33:31] >> Thank you.

[33:34] >> The agenda item eight is short plat

[33:38] application trailside subdivision.

[33:40] Council may wish to approve a short plat

[33:43] application by neighborworks Pocutello

[33:45] Meling address 206 North Arthur Avenue

[33:48] in Pocutello to subdivide 19.06

[33:52] 06 acres more or less of city-owned land

[33:55] into three lots located near the

[33:58] intersection of Foothill Boulevard and

[34:00] Gayy Drive. The plot will be known as

[34:03] Trailside Subdivision. Staff recommends

[34:06] approval of the request with conditions.

[34:09] >> Mr. Mayor,

[34:10] >> yes.

[34:10] >> As I'm on the board of directors for

[34:13] Neighborworks Pocatello, I will recuse

[34:15] myself from the vote and deliberation of

[34:17] this agenda item.

[34:18] >> Okay. Thank you,

[34:20] >> Mr. Mayor.

[34:20] >> Yes. I move that we approve agenda item

[34:22] number eight, the short plat application

[34:24] for trailside subdivision as outlined.

[34:27] >> Thank you.

[34:28] >> Okay, we have a first from Councilwoman

[34:30] Swanson, the second from Councilwoman

[34:33] Pollson. Aana, please call the role.

[34:36] >> Swanson,

[34:36] >> yes.

[34:37] >> Pollson,

[34:38] >> yes.

[34:38] >> Bates,

[34:40] >> yes.

[34:42] >> Oh, sorry. Sold.

[34:44] >> Yes.

[34:46] >> Thank you. Agenda item number nine is

[34:50] short plat application for the ridges at

[34:52] high terrace. Council may wish to

[34:54] approve a short plat application by Bill

[34:58] Eley and Calvin Rock represented by

[35:00] Logan Mitchell of Sunrise Engineering to

[35:03] subdivide 2.84 acres more or less of the

[35:07] following parcels into two lots. I won't

[35:10] read the parcel numbers. They're on the

[35:12] agenda. Um, the lots are currently

[35:14] vacant and were originally platted with

[35:16] the ridges at High Terrace Subdivision

[35:19] Division One.

[35:20] >> Mr. Mayor,

[35:21] >> yes.

[35:22] >> I would move to approve the short blood

[35:23] application

[35:25] [clears throat] um agenda item number

[35:27] nine for the ridges at High Terrace 1A

[35:31] as outlined.

[35:33] >> Second.

[35:34] >> Thank you. We have a first from

[35:36] Councilman Mangum, a second from

[35:38] Councilwoman Swanson. Aubriana, please

[35:41] call the role.

[35:42] Yes.

[35:43] >> Yes.

[35:44] >> Bates,

[35:44] >> yes.

[35:45] >> Pollson,

[35:46] >> yes.

[35:46] >> Satderfield,

[35:47] >> yes.

[35:48] >> Agenda item 10, short plat application,

[35:52] Seringa Networks. Council may wish to

[35:54] approve a short plat application by

[35:57] Seringa Networks LLC represented by

[36:00] Wyatt Radkey of A&E Engineering to

[36:04] replplat lots through 4 through 8 and

[36:07] the north [clears throat] 24 ft of lot 9

[36:10] block 453 of Pocutello Town site into

[36:13] two lots. The parcels are located at 233

[36:17] North Main Street. Staff finds the

[36:19] application is compliant with Pocutello

[36:22] city code with conditions.

[36:26] >> Mayor,

[36:27] >> yes.

[36:28] >> I would move to approve the short short

[36:30] plat application for Seringa Networks as

[36:34] outlined in agenda item 10.

[36:36] >> Second.

[36:37] >> Thank you. We have a first from

[36:38] Councilman Mangum, a second from

[36:40] Councilwoman Satderfield. Aubriana,

[36:43] please call the role.

[36:44] >> Mangum,

[36:45] >> yes.

[36:45] >> Solderfield,

[36:46] >> yes.

[36:46] >> Bates,

[36:47] >> yes. Olson,

[36:48] >> yes.

[36:49] >> Swanson,

[36:49] >> yes.

[36:51] >> Agenda item 11, final plat application

[36:54] for the Crossings Town Homes. Council

[36:57] may wish to approve a final plat

[36:59] application submitted by Troy Allen

[37:01] Builders and K Holdings represented by

[37:05] Tyson Allen to replplat lot 2, block

[37:08] one, the crossings division one, amended

[37:11] into 65 lots. The plat proposes

[37:14] development of 64 zero lot line town

[37:17] houses in five groups and one common

[37:20] lot. Common area will consist of private

[37:23] drives and common area as outlined in

[37:26] the planned unit development approved on

[37:28] April 2nd of 2026.

[37:31] >> Mr. Mayor,

[37:32] >> yes.

[37:32] >> I have a question for staff.

[37:34] >> Okay. Becky

[37:41] » is manager. Is this the townhouse

[37:44] proposal that is located off of Poetella

[37:47] Creek Road?

[37:48] >> No, this is um it runs parallel to

[37:50] Venture Way and uh and in between

[37:53] Wayfair and Venture and ends at at

[37:56] Paradigm and creates this Yes. in the

[37:58] Nate area.

[38:00] >> Okay. Anything else for Becky?

[38:02] >> Yeah, real quick. When I was looking at

[38:04] this, um do you know how many like

[38:06] parking spots are are per unit?

[38:08] >> They um have we've discussed that pretty

[38:11] at length. They will each have driveways

[38:13] um and feel that they'll have adequate

[38:15] parking to meet all the parking

[38:17] criteria. Yes.

[38:18] >> Okay. Thank you.

[38:18] >> You're welcome.

[38:21] >> Okay. Thanks, Becky.

[38:25] >> Okay,

[38:25] >> Mr. Mayor.

[38:27] >> All right. I think I heard Swanson

[38:29] first. [laughter]

[38:31] >> Mr. Mayor, I move to approve agenda item

[38:33] number 11, final plat application, the

[38:35] crossings town homes as outlined.

[38:37] >> Second.

[38:38] >> All right. Thank you. We have a first

[38:39] from Councilwoman Swanson. A second from

[38:41] Councilman Mangum. Aubriana, please call

[38:44] the role.

[38:45] >> Swanson,

[38:46] >> yes.

[38:46] >> Mangum,

[38:47] >> yes.

[38:47] >> Bates,

[38:48] >> yes.

[38:48] >> Hson,

[38:49] >> yes.

[38:49] >> Satville,

[38:50] >> yes.

[38:51] >> Agenda item 12 is the final plat

[38:54] application for Creekide Cove. Council

[38:57] may wish to approve a final plat

[38:59] application by Jonathan Hunt represented

[39:02] by Gardener Francis to plat phase one of

[39:06] the Creek Side Cove subdivision. The

[39:09] plat proposes development of 11 zero lot

[39:12] line town houses in two groups of five

[39:15] and one common lot. Common areas will

[39:18] consist of the private drives and common

[39:20] area as outlined in the PUD approved May

[39:24] 21st, 2026.

[39:28] Mr. Mayor.

[39:29] >> Yes.

[39:30] >> I would move to approve the final PL

[39:32] application for Creekide Co um as

[39:36] outlined in agenda item 12.

[39:38] >> Second.

[39:39] >> Okay. We have a first from Councilman

[39:42] Mangum, a second from Councilwoman Swan

[39:44] Solderfield. Aubriana, please call the

[39:47] role.

[39:47] >> Mangum.

[39:48] >> Yes.

[39:48] >> Soldfield.

[39:49] >> Yes.

[39:50] >> Bates.

[39:51] >> Yes.

[39:51] >> Pollson.

[39:52] >> Yes.

[39:52] >> Swanson.

[39:53] >> Yes.

[39:55] Moving right al right right along. Our

[39:57] planning department's been busy. We have

[39:59] final plat application for the ridges at

[40:01] High Terrace Division 2. Council may

[40:04] wish to approve a final plat application

[40:06] by Trit LLC represented by Sunrise

[40:10] Engineering to plat 9.12 acres more or

[40:14] less into 14 lots. Staff finds the final

[40:18] plat is substantial in substantial

[40:21] conformance with the preliminary plat

[40:24] and recommends approval with the

[40:26] planning and zoning commission findings

[40:28] of fact and decision. The property is

[40:30] located north of East Center Street and

[40:33] southeast of Vista Drive and will be

[40:35] known as the Ridges at High Terrace

[40:37] Division 2.

[40:41] >> Mr. Mayor,

[40:42] >> yes. Move to approve agenda item number

[40:44] 13, final plot application for the

[40:46] ridges at High Terrace Division 2.

[40:49] >> Thank you.

[40:50] >> Second.

[40:51] >> Okay. Was that Mangum?

[40:53] >> Yes.

[40:53] >> Okay. All right. We have a first from

[40:56] Councilwoman Swanson, a second from

[40:58] Councilman Mangum. Aubriana, please call

[41:00] the role.

[41:01] >> Swanson?

[41:02] >> Yes.

[41:02] >> Mangum?

[41:03] >> Yes.

[41:03] >> Bates?

[41:04] >> Yes.

[41:04] >> Pollson?

[41:05] >> Yes.

[41:05] >> Soldfield?

[41:06] >> Yes.

[41:08] Agenda item 14, grant application, US

[41:11] Department of Housing and Urban

[41:13] Development, FY26 lead hazard reduction

[41:17] program. Council may wish to approve a

[41:19] grant application for the US Department

[41:22] of Housing and Urban Development FY26

[41:26] lead hazard reduction grant program for

[41:28] a total project cost of 3,762,724

[41:35] and is awarded if awarded authorized the

[41:38] mayor signature on all pertinent

[41:40] documents subject to legal department

[41:43] review. The total grant funding would be

[41:45] 3,489,692

[41:49] and it requires a 10% match which totals

[41:52] 273,032

[41:55] to be funded by the community

[41:57] development block grant.

[41:59] >> Mr. Mayor,

[42:00] >> yes.

[42:01] >> I'd like to hear from staff on the

[42:03] significance of this program um that

[42:06] it's played thus far on our community.

[42:14] Good evening, mayor, members of the city

[42:15] council. Christine How, grants manager

[42:17] with the city of Pocutello. Um, so the

[42:19] city has been fortunate to receive the

[42:21] lead hazard reduction grant in uh two

[42:24] funding cycles through HUD through FY 17

[42:26] and FY21. Um, our latest grant, the FY21

[42:30] one, is in closeout right now. So, a lot

[42:32] of the data is fresh in my mind as I'm

[42:34] completing that closeout report. Um

[42:37] through that program, we were able to

[42:38] fund about $2.7 million worth of um

[42:42] investment into our community through um

[42:44] property rehab work, specifically

[42:46] mitigating leadbased paint hazards, and

[42:48] then also doing what we call healthy

[42:50] home supplemental funding work, which is

[42:52] where we address home health hazards

[42:54] such as out of code electrical, um

[42:56] weatherization issues by replacing

[42:58] windows, remediating mold, asbestous,

[43:00] radon, all those kind of concerns in

[43:03] those homes. Um so through their latest

[43:05] grant we were able to help uh 48 units

[43:08] and that included 28 single family

[43:10] residences and the remaining were rental

[43:13] units. So um they see a lot of return in

[43:16] investment there where you know families

[43:18] as they're able to live in the home um

[43:21] it can protect those children under six

[43:22] from the base paint hazards. And

[43:24] [clears throat] then with our rentals

[43:25] where there's even greater turnover of

[43:27] residents typically, um it makes sure

[43:29] that those families moving in there,

[43:31] those kids are safe and they're living

[43:32] in good conditions. Um so through this

[43:35] grant, we're hoping to help 75 homes.

[43:37] That's our plan for the four-year period

[43:39] of performance. Um we invest roughly

[43:42] around 20,000 in the lead work and

[43:45] between um 10 to 20,000 in the healthy

[43:48] homes work typically. Uh but sometimes

[43:50] it's even greater than that. could be

[43:52] 30,000 worth of of work or more just

[43:54] because of the hazards that are in those

[43:55] homes. Um, it allows us to retain our

[43:58] older housing stock and keep it

[44:00] affordable for our low and moderate

[44:01] income residents. Um, and sometimes

[44:03] folks are shocked to learn of what those

[44:05] income categories look like. Um, so

[44:07] roughly for a family of four,

[44:09] [clears throat] uh, four or five, you

[44:10] could be earning about 80,000 per year

[44:12] and still qualify for the program. So,

[44:14] um, sometimes we say low-inccome, but

[44:16] it's really it's a lot of our our middle

[44:18] class and and working, um, professionals

[44:20] here in the city. And so, um, as if we

[44:23] get the grant, I'd encourage folks to

[44:24] look into the program and, um, we can

[44:26] also leverage our CDBG dollars to really

[44:28] stretch it further with just that 10%

[44:30] match. So, it's a huge investment for us

[44:33] [clears throat] and it's been a great

[44:34] program.

[44:35] >> Thank you.

[44:36] Thanks.

[44:39] >> With that, Mr. Mayor, I would move that

[44:42] we approve grant application

[44:46] US Department of Housing and Urban

[44:48] Development

[44:49] uh as a lead hazard reduction program as

[44:54] outlined in agenda item 14.

[44:57] >> Second.

[44:58] >> Okay. Thank you. We have a first from

[45:00] Councilman Mangum and a second from

[45:02] Councilman Pollson. And before we call

[45:05] the role, I'm just want to say I I'm

[45:08] proud of our staff for putting these

[45:10] together. And we talk about affordable

[45:12] housing a lot in the community. And I

[45:15] think what people often forget is the

[45:17] existing older, smaller homes in

[45:20] Pocutello. That really is our affordable

[45:23] housing stock in many ways. And with

[45:26] what our CDBG staff is doing and some of

[45:29] our nonprofit partners, we've really got

[45:32] it going on in Pocutello um with

[45:34] programs that preserve the existing

[45:37] housing stock for low-income residents.

[45:40] So, I just want to say that just because

[45:42] as I said that a lot of people do think

[45:44] that affordable housing is just

[45:46] constructing new, but we've got to

[45:49] preserve the housing stock we have and I

[45:51] think we do a really good job at that.

[45:53] So with that, A Brianna, if you'd call

[45:55] the role.

[45:58] >> Yes.

[46:00] >> Bates,

[46:01] >> yes.

[46:01] >> Satderfield,

[46:02] >> yes.

[46:03] >> Swanson,

[46:03] >> yes.

[46:05] >> Agenda item 15, grant application, US

[46:09] Department of Justice, FY26, Bridging

[46:12] Immigration Related Deficits Experience

[46:15] Nationwide Program, Round Two. Council

[46:18] may wish to approve a grant application

[46:21] for the US DOJ FY26

[46:25] Bridging Immigration Related Deficits

[46:27] Experience Nationwide Program Round Two

[46:30] for Pocutello Police Department radio

[46:32] and communications for the the purpose

[46:35] of radio and communication equipment

[46:38] with a total project cost of 2,225,237.

[46:44] and if awarded, authorize the mayor's

[46:47] signature on all pertinent documents

[46:49] subject to legal department review. And

[46:52] I believe we did want staff to come up

[46:54] and give us a summary.

[47:01] » Thank you, mayor, members of the city

[47:03] council. Christine How grants manager.

[47:05] Um, as noted in the agenda item, this

[47:07] application is primarily for radio and

[47:09] communications equipment for the police

[47:10] department. Um, as these grant

[47:12] opportunities arise, uh, different

[47:14] departments will reach out to see if

[47:16] there's a chance for us to apply. And,

[47:17] uh, the police department forwarded this

[47:19] one to me in the hopes of getting this

[47:21] to replace outdated equipment that they

[47:24] utilize for their portable radios, their

[47:26] body cams, the accompanying software,

[47:28] and um, that same installation in the

[47:31] vehicles. And so this program afforded

[47:33] us with an opportunity to apply to um u

[47:39] get those technology um upgrades. So,

[47:41] we're applying under the the grant

[47:43] category of technology and equipment um

[47:45] and meeting some of the objectives of

[47:47] DOJ to um help with continued

[47:50] investigations and the work that the

[47:52] police department does on um in

[47:54] collaboration with Homeland Security

[47:55] task forces, our regional groups, our

[47:58] regional task forces um primarily to

[48:00] address um you know their ability to

[48:02] conduct their work with you know

[48:04] prosecuting, detaining criminals, uh

[48:06] drug trafficking, things that our street

[48:08] crimes and narcotics units currently do.

[48:10] So, um, you know, we're [clears throat]

[48:12] always on the lookout for potential

[48:14] grants to support, um, needs for

[48:16] departments. Uh, so in this case, this

[48:19] is a no match grant that would fund all

[48:20] that equipment purchase, um, so that we

[48:22] wouldn't have to pull it out of either

[48:24] department specific lines or general

[48:26] fund. So,

[48:28] >> have a question. So, the it mentions

[48:30] immigration here. In what way does are

[48:33] we beholden to anything related to

[48:36] immigration or immigration enforcement

[48:38] by taking this using this grant if we

[48:42] get it?

[48:43] >> No, it wouldn't um adjust any current

[48:45] operations by the police department. So

[48:48] where they would already collaborate or

[48:50] work with those agencies that do

[48:52] immigration related work, it wouldn't

[48:53] change anything in that way. Um there

[48:55] are other provisions in the grant where

[48:57] you can do more specific things uh

[49:00] related to immigration enforcement such

[49:01] as creating detention facilities, but

[49:04] we're not applying under that. Um so we

[49:06] already participate in support groups

[49:09] that deal with uh more regional issues

[49:11] or things of that nature and so it

[49:13] wouldn't change any current operations

[49:15] that the police department does. Um, and

[49:17] we did get letters of support from our

[49:19] collaborating agencies that we work with

[49:21] already on those specific task forces

[49:23] and for those specific types of um, you

[49:26] know, encounters. So, it wouldn't change

[49:28] any current operations or require us to

[49:31] increase anything or or make changes to

[49:33] that.

[49:34] >> Okay. Thank you. You're welcome.

[49:36] >> Yes.

[49:36] >> Uh, Christine, this may be a question

[49:40] better for the police department. I'm

[49:41] just wondering, so we've got 110 radios,

[49:43] 110 body cameras, and 60 uh incar mobile

[49:47] units. I just want to make sure, would

[49:49] this grant

[49:51] uh replace all equipment, and is there

[49:54] any additional equipment that would be

[49:56] coming through this grant or is it just

[49:58] replacing aging equipment?

[50:00] >> Sure, I'll let the chief respond to

[50:02] that.

[50:02] >> Uh Chief Shyoke Police, the answer is

[50:04] yes. It would it would replace uh

[50:07] everything that we need and including 5

[50:09] years of service for the back-end client

[50:12] for for the the new equipment.

[50:16] >> So that's talking about the software.

[50:18] >> Correct.

[50:19] >> And I was wondering I just wanted to

[50:21] make sure with Idaho moving with the

[50:24] nextG 911

[50:26] >> does this would these systems be

[50:28] affected by that in any way or is this

[50:30] separate? No, the nextG 911 stuff is

[50:33] more dispatch related and dispatch

[50:35] equipment and that you generally taken

[50:36] care of by the 911 funds. Uh the

[50:40] portable radios from talking with Adam

[50:42] McKini, we cannot use 911 funds for

[50:44] that. So this grant would would be

[50:47] targeted for that needed equipment for

[50:50] all all of our patrol vehicles, all of

[50:52] our officers, our ordinance officers, um

[50:55] and uh the new body cameras.

[50:58] >> Okay. Yeah.

[50:59] >> Perfect. Thank you.

[51:03] >> One more question probably for

[51:04] Christine.

[51:06] >> What would what would be the timeline of

[51:08] this? Do you know when we might if we

[51:11] win the grant when we might receive

[51:13] those monies? What budget year that

[51:14] would fall in?

[51:14] >> Sure. They're doing this on a rolling

[51:16] kind of a rolling basis, which is why

[51:18] this is round two. Um so they're

[51:20] anticipating awards within a month of

[51:22] the application submission and then uh

[51:25] we would enter into a grant agreement

[51:26] and um execute everything. I I put in a

[51:30] approximate three-year period of

[51:31] performance to account for that. Um, you

[51:34] know, signing the contracts, getting out

[51:36] for the equipment, getting that all on

[51:38] board and installed, and then any

[51:40] follow-up kind of troubleshooting or

[51:42] training. Um, but we would be able to

[51:44] essentially as soon as we have that

[51:45] grant agreement signed, um, go out to

[51:47] bid or, you know, go through the proper

[51:49] procurement. Um, we received an estimate

[51:51] which was the basis for this. So, we're

[51:54] hoping to do the work as close to that

[51:56] estimate as possible so the price

[51:57] doesn't increase. Um, but I think

[51:59] Chief's ready to to go as soon as we

[52:01] have the funding approved by the agency.

[52:03] >> Okay. So, that could be fiscal year 27.

[52:06] >> Correct.

[52:07] >> Okay. Thank you.

[52:09] >> Okay. Any other questions?

[52:12] Okay. I would entertain a motion,

[52:15] >> Mr. Mayor.

[52:16] >> Yes. I would move to approve uh the

[52:19] grant application outlined in agenda

[52:20] item number 15 and authorize the mayor's

[52:23] signature on all pertinent documents

[52:25] subject to legal department review.

[52:27] >> Second.

[52:28] >> Thank you. We have a first from

[52:30] Councilman Bates and a second from

[52:32] Councilwoman Swanson. Aubriana, please

[52:35] call the role.

[52:36] >> Bates,

[52:36] >> yes.

[52:37] >> Swanson,

[52:38] >> yes.

[52:38] >> Mangum,

[52:39] >> yes.

[52:39] >> Pollson,

[52:40] >> yes.

[52:41] >> Sville,

[52:41] >> yes.

[52:43] Agenda item 16, collective bargaining

[52:46] agreement police union. Council may wish

[52:49] to approve adoption of the fiscal year

[52:51] 2027 to 2030 collective bargaining

[52:55] agreement for the Fraternal Order of

[52:57] Police Port of Valley Fraternal Order of

[53:00] Police Local Lodge number 13 and

[53:03] authorize the mayor signature on all

[53:05] pertinent documents subject to legal

[53:07] department review.

[53:10] >> Mr. Mayor,

[53:11] >> yes. I would move to approve the

[53:13] collective bargaining agreement for the

[53:14] police union as outlined in agenda item

[53:17] 16.

[53:18] >> Second.

[53:19] >> Okay. Thank you. We have a first from

[53:20] Councilman Mangum and a second from

[53:22] Councilwoman Swanson. Aana, please call

[53:25] the role.

[53:26] >> Yes.

[53:26] >> Swanson.

[53:27] >> Yes.

[53:32] Agenda item 17, proposal acceptance

[53:35] contract award for the title 17 rewrite

[53:39] town planning and urban design

[53:41] collaborative LLC. Council may wish to

[53:44] approve the following requests for the

[53:46] title 17 zoning code rewrite and

[53:49] authorize the mayor signature on all

[53:51] pertinent documents subject to legal

[53:54] department review. A accept the highest

[53:57] rated proposal for the title 17 zoning

[54:00] code rewrite RFP to Town Planning and

[54:03] Urban Design Collaborative LLC. And if

[54:07] approved, B authorize a contract between

[54:10] the city of Pocutello and Town Planning

[54:12] and Urban Design Collaborative LLC for

[54:15] the Title 17 zoning code rewrite. The

[54:19] city of Pocutello conducted a request

[54:21] for proposals for the rewrite of the

[54:23] title 17 zoning code and received seven

[54:27] responsive and responsible proposals.

[54:30] Town Planning and Urban Design

[54:31] Collaborative LLC was deemed as the

[54:34] highest qualified.

[54:37] >> Mr. Mayor, I have some questions. Yes.

[54:41] [clears throat]

[54:44] » Mayor, council members. Becky Bab,

[54:46] planning manager.

[54:47] >> Hi, Becky. Hi.

[54:49] >> Um,

[54:50] this is a big deal.

[54:52] >> This is a very, very big deal.

[54:53] >> A lot included in this.

[54:55] >> Yes, this is

[54:56] >> Do you mind? Yeah, I'm sorry, but do you

[54:58] mind just explaining the scope of this

[55:00] project?

[55:01] >> Not at all. So when we redid our

[55:03] comprehensive plan, one of the main

[55:05] components that we identified is that

[55:07] our zoning code is not only

[55:08] extraordinarily out ofd, but it's been

[55:10] patched and patched and repatched so

[55:13] many times that it is really difficult

[55:17] in a lot of ways for staff to enforce,

[55:20] to interpret. We often um will have to

[55:24] make adjustments through the years as

[55:26] different things happen, whether those

[55:27] are um like the preemptive legislature

[55:29] from the state this year or we identify

[55:31] something that's new that we need to

[55:33] address like wireless communication

[55:34] facilities a few years ago. And so one

[55:36] of the main things that we were looking

[55:38] at doing is updating that entire zoning

[55:41] code. Um it's a very very large task.

[55:46] Um, your agenda tonight I think

[55:49] demonstrates how busy our office

[55:51] currently is. We have neither the staff

[55:54] nor the capacity to really manage this

[55:57] um, exclusively by ourselves. We also

[55:59] really wanted to elicit some expertise

[56:01] related to character-based or form-based

[56:04] code which is a type of code that goes

[56:06] away from a very simple uklidian. It's

[56:09] this or nothing and shifts to a more

[56:12] each um area will have a unique

[56:14] character or style or block that's more

[56:17] fitting to their neighborhood and and

[56:18] the zone is designed to to match that

[56:20] character essentially. And so um this

[56:24] year we as we were doing our budget

[56:26] process included this as an item in our

[56:28] budget that we wanted to fund and uh

[56:32] produced uh procured the RFP to solicit

[56:35] the services. We received seven

[56:37] proposals which is quite a lot. We did

[56:40] advertise both at the state planning

[56:42] level and the national planning level

[56:44] for um consultants to assist us. Uh

[56:48] ultimately we interviewed two and

[56:50] awarded would like to award with your

[56:53] approval to the town planning and urban

[56:56] design collaborative which um is very a

[56:59] very very successful firm that

[57:01] essentially wrote the book on form-based

[57:04] code and so will really provide that

[57:07] level of expertise that we need to shift

[57:09] from one type of code fully into

[57:11] another.

[57:13] >> Thank you. Um, [clears throat]

[57:16] just from the outset, I'll just state

[57:18] I'm I think what I'm wary of is it's

[57:21] more than just updating our zoning. This

[57:25] is really, I would say, a complete

[57:28] change in philosophy from how our zoning

[57:30] is currently. Would you disagree with

[57:32] that?

[57:33] >> No. It absolutely is a full shift from a

[57:36] very specific legal type uklitian code

[57:40] to a very graphicbased

[57:43] designbased code that will address the

[57:46] character of our community in a in a

[57:48] very it's a progressive type of code um

[57:51] and will really identify lots of places

[57:54] in our community that are are unique.

[57:57] So, uh, one of my questions in the, um,

[58:01] there was an addendum to the RFP with

[58:03] some questions from those that

[58:04] submitted.

[58:06] >> Several questions were asking if we were

[58:08] open to alternatives to a form-based

[58:10] approach, if we were committed to fully

[58:13] utilizing a smart code framework. Uh,

[58:17] one of our responses was that we were

[58:19] open to like a hybrid approach, uh, but

[58:23] it had to be a smart code format.

[58:26] I don't know what a smart code format

[58:28] is. Do you mind explaining that?

[58:29] >> No, not at all. Smart code is that more

[58:32] uh graphic design based,

[58:34] character-based. The form and type of

[58:36] each area will dictate what the zoning

[58:39] is. So, say you have an area like the

[58:42] Alama neighborhood, originally part of

[58:44] the Alama town site. Those lots are very

[58:46] narrow and very long. So, then compare

[58:48] that to the types of subdivisions that

[58:50] we get now in say north of the

[58:52] Satderfield area. Those lots are very

[58:54] large. they are on culde-sacs. So those

[58:57] two areas would have different setbacks.

[58:59] They would have different depths for the standard lots. They'd have

[59:03] different if you have um accessory

[59:06] structures. In the Alama neighborhood,

[59:08] you often don't have very much room to

[59:10] meet a sideyard setback. You don't have

[59:12] 10 feet. Um in some of these other

[59:15] neighborhoods, say south of town in the

[59:17] um Johnny Creek area, you have much

[59:19] larger lots. Those are very different

[59:21] styles. Uh, a question that Councilwoman

[59:23] Swanson had asked had been about

[59:24] architectural styling. Can we This will

[59:27] look at that sort of in a way. It won't

[59:29] say prohibit mid-century modern, but it

[59:32] will say here's the type of of

[59:35] development that we have in that area

[59:37] and here's how we'd like that to

[59:38] continue. So, it is it is a very large

[59:40] shift, which is also why we wanted some

[59:43] assistance with that shifting from a

[59:47] very a chart with a graph. If you're

[59:50] this, it's this and nothing else.

[59:52] >> Okay. Um,

[59:57] how much I don't remember

[1:00:00] uh council ever really like I don't

[1:00:02] remember much discussion before this RFP

[1:00:04] was ever put out about uh us pursuing

[1:00:09] this change. I know I've heard in

[1:00:10] conversations, so we're going to rewrite

[1:00:12] code 17. I believe back in April, we had

[1:00:15] a work session where we talked about the

[1:00:17] comprehensive plan and you mentioned

[1:00:19] there that we were going to rewrite

[1:00:21] Title 17, but I guess I'm concerned that

[1:00:25] this is um

[1:00:28] this RFP really feels like this is a policy decision and I I am

[1:00:34] concerned that council

[1:00:37] wasn't given the opportunity to really

[1:00:40] weigh in on what is a major policy

[1:00:42] change of the city.

[1:00:44] >> Yeah, it is um one of the main goals of

[1:00:47] the comprehensive plan 20 240. So in

[1:00:49] that case um that's really when

[1:00:52] essentially that was discussed is is

[1:00:55] moving forward with a more

[1:00:56] character-based formbbased po code as

[1:00:58] part of the comp plan 2040 our valley

[1:01:01] our vision.

[1:01:03] >> Okay.

[1:01:05] And I don't want to make us stay here

[1:01:07] longer than we have to so I'll move

[1:01:09] along.

[1:01:10] >> I'll stay here as long as you'd like.

[1:01:11] We're we're fine.

[1:01:12] >> Um we could go a long time. Um I do want

[1:01:16] to ask about um

[1:01:21] there's mention of a steering committee.

[1:01:23] Yes.

[1:01:23] >> In this process.

[1:01:24] >> Yes.

[1:01:25] >> Who's going to be a part of that

[1:01:26] steering committee? Do we already have

[1:01:28] an idea?

[1:01:29] >> We don't have

[1:01:30] >> I'm sorry. And how is council going to

[1:01:33] be involved in this process moving

[1:01:35] forward?

[1:01:36] >> Absolutely. Sorry to interrupt your

[1:01:38] question. Uh we have not set the

[1:01:40] steering committee yet. Likely the way

[1:01:42] that the steering committee will work

[1:01:44] will it will be very small so that we

[1:01:46] don't have if you have too many decision

[1:01:48] makers at the table it gets to be very

[1:01:50] difficult. But the engagement process

[1:01:53] will be very very large and broad and

[1:01:56] take quite a bit of time. That's why

[1:01:57] this particular process is likely going

[1:02:00] to take the full 18 months of their

[1:02:02] schedule. Um, the steering committee I

[1:02:06] think has the potential to have a

[1:02:08] council member on it. Um, I would be a

[1:02:11] little wary with legal counsel of how

[1:02:13] many council people we would put on that

[1:02:15] steering committee just to be very

[1:02:17] cautious regarding open meeting laws and

[1:02:19] potentially a member of the planning and

[1:02:20] zoning committee. Um, and then we would

[1:02:23] have community committees. We'll have

[1:02:24] stakeholder groups. Um the consultant

[1:02:27] will be here for several days as they

[1:02:29] host what they call a koda palooa so

[1:02:32] that they are here have an office where

[1:02:35] they do a lot of engagement with the

[1:02:37] community and that will include daily

[1:02:40] meetings with every stakeholder group we

[1:02:42] can think of as well as time for

[1:02:43] walk-ins and public meetings as well. So

[1:02:46] I'm happy to take your direction on how

[1:02:48] you'd like that steering committee to

[1:02:49] look. Um,

[1:02:52] my only request would be that it not be

[1:02:55] more than five to eight people because

[1:02:57] then it gets to be really difficult to

[1:03:00] manage

[1:03:01] >> decision-m.

[1:03:02] >> Totally understood. I just,

[1:03:05] >> you know, this isn't accusatory, but I

[1:03:08] do feel like council has been uh

[1:03:12] not probably not purposely, but we've

[1:03:14] been circumvented in my opinion a little

[1:03:16] bit through this process. So I would at

[1:03:17] least say I think council needs to be

[1:03:19] involved in that steering committee

[1:03:20] where this is this is a legislative

[1:03:22] function. This is policy of the city

[1:03:24] >> and it will have to come before you in

[1:03:27] multiple stages throughout the process

[1:03:29] for your review.

[1:03:30] >> Yeah. Um there was just a couple things

[1:03:33] in the RFP or one thing I really wanted

[1:03:35] to ask ask about task five

[1:03:39] um deliverables. there is uh

[1:03:43] a financial feasibility assessment and I

[1:03:46] just wondered I wasn't sure what that

[1:03:48] was. If you could give me a little uh

[1:03:50] yeah defining of that.

[1:03:52] >> I think that's that's primarily the cost

[1:03:54] of us enforcing how how how

[1:03:56] far into the weeds do we want to get? Um

[1:04:00] and that is just it's a it's primarily a

[1:04:02] staff cost and a code enforcement cost

[1:04:04] long term. Um, the cost of the title 17

[1:04:07] rewrite is included in the proposal. Uh,

[1:04:10] and I know that you have a question

[1:04:13] about about that cost and some of the

[1:04:15] hourly charges versus the overall scope.

[1:04:17] So, I'll let you ask those as well.

[1:04:19] >> Okay. Yeah. real quick just before that

[1:04:23] just my general concern with this I I'm

[1:04:25] worried about how moving to this uh

[1:04:29] style of code I mean a use code ukitian

[1:04:32] code we've used for ever essentially

[1:04:35] >> so this is for developers for

[1:04:38] homebuilders

[1:04:39] uh entrepreneurs in town this is a

[1:04:41] completely new approach so will this uh

[1:04:47] consultant

[1:04:48] work through and as part of the scope of this project making sure that

[1:04:52] we're not going [snorts] to hinder

[1:04:55] development and make it harder to

[1:04:58] develop.

[1:04:59] >> Absolutely. So this particular

[1:05:00] consultant um they

[1:05:04] have they the one of the primary

[1:05:06] partners wrote the book on smart code.

[1:05:08] He is an expert in code writing itself

[1:05:12] and um the the remaining members of that

[1:05:15] firm really are very development

[1:05:16] friendly. Ultimately, the goal here is

[1:05:19] to make our code accessible,

[1:05:22] understandable, easy for people to

[1:05:25] utilize. You can there will be a lot of

[1:05:27] graphic design and pictures included

[1:05:29] where this is essentially what what

[1:05:31] we're looking for. It's in a lot of ways

[1:05:34] meant to make those things simpler and

[1:05:37] very obvious upfront what it will take

[1:05:39] to do anything related to property

[1:05:42] development on your property.

[1:05:44] >> Okay. So yes, we and they also um we did

[1:05:47] ask them to include some hourly rates at

[1:05:49] the end of this contract because through

[1:05:52] the process we will all be learning

[1:05:53] about um the changes that we're making,

[1:05:56] what we're looking to ultimately achieve

[1:05:59] with the code, the directions that we

[1:06:01] want to go and therefore we'll need some

[1:06:03] guidance uh afterwards after

[1:06:07] implementation. and just being unaware

[1:06:10] at this point of what that could look

[1:06:12] like. Uh we asked them to include an

[1:06:14] hourly rate so that in a future budget

[1:06:16] cycle if we still feel like we could use

[1:06:18] their services um that we could extend

[1:06:21] that contract to include those hourly

[1:06:23] rates so that we can get the training

[1:06:24] that we need to make sure we're

[1:06:25] implementing it correctly.

[1:06:27] >> Okay. Um I'm sorry if anybody else has

[1:06:30] questions, but I wanted to ask about you

[1:06:32] mentioned the hourly rate. So the it has

[1:06:36] a fee not to exceed $199,995.

[1:06:40] But then it also says plus hourly tasks

[1:06:42] for or hourly rate which I believe I saw

[1:06:46] can be up to like 300 over $300 an hour.

[1:06:49] So hourly rate for tasks 6.2 and 7.3. I

[1:06:53] think 7.3 was like six months of

[1:06:56] implementation.

[1:06:58] Is there any control in this contract on

[1:07:01] those costs?

[1:07:04] Well, their hourly rates are part of

[1:07:05] their scope and so the the control will

[1:07:07] be how much we utilize them afterwards.

[1:07:11] Um,

[1:07:13] it is

[1:07:15] somewhat unknown. Uh, it would all have

[1:07:17] to be approved at a future budget cycle

[1:07:19] because it's part of our professional

[1:07:21] services line item budget and so it

[1:07:24] would definitely if we don't have that

[1:07:26] funding available to us, we we won't be

[1:07:28] able to use it. Um we did ask them to

[1:07:30] include that so that if we get to the

[1:07:33] end of this process and we still feel

[1:07:34] like we need some time with them to

[1:07:37] understand say something very obscure

[1:07:39] comes up and we really want to

[1:07:41] understand um and get their opinion on

[1:07:43] how we should uh process a certain type

[1:07:46] of application um that we would have

[1:07:48] that potential. Uh that could certainly

[1:07:52] be um controlled just by how many hours

[1:07:56] that we use and would definitely be part

[1:07:59] of our our budget ask likely next budget

[1:08:01] cycle so that we would know exactly what

[1:08:04] our budget was relating to professional

[1:08:05] services and how much time we would have

[1:08:08] available to use and and we'll know

[1:08:10] better at that time how much we'll need

[1:08:11] it. I think we'll have so much training

[1:08:13] through the process that we'll we

[1:08:15] [clears throat] should be well set. It's

[1:08:17] just impossible to anticipate

[1:08:20] how

[1:08:22] we call them squirrels in our office.

[1:08:24] Something will come up that is just a

[1:08:26] little bit unique and and how would we

[1:08:29] apply that and having the option to get

[1:08:31] that professional opinion is part of

[1:08:33] that.

[1:08:34] >> Mr. Mayor,

[1:08:35] >> I'd like to interject and ask a couple

[1:08:37] of questions of Council Member Bates. Um

[1:08:41] I [clears throat] understand your

[1:08:42] concerns. Um,

[1:08:45] I'm looking at my notes and we've been

[1:08:47] talking about this rewrite since 2024.

[1:08:52] And so, a lot of the council members

[1:08:53] weren't on the council back then. And

[1:08:55] so, my question is, is there a a process

[1:08:58] or something that you would like to take

[1:09:00] or an extended period that you'd like to

[1:09:02] have this represented or redised

[1:09:05] >> before we move into that or

[1:09:07] >> you know, I think part of it I think it

[1:09:09] should be a process change moving

[1:09:12] forward. I don't think an RFP of of this

[1:09:16] uh

[1:09:18] what's the right word uh impact size uh

[1:09:22] it's not simply the cost of it this is a

[1:09:24] major change this is not just updating

[1:09:29] outdated code this is totally changing

[1:09:32] our philosophy of how we're going to

[1:09:33] zone the city moving forward and I'm not

[1:09:36] saying I'm against that but I think

[1:09:38] before an RFP of this complexity is put

[1:09:41] out council should give should see it

[1:09:46] and and and put express permission for

[1:09:49] it to go forward. Uh I haven't even I

[1:09:53] haven't had time to really go through

[1:09:54] the RFP completely. Um one thing that I

[1:10:00] think would be beneficial in the future

[1:10:02] is when we have a contract

[1:10:04] come forward that is was part of an RFP.

[1:10:07] I think the RFP should be included in

[1:10:09] the in the packet. I had to go find the

[1:10:11] RFP on our on our bid page on the

[1:10:14] website. But one question I have about

[1:10:16] that, Becky, it says in the RFP that

[1:10:20] this RFP as well as the successful

[1:10:22] respondents proposal will become part of

[1:10:24] the contract. Is that true or is what's

[1:10:28] only in the packet the contract?

[1:10:30] >> I think those are appendixes to the

[1:10:32] contract um and likely should have been

[1:10:34] included in the attachments. Okay.

[1:10:36] >> That we submitted to Connie for for

[1:10:37] publication.

[1:10:38] >> Yeah. And I mean, no uh no blame here. I

[1:10:41] just think that's uh it'd be beneficial

[1:10:44] to make sure we have all of it. There

[1:10:46] was just a couple or one contract

[1:10:49] question I had and I think this was

[1:10:51] probably for Jared. I thought it was

[1:10:53] something that um

[1:10:56] was uh

[1:10:59] it just raised some questions for me and

[1:11:02] that is in section

[1:11:04] L.1

[1:11:07] uh miscellaneous provisions and I'm sure

[1:11:09] this is mostly a boilerplate agreement

[1:11:11] that they use with everybody but it says

[1:11:12] this agreement shall be governed by the

[1:11:15] law of the state of Tennessee and the

[1:11:16] United States of America which is where

[1:11:18] they're located but I some questions about if that's

[1:11:24] appropriate as an Idaho municipality to

[1:11:26] have a contract that's governed by state

[1:11:29] of Tennessee law and [clears throat] if

[1:11:32] that's something we should amend.

[1:11:34] >> So those provisions are found in most

[1:11:37] contracts we do and we almost

[1:11:38] universally suggest as an edit that it

[1:11:41] be changed to the state of Idaho. Okay.

[1:11:42] >> I wasn't the one that reviewed this but

[1:11:44] usually what happens is we suggest that

[1:11:46] edit if they fight us on it. We have

[1:11:48] Idaho code that allows the venue to be

[1:11:50] in the municipality because we are a

[1:11:52] governmental entity. I don't know if

[1:11:53] that happened in this case, but we can

[1:11:54] certainly pursue that edit before this

[1:11:56] is executed by the mayor if the council

[1:11:58] is willing to approve it, but that's a

[1:11:59] great catch. We we uh universally at

[1:12:02] least attempt to change that to Idaho,

[1:12:04] so there's no ambiguity in that clause

[1:12:05] right there.

[1:12:06] >> Yeah. Okay. And again, I don't um

[1:12:11] I'll vote in favor of the contract. I

[1:12:13] have some concerns about costs getting

[1:12:16] out of hand, but I trust staff to help

[1:12:18] us keep those in check. I think more

[1:12:22] this isn't the first time that something

[1:12:25] like this I feel like has come up and

[1:12:26] it's the time I feel like I'm ready to

[1:12:28] address it but I you know sometimes RFPs

[1:12:31] get put out that are really impactful

[1:12:34] and I just feel like uh council should

[1:12:37] really give express consent to all the

[1:12:40] language of the RFP before it before it

[1:12:43] gets out. I understand we have the

[1:12:46] ability to say no tonight. We have

[1:12:48] ultimate control over it, but it would

[1:12:50] make more sense for us to be more

[1:12:52] involved at the beginning of the RFP

[1:12:55] than at the very end.

[1:12:57] >> Yeah. And I I think that's a point well

[1:12:59] taken. And on future agendas, you know,

[1:13:02] I I can certainly check on that. It is

[1:13:05] true there's a lot of language in the

[1:13:08] RFP and when it's fun a fundamental

[1:13:10] change on how we're looking at something

[1:13:13] like title 17. So I think less point

[1:13:17] well taken I think you know moving

[1:13:19] forward having the RFP they are pretty

[1:13:23] powerful there and they're guiding

[1:13:25] things a certain way that maybe should

[1:13:27] be a little bit more legislative.

[1:13:29] >> Yeah. And so but but with that I don't

[1:13:33] like on the current with the table

[1:13:34] Councilman Bates if we want more time

[1:13:37] and you know defer the approval to a

[1:13:40] future agenda we we could do that or

[1:13:43] >> may I ask a clarifying question just

[1:13:45] about the RFPs because we do um we have

[1:13:48] brought this to work session our zoning

[1:13:50] code rewrite and we also brought it up

[1:13:52] in budget um hearings and we also

[1:13:55] brought it up in the comp plan um and so

[1:13:59] is your request that council we bring

[1:14:02] the actual RFP document to council to

[1:14:04] review before we publish it. That would

[1:14:07] be my request because to me this is the

[1:14:09] actual policy like we can we can talk

[1:14:12] somewhat and I feel like oftentimes it

[1:14:14] is kind of in general generalities when

[1:14:16] we talk in uh uh work sessions and you

[1:14:21] know the comprehensive plan I completely

[1:14:23] understand but my personal opinion comp

[1:14:26] plan's not the Bible and you know it's

[1:14:29] uh it's open to change to what we feel

[1:14:33] we want to pursue. So to me like what is

[1:14:36] the actual policy? Well, it's what's in

[1:14:37] the RFP and what people are going to

[1:14:39] respond to. And so um and uh like I do

[1:14:44] have real concerns about the change

[1:14:45] we're making and and I just want to make

[1:14:47] sure that that so so I feel like it

[1:14:50] would have been easier to address some

[1:14:51] of my concerns and maybe get more

[1:14:53] information

[1:14:54] >> before it was published.

[1:14:55] Yeah. So

[1:14:57] >> mayor, may I may I follow up with the

[1:14:59] question to the mayor and council? I I

[1:15:01] think maybe one of Becky's concerns and

[1:15:03] staff's concerns quite honestly is

[1:15:04] knowing what RFPs you would like brought

[1:15:06] before you before the RFP is published

[1:15:08] versus what ones you you don't want and

[1:15:10] it's really hard to create that bright

[1:15:12] line rule and it's hard for staff to

[1:15:13] understand that. Is that something you

[1:15:15] want to give the mayor to the discretion

[1:15:16] over or how would you like to proceed

[1:15:18] because as a procedural standpoint

[1:15:19] that's going to be a question that comes

[1:15:21] up regularly

[1:15:22] >> because there are a lot of RFPs that go

[1:15:24] out.

[1:15:25] >> Understood. And I think that's

[1:15:26] completely fair and I think we have to

[1:15:28] take respon I should take responsibility

[1:15:30] and that when we talked about this back

[1:15:31] in April I with some foresight should

[1:15:35] have thought hey this is a major RFP

[1:15:38] we're going to put out we should look at

[1:15:40] that before we put it out and so I

[1:15:43] completely understand we don't need to

[1:15:45] look at every single RFQ and RFP that

[1:15:47] goes out. Um, but yeah, there's big ones

[1:15:51] that obviously I think we need to look

[1:15:53] at and I would leave that up to mayor's

[1:15:55] discretion as well.

[1:15:56] >> Yeah, and I think I get that, you know,

[1:15:58] like because when we say every RFP, I

[1:16:01] probably have the public works staff

[1:16:02] over there like going cringing.

[1:16:04] >> I want to see every single one.

[1:16:06] [laughter]

[1:16:07] >> But the um

[1:16:09] >> yeah, things monumental things like um

[1:16:11] city hall relocation studies and major

[1:16:15] zoning code changes. I I I think I get

[1:16:19] the direction and you know if you you

[1:16:22] know I I could comb that through for

[1:16:25] sure, you know, screen that through. But

[1:16:27] yeah, you're right. Every RFP that's

[1:16:30] going to be an ordeal ordeal. We do have

[1:16:32] a staff that does a lot of the work and

[1:16:35] we need to take the big picture and on

[1:16:37] some of them they are.

[1:16:39] >> Yeah. Well,

[1:16:41] >> no disrespect obviously like I

[1:16:44] understand the immense amount of work

[1:16:45] that goes into to putting this together.

[1:16:48] I just have I I have great reverence for

[1:16:50] the fact that we as elected officials,

[1:16:54] we are ultimately responsible for the

[1:16:57] policy and the leg the legislative work

[1:16:59] of the city and I just want to make sure

[1:17:02] we are are a part of that process fully.

[1:17:05] So,

[1:17:10] Thanks for discussion.

[1:17:12] >> I can make a motion so we can move on.

[1:17:15] >> I would move that we uh

[1:17:18] accept the contract award for title 17

[1:17:20] readright outlined in agenda item number

[1:17:23] 17.

[1:17:24] Uh oh jeez, I'm butchering this.

[1:17:27] Authorize mayor signature on all

[1:17:28] pertinent documents subject to legal

[1:17:30] department review. So accept a the

[1:17:32] highest rated proposal and b authorize a

[1:17:35] contract between the city of Pocutello

[1:17:37] and Town Planning and Urban Design

[1:17:39] Collaborative LLC.

[1:17:41] >> Second.

[1:17:42] >> All right. Thank you. We have a first

[1:17:43] from Councilman Bates, the second from

[1:17:46] Councilman Mangum. Aubriana, please call

[1:17:48] the role.

[1:17:49] >> Bates,

[1:17:50] >> yes.

[1:17:50] >> Mangum,

[1:17:51] >> yes.

[1:17:52] >> Sakil,

[1:17:54] >> yes.

[1:17:56] Agenda item 18, proposal acceptance

[1:17:59] contract award for wildfire analysis and

[1:18:02] assessment due deck. Council may wish to

[1:18:05] approve the following requests for the

[1:18:07] wildfire analysis and assessment project

[1:18:10] and authorize the mayor's signature on

[1:18:12] all pertinent documents subject to legal

[1:18:14] department review.

[1:18:17] C. accept the highest rated proposal for

[1:18:19] the wildfire analysis and assessment RFP

[1:18:23] to Due Deck and if approved D authorize

[1:18:26] a contract between the city of Pocutello

[1:18:28] and Due Deck in the amount of 54,980

[1:18:32] for the wildfire analysis and

[1:18:35] assessment. The city of Pocutello

[1:18:37] conducted a request for proposals for

[1:18:39] the completion of a wildfire analysis

[1:18:42] and assessment of the evaluation

[1:18:44] committee recommended due as the highest

[1:18:47] rated proposal. The project will be

[1:18:49] funded through the community wildfire

[1:18:51] defense grant awarded to the city.

[1:18:54] >> Mr. Mayor,

[1:18:55] >> yes.

[1:18:55] >> I'm not suggesting I make a motion

[1:18:57] because that's what I know will probably

[1:18:58] happen next. But can we for

[1:19:00] clarification of the record agree that C

[1:19:02] and D should probably read A and B? did.

[1:19:04] Yeah. I just that sounded weird when

[1:19:06] >> So, so that there's no misconception

[1:19:08] that there is a missing A and B.

[1:19:10] >> Yeah. So, so [clears throat] correct the

[1:19:12] agenda to say rather than C A and then

[1:19:15] rather than DB.

[1:19:17] >> Thank you.

[1:19:17] Mr.

[1:19:19] >> Mr. Mayor.

[1:19:20] >> Yes.

[1:19:20] >> I move to approve agenda item number 18,

[1:19:22] proposal acceptance, the contract award

[1:19:25] for wildfire analysis and assessment for

[1:19:27] DDK.

[1:19:28] >> Thank you.

[1:19:30] >> Second. Okay, we have a second from

[1:19:32] Councilwoman Swanson. I'm sorry, a first

[1:19:35] from Councilwoman Swanson. A second from

[1:19:37] Councilwoman Satderfield.

[1:19:40] >> Aubriana, please call the RO.

[1:19:42] >> Yes.

[1:19:46] >> Bingham,

[1:19:46] >> yes.

[1:19:47] >> Paulson,

[1:19:48] >> yes.

[1:19:50] >> Agenda item 19, bid acceptance contract

[1:19:53] award for Upper City Creek Parking lot

[1:19:55] grading probuilders, Inc. Council may

[1:19:58] wish to approve the following requests

[1:20:00] for the Upper City Creek parking lot

[1:20:02] grading project and authorize the mayor

[1:20:04] signature on all pertinent documents

[1:20:07] subject to the legal department's

[1:20:08] review. A accept the low bid received

[1:20:12] from ProBuilder Inc. in the amount of

[1:20:14] 66,89

[1:20:16] and if approved B authorize a contract

[1:20:19] between the city of Pocutello and

[1:20:22] ProBuilders Inc. in the amount of 66,808

[1:20:26] for the upper city creek parking lot

[1:20:28] grading project and authorized change

[1:20:31] orders up to 10% of the total contract.

[1:20:34] Funding of the project has been provided

[1:20:36] through the Idaho Department of Parks

[1:20:38] and Recreation Trails Program Grant.

[1:20:43] >> Mr. Mayor,

[1:20:44] >> yes. I move we accept [clears throat]

[1:20:46] uh agenda item number 19 bid and

[1:20:50] contract award for the upper city creek

[1:20:52] parking lot grading for probuilders as

[1:20:55] outlined in 19.

[1:20:57] >> Second.

[1:20:58] >> Okay. Thank you. We have a first from

[1:20:59] Councilwoman Swanson, a second from

[1:21:02] Councilwoman Satderfield. Aubriana,

[1:21:04] please call the role.

[1:21:06] >> Swanson,

[1:21:06] >> yes.

[1:21:07] >> Satderfield,

[1:21:08] >> yes.

[1:21:08] >> Beats,

[1:21:09] >> yes.

[1:21:09] >> Mangum,

[1:21:10] >> yes.

[1:21:10] >> Pson,

[1:21:11] >> yes.

[1:21:12] >> Okay. Agenda item 20, change order

[1:21:15] number two, 429 Washington Avenue,

[1:21:19] Environmental Hazard Assessment and

[1:21:21] Interior Demolition Demolition Safe

[1:21:24] Tech, Inc. Council may wish to approve a

[1:21:27] change order number two in the amount of

[1:21:30] $3,45563

[1:21:34] for the environmental hazard abatement

[1:21:36] and interior demolition of the

[1:21:38] city-owned property at 429 Washington

[1:21:42] Avenue which is the site of the former

[1:21:44] Alama fire station city of Alama and

[1:21:48] authorized the mayor's signature on all

[1:21:50] applicable documents subject to legal

[1:21:53] department review. The proposed change

[1:21:55] order covers additional services beyond

[1:21:57] the original contracted scope of work

[1:22:00] and 10% change order authorization.

[1:22:03] Funding for the project is available in

[1:22:05] the building abatement fund.

[1:22:09] Council, how do you wish to proceed?

[1:22:11] >> Mayor,

[1:22:12] >> yes.

[1:22:12] >> I move to approve agenda item 20 as

[1:22:15] outlined.

[1:22:16] >> Thank you.

[1:22:18] We have a first from

[1:22:19] Councilman Pollson, second from

[1:22:21] Councilwoman Swanson. Aubriana, please

[1:22:24] call the role.

[1:22:25] >> Hollson,

[1:22:25] >> yes.

[1:22:26] >> Swanson,

[1:22:26] >> yes.

[1:22:27] >> Bates,

[1:22:28] >> yes.

[1:22:28] >> Mangum,

[1:22:29] >> yes.

[1:22:30] >> Sfield,

[1:22:30] >> yes.

[1:22:32] >> Agenda item 21, PVC pipe materials bid

[1:22:36] for the water department. Council may

[1:22:38] wish to award the bid for poly vinyl

[1:22:41] chloride pipe to the lowest responsive

[1:22:44] bidder HD Fowler in the amount of

[1:22:47] $138,015

[1:22:50] and authorize the mayor's signature on

[1:22:52] all applicable documents subject to the

[1:22:55] legal department review. Funding for the

[1:22:57] purchase is available in the water

[1:22:59] department fiscal year 2026 budget.

[1:23:05] Would we like a staff presentation? Or

[1:23:07] if not, I'd entertain a motion.

[1:23:09] >> Yes.

[1:23:10] >> I would move to approve agenda item 21,

[1:23:13] PVC pipe material bid for the water

[1:23:15] department as outlined in agenda item

[1:23:17] 21.

[1:23:18] >> Second. Thank you. We have a first from

[1:23:20] councilman Mangum, a second from

[1:23:22] Councilman Pollson. Aubriana, please

[1:23:25] call the role.

[1:23:26] >> Yes.

[1:23:30] >> Swanson,

[1:23:31] >> yes.

[1:23:32] Agenda item 22, resolution fiscal year

[1:23:36] 2027 departmental fees. Council may wish

[1:23:39] to adopt a resolution with exhibits A

[1:23:42] through Y, and I won't read each one of

[1:23:45] them, setting fees for the fiscal year

[1:23:47] 2027,

[1:23:49] October, 126 through September 30th,

[1:23:52] 2027.

[1:23:54] The the exhibits are enclosed.

[1:23:57] >> Mr. Mayor,

[1:23:58] >> yes. I would move that we adopt a

[1:24:00] resolution fiscal year 2027 departmental

[1:24:04] fees um

[1:24:07] sections A through Y setting financial

[1:24:12] or fiscal 2027 October through October

[1:24:16] 1st 2026 through September uh 30th 2027

[1:24:20] as exhibited in agenda item 22.

[1:24:23] >> Okay.

[1:24:24] >> Second.

[1:24:24] >> Thank you. We have a first from

[1:24:26] Councilman Mangum, second from

[1:24:28] Councilwoman Satderfield. Aubriana,

[1:24:30] please call the role.

[1:24:32] >> Mango,

[1:24:32] >> yes.

[1:24:33] >> Satderfield,

[1:24:34] >> yes.

[1:24:34] >> Bates,

[1:24:35] >> yes.

[1:24:35] >> Alson,

[1:24:36] >> yes.

[1:24:36] >> Swanson,

[1:24:37] >> yes.

[1:24:38] >> Agenda item 23, resolution for fiscal

[1:24:41] year 2027 foregone levy. Council may

[1:24:45] wish to adopt a resolution certifying

[1:24:47] the levy of foregone taxes for use in

[1:24:50] fiscal year 2027 in accordance with

[1:24:53] Idaho code 63-802.

[1:24:58] >> Mr. Mayor,

[1:24:59] >> I think I heard Swanson on the left

[1:25:01] first.

[1:25:02] >> Can I have Rich come up, please?

[1:25:04] >> Yes.

[1:25:11] Rich Morgan, finance department.

[1:25:14] I'd like you to explain to the public

[1:25:16] again what a levy of foregone tax means.

[1:25:20] >> So at some point in the past, councils

[1:25:24] have had the ability to budget that they

[1:25:29] have not taken the advantage of and and

[1:25:32] state law allows us to track that

[1:25:36] and in the future use it if needed. And

[1:25:39] that is what's happening tonight. We're

[1:25:41] using 1%.

[1:25:43] The total foregone

[1:25:46] um for the city of Pocutello is over

[1:25:49] five million and we will be using about

[1:25:52] 350. It's a little over 350,000

[1:25:56] of that in this fiscal year 27 budget.

[1:26:00] >> And that 1% is a what state legislature

[1:26:02] sets that we're allowed to to use.

[1:26:04] >> That's right.

[1:26:05] >> Okay. Thank you,

[1:26:10] » Mr. Mr. Mayor.

[1:26:11] >> Yes.

[1:26:11] >> I would move to adopt a resolution

[1:26:14] certifying the levy of foregone taxes

[1:26:16] for the use in fiscal year 2027

[1:26:21] according to Idaho code 63-82.

[1:26:26] » Second.

[1:26:27] >> Okay. We have a first from Councilman

[1:26:29] Bangum, a second from Councilwoman

[1:26:31] Swanson. Aubriana, please call the role.

[1:26:34] >> Mango,

[1:26:34] >> yes.

[1:26:35] >> Swanson,

[1:26:35] >> yes.

[1:26:36] >> Bates,

[1:26:36] >> yes.

[1:26:40] Agenda item 24, ordinance. The council

[1:26:43] has the following options for reading

[1:26:45] ordinances. If the council makes no

[1:26:48] motion, the ordinance will be read on

[1:26:50] three different days, two readings of

[1:26:53] which may be by title only and one

[1:26:56] reading of which shall be placed in full

[1:26:58] placed on final passage for publication.

[1:27:04] An ordinance. Okay. Sorry. An ordinance

[1:27:06] approving fiscal year 2027 appropriation

[1:27:10] is what we're looking at.

[1:27:12] >> Mr. Mayor.

[1:27:13] >> Yes.

[1:27:14] >> I would move that the ordinance agenda

[1:27:17] item 24 be read only by title and placed

[1:27:21] on final passage for publication and

[1:27:25] that the entire ordinance be

[1:27:29] submitted for publication.

[1:27:31] >> Second.

[1:27:32] >> Okay. Thank you. We have the first from

[1:27:33] Councilman Mangum, a second from

[1:27:35] Councilman Pollson.

[1:27:37] >> Mr. Mayor.

[1:27:38] >> Yes.

[1:27:38] >> Just a clarification for the public.

[1:27:40] This is the vote to affirm the adoption

[1:27:43] of our fiscal year 2027 budget.

[1:27:46] >> That's right.

[1:27:47] >> Thank you.

[1:27:50] Okay, Aubriana, if you please call the

[1:27:52] role.

[1:27:53] >> Mango,

[1:27:53] >> yes.

[1:27:54] >> Hson,

[1:27:54] >> yes.

[1:27:55] >> Bates,

[1:27:56] >> yes.

[1:27:56] >> Sfield,

[1:27:57] >> yes.

[1:27:57] >> Swanson,

[1:27:58] >> yes.

[1:27:59] >> Okay. And I'll ask Jared to read the

[1:28:01] ordinance at this time. An ordinance of

[1:28:03] the city of Pocutello, a municipal

[1:28:05] corporation of Idaho, appropriating

[1:28:07] 186,698,374

[1:28:12] for the 20 2027 fiscal year to defay all

[1:28:15] necessary expenses and liabilities of

[1:28:17] the city. providing for the objects and

[1:28:19] purposes for which such appropriations

[1:28:21] are made and the amount appropriated for

[1:28:24] each object or purpose levying adorum

[1:28:27] taxes in the amount of $37,527,19

[1:28:32] for the fiscal year beginning the first

[1:28:33] day of October 2026 and ending the 30th

[1:28:37] day of [clears throat] September 2027

[1:28:39] upon all taxable property within the

[1:28:41] city of Pocutello to provide revenue to

[1:28:43] pay current general street liability

[1:28:45] insurance recreation cemetery airport

[1:28:47] public library and to pay interest and

[1:28:50] principal on general obligation bonds of

[1:28:52] the city of Pocutello, providing that a

[1:28:54] certified copy of this ordinance shall

[1:28:55] be filed with the county commissioners

[1:28:56] of Vanet County, Idaho, Power County,

[1:28:58] Idaho, and with the secretary of state

[1:29:00] of the state of Idaho. Providing for

[1:29:02] this ordinance to take effect upon its

[1:29:04] passage, approval, and publication

[1:29:05] according to law.

[1:29:08] I declare that to be the final reading

[1:29:10] of the ordinance. Shall the ordinance

[1:29:12] pass?

[1:29:14] >> Yes.

[1:29:14] >> Mango,

[1:29:15] >> yes.

[1:29:18] >> Swanson.

[1:29:19] >> Yes.

[1:29:20] >> All right. That concludes our meeting.

[1:29:22] We are adjourned. Thank you.

Pocatello City Council Meeting 08 20 26

Transcript