City Council - Regular Meeting

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Good evening. It is June 2nd, 2026 at 6 p.m. This is a meeting of the Coeur d'Alene City Council, which I will call to order. Clerk will take the role.

Evans. Here. Gabriel. Here. Miller. Here. Sheckler. Here.

Wood. Here. English.

Thank you. We have Leslie Watson from the Northern Idaho Unitarian Universalists who will lead us in our invocation. Will everyone please rise?

Divine presence in whom we live and move and have our being. We gather again in this chamber where the work of a city is done. We come from many homes and many beliefs, carrying different hopes for this place we share. Yet we are bound here by one purpose. to tend the common life of Coeur d'Alene with honesty, with foresight, and with care. We pause to honor those who have accepted the weight of public trust. To serve in this room is to stand at the place where the needs of families, businesses, neighborhoods, and the lake and surrounding lands that hold us all must be weighed against one another and where no decision satisfies everyone. May these leaders feel in this hour that their labor matters and that it is seen. May clarity attend their deliberations, that they might see each question whole before they answer it. May patience steady them. When the hour grows long and voices grow sharp, remembering that we need not think alike to work alike, and that the person who disagrees is still a neighbor. May courage meet them at the hard choices, the ones with no easy path and no applause. And may compassion remain near, reminding them of the human story behind every line of every ordinance. When the way forward is uncertain, may they find the next right step. not the whole road at once, only the next faithful turn, taken in good conscience and offered in service to all who call this city home, including those whose voices are quietest and whose needs are easiest to overlook. We give thanks for the freedom to gather, to speak, and to govern ourselves. We ask a blessing upon the council, the staff, and every resident present that the work begun here tonight may strengthen the bonds of trust and goodwill among us. May it be so. Amen. Blessed be.

Thank you. Dan, could you lead us in the pledge? States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you.

Item D is any amendments to the agenda. Does Council have any amendments to the agenda? Seeing none, we'll move on to item E, which is public comments. There is a sign up sheet which is headed this way. There is also a sign up sheet for the hearing too. So if you mistakenly signed up for this one, you can sign up for the hearing later. We will start with Max. We can't reserve time like that for public comment, but if you'd like to come forward.

Hi, Randy. How are you? Yeah, my name's Max. I've come here a few times. I submitted a public records request. I got a bill for $518. When I looked through the records, I also submitted a public records request for the pay of the city employee, the department specialist, which handles public records requests, the city engineer, and obviously the city attorney. As I'm aware, in looking through this documentation, the city attorney makes $86.42 an hour. I was billed $110 an hour. Are you guys billing everybody $110 an hour? That's confusing. That's very confusing. But you do everything by policy, and apparently Randy knows best. So I want to know who's billing the public $110 an hour, which his full compensation package is $120 an hour. So where do you guys get this? Because it's not by statute. He knows the statute. So help me understand how you come to that number. Or if I'm just the only one. which raises a bigger concern. And what's a bigger concern than that is how many FOIA requests have been filed and been charged this egregious amount. The city engineer, Sue Morgan, department specialist, $40.99 an hour. She makes 36, I believe. Don't quote me on that. I have the public records request. I can provide you that as well. I had to have somebody else file a public records request to get this information. which is even more alarming. The city engineer doesn't make $85.15 an hour. They make $60. So help me understand that. You don't have it. I'm confused. Is every single member of the public being overcharged? Or are you just lying on these documents? I want to know what is it. It's egregious. This is a joke. Randy Adams told Dan Gook and the rest of the staff sitting up there not to talk to me. please refrain from talking to City Council in his email to my attorney. Help me understand. Is that transparency? I don't believe it is. And this is a joke. How are you guys billing the public over the compensation package of the very members of the administrative staff? Who's making this error? How many times has it occurred? How many people have been overcharged? I'd like to know.

Thank you. I have Safa next.

A little different style. I didn't get anything, everyone. Nice to see you. Can I pass this up to you? Yes. Thank you. And I hope I have enough copies for everyone. So this is the .

Hang on. Hang on. Just wait. Talk there, because I can't hear you on TV land. Thanks.

Yeah. So this is the invoice that Max was talking about and bringing up his concerns, right? So the statute that controls this is Idaho Title 74, Transparent and Ethical Government, Chapter 1, Public Records Act, Section 74-102. The relevant portion of the statute is E. Fees for requests made by a resident shall not exceed reasonable labor costs necessarily incurred and responding to a public records request, and if charged, shall reflect the personal quantity of time that are reasonably necessary to process a request. Fees for requests made by residents for labor costs shall be charged at the hour pay rate of the lowest paid administrative staff employee or public official of a public agency. So I think what Max was trying to explain here, and it's not just Randy, it's not just you, it's not just Chris, because I'm not trying to pick on one human, but what it is is if you look at somebody's pay, which says, for example, Chris Bosley is at $61.60 an hour. His total compensation is higher than that, right? But then you look at that invoice and you look at what Chris was billed at, $85.15, right? Who came up with $85.15? You know, as a city council, you have a fiscal responsibility to all of us as citizens, right, to making sure why is he getting billed at $85.15? That's not his highest rate, right? Same thing with Mr. Adams, right? His rate is $86.42. His total compensation is $120 an hour, right? But he's being billed out 110. Where does that magical 110 number come from? Is there a formula? And how can the city say that said formula is reasonable? Also, why in this scenario is Mr. Adams being billed when there are other attorneys, associate attorneys, because remember, the statute says at the lowest rate that another person can perform the duty, right? So I think the lowest rate that associate attorney of the city is getting paid is something like $37 an hour, right? So... Why are citizens being taxed on a rate where they're already, you know, paying through their taxes what this person is getting? And I think this is important, right? Because if you look at this across the variety of public records requests come in, how many times have citizens been overcharged? And why is there this magical number that's not what they're getting paid. It's not their total compensation, right? And what's the justification to make it state that it is reasonable? Any questions? All right, hearing none, thank you.

Next, I believe it's Hector. Is it Hector? Hector passes. Hector passes. Catherine Boss.

Hello. Hi. Catherine Boss, 328 Military Drive. We had our Fort Grounds group meeting last night, and it came up again that we're wondering about Lakeshore Drive on the 4th of July. There is a lot of concern in the neighborhood about kids and families crossing that street Historically that street was blocked from around dinnertime till after the fireworks because there's so many families on the sidewalks and crossing the street and on the shoreline and It has not been blocked off for the last few years I think what what they did last year was to bring some signs in that said local parking only, but there were cars along Lake Shore Drive during the fireworks, and it just seems to be a safety issue. So we wanted to see what the plan was for the sheriff.

I guess I have down here that Jonathan is going to be addressing that, and he has a map. that we're going to hand out to council. So we don't really go back and forth, but I do have police here, and they are aware of that situation. So maybe a council member during council comments will call them up and have them address it for you.

Great. Thank you.

Thank you. Diane Lee.

Hello. Diane Lee, West Garden Avenue. which is part of the Fort grounds. Um, so same as Catherine concerned with how things are going to go come 4th of July one to get to this meeting. So there was time to have debate, planning, whatever might happen. Um, Catherine and I both have been in the neighborhood a very long time. We remember, 30, 40 years ago when nothing was done and there was a congestion line of cars getting out that went on for rows and rows of cars and idling people. At one point I had somebody up to my door to use the bathroom because they'd been waiting so very long. I'm glad that hasn't happened for a long time. But it is time to take note and to not have them idling on every street. Thank you.

Thank you. Mike Gridley.

Good evening. Hi. My name's Mike Gridley. I live in Coraline, Idaho. I've been a lawyer for over 40 years, and I moved here 25 years ago from Houston, Texas, where I was a trial lawyer for Union Pacific Railroad. And because of that and 40 years, I've met all kinds of lawyers, worked with all kinds of lawyers, good, bad, whatever. And I'm here to say that no matter what the measurement is, whether it's intelligence, honesty, integrity, professionalism, or I would say strength under fire, Randy Adams is one of the best. And I would emphasize that, and I would say also, I think Court Lane's lucky to have him as a city attorney. After the last meeting, which I wasn't here, but I saw on video, I talked to Mayor Gookin, or I went to Mayor Gookin's office and asked to meet with him. And he didn't want to meet with me. He refused that request. But what I wanted to tell Mayor Gookin was that I think attacking your professional staff like you've done affects your credibility and people's opinion of you and the community. You know, especially... 66% of the people who voted in the last election voted for somebody else for mayor. So two-thirds of the people who voted in the election voted for somebody else. So I think that's the percentage that you need to convince and build credibility and trust with to accomplish the things you want to accomplish and that the community needs. that's just my opinion I know that being mayor is a tough job lot going on a lot of people moving here because it's such a great place and you've got that's problems you have to deal with In my opinion, I think you need professionals like Randy and Ron, Hillary, Renata, Melissa, the people that have been here a while, that know what they're doing, and they're willing to help. But I think they need to be treated with respect that they deserve. So that's really all I've got to say, basically, is for the benefit of the community and your success as mayor, I would ask you to mend fences and treat staff with respect and work with them. Thank you.

Thank you, Mike. Roger Snyder.

I'm Roger Snyder, I live at 319 Park Drive. I want to apologize to the mayor and council, I forgot my readers and I'll have to stumble through this. Let me just skip ahead to this. Our neighborhood has had a front row seat to what happens in the fourth. And what I'm asking for is the city of Coeur d'Alene to work with our neighborhood to come up with an improved safety plan for the 4th. And specifically what happens on Lake Shore and the surrounding streets. Lots of people spill onto those streets, interacting with traffic. And all of us that live in the neighborhoods have seen some dangerous situations. So I think we can do better. And I specifically really consider maybe closing again Lakeshore Drive during the 4th So let's have a safe and sane 4th and Yeah, I'd like to thank all of you to for what you guys do and putting up with some public comment and Onto the next Thank You Roger Deb Cordes

Good evening.

I also live at 319 Park Drive and I moved to the Four Crowns neighborhood in 1992. Well, no, 82. I also forgot my readers. So in case you're doing the math, that's 44 years ago. And I'm here tonight to thank you all for having this forum that we can come and talk at and to encourage my city to close Lakeshore Drive and Park Drive for the safety of everyone who comes to enjoy the Fourth of July fireworks. The combination of darkness, families with lots of little kids, cars and drivers who may have had a few too many drinks has made the event increasingly dangerous over the years. I'm also concerned about the ability of ambulances to quickly get into the neighborhood for people who may be injured or have a health emergency during the fireworks. We had our annual foregrounds. homeowners meeting last night, and everyone in attendance is concerned about this issue. So I'm asking you to please look into it and beef up the safety on the 4th of July on those streets. Thank you so much.

Thank you, Deb. Kevin Jester.

Mayor Gookerton, members of the council, I want to also echo thank you for your service and for what you do and for looking over the community. And Ron and Randy, same. We appreciate that. I live at 316 Forest Drive, moved there in 1979, so I've been there quite some time, seen a lot of things going on. I won't be redundant. You know we have an issue down there at the 4th of July. It's a special time of year. Lots going on. And we just ask that you give it some serious consideration in terms of the traffic circulation at that time. So I know that Jonathan has more information, so I don't want to be redundant. Thank you again.

Thank you, Kevin. Virginia Tate. What is here for our... Your thing is not a hearing, so if you want to say something now, let's say it.

We want to thank you for your time, and we're here to answer any questions.

Excellent. And Mr. Petroski, I assume same from you? Very good. And Jonathan Burns is going to come up next, and he provided a map which I will fetch for the city council.

I can bring it up.

First class.

Hello, Mayor and Council. Thanks for having me back. It's the second time in a month or so. I think I should get a punch card or something. Let's show up here. Yeah, I will, again, I was planning on telling you guys that I was here on behalf of the foregrounds for our meeting, but I kind of showed up late and I was last to sign up, so you've heard from all of our constituents, so I appreciate you listening. The map that I have here, and I apologize I didn't bring enough for everybody. I don't know if we have Something that we can put up there. But basically, my idea, and this is not the Fort Grounds idea, I want to be very clear here, is just to shut off basically at Hubbard and Lakeshore there. So traffic coming off the Dike Road would just go up Hubbard, kind of up NIC, and then also shut off access to Lakeshore at Woodland Drive, at Forest, and Military. And that would basically just be from about 6 PM till the end of the fireworks. or something like that. And I think it would really keep traffic down. Again, the main issue that we're seeing here is all the cars trying to get out all at once, once the firework ends. There's tons of families, kids, people in the street, people trying to pull out, people trying to push through. And it's just an untenable, very dangerous situation that we feel like we need help with the city to fix. Yeah, so I am always happy to be a point of contact for the neighborhood if you guys would like to chat further. But beyond that, I don't have much else to add.

All right.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Is there anyone else who would like to make public comment who didn't sign up? Okay. We can move on to... We do. We do have someone. If you could state your name for the record, please.

Hello, my name is Tim Sassadny. I live at 201 Forest Drive. I just wanted to add to the representation of our neighborhood, our concern, as stated by the others here. Just wanted to add another voice to the list. Thanks for your help.

Thank you. We're moving on to item F, which is council announcements or comments. Does anyone in council have anything to say or add? Yes, Christy.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Well, we've heard a lot of great comments tonight. Now is a really opportune time for Captain Hager to come up and introduce the new chief of police and maybe address the concerns with the foreground. I will just tell the foreground neighbors as they're coming up. weeks and weeks and weeks of planning go into traffic management for the 4th of July. And it's all done by the police department, not council. And so we will connect you with them. So Jonathan, probably you're the best representative to be connected. But take it away, Captain Hager, with your introduction.

So I'd like to introduce you to Greg Yeager, the police chief. He had a kind of informal swearing in. He's going to have that later on when his whole family can be in town. But Chief Yeager's been with us for the last couple days, and he's hit the ground running.

Excellent.

You're welcome.

Mayor and council members, thanks for welcoming me in. I've had a chance to talk to a few of you since I got here yesterday and hopefully get a chance to talk to the rest of you. And thanks to our community. I'm very pleased to be here. And to this direct point, Captain Hager obviously has the historical perspective, and so I think it's most appropriate that he provide the information that might be helpful to our community.

Thank you, Chief. As the Chief said, We work on this, and as Councilmember Wood said, we work on this for weeks and weeks. And it's not just the police department, it's the fire department, it's the streets department. And one of the issues that we've run into over the last several years is the difficulty in getting contract flaggers, the Traficade, the different companies to come out. And it's fewer and fewer people that we've had able to do that. In past years, when the city's provided barricades to the members of Fort Grounds, it's been up to them to be, I would say, the hall monitors. And they don't have the authority of a police officer. And with the parking permits that are there, with under the city ordinance we really can't block those streets off because the permits are not included in holidays and we don't have the staffing i can tell you during the 24 hour period that fourth of july is to cover the rest of the 17 square miles of the city and the downtown every member of the police department from the chief on down works 10 plus hour shifts some of them 12 and 15 hour shifts and we've just gotten to the point where we don't have the staffing available I talked to Mr. Fuchsier with the streets department, and they don't have the staffing to be able to block off some of these. I know there were some thoughts about we could park patrol cars at some of those locations to just block off traffic. But again, we have to have somebody to man those. So if we need to get an ambulance or a fire truck in, we have to be able to move that. And I'm very sympathetic. I've been down there every year for the past 10 years I've been employed here, and there is a lot of traffic there. There are pedestrians that are moving through there. we've just run to a situation where the city lacks the amount of staff to be able to address all of these things and We're open to suggestions. We're open to working with the community and But again, when we try to contract out and we don't have the staff from there that can make it happen, we're just running out of those bodies. And to a certain point, the legal authority, without some council action, to make these things take place. But there is a lot of pedestrian traffic down there. And the speakers are right. They do cross. They're going out to the beach. They have all those. And it's a concern. But we have those issues other places. As well, because of the Fourth of July, we have 50,000, 60,000 people that come into town for this. And over the past years, we've had some critical incidents down there that require that police activity. And having our staff staffing those locations just isn't the best use of our resources when we've had drug activity. We've had the shooting that took place in our park. We have those things. We would like to work with the community and work through some of those things. But I think a lot of it is trying to find some of those private partnerships that we can make to help make this happen so we can have the appropriate staffing levels.

Captain, can we connect Jonathan to exchange phone numbers?

I have his email. I got that this afternoon. So first thing in the morning, or if not while I'm sitting back there, I'll send you my contact information and we'll connect.

Thank you. Welcome, Chief.

Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions? Kiki?

Mr. Mayor, can I just ask this? It feels like we've heard this from the Fort Grounds folks. multiple times, multiple years. And I'm just wondering if you're exchanging, you've got less than a month before 4th is here. And I think this is going to be a local solution, not really a council solution. But are there things that have come up that give some hope or some potential to these folks?

Some of it is the authority to block off those streets because it's not like a block party to where they can do that through permit. This is blocking off an entire neighborhood. And since the permit parking and things like that are specifically exempt the holidays, that's one of the issues that we ran into because we've had people that have complained on the other side that they can't get in and they've pulled up the city code and have said, wait a second, this isn't subject to this. And that was the topic of discussion. It was three or four years ago, I don't remember which holiday it was, where it was kind of decided that we couldn't do that anymore. And I think it was under our former city administrator and former streets director even possibly when that was going through. So we would need some type of action to allow us to block off an entire neighborhood outside of just the safety concerns. But again, if we had that, we would still need to have the staff to be able to accomplish that because every one of those would have to be staffed.

So I'm hearing that there does have to be some sort of ordinance adjustment in order to allow this to happen.

I don't know if it's a full ordinance. I'd have to refer to Randy. But that was the discussion that we had then because since it's exempted, the permit and the restrictions are exempted, we have to have something to be able to block off that area.

Right. Okay. And I can see something like private party vehicles being used with an agreement with the city that says a person has to remain with the vehicle with the keys, that kind of stuff. I could just see that there could be some workable solutions. I'm just wanting to make sure that if council has to take some action to do something that we're aware that we need to.

The concern that we have with the private party because they were staffing the members of Fort Grounds were working those barricades, but they don't have the law enforcement authority. They didn't have that authority to do that. And then there would end up being arguments and things that we would get called to. And again, without that authority in the true jurisdiction to be able to block that off, we're kind of in a gray area that's there. And so putting private people into where you have heat, alcohol, the other things that have been mentioned here, it's just not the best recipe for success.

Very good. Any other comments on this topic?

No, thank you. I wanted to get back to Max's public records request. I don't know if there's a way just to maybe put it in writing on how we come up with that amount, and that can be distributed back to him and to council if you'd like. Seems like a legitimate question that we should answer. Thank you.

And that was a question I have. And Renata, there is a formula that you follow that's according to the code that explains how we charge for massive public records requests.

Yes. The Idaho code allows for two free hours of labor. And thereafter, it can be charged back. So usually if it's 30 minutes more, we wouldn't bill. But if it's several hours more of work, then we would send out that notification of cost. So I'll have to look at this one specifically on those numbers. But generally, we use the fully loaded wage rate. So that includes your wage plus all benefits. And that number comes from the finance department.

And that's according to Idaho code?

Yes.

OK. Very good. Any other? Randy?

The statute does also say it's not the lowest attorney in the office. It's the lowest qualified and necessary. There's only one civil attorney who has experience with the public records law. The others are prosecutors have not dealt with that. So it's not just the lowest paid person in the department.

Okay. Good to know because that would probably be us. So any other council comments or questions? Okay, I would just, I have a couple of things. Number one is this building that we're in, and Elizabeth, who's the library director, had this thing produced, and I think it's really cool. It is the summer reading program for all ages, and it's available here in the library, and it is probably one of the neatest handouts that I think they've ever done. It's very creative and very clever, so if you have time, stop by the library and pick it up. There's three months worth of activities in here. Well, not in here, but in this space and this tells you what they are and it's for all ages. So I think that's really cool if you want to stop by and pick one of those up. I also have Another obituary sadly to read. Please join the city in extending our heartfelt condolences to the family of Greg B. Smith, who passed away at the age of 77. Greg began serving in our police department at the young age of 23, and he dedicated 31 years of service to the community from 1971 through 2002. He was known for his cheerful nature, for greeting everyone with a smile. Prior to his service with the city, he honorably served his country in Vietnam. His obituary reflects the love of family he leaves behind and the lasting humor and warmth he shared with others. We honor Greg's service to our country and his many years of dedicated service to the city while extending our deepest sympathies to his family, friends, and loved ones. We'll move on to item G, which is our consent calendar.

Mr. Mayor, I'll make a motion to approve the consent calendar as presented.

Second. Motion and a second. Any discussion on the consent calendar, which does include our fireworks stand permits? That used to be an item that we would have for discussion, quite lively discussion, but seems to be routine today. Very good, we'll take a roll call.

Sheckler? Yes. Wood? Yes. Evans? Yes. Miller? Aye. Gabriel?

Yes. Motion carried. We're on to item H, which is other business. We have a lot of items to discuss, a lot of money to spend, starting with resolution number 26044. which is approval of a real estate purchase and sale agreement for property around the Locust Well from Coeur d'Alene School District in the amount of $185,000, utilizing $155,000 from the Water Department capital fund fees, fee funds, through trading a food trailer that's valued at $30,000 from the Parks Department. Lots of moving pieces. Kyle Marine, our Water Department Director.

Thank you, Council and Mayor, for having me this evening as I bring before you the discussion for the purchase of property around 114 East Locust Avenue, which is our locust well. I have a short presentation to go over with you to kind of show you the history and the need that is there. So this is a current picture of our locust well at 114 Locust Avenue that is surrounded by the school district's bus barn. The well was originally drilled, or I shouldn't say drilled, the well was originally hand dug in 1955. As you can see the wood pilings, very dangerous job. It was redeveloped in 1968 with a more traditional well and casing and the hand hole was ultimately filled in and abandoned. The building was then put over the top and multiple improvements were done to that site over the years. This is the current aerial site of the well, as you can see. It's kind of hard to see, but the fence lines right here with the trough that goes around and then the fence line on this side is very tight and close to the building. It's hard for maintenance. This current building that's on the school district property has recently been demolished this last year, so it is no longer there. I apologize for not having a more current picture. This is an aerial picture of the current footprint of the site. It's fairly tight. The wellhead sits right there. That's the center of the well in the building because there's a roof hatch there. That's where we have to access the well to pull it to do maintenance about every 10 to 12 years. What we'd like to do is we'd like to add to this site. to basically what this proposed lot size is. The reason being is I showed you the history of those pictures in the past and we've done multiple other projects at that site. Anytime that we do a project at that site, we have to utilize the school district's property around the outside because we don't have room internally in the facility to set up a crane, set up all the materials and tools to do the maintenance to that well. Also, with current rules and regulations with the EPA and DQ, the current well sites, we're supposed to have about 50 feet. We're not supposed to have about. We're supposed to have 50 foot of protection around the wellhead to control that site. With the proposed lot that's there, we always try to go 55 foot because sometimes measurements don't always work out right. We worked with the school district in the past. We never could currently come to an agreement. With the destruction or demolition of this building and with some new school administration in there, we reached out to them and had some discussions and they were willing to sell us this portion of property. With the agreement, we would allow them to continue to use that as a parking facility only, but if they ever sold the site, which they've talked about doing, we would retain that portion of the property for future maintenance. We'd also be able to utilize that site and protect the wellhead income in compliance with DEQ and EPA regulations. Now here comes the interesting part with the trailer. And I was actually called by members of staff from the legal department and said, hey, I think you messed up on your presentation. There's a picture that doesn't look like it belongs. So during negotiations with the school district, we always talk about trading or doing something to try to help each other out. There wasn't a whole lot that we can make work out, but they did bring up, we're looking for a food trailer. And at the time, the city administrator, Troy, says, hey, we've got one. So the discussion started with that. um, with the parks department and with the city administrator at the time to possibly trade for a partial trade for that food trailer with the school district. So with the agreement, um, they came up with analysis and figured out a good price for the food trailer to trade off, which we would pay the parks department for it, which is just a part of moving courses to get the property. Um, so, and I'll stand for any questions, but, I would like to move forward, and by purchasing the property, the city would have permission to access the space needed, however maintained future improvements to the well site are required, and purchase the property for a total value of the parcel for $185,000. And I'll stand for any questions.

Kenny.

Was that appraised? Yes. It did get appraised. We worked with the school district and... Valbridge did the appraisal on this property and for the next presentation That's not a big chunk of land is no it's not It's just a lot for a little Right, but I mean it is what it is, right? Correct It's difficult because if we don't get the property we could become and or we could get in some issues in the future If they did sell the whole parcel And we didn't acquire it. We'd have trouble maintaining our site Thank You Kyle Kiki, please

I just have two things. One is that you talked about that 50-foot buffer that was required by DEQ. Yes. Is there a violation if you're allowing school buses to park within that buffer?

So we have vehicles that access the site for maintenance. We would monitor the site. Currently, the school district, we monitor it closely no matter what. Even though it's not our property, we'll watch it. If there's any leaks or anything like that, we'll talk to the school district immediately. They don't do any oil changes. They don't dump any chemicals on the site. They're a really good neighbor to work with. We just want to make sure that we have control of that site in the future if they ever do decide to sell the property.

Right. Makes sense. It's just that we're buying it and letting other people park on it. So I'm just wanting to assure that we aren't violating any requirements with DEQ and causing ourselves any sort of potential liability potential. because we have other people's property parked on land that you own now.

Great question. So within the agreement, we would have control of the parcel. The only thing they could do is park on it. If something leaked, even out front on the street, there's a potential of contamination for that. We can't control anything outside the fence. I don't know where DEQ and EPA came up with a magic number of 50 feet, but that's where we sit. One of the big things that we like about the 50-foot radius is also that we get that portion to set a crane up and be able to do maintenance on the facility. Other questions?

Kyle, why didn't you do a lease, or was that an opportunity that wasn't available?

We've done leases in the past for tanks and different things. It's something that we'd rather not do as a lease, so it wasn't really brought up for discussion. If they sell the property, I guess the lease can go with the new owner. I would rather have full control of the property. long-term than a lease or for something to potentially end. The well is going to be there for a long, long time, I hope. Leases usually have a term.

It's a good producer, too, I think. Correct. Would you say 4,000 gallons?

Yes, it tested at 4,000 gallons. We currently pump out of about 3,500 to 3,800 gallons a minute. Outstanding.

Good question. Thank you. Kyle, I don't think you mentioned, but I assume this is somewhere within your current budget.

Correct, I apologize. So yes, we have current cap fees that we set aside for projects such as this. It's not, and I should have brought this up, it's not in our current budget line item, but we do have funding available for capitalization projects such as this, which is cap fees.

OK, thank you. Any other questions? Minus questions, we can take council action.

Mayor, I'd like to make a motion to approve resolution number 26-044, approving a real estate purchase and sale agreement for property around the Locust Well from the Coeur d'Alene School District in the amount of $185,000, utilizing $155,000 from Water Department capital fee funds in trading a food trailer valued at $30,000 from the Parks Department.

Second.

Motion and second. Any discussion? Roll call.

Wood? Yes. Evans? Yes. Miller? Aye. Gabriel? Yes. Sheckler? Yes.

Motion carries. Moving on to item H2, which is resolution number 26045, authorizing the Water Department to determine the suitability of property at 632 East Moore Avenue for a future well. And if the site is determined suitable, approval of a real estate purchase and sale agreement for the property from the Coeur d'Alene School District 271 in the amount of $195,000. You're playing Monopoly with the school district here.

A little bit, yep. Again, thank you, Council and Mayor, for having me here this evening. So I'm here before you to seek approval for the potential purchase of property from the school district along Bora Avenue for $195,000. In the 2012 and 2023 comp plan, it was determined that in our low zone or general zone, there was going to need additional supply as the city grows. With the water department, we continue to look towards the future and make sure that we have adequate supply for all the needs of the city of Coeur d'Alene. Identifying the need for the well, we needed about a 2,000 gallon a minute well in the lower zone or more, minimum, as city grows by 2030. This was identified in the comp plan, as you can see. We have a couple different projects, high zone supply, general supply, that's this current well we're talking about, and then about every five years we need additional well, depending on growth. So we're right on track of needing another well by 2030. The water system is made up of two major zones. When you hear us talk about the high zone and the low zone, I'll give you a brief description. Pressure is built off of elevation. So further north you get, it gets higher elevation. The further towards the river, it gets lower elevation. So there's higher pressure. So we split the zone in the city. You have the upper zone, which is up here, which is high zone, and you have the lower zone. The lower zone is not directly over the aquifer, so we don't usually have real high production wells down there. They're mostly out in this area over the aquifer, and we have to pump water or build expensive transmission mains to get water down there. So the goal was to get an additional site in the low zone or general zone area, which is this blue zone down here. So city staff worked with JUB. We came up with multiple sites and locations that we thought would be suitable. They're large enough. They meet the code. They're close enough to transmission mains to where it wouldn't be extremely expensive to punch a well in and run a bunch of mains across town. We came up with several sites. And we narrowed it down with the hydraulic study. And we came up with the property of Boer School being the most probable site. So we looked at that site, we looked at the transmission mains in the area, and if we put a well somewhere on the property or in this general vicinity, how hard would it be to get the water out to the community? With some several large transmission mains that are close by, it wouldn't be a significant project to do. We could almost do it in-house. So that keeps the cost down if we could come up with a productive well in this area. There's another picture of kind of how the transmission mains would lay if this moves forward. We did have an appraisal done for $195,000. That is the projected site that is listed in yellow. That's a 55 by 55 site with the well being pretty much in the middle of that lot. So a couple of things need to happen for this to move forward. We worked out an agreement with the school district to get a potential sell on the property on certain conditions. One, it would have to get approved by council. Once it gets approved by council, the next step would be to drill a test well. The test well needs to be able to hit potable water and good quantities of water at a certain elevation to where we're going to most likely get a large production well or promising production well. The next step that would happen is we'd have to take a gamut of water samples. Those water samples that all have to come out in a positive form for the water department to want to move forward with producing or putting a well in that location. If all those things line up and that turns out to be a probable site for a protection well, then we would move forward and purchase the property. A lot of those steps have to go in a specific order. So that's why I'm here tonight is to get approval to purchase the property. If you give us approval for purchasing property, we move forward with a test well, move forward with the samples. And at that point, everything comes back and works out. we'd purchase the property from the school district. If one of those items doesn't work out after this, we would back out and look at another site and bring that back to council for review. And with that, I will stand with any questions. Thank you, Kyle. Kenny? Is there another site? There's a couple sites that we were looking at. There was one right across the road that the church owns. right over here that we were looking at but if this doesn't turn out to be a promising site most likely this won't either and they wanted more money for this site than we negotiated with the school district some other areas were like the wild water site we looked over there it was a little bit harder to get transmission mains out to where we needed to to production downtown that's a possible or promising site as well in the future so we have a few areas that we did look at that if this failed we could move that direction

And let's shine up that crystal ball real quick, okay? You betcha. Historical data, what's your gut feeling that you're going to find something there that you like?

So in this photo here, I have these dots right here are our current well sites. So we have good production well in these sites. We got a little bit of sand material in there, which is not bad. We just have to develop the well a little bit longer, which means you have to test pump it for a while once you produce it to clean it out. And you have to have some special screens. That's just traditional in this area on the aquifer. The proposed well site is about right there. So it currently fits in line with the other well sites. My prediction, I predict that we are going to be successful at this location. You never know. You're punching a hole in the ground with your eyes closed. So that's why we do the test well first. What about you?

OK, thank you. Yes.

Well, what if you find oil? Does that change everything?

Well, then the city's tax needs are settled, I guess, and we're good to go.

First of all, you've done your homework, and I appreciate your relationship with the school district. So this seems like a very reasonable process to move forward.

They've been very good to work with. Very good. Council prepared to take action?

Good job, Mr. Mayor. I'm putting my cheaters on just because they didn't bring theirs. I brought mine. So I would make a motion. to approve, I have to find it, resolution number 26045, authorizing the Water Department to determine the suitability of property at 632 East Borough Avenue for a future well, and if the site is deemed suitable, approving a real estate purchase and sale agreement for the property from the Coeur d'Alene School District 271 in the amount of $195,000. I'd second.

Motion and a second. Any further discussion? Kiki.

One question. So I'm clear on this. What we're approving is that if the test well and the testing comes back, you don't have to come back to us to move forward with the actual purchase?

Correct.

OK. Good.

Roll call.

Evans? Yes. Miller? Aye. Gabriel? Yes. Sheckler? Yes. Wood? Yes.

Motion carries. We're moving on to item number H3. Resolution 26046, approval of a professional services agreement, or PSA, with Veolia Water Technologies and Solutions for Engineering Design Services associated with the wastewater department sole source procurement of tertiary membrane filtration equipment in the amount of $250,000. That is not a third grade sentence.

I'm glad you read that so I don't have to.

Good evening, Mr. Mayor and council members. And we have Mike Becker from the Wastewater Department.

Again, good evening. Yeah, I'm standing here on behalf of the Wastewater Department for asking approval of this contract. And as you may recall, this is for the tertiary membranes that we're going to install in train six out the treatment plant. and we're also adding train one, and I'll explain why we're adding train one a little bit later in my presentation. But upon completion of this project, when we're done, we'll be able to treat six million gallons a day of the city's wastewater. As you know, that polished effluent is discharged into the Spokane River, and so I use that key word, polished. As you may recall, back in April, we presented our request to declare Veolia as a sole source product. We also asked to authorize staff to negotiate a purchase agreement with Veolia. Fast forward to where we are today, we went through the advertisement. We negotiated a purchase agreement and we didn't like it. So we went back to Veolia and said, we would like to do something different. And because of the highly specialized technology that these membranes offer, it presents us with a dilemma. Okay, there's no engineer that actually can design this besides the engineers for Veolia. And so this brings us to this contract. Now I want to keep this short. This agreement is strictly for design services for Veolia. And we propose that we go through this hurdle to establish a design. Jumping back to why we're adding train one, train one has some expired membranes that are aging out. We're only supposed to get 10 years out of these membranes. We got 12. So because this takes so long to get, they probably won't see this, train one being replaced for another year. So we're capitalizing on the fact that we're already paying for a design for train six. This is simply cookie cutter and we don't have to pay for a design twice. So there's an advantage to going this route. Again, this is just for Veolia's design services. We do have the budget authority for this. And then where am I? I guess it is our recommendation that we ask council for approval of this professional services agreement for these tertiary membrane filtration equipment in the amount of $250,000. And with that, I'll stand for any questions.

Any questions for Mike? Well, I have a question. So in the Veolia documentation that you included on page 15, it lists pricing under section 4.1. $250,000 and then there's a table 9 below that is that what we're looking forward to as far as cost moving forward This is just the design services So yes what you're looking at on table 9 is the equipment and service pricing that is associated with the actual procurement If I can expand on this Mr. Mayor

What's important to understand is why did we change our mind? We were gonna procure this ourselves. We sat with our consultant, JUB engineers on this, and they said, we got a better idea. Have you ever thought about basically city of Coeur d'Alene, you stay in control, you negotiate the price of the membranes, you get a package bundle all developed up and then we assign that to the contractor that bids on the project all the contractors all the bidders would have that exact dollar amount where we are in control and then they can do the bid for the actual installation and ancillary equipment on top of what we provide them this keeps us in control of the design This way the contractor doesn't say, hey, while we're here, let's replace this pump. If a pump doesn't need to be replaced, we're going to do our best to get our life out of that pump. It saves the city money by we control the price. It doesn't allow the contractor to manipulate their bids where they've got hidden costs in there for stuff that we don't need. And so that was an excellent question to bring up. So this will be presented to you when we go through the bidding process and we ask for an award of contract to the contractor. They will all have the same bid bundle.

That's smart. Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions? No questions. We can take action.

Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a motion to approve resolution number 26-046, approving the Professional Services Agreement, PSA, with Biola, Water Technologies and Solutions, Inc., for engineering design services associated with the Wastewater Department's sole source procurement of tertiary membrane filtration equipment in the amount of $250,000. Second.

Any discussion on the motion? Roll call.

Miller? Aye. Gabriel? Yes. Sheckler? Yes. Wood? Yes. Evans? Yes.

Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you, Mike. We're on to item H4, resolution 26047, approval of an agreement with Cannon Hill to demolish a dangerous building at 361 Mill Avenue in the amount not to exceed $30,000 and authorizing a special assessment for the cost of demolition against the property. We have Keith Clemens, building inspector, who will be doing our presentation. Keith.

Hello, Mayor and Council. Thank you for taking the time to listen to me. This is a property, excuse me here.

Press F5.

You said F5?

Yeah, F5.

Or that. Thank you. This is at 361 Mill Avenue. In December, we had a windstorm about the 17th of December. This tree, I counted, I think it's a 125-year-old spruce tree. I kind of got lost counting all the rings, but fell across the house, did great damage to it, so much so that it can't be fixed, not without removing the entire house. It was not reported to the fire department. Police didn't know about it. We drove by the first week in January and saw it. Immediately went in, tried to find the owner. Nobody is there. We shut off the water. We shut off the gas service, trying to make it safe. The owner is transient in nature. She's very hard to find I talked to her a couple times in January With the abatement process I posted notices on the house mailed it To the residents and to the last known address of the person who paid the taxes Which turned out was her mom Angela, this is a lady's name, got a hold of me at the end of January and was very anxious that we'd put this notice on her door. Again, it was kind of the thing where she felt like we wanted her property. Explained to her it wasn't that way, want to help her, I'd love to walk through it with her. Angela then ghosted me and then I kept driving by to try to find her, to talk to her. No such luck. I found people cutting on the tree to remove it. They had been told that if they did work on a property, they could lean it and they would get paid. So there was a great number of people that I talked to there that just felt they could lean somebody's property and get money. Obviously, that's not true. You have to have a contract with somebody. Anyway, the tree is now gone. The damage is done to the house. I was inside the house with the son. He was gathering some of his stuff out of the upstairs. And the damage is severe to the house. There's absolutely no way that can be fixed. So Angela cannot be found. She has not been, not responded to our requests, our notices. We've done the 30-day notice, 90-day, 100-day. We gave her another 30-day notice in there and there's been no response. So I'm asking you for money to tear down the house. Right now there are people coming at night on bicycles and I don't know how you describe them. They do parties or different activities there. Neighbors are having a lot of struggles with this. They've started stripping wire out of the house. The neighbors across the street in a duplex, family with kids, have stopped me many times, expressed their concern about that it's not safe. I've not found these people there during the day. They come at night on bicycles. which is very interesting to me. But it's become a place where they're gathering. I went there today, and there's a box of donuts in back, brand new box of donuts. And they had been there the night before. They had had a party. So asking you for money to remove this structure to make it safe for the neighborhood, there is a detached garage right behind it. The garage is full of filth and all kinds of things stacked high. It's like a hoarder type place, the house and the garage. A lady was living in the garage. We got her into another housing unit. She's in an apartment now with St. Vincent de Paul. But she was living in the garage using a bucket for sanitation and dumping it outside. So got her safe. We would love to remove the house. If we were able to take the garage too, that would be wonderful. There'd be a little additional price. Any questions?

Keith, if I understand, so the current price is just for the demolition of the house. But because the detached garage is not in a dangerous condition that's not included, And that would be something that council would want to decide if they wanted to add the garage, but with the understanding that taking it down could be a liability for the city.

Correct. Under the abatement code, I'm unable to say, yes, we can demolish the garage, because the tree did not hit the garage.

And if I understand, so this money would be reimbursed to the city through the lien on the property?

Correct. We would lean it, and when that property is sold, which I would assume it would go to a sheriff's sale for back taxes, if that's in a year or whatever it is. I'm not familiar with that process. It's a year behind now. At that time, whoever bought it, I believe we would get our money back.

Okay. Dan. Would our lien be a priority to any mortgage encumbering that property?

Randy, can you help me there?

I believe it would, but I don't think there is a mortgage on that. The owner received that from a relative, apparently, free and clear.

Has the notices, were those sent by certified mail with return receipt requested?

Yes. They've been returned unsigned to me. The lady, the mom that paid the taxes, she signed hers, and that returned to me.

Have there been any attempts to make personal service with a courier at the last known address of the taxes?

We've not been successful with any of that.

OK. One of my concerns is the safety you had mentioned. And it sounds like there's people coming and going to this property. Is that the primary concern, is that people are using it as a drug house or a flop house?

Yes, what we've found is when that starts, it just crescendos and they tell everybody and it just becomes more and more and more problems.

One of my concerns is that demolishing this structure, how did you determine that it couldn't be repaired?

So I'm a building inspector. I'm a journeyman carpenter, and I've been a building inspector for 25 years. So looking at the tree, the way the tree hit, it hit and rolled. And so you can see the bow on the wall. So the whole back of the house would have to be gutted and removed and replaced. When I went inside, the whole upper story roof, the top, has all split out. So it's basically a complete teardown because the structure is so badly damaged.

But that could be a contractor might look at that and say something is salvageable. Couldn't they perhaps do that?

That's possible. There's been three different realtors that have looked at it. They've all felt it was a teardown. I've contacted other people to try to get a hold of Angela. They've looked at the building and also said it's a teardown. To fix this, gosh, I mean, you're astronomical. I bet you're $300,000 or $400,000.

But houses sell for $700,000 or $800,000. I guess, are there less severe alternatives that we have as a city available to us like wrapping it up in police tape saying, do not cross, do not enter, and then have the police department patrol it for ne'er-do-wells?

I suppose you could still do that. We've had struggles before where people pull off boards. A few years ago, we had a place on 7th Street, two-story building. We had it all boarded up on the lower floor. They then stole ladders from neighbors and went in through the second floor. And so we had to board up the second floor to keep people out. So it's hard to keep... the transient group out once they start or find a place. A lot of the partying has been going on between the house and the garage. There's about 12 feet and there's been a whole lot of that there. They'll park their bikes there and they have chairs and different things. So it's kind of a hangout place.

Can they be arrested for occupying a structure that's in violation of something that we do like keep out this building is condemned by police order or something like that? And can the officers enter the building? And maybe that's a question for Randy.

That would be a trespass. Again, the owner is unreachable. Usually in a trespass, it's the owner who makes the complaint. So it would be a proof issue as to whether they were on the property with permission or not. Dave Hager is here. He might be able to address the difficulties of patrolling for a single home in the city to keep the transients out.

And Randy, while he's coming up here, we don't have a nuisance law in the city, do we?

We do, but again, it's a matter of enforcement. We can cite her, but the house remains. The alternative for the city destroying the house, the city could repair the house, if Mr. Sheckler would like us to do that. And we could lean the costs of that as well, but again, that doesn't... seemed to be a realistic possibility. The Uniform Code on the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings, which was adopted by the city, has a very detailed list of reasons when a building can be deemed dangerous. And the building official can determine if the building is in such a condition that it needs to be demolished or needs to be repaired and can give notice to that. The homeowner has an ability to appeal that notice. The homeowner has not appealed this notice. And so now we're to the point of either leaving it alone or doing something about it.

Thank you. Kevin Hagar.

So I have a fair amount of data on this property. In the last five years, we've had 37 calls for service at this location. So the picture I'm trying to paint is we had some of these criminal issues prior to this. The owner is well known to us. We've done eight warrant services there, suspicious activity. We check out there frequently for directed patrols. And as Mr. Clemens pointed out, the abatement for dangerous buildings is for the structure but not the garage. So in April of this year, we had the neighbors report suspicious activity. We got there. And there were three probationers known to us, frequent flyers I would call them, that were in the garage. So it's not the area that he had condemned, but it's the other area. They all claimed that they were allowed to be there by the property owner. last contact the property owners had with law enforcement was on may 3rd and she was arrested in spokane and that's the last known that we can say where she was and obviously we didn't know the time it was in another city so we couldn't have served her with that but this has been an ongoing issue because she whether she truly allows people to be there or not like randy said we would have to prove that trespass and if they're telling us and we can't know anything we take their names and that's it we can't make that arrest Now, if we do find them in the structure, which we haven't been, we could use that posting and arrest for the violation of being in that building. And so you kind of have a few different things that are going on here. And the broken windows theory is that the folks that use drugs and use this area know that it's there. They know the loopholes that are there. And like he alluded to, that They're doing work on the property. There's all different excuses we have, and unless we have a true victim of that crime, we can't make that arrest. But we do have extensive history there of criminal activity and a nuisance to the neighborhoods.

One last follow up. Is there anything in the code that allows the occupancy to be condemned by the city such that it doesn't matter whether the owner has given the occupants permission to be there, they could still be arrested for entering the building? Is there anything in the abatement code that allows for that?

It wouldn't be in the abatement code, but the building code has a do not occupy. We can post it to do not occupy. We've done that in other buildings. The notices are torn down. That, again, is another policing matter that is difficult to stay on top of.

And in this case, the garage wouldn't be subject to that, and that's where the activity continues as well.

And you had mentioned the owner was arrested in Spokane?

Yeah, she lives a transient lifestyle. There's nowhere where we can say where she's putting her head down. The information we've gotten from them and from the officers that have talked to her friends is that she is living this transient lifestyle.

Is she currently incarcerated in Washington?

We couldn't get that information by the time I got the information on it this afternoon to verify if she's still in custody. We don't have the cross systems. That's just the last time that we showed that there was an arrest. We don't know if she's bonded out. Based on the charges, I can't believe she's still there after a month, though.

Thank you. Christy.

Thank you. Well, as someone who patrolled for ne'er-do-wells, it is obviously a nuisance house. And once it starts in a neighborhood, it's the neighbors who suffer. This owner, I don't think, Mr. Sheckler, I think you're trying to be very diplomatic and take owner's rights into consideration. I appreciate that. But I also believe that the neighborhood is the one that's suffering here. And I can only imagine... That the word is out. This is the place to go, and it's going to get worse over the summer. So I'm going to support your request. I think the best thing to do in this case, just like we've done in other houses that were in this kind of condition in the city that attracted the same kind of element, is we tore them down when it met the abatement code. So I support this.

Kiki.

Thank you. I just have two questions. One is, you had mentioned that there were children involved. Do those children have any responsibility or any claim to this property? And what's the status with that, her children?

So there are two children, a boy who's roughly 18, and the daughter, I believe, is, girl is 13. They do not have any legal claim that we can tell on the property. The boy is with a foster family and has a case worker and is working in town doing well. The daughter, I'm told, is in the Tri-Cities with family somewhere. They were both in the house when the tree fell by themselves.

I just it just seems like they at some point might come back and say you know that land was worth money to us and how how are how are we as a city dealing with the heirs of the property is my question on that that second part of my question is us as a city once you have made a determination that this is an inhabitable building and we don't tear it down if someone's injured in this building are we liable That might be a Randy question. I don't know.

That would be a Randy question.

No, we've posted it as do not occupy. We can't guarantee that the postings won't be ripped down. But we've done all that we can to protect this. So I don't think there's any serious liability.

And what are your thoughts on the children's situation? Inheritance-wise is what is just in my mind.

So the children? I talked with a caseworker this week. They're working with a nonprofit to get an attorney to try to get the land to be deeded to them, however that's done. The value of the property, right now the way it is, the amount that I've been seeing has been $175,000 to $200,000 because somebody has to tear down the house. If the house was in good shape, that'd be five, maybe six. You know, very nice neighborhood. So there's no value to the house right now. And whoever buys it has to pay to tear it down.

Well, a couple hundred thousand dollars in land would feel like a lot of money to an 18-year-old, I would think.

Yeah. And hopefully that money would go to the kids. We would definitely hope that. Kenny. Kenny.

Well, a couple things. First is, I mean, I'm completely in favor of tearing this down. Captain, I know you don't want your officers going in there trying to find somebody because it's an unstable building. No, thank you. And the double-edged sword from this end, as Christy said, it's got to come down, in my opinion. The garage does because if we're abating one thing, we have to abate the second thing. And I'm very familiar with this house and very familiar with the neighbors. And you're completely right, they are suffering, and they're asking for help, and they've been getting a lot of help, but they can't be everywhere at once. So I think the best way to handle this is to maybe look at getting the garage too. Randy, you're smiling at me.

Well, the garage was not damaged. The only way we can take it down is if it was damaged. Six years ago, we brought forward a chronic nuisance property ordinance that would have dealt with homes or garages or structures that were used for illegal activities that didn't pass. So really, the only way we can take it down is if it's deemed dangerous under the criteria of the Uniform Code.

To secure it, would that be our responsibility as well? And how would law enforcement like it secured? They're going to tear the stuff off the windows. What are we gaining?

Yeah, no, it's not our responsibility to secure a building that is not dangerous.

That's the homeowners, but- Dangerous in the manner, I'm sorry, I don't mean to interrupt, but dangerous from the manner of structurally. Correct. Okay, thank you.

Randy, if council were to direct to have the garage torn down too, what would be our liability there?

Well, it would probably be akin to a taking without just compensation. So it would be just compensation to the owner if they chose to pursue that.

Okay. Thank you. We're going to go to Sheckler first.

One final question. If there was a homeowner's insurance policy, can that be claimed? Can our condemning of this structure be claimed? Or is that a possibility? Or do we know if there's even an insurance policy?

So to our knowledge, there is no insurance policy anywhere. I've not been able to find anything in all the searching and talking with people.

Kiki?

This is a side note to the whole thing, but I don't didn't see how old this house was. Was there any talk through the demolition process of any historic value that maybe commissioners would want to take a look before it goes away?

There wasn't any talk about that. When I went through it, it was old lath and plaster. It was not in good condition. I don't know that there was anything of value, except maybe the windows on the front of it. They're kind of unique to that era on the front porch.

Well, maybe we can just mention it to the commission before it goes down.

Okay.

Keith, you talked about the garage and you mentioned some insanitary things. Is that a reason? Or Randy, would the sanitary condition of the garage be cause enough to condemn it and tear it down?

like i said the the ordinance or the uniform code has uh 20 or so criteria that you look at that the building official would look at to determine if it is a dangerous building generally speaking though sanitary things can be accomplished can be repaired can be remediated and so probably would not turn it into a dangerous building

The hard part is we don't have access to the owner or anybody to fix this. So it puts us in a quandary with that. The amount that Cannon Hill gave to us was $30,000 to the house, not to exceed. I talked to them this morning. To include the garage, they would say it would not exceed $38,000.

they have to do asbestos testing and you know make sure they dispose of it correctly but those are the two numbers I have a question for captain Hagar so if the garage remains so we scrape the house keep the doughnuts but the garage remains what what is your opinion on what will continue to happen in this area

Well, again, without having the owner being willing to be a victim of trespass and allowing people to be there, my assumption is that you're going to still have the same people that we've been running into that are coming there at night. They may come there in the evenings, those types of things. They're still going to come there because we don't have the authority to arrest somebody for trespass unless the victim wants them trespassed. And so that activity, in my guess, would continue. But at the same time... I understand what Randy's saying. Again, I can just tell you what the conditions are, but I don't have cause under the abatement for dangerous buildings. And without the nuisance ordinance, I'm not going to give you legal advice, but I can just describe what we're going to see if we don't have it. But I understand Council Member Sheckler's concerns and the concerns that are here. So I don't know if I would advocate for one part of this because I don't want to advocate for something that might cause a liability to the city. But at the end of the day... We don't really have the ability to even go in and board it up, because now we're excluding use of that structure to somebody. So the city doesn't really have that right. We really have to get that owner. Or if we were to bring forth that nuisance ordinance again, we could address that. But it's one of those gray areas where we're just kind of stuck that it's there. It's not a swimming pool that's open that we can't gate off and empty, those types of things. It's a structure that people are going into and using for illegitimate purposes.

OK. So council understands. Sheckler, go ahead.

Mr. Adams, is there an ability to give a do not occupy posted on the garage so that that's not occupied?

Yes, I think so. That's a building issue, but there is no electricity, no gas to that building. It cannot be occupied for residential purposes. Once the house is gone, it cannot be occupied as a garage without a principal structure on the property as well. But again, that's posting it. We've done that many places around the city, and the notices are ripped down, and the owner says, I don't know who ripped it down. I don't know where it went. So it's a matter of constantly having to put the notices up. But yes, if the notice is up and somebody is in there occupying it, that would be an option for citation or arrest.

So the garage does not have occupancy rating. Nobody's supposed to be living in there. When I went there today, somebody had kicked in the garage door and gotten in. It had been locked before. I double checked to see if I need to go get the key. Well, somebody had kicked it in and had been going in. Kenny.

I know that in the past we have, like for fires at abandoned buildings, we have boarded those up, even if they're abandoned buildings. So I think what they do is the board up companies would bill the homeowner or put the lien against the homeowner. So although it's not probably right in statute, we've done that in the past. I don't know if it's going to work or not. I'm just trying to figure out a way that we can make this situation a little better. Christy?

Mr. Mayor, I'm prepared to move forward with a motion just on the house. Sounds like a little more work can be done on the garage. Maybe come back to us. So we're on solid legal ground. So I make a motion to approve resolution number 26047, approving an agreement with Cannon Hill to demolish a dangerous building at 361 Mill Avenue in the amount not to exceed $30,000 and authorizing a special assessment for the cost of demolition against the property. Second.

Any discussion on this motion? Roll call.

Gabriel? Yes. Sheckler?

No.

Wood? Yes. Evans? Yes. Miller? Aye.

Motion carries. Is there any further discussion or direction you want to give to staff on the topic of nuisance code or anything else that we discussed that maybe you want to look into?

Dan? Oh, go ahead. I would ask them to look into giving a do not occupy on the garage.

Is that something we would need to give you official direction on, or are you just going to do that?

No, that's within the building code. So I think the building department can do that.

OK.

I'll do that tomorrow morning.

Anything else?

Yeah, I wasn't here six years ago. I'd love to see that nuisance code come back. Maybe we could take another look at that, see if it's something we'd want to adopt.

OK. So that's the same stuff that failed. Randy, do you remember why or what the contention was?

uh i don't know i think the i think council felt that it wasn't really necessary this is a code that places like seattle have uh it's it's pretty uh aggressive uh and i i think they the council felt that it could be handled other ways still want to bring it back yeah because we could modify it and make it idaho okay we will make that happen

Any other follow-ups on this? Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Appreciate it. We're going to move on to item number H3, which is amending Municipal Code Section 4-25-030 to allow the possession and consumption of beer, wine, or other alcoholic beverages with a permit in Coeur d'Alene Rotary Centennial Park and Cherry Hill Park. We have Adam Rouse, our Interim Parks and Rec Director. Adam.

Thank you, Mayor and Council. Yeah, as stated in the staff report, we're just looking to add a couple of locations to those few that we already allow alcohol. These two new locations would follow the same guidelines. Any reservations, they're going to pay the alcohol permit fee, they're going to pay whatever park fees are associated with that, and then they also pay for security services. The areas would have to be roped off into specific beer gardens. with that Rotary Centennial Park, Councilwoman Wood can attest, we talked in Park and Rec Commission. is more like it's just gonna be its own standalone little beer garden thing because of the way that it's set up, it's so tiny. And we've only got three requests in there for use, one being the Rotary Group, the Downtown Association will use it once during their Oktoberfest, and then Arts and Culture Alliance uses it as kind of a little pass-through staging thing when they do some art walk stuff. So just asking for approval to add those to the list. Yes, Christy.

Mr. Mayor, I thank you, Adam, for bringing it forward. I'm just going to confirm that Adam did bring this to Park and Rec. Jenny Tate, one of our commissioners, was also present. And we'd asked him to go back and do a little more on the Rotary Park with the police and fire departments, and he has done his homework, and they have agreed that this is something they could support. And so... I would just say that he answered all of our questions and our concerns.

Any other questions for Adam? So Adam, why don't we just allow this in all our parks? It seems like the list of exceptions is growing longer.

being a little bit new to some of this. Not all the parks really lend themselves. Cherry Hill would be one of those. We're really asking for this for one specific event. Otherwise, Cherry Hill is one of those that you wouldn't get a lot of requests for alcohol in. in the park um so aside from like allowing just alcohol in the parks just in general which is not a good idea um i think the ones that we've got on here the ones that we get requests for uh the most so okay that's why it's that way any other questions for adam okay we'll move to council action on this one this is a um a bill so we need to uh do a few things

I swear I'd make a motion to dispense with the rule and read council bill number 26-1009 once by title only. Second.

Any discussion on the motion? Roll call.

Sheckler?

Yes.

Wood? Yes. Evans? Yes. Miller? Aye. Gabriel?

Yes. Motion carries. Clerk will read the title.

Council Bill No. 26-1009, an ordinance amending the Municipal Code of the City of Coeur d'Alene, Kootenai County, Idaho, amending Chapter 4.25030, entitled Beer, Wine, and Liquor Prohibitions on Public Property, repealing all ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict herewith, providing a severability clause, providing for the publication of a summary of this ordinance and an effective date hereof.

Very good. Now a motion to adopt the bill.

Motion to adopt council bill 26-1009. Second.

Any discussion? Roll call.

Sheckler?

Yes.

Wood? Yes. Evans? Yes. Miller? Aye. Abram?

Yes. Motion carries. Thank you, Adam, but we're not done with you. We have resolution number 26048, which is approval of the establishment of a program entitled Spotlight CDA Visual Arts, with a total funding of $15,000 annually. And again, from our Parks and Rec director, Adam.

Yes, so as some of you might be aware, I'm newly appointed as the liaison to the Arts Commission, so still kind of getting my feet wet here, but actually have Duncan Menzies, who's part of that commission, to give you some specifics on this, because he'll be better equipped. So, Duncan.

Duncan, welcome. Good evening, Mayor, council people, community partners, and thank you, Adam. Yeah, I want to talk to you about Spotlight Coeur d'Alene Visual Arts Program. proposed by the Coeur d'Alene Arts Commission. This program invests in community identity, economic vitality, cultural tourism, and quality of life in Coeur d'Alene. Visual arts strengthen our creative spaces, support local arts and businesses, attract visitors, and help tell the story of our history and community. Spotlight Coeur d'Alene Visual Arts will support accessible community-focused projects while creating opportunities for artists, nonprofits, and community partners to collaborate. This program will focus prioritizing K through 12 students for arts education, enrichment programs, exhibitions, and art projects for our young people. This program is very similar to the structure and purpose of the Art Spotlight Coeur d'Alene performing arts program which was approved last year and three local performing arts organizations were awarded. The program cycle will run from November 2026 through October 2027 and provide 15,000 in funding through grants of either 5,000 or 7,500 with the possibility for those nonprofits to apply for a second year of funding. Applications will be evaluated using a rubric that emphasizes artistic quality, community engagement, feasibility, and demonstrate impact to help ensure that strong and effective projects are selected. This program is designed to be transparent, accountable, and community focused. And would also like to note that This program creates a fair and competitive process for distribution of city arts fundings. In last year and this year, a local arts nonprofit received $25,000 in city funding for visual arts scholarships without competitive grant process. This program will establish an open applications for all arts organizations that qualify. evaluation system and allow organizations and artists to compete fairly for the funds. And with that, I'll accept any questions that I might be able to answer. Kiki.

Thank you, Duncan. Can you just describe what the key differences are between this program and the Performing Arts Grants Awards program that already exists?

Yeah, so that's just specific to the performing arts programs. This one is nonprofit organizations that have been around for five years or longer that are specific visual arts.

So name one.

Emerge, Arts and Culture Alliance, the Council of the People for the Arts. There's also the, what is it called?

So these nonprofits are ones that would support a display of pottery. I'm trying to get my head around. I get the performing arts grants awards. Those are on stage human beings doing a performance. So I'm wanting to say what is the visual arts piece of this is not. just humans, but it could be humans who are doing a dance program. Am I right?

Or where are we going? That would fall under the performing arts spotlight. I could see spaces like Gizmo, REmerge. Those are the two ones that are popping to my mind right now.

That would do visual art displays.

Yeah, our due educational art programming, our exhibition, our community projects, it's open-ended what the visual arts would be.

And this comes out of the... This isn't additional monies into the percentage of monies that goes into the... Arts Commission.

Correct. Right. It's taken from our funds.

So it's just a diversion, diverted use of it.

Christy? Well, Max, artistic expression is out there for everything, right? And so I support what you're doing. I think that we should support all different forms of art. So thank you.

So, Duncan, I do have a question on the eligibility criteria, which is listed in the staff report. One of the items says that applicants must be in good standing with the city and the community. Can you explain what that means?

I am not on the subcommittee for this, and so I don't know if that's a specific thing they're talking about.

It just seems to be incredibly subjective.

I agree. That sounds very vague. I'm pulling it up right now.

Mr. Mayor, could it mean not in debt?

It could also mean that it's someone we just personally don't like.

Oh, that's not good.

And so I would express a concern about that. Just, I don't know.

I guess my, well, actually, yes, you're on the committee.

Yeah, and I don't know this answer with confidence. Sure. But in the past with some of our art pieces, They haven't performed as well or they haven't held up to the weather.

I see.

And so communicating with some artists, not many, has been problematic to get the pieces fixed or repaired or moved if needed. And I'm wondering if this is carryover language from some of that. Randy, could you help?

Sure.

Yeah, I think it is very vague and could cover a multitude of sins, such as if they're a criminal, if they're on probation. Someone could say they're not in good standing, not a citizen. There's just so many things it could apply to.

And I just don't want to see it come back to us and someone in the future say, well, you know, you're picking on me because I said something online or whatever. It's a thought. I don't think it necessarily would need to torpedo this. But I do want to let everyone know, you probably don't know, but I was a visual arts major in college. That's my degree. And basically visual arts is anything that's weird. and doesn't have a name. So there you go. We'll see what comes out of this.

That was a great definition.

Well, you know, suffering through it for four years really trains people. Anyway, moving on, we'll take a motion.

Mr. Mayor, I'll make a motion to approve resolution number 26-048, approving the establishment of a program entitled Spotlight Coeur d'Alene Visual Arts with a total funding of $15,000 annually. Second.

Motion second. Any discussion? Roll call.

Wood? Yes. Evans? Yes. Excuse me. Sheckler?

Yes.

Miller? Aye. Gabriel?

Yes. Excellent. Motion carried. And thank you, Duncan and Adam. We look forward to seeing what comes out of this. I assume it'll be something visual. We'll move on to item H7, which is resolution number 26042. It's approval of an agreement with Virginia L. Tate for the provision of water services outside the city limits at 4176 East Potlatch Hill Road and future annexation staff report by Kyle Marine, Water Department Director. And I see Hillary up there as well.

Thank you, Council and Mayor, for having us. We're here back before you with the Tate Agreement for 4176 East Potlatch Hill Road for the Good Neighbor Agreement. After the last Council meeting, Council requested us to go back and meet with the Tates and go over the contract. So we did meet with the Tates and city staff and Mayor on May 19th. of this year to go over this agreement line by line. Going over that agreement, we came to a good discussion and figured out what issues each party had with each line and went through that to come up with, I believe, an agreeable agreement. There are some questions regarding the credits going back and forth that council will need to discuss and decide upon. And with that.

Yes, so the staff report kind of goes through some of the requests that Ms. Tate has made about some credits that she would like you to consider. regarding the capitalization fees for wastewater and future annexation fees. So those total expenses would be $71,300. But as noted in the staff report, the city has also incurred costs and ours to date total $72,816.92. for some other infrastructure up in the area. And we have agreed through the settlement agreement with Ms. Tate to do some other connections for a lot that was plotted as the first addition, Elk Point first addition. So those will be future costs that we would incur. And then we also wanted to point out that the settlement agreement that was entered into in 2019, that Ms. Tate did agree to pay any and all fees, including utility cap fees and applicable impact fees, which are generally required by the city. with the exception of the annexation fee for the proposed lots north of East Potlatch Hill Road and East Sky Harbor Drive. And that has already taken place. So those lots have been annexed in. We waived those annexation fees. So in staff's opinion, she has agreed for any requests like this in the future that she would pay the fee. I think that's important to point out, but that's up to council to determine if you wanted to credit any of those fees now or in the future. And then if you are going to do that, we just need to have clarification in the agreement you have in your packet in which sections of the agreement. So it would either be under A3, A5, and or Section B. So those are the things we wanted to bring to your attention this evening. And I don't know if you wanted to speak to the one fee The pressure reduction valve, the $26,000 that Ms. Tate had provided that dollar amount, any of the information you were able to uncover?

Yeah, so the information that I could found, I reached out to the contractor, the supplier, and the professional that did the swapping of the valve. I couldn't find a lot of information on the cost. I reached out to Tate's as well, let them know what information that I could find. I'm unsure and so were the people that I contacted of where that actual 4-inch valve went. May have come to the conclusion that there was a misunderstanding on the designs on the 4-inch was actually the drain and not the requirement for the valve. But with that being said, I can't determine whether there was a requirement to install a 4-inch or not at the time.

So the other thing, if I may point out to just there is some discretion from council's perspective on the annexation fees. So in ordinance, we have it and in our fee schedule, the adopted fee schedule that when a property is annexed in, it's based on the acreage and the zoning that is requested. And unless they're bringing in a subdivision at that time, you base the annexation fees on the maximum potential density. If someone comes in with a subdivision at that time, we can tie it to that. So we can say it's going to be one residential lot or 15 residential lots. We tie it to that versus the maximum potential. So as noted in the staff report, there is some flexibility with that if that was something council wanted to consider versus the capitalization fees, which staff has concern with waiving capitalization fees based because of how they're used and the intention of that in city. pays for our own capitalization fees. But on the staff report, you can see that the fees could range from $4,597 to $25,217. So there is a little bit of leeway there, if that was something council wanted to consider.

And we don't waive capitalization fees, but we can offer it as part of a settlement.

Correct.

That's the proper language. Kyle does not ever want to waive capitalization fees. Preferably not, but that is up to council in this case. Right. So there's some moving pieces up here. We'll probably have Jenny come up and say a few things, but before we do, are there any questions for Kyle or for Hillary? Christy.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I do appreciate everything that you've put in writing for us and that you met with the Tate family to try to resolve this. I feel like we're almost to the end here. And I think you can gather that council does want, I'm gathering, we want a good nature, or good neighbor, not good nature, good neighbor agreement. So these, in coming to the settlement, You've laid out the cost of the city, but that was not directly to the Tate property, right? You said property in the area.

So the cost of the water department occurred were investments in an agreement and a settlement for the properties to the north. So yes, it was to those properties. And they're a benefit to the community in the area as well, yes.

Okay, but that wasn't specifically money expended on the Tate property?

As part of the agreement for the Tate property, yes. I believe that was included in your packet.

Okay, thank you.

Any other questions for staff? Okay, Ginny, did you want to come up and say a few things? And Stephen is with you.

Thank you. And I appreciate the effort that everyone has gone to trying to get this to a final conclusion. I draw back, yes, there was a settlement agreement. Part of the settlement agreement was that we took our north four acres into the city so that that could create a continuous city line. Because here we are, an island of counties surrounded by city, which didn't quite meet all codes, I understand. We were allowing the city to perfect an easement that was not perfected years ago, long before anyone sat on the council. And quite a bit of that money was there to, I guess, service for a fire hydrant that was supposed to be there back in 1982. So did it just benefit the Tate family? No, it was the completion of a project that was approved long before everyone's time that did involve our property. It's murky at best, murky at best. The fees we have asked for, as you know, it's basically a two-part thing. We expended more than $100,000 in fees not discussed this evening to bring infrastructure and a fire hydrant into the city, solving, of course, a fire issue. So that brought multiple fire hydrants up a road that did not have fire hydrants. So the fees we're specifically talking about was the 40,000 a little 40,000 of that involved shall we call an administrative error on a grant that ended up costing our family over $40,000 to cure and so we're asking for the offset of that. We did not make the error. I don't know that we need to go into that particular piece tonight. The other part was the change of plans and in the construction of that fire hydrant and the final hook of it, and that is the 26,000 we referred to. So all told, the Tate's to bring that north four acres in between engineering and different items, we have expended close to $300,000. We're just asking for the piece we shouldn't have had to pay.

Okay, so Ginny, we have this annexation agreement that we worked on in the room there. And you're okay with all the stuff in there? I know they sent you a copy on Friday.

Yes.

Okay. And so what the question is, probably for council to decide, is in our motion here in the draft, there was a blank spot. for the amount of dollars if council chooses to offset the water cap fees, in other words, not to waive them, but to settle, and then future annexation fees.

That's correct.

So if you could assist council in, I mean, you just said $400,000. That's a great opener.

Oh, no. Farther up in the financial analysis, we have just asked for compensation in one form or the other For the 45,300 we incurred through the grant administration snafu and the $26,000 in additional fees that it took to complete that fire hydrant. And so that's the- And that totals 71,300.

Okay, so that's what, yeah, I have that underlined in here, 71,300. Okay, so council knows what that is. Any questions for Jenny right now? please um jenny you're not looking for the city to write you a check you're looking for offset of future fees that is correct thank you okay very good any other questions for jimmy all right if we need you or if you want to raise your hand later we'll call you back up and we'll see uh we'll watch him make the sausage thank you thank you any uh any further questions for staff or anything discussions

Mr. Mayor?

Yes, Christy.

Thank you. It's taken a lot of years to get to where we're at, and I do appreciate how hard staff has worked the last couple of weeks to get us almost to the finish line here. I think the Tate family situation is much different than anyone else up on the Hill, just simply because of the decades of history that we've all listened to and the fact that they had a contract with the city. I do feel they've incurred some expenses that... Jenny calls it murky. She's being generous in my mind. There's just been, because of retirements and carryover, things get lost in transition. So I am in favor of some compensation, of waiving some compensation in getting this good neighbor agreement completed tonight.

Any other discussion? Kiki?

I just have one question on the annexation portion. The language in here basically says this piece will eventually be annexed and they can't object to that should that come. And the Tates are in agreement with that. Is that clear? Okay. Yep. That's clear.

It's kind of like the good neighbor agreement but with a delayed trigger on the annexation so she doesn't have to go through all those expenses and hoops and Hopefully she sells the property and finds someone who's willing to do all that stuff, but she's not required to do it now. Correct. Okay.

Okay. Did you answer?

Well, I guess my question, Mr. Mayor, if I may. Please, go ahead. Christy, I agree with something, but what does something look like?

Well, it's a settlement. May I, Mr. Mayor? Please. It's a settlement, and so in settlements there's give and take. The full amount they're asking is the seventy one three I think we could look at combining the thirty four seven seven three and the twenty five two one seven and wave those I Don't have I don't have the math on that That's pretty close to the very close figure I So I would be prepared to make a motion for more discussion.

Yes, unless we want to do group math, and that's always fun.

I guess I'm just... Should I make a motion? Please go ahead. I'm sorry. I guess I was just looking for staff on some of that where they weren't feeling as comfortable waiving the entire thing because staff has incurred almost the parallel expense, right? I mean, you're at this 70-plus mark, too.

Correct. And then also, as noted in that agreement that's in your packet, and this is just the red line version, staff has already agreed to use the 2025 rates for the capitalization fees. So that's already a savings of $17,189. So the 2025 rates is that dollar amount that Council Member Wood quoted, the $34,773. The larger amount, if we actually use 2026 fees, would be $51,962. that's already a savings there. And then as noted, it is easier to potentially do that crediting on the annexation side to say, instead of the 25,000, you would do the lower amount that would be owed. So that's just one consideration for council.

What was the math on that?

Hillary before the, the difference between the 2026 and the 2025. So it's, um, $17,189. So the, 2026 fees would be $51,962. And Kyle has agreed to the $34,773. So somehow I have an 08 in there, right? So what you're saying is there's already been an offset of $17,000 that staff's agreed to.

We agreed to reduce the cap fees to the 2025 cap fees.

because the negotiations were started in 2025. They changed April 1st. So we were discussing getting it to this council meeting at that time and for that time. So we agreed to go to those prices.

Kenny, are you okay?

I agree with the 17. I think that's very fair. I'd like to hear what the rest of my council thinks.

Dan Sheckler.

I agree with the 17-2, but I'm not inclined to agree with the rest. I think that the logging fees and those sorts of things, I don't think that we can be perpetually relitigating prior wrongs that weren't reduced in a notice of tort claim that wasn't litigated in a breach of contract or some other action. And I just think we need to move forward. I don't think we can re-adjudicate the past. I think the 17 is appropriate to move forward, but I don't think we need to waive those other fees, in my opinion.

Yes, Kristi.

Thank you. Well, it is a settlement agreement. So in settlements, we work the numbers, right? That's what you do. So I would like to see a larger amount waived that's more meaningful. That is a tremendous amount that they have put out on this property. And so I would think at best we should at least split it. 17 is not

not an equal split so if we split the 71-3 that would be more palatable to me or already gotten the 17 so the balance of what they're asking for is 71-3 so that's roughly 54 so we'll be split the 54. split the 54. okay all right

Okay. Where we added a number.

I don't know, Amy, where we are. If I may, that would be the annexation fee. I think if you just waive the annexation fee, that'd be easier because that was, as I mentioned, based on the ordinance and the fee resolution, how we would calculate that, that'd be the $25,217.60 is what we would typically charge. So then that's half of that. There are 27 to 5.

All right, you guys are good.

I can I can make that motion please. All right, Mister mayor. I would approve motion to approve resolution number 26 dash for 042, approving an agreement with Virginia LTAPE for the provision of water services outside the city limits at 4176 East Potlatch Hill Road and future annexation and to allow any credit in the amount of, Amy, what did you come up with? Oh, no.

It was the $27,055.50. But that doesn't include 17.

No, we were going to do, it would be easier just to use that annexation fee. Okay. So that's the $25,217.60. Okay. And then to note the use of the 2025 capitalization fees for the agreement.

So that gives them the total savings, two different pots.

Two different pots of savings. Can we say what she said?

Are you tracking any of this?

You can just phrase it as waiving the annexation fee and using the 2025 cap fees.

Okay. Using the annexation fee and waiving the 2025 capitalization rate. Using. Using. Using it. Using it. To offset water cap fees and future annexation fees.

Second.

Okay. Before we discuss that, Renata, do you have all that written down?

Yes, I think I got it. Excellent.

Can you read it back, please?

The whole thing or just that one little part?

The last part.

The last part was to allow the waiver of the annexation fee and use the 2025 capitalization fee rate.

Does that jive with what you understood?

I think so. Yeah, I want to make sure that we're fair, that we're we're trying to do a fair settlement. Um, Hillary, does that capture the, yes.

So what we would do in the agreement is we would amend that section B under annexation, just to note that the annexation fees will be waived. So we'll,

OK. So it's more than just the $17,000. There's, like Kiki said, two different considerations.

OK. Correct. And the other one is already noted under that A5 is where it has a 2025 capitalization fees with that dollar amount.

Right. So a discussion on the motion. No. No? OK. We'll do a roll call.

OK. Evans? Yes. Wood? Yes. Sheckler? Yes. Miller? Aye. Gabriel?

Yes. Motion carries. Thank you, staff. Thank you, Tates and Mr. Petroski. Thank you. I hope we're getting to where you need to be. Moving on to item number H8, which is resolution number 26049, approval of an amendment number 6. The contract with Republic Services Incorporated to allow for a fuel cost adjustment, something I think we could all benefit from. Randy Adams is doing our presentation.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Council. Back in 2016, the city entered into a contract with Coeur d'Alene Garbage for solid waste disposal. In 2024, that contract was assigned by permission of the council to Republic Services Incorporated. Since then, you may have noticed that gas prices have gotten rather high. And Republic has contacted us and asked if the city would be willing to do a fuel surcharge in times of excessive fuel costs. This is similar to what is done in Post Falls. It is done one year at a time. We look at the data for the previous year. If it exceeds a certain amount, there is a formula by which the city would pay Republic more and then at the end of that year it would expire and we would again look to see if the fuel costs continue to be high. In the original contract the rates were set. There was also a provision that the rates would be increased every year by a minimum of 1.5 percent. So This fuel surcharge is on top of the normal increase that is set out already in the contract. And again, it's an attempt to account for higher fuel costs. And of course, our garbage trucks do not run on anything but diesel fuel. So Mr. Davis with Republic is here to answer any questions. I can answer any questions if you'd like. The amendment is in the packet and I stand for questions.

Any questions for Randy or Mr. Davis?

Mr. Sheckler.

I didn't see how much this will cost us as far as like a prediction of what this is going to impact the budget.

I didn't do a prediction. I don't know that the finance department did a prediction. The amendment says that if the average diesel fuel cost in the preceding year exceeded $3.25 per gallon, there would be an increase in the cost or the charges that we would pay to Republic. of one percent for each quarter over that basis. So I think we are in a position where we're over five dollars a gallon and have been for a while. I think the average though over the last year has been four dollars and something. So we're looking at probably a four percent increase in what we charge four to six percent for this lat for this last year

So would that come back to council for a fee increase to the customers once we figure out how much that is?

Yes, this does not include the fee increase to customers. The fee increases come through municipal services on an annual basis. I think the finance director indicated that the garbage fund was in good shape, and so it would be up to council to determine whether and how much should be passed on to the customer, if any.

Generally speaking, we have money in there so that we don't have to do a fee increase for garbage rates every single year. So there could be, and Katie's not with us right now, but there might be enough money in there that it would mean we don't have to do a rate increase. We might have to do one sooner, but generally when they do the increase, it kind of flattens it out for a few years, and then they do another increase. So don't know the current status, but I don't think... At the last meeting, she didn't really say that there was a need to do a fee increase, did she? Correct. Ron? No, Katie said that the fund itself is in good shape and that we could absorb the increase.

And if we change our mind prior to Renata bringing that fee increases back to us, we can include it in that.

Excellent. Thank you. Does that help? Yeah, thank you. Good. Christy?

Well, I kind of had a question along the same lines as Mr. Sheckler because it's difficult to prove something without knowing the impact. We don't have any of the financial data. I think the fees come this summer, though, don't they, from Red Hotties Group?

When are you going to surprise us with the fee increases?

I was hoping to do that at the beginning of July, but I am working with the building department, so they're kind of the big domino I'm waiting for in order to bring that forward.

Thank you. In the staff report, I indicate, and this was just my assessment, my looking at the data, because Google is never wrong. The average diesel fuel cost between July 1, 2025, and May of 2026 appeared to have been $4.03 per gallon. with the lowest price being 319, the highest price being 541, which would mean that the fuel cost adjustment for the contract year 2026 to 2027 would be 3% of what we are currently paying Republic. Are you good?

Well, yeah, I mean.

And I don't know what that number, that raw number is.

I think what we can rely on is that it's a very short window before we come back in July. And if we have to adjust it, we will.

Any other questions from council for Randy Kiki?

I agree with what Christy said. I would like to take a deeper dive into what all these numbers are and also refresh our memories on what we're paying for the single stream recycling because I think we pay an additional amount on all of that. So I'd like to look at this whole rate structure there. The other thing I am a little unclear on here is if this is approved, then the increase goes into effect and stays in effect for a full year, even if the fuel prices drop three months after it's in effect?

That is the way it's written.

And that isn't something we can change? I mean, it feels like that could be nine months worth of a surcharge that it's a pretty volatile world out there right now. And things go up pretty fast, but they could come down pretty fast.

And they could go up again. And they could go up again, yeah. So we would end up paying more in three months, too. So it's not an exact science.

OK.

It's predicting the future. Scary.

Mr. Mayor, I think. I think the real information here is that it is costing the company much more in fuel. We can appreciate that. So I guess for me personally, I'm comfortable moving forward because we're coming back in July to look at those increases if necessary.

Any other questions? Okay, council action.

Let me find it. Mr. Mayor, I'd make a motion to approve resolution number 26-049, approval of amendment number 6 to the contract with Republic Services Incorporated to allow for a fuel cost adjustment. Second.

Second. And I don't know what Amendment 6 is. Is this an Amendment 6, Randy?

It is Amendment Number 6.

It is 6. OK. The contract. It's not on mine, but that's good. Any discussion on the motion? Roll call, please.

Evans? Yes. Miller? Aye. Gabriel?

Yes.

Sheckler?

Yes.

Wood? Yes.

Motion carries. We're on to aye. Public hearing. We have one public hearing. It's a legislative hearing. It is our first summer vacation. There's a sign up sheet in the back if you want to testify. The vacation is legislative hearing number V2602, vacation of a portion of an alley right of way. The six foot strip adjoining the east boundary line of tax number 25369. A portion of south one half of lot two block A and lot three block A. Sanders addition to Coeur d'Alene to Joseph E. Morris and Lynn J. Morris and Matt and Mary Weigand. Staff report by Dennis Grant, Streets and Engineering Project Manager. And take it away, Dennis.

Well, thank you, and good evening, Mayor and Council. The applicants, Joe and Lynn Morris and Matt and Mary Wiggin, are requesting the vacation of Alley Right-of-Way that adjoins the east boundary line of their property on 11th Street. I do have a diagram on the screen there that shows the area in the alley above it where it says vacated alley, this area right here. That tax number is this little square that's a part of the Morris property, and then this strip of land, it's also six feet, is part of the Wiegand property. The requested right-of-way was originally dedicated to the city of Coeur d'Alene in the Sanders addition plat in 1890. The vacation of the requested right-of-way would not have any financial impact on the city and would add approximately 485 square feet to the county tax roll. Although a minor amount, it would be a benefit to the municipality as tax revenue and to the landowner whose lot adjoins the strip of usable property. The purpose of this request is to vacate a six foot strip of land to improve property usability. The property to the north, which is this piece right here, the Morris property, was vacated by council in 2018. I met with the wastewater department They were contacted regarding access to the sewer main and the alley and they gave their approval for this vacation request. All franchise utility easements will remain in place and the development review team was informed about this vacation. I sent out 59 certified letters, mailings, and did not receive any comments back, yes, neutral, or no. Um, the recommendation is city council should approve the vacation action per Idaho code section 50-1306 and to vacate the property to the applicants, Joe and Lynn Morris and Matt and Mary Wiegand. Thank you.

Is there any, are there any questions for Dennis before we get into the hearing? Dennis, this doesn't close the alley, does it?

Say again?

It does not close the alley.

No. Good question. So this is one of those unique situations in Coeur d'Alene where we have two subdivisions coming together. And there's... It's a random number, 22.34 feet wide alley. And so we do have some excess right away in there where other alleys downtown, there's not. So that was one of the reasons in 2018, there's several reasons, but one of the reasons why council approved the six foot vacation strip of land there on the east side of the Morris property. Just a little history why there's a little square there the Morris family purchased a six-foot strip After that vacation happened, so they acquired another piece of property which is that tax number and Then the Wigan family purchased the house, the properties to the south minus that piece. And so that's why there's two folks, two families involved and the little square, which is a six foot piece. And then of course the strip that's similar to the Morris vacation that happened back in 2018. Just in Kiki.

So that was my question. So is the little square being vacated or not?

Yeah, which will attach to the Morris property. It's like the remainder piece after they purchased from the previous neighbor, not the Wiegand family. The previous owner sold them that west-east strip of land.

Okay, so that's their property, and the square goes with the vacation, that property to the north. Okay. Yeah.

Mr. Mayor.

Yes.

So we're talking about a piece of property about the height of Mr. Jacobson.

Well, he's like 7'2", but basketball player. Okay. Yeah, exactly.

Very, I mean, not that you're not, you're tall. You are. But overall, in the scheme of things, it's a really tiny piece of property.

It is. It's only, yeah, 485 square feet. It's very tiny. That's true.

Any other questions? If I could have the sign-up sheet. There is no sign-up sheet. No one signed up is what you're saying. No one has signed up. But I will still open the hearing in case anyone out there did not sign up and would like to testify. Seeing no one, I will close the public hearing and look for council action.

Mr. Mayor?

Yes.

I make a motion to dispense with the rule and read Council Bill number 2610101 by title only. Second.

Motion and a second. Any discussion on this motion? Roll call.

Miller? Aye. Gabriel? Yes. Wood? Yes. Evans? Yes. Sheckler?

Yes. Motion carried. Clerk will read the title.

Council Bill number 261010. An ordinance of the City of Coeur d'Alene vacating a portion of alley right of way in block one of Sanders addition to Coeur d'Alene recorded in book J of deeds at page 43F. Records of Kootenai County, Idaho. Generally described as a parcel of land located in the northeast quarter of section 24, Township 50 North, Range 4 West, Boise Meridian, Kootenai County, City of Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, repealing all ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict herewith, providing a severability clause, and providing for the publication of a summary of this ordinance and effective date hereof. Very good.

Mr. Mayor, I make a motion to adopt Council Bill 26-1010. Second.

Motion to second. Any discussion on this motion? Roll call, please.

Miller? Aye. Gabriel?

Yes.

Wood? Yes. Evans? Yes. Sheckler?

Yes. Motion has carried. We're moving on to item J, which is executive session pursuant to Idaho code.

Mr. Mayor, I'd move to enter into executive session pursuant to Idaho Code section 742061B to consider the evaluation, dismissal, or disciplining of, or to hear complaints or charges brought against a public officer, employee, staff member, or individual agent or public school student.

Second.

Motion and a second. Any discussion? Roll call.

Gabriel?

Yes.

Wood? Yes. Evans? Yes. Sheckler? Yes. Miller? Aye.

Motion carried. We are in executive session. Thank you.

Bye.