[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.