City Council - Regular Meeting

Home Park owns the line under the ground, not up into the house from the shutoff in the ground. Okay, then the third page shows that, okay, freezing protection, that be protected from freezing. On that first page, why should we have to provide a heat tape to prevent freezing of someone else's property? And then it also says on that same page, meter boxes, it says that the water meters have to be in meter boxes. Okay, the next page shows the permit that was issued and approved. And then the page after that shows more clarification because some of it is unreadable towards the bottom. It shows the address and the permit fees and the property owner on that. The next one shows the plumbing contractor that actually pulled the permit. on that project. This was approved in one day on July 31st. It was not assessed by the city attorney or anyone else. The city plumbing inspector approved the permits right away. The next one is actually a clarification of what the permit is. It's a blanket permit. Well, a blanket permit can mean anything. We'll fix anything that's wrong. And it also says on that they're going to be replacing existing meter assemblies and reconnecting to existing plumbing. The issue with that is those other water meters are on the wrong line. They're on the homeowner's line, not on the mobile home parks line. Okay, and then the next one after that shows the total fees. I talked to the city plumbing inspector and he said that they were not going to be crawling under mobile homes to look for these installations that the skirting would have to be removed. Some of the skirting's already been damaged because of this. And then the last page shows where I actually, through my company, removed a water heater that was not permitted back in April. So the issue is not can we put the meters in, They need to be put on the proper line and be permitted properly. And that's what my grievance is. And thank you very much.

Thank you. Next we have Christine Masters.

Good evening, Mayor and council members. My name is Kristy Masters and I'm the treasurer of Shared Harvest Community Garden, a small 501c3 nonprofit here in Coeur d'Alene. The Shared Harvest is a community garden located at the corner of 10th and Foster in the Historic Garden District. Unlike traditional community gardens, we do not have individually assigned plots. Instead, we garden together as a community. Our volunteers take home a small portion of the harvest while the rest of the produce we grow goes to Father Bill's kitchen at St. Vincent de Paul to provide their evening meals for our neighbors who are homeless and food insecure. This year alone, we've already donated over 900 pounds of produce. and we expect to exceed 3,000 pounds by the end of the growing season. Over the years, Shared Harvest has also provided vegetables to local food banks, Union Gospel Mission, Anchor House, and other community organizations. We partner with the Boy Scouts on Eagle Scout projects, we work with homeschool groups in the garden, and we provide garden space for special needs recreation so that participants can grow vegetables to use in their cooking classes. I'm here tonight for two reasons. First, I would like to personally invite each of you to our annual fundraiser dinner under the stars on Saturday, August 22nd in the garden. The evening includes a buffet dinner, beverages, a silent and live auction, and paddle race. Our board would be honored to host the mayor and city council with a complimentary table for eight. RSVP information is included on the postcards that I'll leave with the clerk. Secondly, I'm providing each of you with a copy of a letter explaining the future of Shared Harvest. Marshall and Dolly mend have generously allowed us to use the three city lots for the past 18 years. And we understand the city played an important role in helping establish the garden 18 years ago. We are now exploring the possibility of purchasing the property to ensure that this valuable community space is preserved for future generations. We are beginning conversations with community leaders to determine whether a capital campaign is feasible. And we welcome your ideas, your guidance, and partnership. Together we have an opportunity to protect a unique green space that nourishes not only our community with fresh food, but also with connection, education, and service. Thank you for your time, and I hope to see you on August 22nd.

Thank you, Christy. Next up, we have Max.

So I came to this council meeting about three weeks ago. Christy, you said you were going to look into, did you find out anything? Because I didn't receive an email.

Well, you should have. Not from me, but from staff.

From who?

Well, actually, I'm not sure they're even here tonight, but I just sent it. Do you want me to answer? I'm sorry. I'm kind of out of order. I did send your request out to the city attorney. I don't know if our new city administrator was on board yet by then, but I did send your request.

You sent the request. Did you get a response?

Not for me. No, it was to go to you.

It's in regards to a FOIA request, just so that the public knows, that was billed. completely incorrect. And then they reached out to Rhonda and said whether it was accurate or not. And that being said, what was interesting about it is I'm the one who came up with the calculation, not your staff. I calculated it and then gave them the estimate. So they said they'd do it legally. They didn't ask your legal department, but they asked Rhonda, sitting in council. We could pull that video up, too. I mean, you guys have it. And you guys said you do it by the book. So I wonder how that came about. how my math was the accurate math and nobody gave me a response. Additionally, Randy Adams contacted, I'm assuming here, has been contacting Ryan Hunter, which is the prosecutor here, the criminal prosecutor, and asked him to press charges against me for damage to a shrub. There's a trash can or a trash company that comes in and runs over these same brushes and everything else. What's most interesting out of this is is it's actually retaliatory. In their request for what is my plea, essentially, is a no contact order with the Bells, which is crazy because it's a city tree that I'm being charged with damaging, which is kind of interesting and ridiculous. But your city staff and your employee here said that there's a non-contact order with a neighboring property. That's retaliatory. That's malicious prosecution. It doesn't make any sense. It doesn't hold any sort of legal ground. Dan, you're an attorney. Help me understand how somebody can be offered a no contact order with a neighboring property if it's a city tree. Absurd, ridiculous. In regards to my permit that I obtained through your building department, You guys have given me a hard time. I mean, it's been this ongoing dispute in my neighborhood where the bells have actually come here and complained about it and call about my vehicles, et cetera, that are parked legally within the road. And the trees in front of their house are actually intruding into the roadway. But even then, I'm trying to really wrap my head around how the city can ask for a no contact order when it's a city tree. It seems weird. It holds no legal merit whatsoever. So I'm really excited to take it to court It is retaliatory. He also stated he believes that while you guys made mistakes, you guys have sovereign immunity. Not when it's retaliatory. Not when it's retaliatory, Randy. I know you don't have the courage to look at me, but yeah, no worries. All right. You guys have a good day. This guy's a piece of shit.

Thank you, Max. Is there anyone else who would like to make public comment? Okay, we'll move on to the next item on the agenda, which is council announcements. Any announcements from council?

Yes. Christy. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Well, we've all been thinking a lot about our neighbors in Spokane. Another organization that I belong to, the Kootenai County Task Force on Human Relations has partnered graciously with the city of Coeur d'Alene and the HREI, which is the Human Rights Education Institute, located right over there. And we have a press release going out that will talk about our initiative. It's called From Idaho with Love. So I'll just read really quickly that we are doing a week-long fundraiser to assist individuals who have lost everything during the tragic fires in northern Spokane. Individual organizations, the faith community, or businesses can donate items such as clothing, toiletries, school supplies, toys, et cetera, right there at the Human Rights Education Institute. building that's at 414 West Fort Grounds Drive. It's adjacent to City Park. You really can't miss it. From August 8th through August 15th. Volunteers will be available to assist donors during the office hours. Containers will also be available to the entrance to the building in case you come there and someone's not there and you just have a few small items to drop off. We do encourage those who want to donate cash to send those funds directly to the Anovia Foundation in Spokane. And you can go online and visit their website or mail a check to the Anovia Foundation. Your memo does need to read that the funds are for the Spokane Complex Wildfire Response Fund. If you have any further information you can contact myself or Tony Stewart or Jeanette Laster or the mayor. And it's really important to us that that everyone that's impacted. Well we all know somebody. We all know somebody that lives there. We all go to Spokane. I was born there. I lived till I was 10. And it's just horrific what's happened to them. And we know that it could happen anywhere in USA, hopefully never our town. But we want to show them that we're here for them, that we care, and we're going to deliver some items. And everyone has some gently used clothing. Brand new toiletries, though. That's kind of a must. And if you could be so kind. everyone in our region to go drop off some items at HREI. That'd be great.

Thank you, Christy.

Dan English. Well, just to follow up on that and give a shout out to the Lutherans and their dogs. There was a great article in the press today about the comfort animals and helping with that. And seriously, that is something, I mean, with the animals and what they can do. So it's just all dimensions of the kind of carrying circle come into play. So, yeah, there's different ways to help.

Thank you. Good old Lutheran dogs. Yes, Kiki.

Just thank you for all that work on the fires issues. That's so important for us to step up. Um, I just wanted to mention that August 20th at the den, there is a panel that is working, uh, going to be folks who have been working in the attainable housing arena. And I'm sure with these wildfires and all these people displaced, every contractor in the region is going to be just swamped for a decade to come, but we are still looking at, uh, solutions to attainable housing, uh, Senator Allie Robbie, um, a couple of other legislators. Folks who are leaders in the industry are going to be there for a panel discussion from 6 to 8 at the Den on August 20th. If you know someone who's in that area and would like to attend, we'd be glad to have them. It's free.

Thank you. Any other comments? I do have one announcement to make, which is regarding our student representatives to city committees. If you are a high school student between the ages of 14 to 18, you have an opportunity to learn about city government and become a part of our community by VOLUNTEERING TO BE ON ONE OF OUR COMMITTEES. THE COMMITTEES THAT WE STILL NEED REPRESENTATION FOR ARE THE PARK AND REC COMMISSION, THE PET AND BIKE ADVISORY COMMISSION, THE URBAN FORESTRY COMMITTEE, AND THE CDA TV COMMITTEE. AND THE APPLICATION DEADLINE IS FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 2026. If you would like to apply, you can contact us at cdaid.org and look for the volunteer area and then student representation to submit an application. We'll look forward to that. We'll be making those appointments later on this year. We'll be moving on to the next item, which is item G, our consent calendar.

Mr. Mayor, I'll make a motion to approve the consent calendar as presented, including resolution number 26-060.

Second so we have a motion in a second any discussion on our consent calendar the contents are up on the screen if you're here Very good roll call Shackler.

Yes, English. Yes wood. Yes Evans. Yes Miller. I

The motion is carried. We're moving on to item H, other business. First item we have is resolution number 26061, ratification of an update to the code of conduct and conflict of interest policy to meet the federal HUD grant requirements. Our staff report is by Sherry Battersher, community development specialist.

Good evening, mayor and council members. Tonight we are bringing forth a resolution to ratify an updated code of conduct to meet federal U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, otherwise known as HUD, grant requirements. So back in July, the city applied for an automated permitting systems demonstration grant through HUD. And through that process, we were made aware that the city was required to have a code of conduct on file with HUD to be able to receive federal grant funds through their programs. At the time, we have been meeting that code of conduct requirement. through some previous personnel rules and our own procurement standards. But it was felt that it would be best if we had a standalone document in regards to these grant programs. So we are here tonight. We did, staff submitted the application for the permitting systems grant. Mayor signed a code of conduct for the city for this purpose and in our covered letter to HUD, we stated that we would bring this to our council to be ratified. There was a short grant process to apply for it and that's why it wasn't brought prior to applying for that grant. So HUD's code of conduct and conflict of interest policy requirements addresses a distinct scope, procurement integrity, and conflict of interest standards specific to federally funded grants. And if ratified, it'll complement the city's existing personnel rules on the matter. The code of conduct establishes standards in regard to actual and apparent conflicts of interest. prohibits using city positions for personal gain, no soliciting or accepting gratuities, gifts, et cetera, from contractors involved in HUD-funded activities. We would follow strict confidential requirements in our procurement practices. There's organizational conflict of interest provisions, mandatory written disclosure requirement for any actual, potential, or apparent conflict, and review and resolution procedures. It sets out integrity standards in regard to our procurement practices and has some documentation and record retention requirements that would be in regard to those federal grants. And then it sets up a disciplinary action for violations. So tonight we're asking council to approve the resolution as presented, ratifying the city's code of conduct and conflict of interest policy for projects funded with HUD grants. And this would also be in relation to our CDBG grant as well.

Thank you. Are there any questions for Sherry? Dan, English.

Either for you or Randy, just in hearing this, reviewing this, we've had examples of very specific stuff that we can point to where like Meals on Wheels and Woody was part of Senior Center. Now, it wasn't a staff there, but and got stuff in different ones. I'm just wondering would this new thing have any difference on those? Would it preclude some of what we've done in the past or just have more guardrails or what?

Good question. It would definitely put some new guardrails up because it does state if there's a perception of a conflict of interest. Yeah, that covers a lot of ground. It would set up stricter perimeters and, like you said, guardrails than we currently have.

Yeah, yeah. Okay. Any other questions for Sherry? Then we'll look for council action.

Mr. Mayor, I'd make a motion to approve resolution number 26-061, ratifying an updated code of conduct and conflict of interest policy to meet federal HUD grant requirements. Second.

Motion and a second. Are there any discussion on the motion? Roll call, please.

English.

Yes.

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

Yes.

Motion carried. Thank you, Sherry. On to item number H2, which is resolution 26062, approval for the police department to apply for and if awarded a 2026 COPS community policing development microgrants program in the amount of approximately $128,290. I know that it says Jeff Walter will be making the presentation, but we have Lieutenant Tilson with us from the police department.

Definitely not as tall, definitely not as handsome. Good evening, City Council and Mayor. This request seeks authorization to apply for and accept the 2026 COPS Community Policing Development Microgrant in the amount of $120,290. This grant would allow the police department to establish an in-house digital forensic capability by expanding the duties of an existing crime analyst position and providing the equipment, software, training, and certifications necessary to process digital evidence. Digital evidence plays a key role in our modern investigations to include child exploitation, internet crimes against children or ICAC cases, narcotics investigations, financial crimes, violent crimes, and missing person cases. In 2025, the department entered more than 100 electronic devices into evidence and detectives handled more than 2,700 follow-up investigations with those. And to keep that in perspective, 100 electronic devices could have storage up to well over terabyte in size. So even though 100 doesn't sound like a lot, that's a lot of data that they can go through. Currently, many forensic examinations require assistance from outside agencies, which can create delays due to the competing workloads and the limited resources of our area. This grant would allow us to process evidence locally, improve investigative efficiency, reduce delays, and better support victims and prosecutions. A quick thing about the grants, this is a COPS office grant, which is part of the U.S. Department of Justice, and that provides us resources, training, and grant opportunities to law enforcement agencies nationwide. This is a competitive microgrant. It requires no match. It doesn't create a new position, and it provides a two-year opportunity to establish and evaluate this capability for the department. The category we are pursuing focuses on efforts to investigate and interrupt child exploitation. There are seven categories that we could choose from. We felt that was most applicable for what we're trying to do. Child exploitation investigations are often complex and heavy dependent on the digital evidence, regretfully. Successful investigations require forensic analysis, coordination with prosecutors and partner agencies, and collaboration with victim services and child advocacy organizations. The program goal is quite simple, to develop an employee with the training and tools necessary to serve as that investigator. Most importantly, this is not a request for new hire. There isn't anything that we would have to carry over into that realm. This capability would be assigned as a collateral duty to that existing employee. The grant does again cover training, equipment, software, and all that would remain with the department after the grant completes so we can continue using it past the two-year purchase. I know some financial considerations should always be in order. This is $128,290 that will go past two years. As they proceed, there might be a little bit more. We are able to, if there is an employee stipend for that increased capability that if we worked with the HR department and they said this does qualify, we can actually add that into this grant ahead of time. So for those two years, we can cover those costs. Just finally, again, beyond the child exploitation cases, this capability is going to help support our violent crime investigations, narcotic investigations, financial crimes, anything you can think of. Even though child exploitation is going to be its target, it'll still be used for all of those critical investigations that we're doing. So with that, I stand for any questions. I should add, I do want to add this. All digital investigations would continue to require warrants, consent, or other lawful authority. We're not just going to go out there and just willy-nilly do things. We're going to do this correctly and to the best of our legal abilities. So with that, I stand for any questions.

Thank you, Lieutenant. Any questions? Christy.

Thank you, Mayor. Lieutenant, I know your crime analyst. I used to supervise her. She's brilliant, and she'll do a fabulous job.

We're not using her. We're using Max.

Okay, he's good too.

Sarah is definitely going to be an integral part of this process.

But my question is they have a huge workload already, but this is necessary, absolutely necessary. I guess just offering my two cents, I would build in that stipend, front load it, because they're going to be inundated with work.

Regretfully, that's absolutely correct. Yeah.

Thank you. Any other questions on this topic? then I will accept council action.

Mr. Mayor, I would make a motion. Oh, I gotta find it here. To approve the police department, excuse me, ratifying

No, that's not it.

Okay. To approve resolution number 26-062, approval for the police department to apply for, and if awarded, accept a 2026 COPS Community Police and Development microgrants program in the amount of approximately $128,290. Second.

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

Wood. Yes. Evans. Yes. Miller. Aye. Sheckler. Yes. English.

Yes. Motion carried. Thank you, Lieutenant. And next up we have item H3, which is resolution 26063, approving an amendment number one to the agreement with Poe Asphalt Paving Incorporated for the 2026 chip seal program. We have Todd Fusere, our streets and engineering director. Todd.

Good evening, mayor and council members. If you hadn't noticed, it's construction season and there's a lot going on out there. We started just over a week ago on our 2026 chip seal project and we noticed some things that we overlooked and should do a little bit more within our current budget. So wanted to bring that forward, ironically, They did complete the work last Friday because it moves that fast. And so being it was within budget, I felt safe. I didn't want them to come back. Anyway, there was a section of Canfield right here basically to Pine Grove from Ramsey Road that was overlooked and they were right there so we wanted to capture that street. They were also going to do a section of Pine Grove from Hanley to Wilbur and then that was going to be a second layer of chip because the road was a little bit far gone and so we wanted to add another layer. That'll give us a half inch more of thickness to the road surface and it'll hopefully buy us seven to 10 years without having to do major repairs. Also the same treatment from Highway 95 on Welber all the way out to Ramsey Road. We decided to put a second layer on there as well. About five, six years ago we used to do two layers of chip on every road that we did. but we felt like we were falling behind and we needed to get more volume, so we moved to a single layer. That won't last quite as long, so hope to get back to doing two layers across the board eventually, but we also want to seal up as many roads as we can. The cost of this change order, for this change order number one would be $98,287.80. that would bring the total contract up to $981,575.80. If I had this time, I'd take any questions. Any questions for Todd? Kiki.

Thanks, Todd. What is the total budget amount allocated for this project, and what other change orders are you expecting?

For this project, we are expecting there should not be any The only thing would be if there was a volume difference in the amount of chip that was placed. We have inspectors watching that. I think we're gonna be fairly close, pretty minimal as far as that goes. Our budget amount that we do chip and inlay is 1.5 million and we do use some of that money on asphalt projects and things like that. So it is covered in this year's budget.

Thanks.

Any other questions for Todd? All right, we'll look for council action then.

Mr. Mayor, I'll make a motion to approve resolution number 26-063, approving change order number one to the agreement with Poe Asphalt Paving Incorporated for the 2026 chip seal project. Second.

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

Evans. Yes. Miller. Aye. Sheckler. Yes. English. Yes. Wood. Yes.

Motion carried. Thank you, Todd. Off to item number H. for resolution number 26064, which is approving the setting of a public hearing for September 1, 2026, and the setting of the high dollar amount of $155,307,037 for expenditures for the 2026-2027 fiscal year financial plan annual appropriation. Katie Ebner, our finance director, is here to present and answer all your questions.

Good evening, Mayor and Council. I am here to go through this part of the legal process that the city follows in order to set a budget First of all, what is a high watermark budget resolution? This is something required by Idaho Code where council will tentatively approve some figures as far as what can be budgeted as well as setting those figures within the resolution so we can notice the public. As to what the highest our budget can be We're part of this budget process that begins in the spring with quite a number of meetings with our directors and city administration and the finance department and That next after we have those meetings We present a budget with all of the department's requests that they are making for that year So that the high watermark is the sum of all of those requests before anything is looked at for a cut. This is continuing the conversation from the budget workshop we had last week. And so I just want to make clear that when we began with that budget discussion that included all requests and I'll go through some, um, suggested revisions to the preliminary budget. And the important thing to understand here is that council may adopt a budget below what is approved tonight, but not above. These are the overall figures that we're looking at in that budget resolution. 155.3 million would be the total proposed expenditures as a ceiling. This is not what council would be adopting as a budget. Some other figures, 34.1 million in property tax revenue. Of that number, we would have the bond payment for the 2025 fire department bond that was passed last year. We would levy a payment each year and that would be included in that total. Beyond that, library is funded by our levy, so that $34.1 million is going to a number of different items throughout the budget. And then 127.8 million would be other revenues that we went into depth in that budget workshop. Some examples would be payments from the state for sales tax revenue, our fees, our licenses, our permitting fees, sort of just numerous categories that we went into depth in that budget workshop. Another overall look we in this notice will show two prior years. So we have FY25 actuals, FY26 budget, and then the proposed FY27 broken down by our funds or our fund categories, I should say. General fund and our enterprise funds are going to make up the majority of that total expenditure line item. Special revenue funds includes our fire bond projects, so that is something that is high as we get started with those projects, and then we'll see that level out as the end of those projects come to, as we see that in the next fiscal years. I want to call back to some conversation at the budget workshop. We talked about the general fund, a lot of that overall, the whole budget request. And there were a lot of misconceptions out there within the public. And I want to make sure that we clarify those because some of the misconceptions, I personally would be very afraid hearing if those misconceptions were true. So I want to make sure we clear those up so we don't have major concerns. with our public. With the budget workshop, with that full ask from all of our departments, we were showing about a $3.1 million operating deficit in the general fund. The assumptions there was a 7% increase in the city's property tax line item, not necessarily a 7% increase in the tax rate for for our citizens. So Idaho property taxes are not simple and it can be easy to have misconceptions out there. For example, if you come from a state where the property taxes are driven by a levy rate that sort of stays static, you will not be able to apply those assumptions to how we calculate property taxes in Idaho. So rather than get into depth as far as how that all works, I'm going to hopefully show some figures that are more reassuring. First, I'll go through some of the potential reductions to the preliminary budget deficit. The first one, we discussed the fact that our annexation fee fund was nearing the end with those balances from annexations from prior years. Over the years, the city has transferred funds from annexation fees into the general fund for operations. Indexation fees are unique compared to impact fees. Indexation fees can be used as discretionary funds so they can help with operations, whereas impact fees must go towards costs that are related to that subdivision or that area that is paying for those impact fees. So impact fees, I hear a lot about, oh, why can't we raise impact fees? That will solve the budget problems. First of all, they're one time in nature. And second of all, they have restrictions. The next proposed change, we just heard from our streets and engineering director, Todd, about his line item for road work throughout the summer. And in the preliminary budget request, there was an addition of $250,000 to that line item, which has been $1.5 million for the past few years. that was reduced in prior years to help the budget. And so the request, while it was reasonable to bump it back up to that earlier number, in this budget situation that is being listed as a potential cut from the preliminary budget. So bringing that line item back down to what it's been for the last few years. The next is delay the replacement of two streets and engineering general use pickup trucks. So while these are needed in the future in discussions with Todd, they can make it work for a year with the equipment they have. The next, defer the addition of a building inspector position. I spoke with our building department director and there are two major additions to the building inspection department. One is a permitting software, about $130,000 cost, some of that at one time for implementation. It was clear that our customers, our builders, really need something more modern than the product that we have, which was built in-house. And we need something that is not only more user-friendly, but will help that department be more efficient in the process. So in talking with our director of building inspection, he was more comfortable cutting out that FTE. And as I'm going through these, the first place we look when we're starting to shore up the budget are the items that are additions from prior years. So the question is, Can you make it work next year without these additions? And so these are the ones through those discussions that have been identified. The next is an additional position for an HVAC technician. The city has a number of aging HVAC systems and our building maintenance department is looking at some replacements of older components, but the city would benefit it would help our Our building maintenance department kind of get get to a lot of those issues and keep those systems in tip-top shape and The next is there was an additional request for a retaining an attorney position that essentially this is a vacancy position that would be removed. It's not cutting anybody in the legal department, but it is up here as an addition. And then we have recreation department we asked if they could do without this vehicle replacement in the next year. And last, it's a small line item, but our planning director did mention that this could be cut from the budget as a not a have to for the planning department intern. Any questions at this point? I'll keep cruising along. Okay.

I would just like to add that if council is interested in cutting our budget, these are the items that are presented for your decision to cut. It's not Katie's job to do that. It is council's. So if you're going to be studying your budget in the future and you want to do something, these would be the items that would bubble to the top of the list.

And I just want to be clear that conversations with directors have been had at this point. It wasn't, oh, you know, I don't think they need this type of conversation. It was, okay, we've got to start making these tough decisions. Can you operate without that? So I wanted to be careful that it's not something that, you know, me as an accountant said, oh, you can do without, so. And yes, of course, it is up to council to choose what we would end up changing in the budget going forward.

Is this a point to engage in any dialogue on that?

I recognize Dan English for a question.

Well, just the very last one, which is small, but... defer the planning department intern in the scheme of all of the stuff that's you know that's a very low amount we're not going to save much on that but an intern can perform a lot of duties and things and at the same time when we're talking about your you know some of our uh you know planning department building the you know some of that that we need to upgrade and do this and that um it just seems like um i would be very wary of uh cutting that out given the um you know kind of the trade-off of what we would get for that so that's my sense on that one so thank you dan

Absolutely fair observation on that one. It is a small amount for sure. So cost benefit is something to be considered.

And so if council wants to ruminate on this and then come back later, remember we are setting the high water mark. So we can come down from there if you want to review some of these ideas, maybe discuss them with the department heads and see what they think. Thank you, Katie.

Okay, just looking at overall, what would these changes do to this preliminary deficit we're looking at? We would see it just under $2 million if all of those changes were made. And this second to last item makes me a little nervous, but I'll explain why that is there. Typically the city has been able to realize savings throughout the year from vacancies in positions as employees leave There might be a gap between that position being filled which generates savings or a position that could be strategically delayed in order to generate savings for the general fund. This is an aggressive number as far as being very intentional about looking at positions that we can keep services but maybe hold some of the costs throughout the year. Typically, I see about $1 million in personnel savings, which we should see that because we budget 100% of how many staff members were allocated. And that's been a long time city practice. I've been speaking with our new city administrator, Mr. Dominguez, about how we could look at those savings we inherently see every year. may be difficult because of the way department directors are used to seeing their budgets. So that's far off, but this is something, this is an aggressive number of, we'd be very intentional about savings from vacancies rather than looking at layoffs.

And I just wanted to add something here. So there are a lot of organizations that will use this magic to go ahead and make their budget look better. So instead of budgeting 100% of FTEs, we would budget 97 or 95 and then say, look at our savings. The city's never done that. But we do realize those savings at the end of the year when we do our reconciliation. So we will see some savings. It's just would be, in your opinion, in my opinion, too, it would be bad practice for us to fall back on that to say, look, it's better. We need to be realistic and honest with the public.

Exactly. I think looking at realistic numbers, being transparent as to what we would expect to see happen. Now, as a finance director, I can sleep at night knowing that I've been transparent that we have allocated, after those cuts, $1.9 million above what our revenues are. So then there's no surprises. But I acknowledge that we have seen some savings from managing those vacancies.

Kristi.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Well, Katie, first of all, I do appreciate the efforts on this, bringing real solutions to us. I think what you're trying to say is a hiring freeze on some of these positions. Like when they're vacant, they stay vacant for a while.

Not so much. Not every position is created equal. Some positions have redundancies where yes, you know, colleagues can pick up a little bit of extra workload or perhaps some overtime which is less than filling a position. So I think saying a hiring freeze is not the intent here, just being more strategic. OK, how do we keep services at the level that our citizens expect? But how can we be strategic about, OK, well, this one we can hold for about four months and then get it filled when the busier season starts, for example? Just very broad examples here.

And then I also was wondering if we could hear from Mr. Dominguez. You've been working with Katie, obviously have pulled some of this together. Do you have some thoughts for us on the proposal?

Yes, thank you. First of all, Katie's done a fantastic job. And I think that slide right there is critical. So it isn't a hiring freeze. It's at most, it's known as a soft freeze colloquially, but that's not even an official term. So she chose a nice phrase up there called vacancy management. I've also seen it called vacancy control. So what it allows us to do is as the actuals come in during the year in our budget, and we can see how we're performing to our budget. If we're performing favorably, we can move forward in filling vacancies. If our revenues are lower than expected, our expenditures are higher than expected, then we would hold positions open for longer. um so it's a judgment call it factors in the budget how it's performing and it also factors in the operational needs of the city so the number that our finance director chose is based on prior year trends and so she gave that number around a million and she chose 1.2 there as an aggressive number which leaves the deficit at 680 thousand dollars it's my third week that said i am confident with those numbers okay thank you Yeah. Kiki.

Well, thank you. Um, I have a few things. I first, I spent a good portion of time on the phone with Katie and a good portion of time with our new city administrator and talking about the budget. And I just want to say going, you know, in this direction is much more comforting than where we were, but I want to recognize that we're still in a deficit. Even at our best case scenario, we're going into our savings account for ongoing expenses. So a lot of the things I talked about were things that I think we've talked about before. But I feel it's very important to state that it's time to really pay attention and get some of those things done. And I mentioned things like looking at our leases and fees that we've had. We did some of that today. But some of the things that are historically have been very low and revenue generators but should be reviewed and should be sooner than later so that we can stop this trend from continuing to be a deficit. So I talked about that. Some things about even one where there was in the rec department, besides the truck, there were some expenses that didn't look like they were anywhere near offset by revenue. And I gave a really long list there. So I would hope that, I guess my input is we're on the right track, but I feel like this direction puts us in a couple years in just a really slippery slope here with what we're gonna do with budgets. So I think all of these things have to be looked at, parking fees, doc fee whatever our whatever our revenue buckets are we've been kind of kicking it can down the road we haven't looked at events if they're paying for themselves yet we kind of touched on it but a lot of these things I think it's time to just take a deeper dive any other questions Katie you may continue

so we see this slide every year and we just saw it last week but it is just really important to show where the values are in this budget our city is safe if you need an ambulance and they're going to show up very quickly if you need law enforcement, so on and so forth. We have a very, very safe city and you can see that reflected in how the city spends. So 62 cents on every dollar is spent on public safety. You get up to general government. And if you're talking about a business, you would say, well, what's the overhead? Is general government overhead? Not necessarily. Some departments in this category do generate revenue, like building permits and that sort of thing. But 20%, less than 20% is a really good overhead, especially for an organization that has so many legal requirements. We've gotta have those people making sure we're doing everything right. So public works, we have, you see them all over right now. They are working hard on our roads. And culture and recreation are stunning parks, only seven cents on the dollar, what a value. So it's just important to look at this and say what do we want less of? We don't want to look at these categories and say we're gonna slice here, we're gonna dice here. And then just to clarify, I do wanna talk about the projected tax rate When I created this slide for the packet, I was still working on some assumptions for property taxes, so I've redlined this. You can toss the slide that was in the packet. During this process, you get little pieces to the puzzle as the summer goes on, and so we've received some new information from the county And after our market valuation reports were posted by the county, that assessed value of $600,000, which I would say is a little bit above the average home here, would see an increase for the full year taxes paid. This is not a rate. This is the actual increase in the full year's bill of $66. So that's about $5.50. in your tax bill. I want to be clear that that's not a tax rate increase of $5 because then that kind of generates a number of people are, oh no, that's thousands of dollars. No, $66 on your overall tax bill as an increase. So hopefully that's clarified. And then just wrapping it up, this is the timeline we're looking at. So the resolution would be approved. And then we publish hearing notices per Idaho code. And then the public budget hearing would be September 1 at 6 PM at our regular council meeting. More work to be done on this budget, but this is where we are in the timeline. So any questions?

Any questions for Katie?

Just a clarification, because I know that this has come back to me before, is you say it's just a total of $66 on their tax bill, but that's just for the city of Coeur d'Alene. Correct. So then they come back and say, you said it was going to be $66 higher, and it's much higher because the other districts or the college or whoever

aligns to that so just clarifying that that's just for the city for city of Coeur d'Alene taxes the bond and all the other tax revenue categories thanks Amy yeah I don't have a question but I just wanted to acknowledge all the work that you've put in even since our workshop roughly a week ago and thank you to the department heads and everything that you've done to prepare for tonight so any other Christy

Thank you. My question is to you, Mr. Mayor. We probably need another workshop before we finalize anything. And I was wondering, just calendar-wise, we're all so busy. We do have something on the 31st. If we could tag-team with that. I don't know. I'll ask people, staff, to send it out.

We will work on that. Okay, so we'll see how that can work out given the tight timeline. Remember our workshop, the Cortere hearing is on the 31st, and the next day is our council meeting for this. So it's going to be tight.

Maybe if we had an hour on the 31st before the Cortere?

We might be able to swing that. I don't know, everyone's panicking, but we'll see what we can do. Thank you, Christy. Thank you. Yes, Dan English.

Just a little math challenge here, when you've mentioned about equate to a 66 annual, but then I see in the second bullet point there, it says value of 600,000, an annual increase of $30. So what's the difference of 30 or 66?

Yes, so a piece of the puzzle was missing as far as this calculation that I received from the county after this was published in the packet. So up here, I've redlined it for you. And I can get you a copy after the meeting. Oh, no worries.

Katie, what changed? Was it the new growth figure?

Well, I needed an assumption as far as the tax value, the overall market value. And I looked at some prior year trajectories. And it's not in my character, but I was optimistic on a calculation of what the overall tax valuation would be. And we received that number. So I was able to plug in that lower market valuation.

Okay, and so what's the, for a $600,000 house, the amount of increase is considered to be, what did you say again, $6, $5?

$66 for their annual amount, and about $5.50 above extra on their monthly bill if they pay it through their escrow.

I know that people are upset about that. I mean, I don't like paying taxes as much as anyone else, but I believe we're way under inflation. So I think if you would look at the cost of groceries last year and then what you're paying this year, you would see that we are not even coming close to matching what inflation is. So people who are used to paying more for gas and more for groceries, we're not hitting them as hard as those items, which, I mean, still, we're taking a chunk, but we're not aggressively taking, if we were allowed to index our groceries, property taxes based on inflation instead of just the formula provided by the state it would probably be significantly higher just to keep up and that explains a lot about our budget in that you know things are costing more but yet the department has done a terrific job in holding back on buying a lot of these expensive things in fact one of the items that you listed up there to cut is the HVAC person for building maintenance and just the cost of replacement on some of the equipment that we have, like even for this library, is just horrendous. It's very expensive, but yet we've managed to keep a lid on that. And I know there will be a crowd that won't appreciate that, but I do, so I thank you. Kiki?

I didn't ask.

Oh, I thought you had your hand up.

I didn't.

Oh, you were doing this.

I was playing with my pen.

Anyone else want to do this? So, okay. All right. Any questions, further questions for Katie? We do have a function here. which is to approve the setting of a public hearing for the budget. And we'll see if we can work in a workshop before then. And also to set the high dollar amount, which I will not read because someone else will read it in just a moment if they make the motion. Thank you.

Mr. Mayor, I'll make a motion to approve resolution number 26-064, approving the setting of a public hearing for September 1st, 2026, and setting the high dollar amount at $155,307,037 for expenditures for the 2026-2027 fiscal year financial plan. Second. Motion to second. Any discussion on this motion?

Very good. We'll take a roll call.

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

Yes. Motion carried. Thank you so much, Katie. Do appreciate that. The next item is Resolution 26065, which is expressing opposition to the construction, development, expansion, or approval of data center facilities within the city limits until the city completes further analysis, study, and policy review. Kristi approached me about this a while back, and Dan English approached me just earlier this month. So, Dan, would you mind reading the resolution for us?

For the motion?

It's in the packet.

It's number tab five, if you look. Yep, yep.

Now, tab five, you've got to read the resolution. Oh, the resolution. They know exactly what we're voting on. Okay. Thank you, sir. Sure, happy to.

Resolution number 26-065, a resolution of the City Council of the City of Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, expressing opposition to the construction development expansion or approval of data center facilities within the city limits until the city completes further analysis, studies, and policy reviews. Whereas the city of Coeur d'Alene has adopted strategic goals emphasizing sustainable growth, infrastructure planning, transparency, responsible governance, and preservation of the community's character and long-term livability, and whereas the City Council recognizes that large-scale data center development may have significant impact on municipal infrastructure, including electrical demand, water consumption, wastewater capacity, drainage system, transportation networks, emergency services, land use compatibility, environmental sustainability, and long-term economic development planning. And whereas the City Council further recognizes that the rapid advancement of artificial intelligence technologies and hyperscale computing facilities as a result of the increasing request for development of data centers facilities across the country. And whereas a city council finds that additional study and analysis are necessary to elevate to evaluate the potential impacts of data center development in the city's utility systems, public infrastructure, public safety operations, tax base, economic development goals, environmental resources, and overall community character before such development is considered within the corporate limits of the City of Coeur d'Alene, and whereas the City Council desires to ensure the future consideration of data center development is conducted in a manner that is deliberate, transparent, data-driven, and aligned with the city's comprehensive plan, strategic plan, and infrastructure capabilities. Now, therefore, be it resolved that the Coeur d'Alene City Council hereby expresses its opposition to the construction, development, expansion, or approval of data centers within the city limits be it further resolved that the city staff are directed to identify the studies, infrastructure analysis, policy amendments, and public review process as necessary to evaluate future data center proposals and return to the city council with recommendations before any such development is considered for approval. Okay, do you have any comments?

Christy.

Yeah, I do. Thank you. First of all, thank you very much for putting this together. A lot of citizens have expressed their concern to me that we could ever host such a center like this, what it would do to our aquifer. and all of our resources. And so it's not just us. What I hope to do, Mr. Mayor, is take this wonderful resolution you put together and ask the county to look at it, Hayden, Post Falls, Rathdrum. I think we all have to stand together and protect our aquifer. So I really, really appreciate this. It's just a statement of our value of this community, and it still has a lot of due process if somebody did apply that we would review it appropriately. So thank you.

Any other comments, Dan English? Well, just that, yeah, I appreciate this is a, I mean, we're making a very firm statement about, you know, we have a great deal of caution on this and not going to jump ahead at the same time. We're not like totally, you know, shutting the door, closing our minds off because There's a lot of things with technology that, you know, at different times have been controversial, but with the right, again, guardrail structures, you know, there can do good. So I think it just, yeah, we want to be careful, and if in doubt, You know, if they're going to really push something too big, too fast, it's like, well, the answer is no. But let us reason it out, and then some version of that, maybe.

Very good. Any other comments? Yes, Dan Sheckler.

I noticed there wasn't a staff report on this resolution, and it seems to be related to the planning department as well as possibly the legal department. And I was wondering if either one of the representatives from those departments had comment that they'd like to offer us about this resolution. Sure.

Randy and Hillary are both here. Hillary is approaching the lectern. Hillary?

Good evening, mayor and council members. I did speak with Randy about this. In our zoning code, was it the high impact? Extensive. I forget what the category was. So extensive impact is a use allowed only by special use permit. And so that would be the most likely. There's also a category called essential services, which That one is more for public infrastructure. That would be more like an Avista for electric transmission, things like that. So this is certainly a big issue across the country and throughout Idaho. So I can certainly speak with other communities across the state and find out best practices. We're also, we have a planning conference, joint conferences, September with Montana, and they've also been dealing with a lot of data centers. So the timing is excellent for us to be able to come back and present evidence and recommendations for best practices. And if we need to change anything, I think we're okay with the current code in terms of the extensive impact or whatever that category was because it does require a special use permit. So that would allow the conditions and things like that. Also data centers generally have larger acreages than we have in the city of Coeur d'Alene, but it definitely could be a regional concern.

So all this resolution basically does is just tell you to come back to us that we stipulate that the council is not supportive of it at this time, but we do want to hear more information. That's part of the resolution. And from what I've discussed with you and with city staff, we really don't have a place to put one. So it would be in the special use permit, that process would come back to council regardless.

A special use permit for that would go through the Planning and Zoning Commission.

Then it could be appealed. And it could be appealed to City Council. That's correct. Good to know.

And it's only allowed, I think, in the industrial.

And Randy has more.

I do. There are only three zones that extensive impact are allowed in. The C-17 and light manufacturing both require a special use permit. but it is a use of right in the manufacturing district. It would not have to go through a special use permit if it were deemed an extensive impact use.

And Hillary, we have like one manufacturing zone in the city.

We do and it's very limited. We have the industrial loop. So they're very small parcels there. I don't think there's there might be two small vacant ones and then Shriver Way, which is zone that way, but it's largely commercial uses. So we don't have a lot of land that would be suitable with that zoning.

Okay. Mr. Sheckler, do you have more? No. Okay. Dan English.

Well, just that looking ahead, of course, this is all going to be dealt with and needs to be dealt with by our legislature. And it's not too early to be as we're planning some of our fall calendars. And we usually try to host, you know, some different things with legislators. This is something for the public to really be asking them, what's their position on this? And I'm curious because, unfortunately, we've got kind of too many cases to count where something that really impacts the locals and all of that. that our authority has been taken away by the state. So this is something, I mean, we really need to keep an eye on this because there are major players at stake and who knows what can happen. But we should have a lot of interaction.

Very good. All right. Thank you, Hillary. Randy? We'll look for council action. Then on this resolution.

Mr. Mayor, I'd make a motion to approve resolution number 26065, expressing opposition to the construction, development, expansion, or approval of data center facilities within the city limits until the city completes further analysis, study, and policy review. Second.

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

Sheckler?

Yes.

English?

Yes.

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

Motion carried on to Item H6, which is Resolution 26066, Amendment to the City of Coeur d'Alene Benefit Trust Irrevocable Trust Agreement. Staff report by Randy Adams, City Attorney, as recommended by the Benefits Trust Board of Trustees. Randy. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Council.

I don't have a slide presentation. It's a contract amendment, which is not conducive to really exciting slides. But I come before you tonight to ask for approval of a proposed amendment to the City of Coeur d'Alene employee benefit trust irrevocable trust agreement. Big name. First I want to point out that I had made an error in the staff report when I said that the agreement itself does not contain any provision governing the amendment of the agreement. I found in paragraph 7.2 that it states that the Board of Trustees, with the written approval of the plan sponsor, which is the City of Coeur d'Alene, may amend the trust agreement. In 2019, the City of Coeur d'Alene approved a self-funded health insurance plan pursuant to state law. The plan is operated through a separate and independent trust, which is funded by the city. The trust agreement was approved by the city on December 3rd of 2019 and the plan went into effect on January 1, 2020. The agreement provides that the plan and the trust funds are managed and administered by the trustees through the trust. The trustees by state law are fiduciaries acting on behalf of the beneficiaries of the plan and the trust fund which are the employees of the city and their dependents. Article five of the trust agreement provides the procedures for changes to the board of trustees. Paragraph 5.1 requires the board of trustees to provide notice to the Department of Insurance when there's a change of trustees. Paragraph 5.2 provides that a trustee who resigns must give notice to the chair of the board of trustees. Paragraph 5.3 provides that a trustee may be removed by the board of trustees. The city is not involved in any of those actions. primarily because the trust is required to act as an independent body. Idaho Code, Section 41-4004-2 sets out the duties of the trustees regarding filings with the Department of Insurance. Pursuant to this statute, the trustees are required to file any amendments to the trust agreement and any changes to the trustee or trustees who are sitting. The notice has to include certain facts. Now, paragraph 5.4, which is what we're discussing tonight, concerns the appointment of a successor trustee and it provides that in case any trustee shall die, become incapable of acting under the agreement, resign or be removed, a successor trustee shall promptly be appointed by a written notice signed by the plan sponsor and upon written notice to the director of the Department of Insurance. Otherwise, the agreement is silent on the procedure for selecting a successor trustee. In the six-year history of the trust, there have been successor trustees appointed to replace two of the original trustees. In both cases, the remaining trustees voted to recommend a successor trustee, and council then voted to approve those recommendations. In May of this year, one of the original trustees, Bill Dodd, resigned. The trust received, after giving notice to the city at large, received two applications to be appointed as a successor trustee, and the remaining trustees voted unanimously to recommend a successor trustee. The mayor raised an issue of whether he could appoint someone not recommended by the trustees. In the end, the mayor had suggested that the trustees modify the trust agreement to make it clear that appointments are made by the trustees as contemplated by state law. So the current trustees held a special meeting on July 20th and unanimously voted to approve the amendment that is before you tonight. The trustees consider this amendment to be critical to the independence of the trust. Both state law and the agreement itself emphasize that a health insurance trust is to be managed and administered separately and independently from the city government itself. And this is because the duties of the trustees toward the employees are different from the duties of the city to its employees. And the independence of the trust could be called into question if the trustees themselves are actually selected by city elected officials or if the trustees selection of a successor trustee is subject to approval by the city. I want to emphasize that the statute does require ultimately the Department of Insurance to approve the appointment of successor trustees. So the trustees request that the council approve the amendment to the agreement regarding the appointment of successor trustees. If this amendment is approved, the city, as the plan sponsor, will provide written notice to the Department of Insurance, which again, as I said, has final say on the amendment. So I will stand for questions.

Randy, so I got this item, brought this up. It was on the consent calendar, so I brought it up for discussion. According to the history, so the city council created the trust on behalf of the city.

That is correct.

And then it says that in February of 2024, Mayor Hammond recommended Mike Becker as a trustee and council confirmed it. And then earlier this year, it was presented as an item on the consent calendar that to appoint Katie Ebner, another trustee. The way I read it now, if this is true, is that basically we would be adopting a rule that would remove council from what it's done in the past, which is to approve these, or basically come to us for approval.

That is correct. It would go directly to the Department of Insurance.

So we were voting on removing our own authority to do that, but yet council would still retain authority to modify the trust agreement as it's doing tonight.

Yes, this amendment has nothing to do with amendments to the trust agreement.

And who proposes the trust amendments to the trust agreement? Can council propose those amendments, or does that come from the trust itself?

Usually it comes from the trust itself, but there's nothing in the rules that say the mayor or council member or council as a whole can come to the trust and say, we think there should be an amendment. What do you think? The process under state law is that the trustees would consider the amendment. If they approve the amendment, then it would be transmitted to the Department of Insurance for approval.

And I understand. I appreciate that the Department of Insurance acts as a backstop to this because that's a great safety valve. I guess the question really would be for council is do they want to remove anything, if council voted no on an appointment, how would that affect things? I mean, assuming that council decides to reject this and the trustees come back as they had in the past and say, you know, we want to appoint Joe Blow to the committee and council said no.

Well, as with most state laws, there are no clear answers. The statute 41-4004, which I had mentioned in my presentation, indicates, and this is what happened in this case, is that the plan sponsor, the city of Coeur d'Alene, appointed or selected the original trustees. But the That same statute goes on to say that after the registration of the plan, then trustees are changed or successor trustees are added. And it says any change in the trustee or trustees will include notice to the Department of Insurance by the trustees. So does that mean that the trustees have the sole selection? I don't know but if council were to reject a successor trustee I suppose the trustees could come back with another selection So if this thing if council approves this change this modification, so it doesn't the new trustee nominations Do not come to council in the future

It says the name of the successor trustee shall be forwarded to the city administrator to issue the notices required. What would the notices be?

It would be a notice to the Department of Insurance. It kind of parallels the statute where it says the notice shall include biographical affidavits of any new trustee, officer, or management personnel. So it would just be a notice to the Department of Insurance that this is the proposed successor trustee. It would provide information on the successor trustee and the Department of Insurance could say yay or nay.

Okay, so we're going from a point in time where the mayor made the appointment to a point where we would just be out of the picture.

I think both of the successor trustees that have been approved were on the recommendation of the trustees. They didn't come in the first instance from the mayor or from council.

But the change that this would implement would be from where we were before, where the appointment was technically made by the trustees, passed to the mayor, council approved. That part's gone if this is adopted.

That is what the recommendation is. Okay. Let's see about council discussion. Mr. Sheckler.

I have some questions. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Coeur d'Alene employee benefit trust irrevocable trust agreement. That was approved by the Department of Insurance previously?

It was.

And under 5.4, that, of that agreement that was approved by the Department of Insurance, it says that a successor trustee shall promptly be appointed by a written notice signed by the plan sponsor and upon written notice to the director. That plan sponsor, that's capitalized. I see a capital P and an S. You've referenced the City of Coeur d'Alene. Is that defined more fully in the trust agreement?

Yes, it is. Plan sponsor is defined as the City of Coeur d'Alene.

And the written notice to the director under Idaho Code 41-4004, subsection 2G, that director then has 30 days to approve a successor trustee. Is that correct? Or reject the successor trustee?

Could you point that, which was, what statute were you looking at?

41-4004, subsection two, and then that says things that have to go before the director within 30 days for approval, and then under subsection G of that, it specifies the appointment of the successor.

Yes, it does say that the trustees shall file the documents with the department within 30 days.

If this has been approved, this current agreement that we have was approved previously by the director of the Department of Insurance that says that the successor trustee shall promptly be appointed by written notice signed by the plan sponsor. And if the director of insurance also has to approve whichever successor trustee we appoint, If we're not doing things in accordance with state law, wouldn't the successor trustee just deny our appointed successor trustee?

You mean the Department of Insurance?

Yeah, the Department of Insurance.

Possibly. I don't know how closely they look at these things. The current 5.4... simply says that the appointment is by written notice. It doesn't say who chooses the trustee. That's part of what this amendment is to do, is to clarify who actually brings the name forward.

This is a self-funded health insurance plan, correct?

That's what it's called, yes.

Under Idaho Code Title 41-400 in sequence. Are those specific just to municipal corporations or are they to any employer that wants to create a self-funded health insurance plan?

I believe they can be any employer.

So is there any specific provision in the code that requires the appointment of successor trustees to be done by the trustees themselves and not by the plan sponsor? I don't there is no specific language on that it just is that it talks about the notices to be given to the Department of Insurance are there any reported cases no okay so nothing is indicated that we we have to have the trust itself appoint its successor trustees no the only the only

language I would point to is that the statutory scheme in Title 40 repeatedly states that the trust is independent and is managed and administered independently of the city. if the city is appointing trustees, successor trustees, so forth, then is that independent or is that dependent upon the city?

Well, the trustees, if they accept the appointment, they would have an independent obligation to act as a fiduciary for the benefit of the beneficiaries, correct? Correct. And we wouldn't be able to in any way control their independence if we appointed them.

Correct. Correct.

I'm reflecting on other independent boards that the government creates. I'm thinking of like the FCC, the Federal Communications Commission, or the Federal Reserve Board. And we have independent commissions to separate certain policy making functions from the political process. In the Federal Reserve Board, for example, it's monetary policy from fiscal policy. And we separate that to create this independent Federal Reserve Board so that they can make a fiduciary decision to the American people. But the president still appoints. By statute. By statute. And yet those independent, no one really questions the independents because they operate their authority independently. Why should we create an amendment to this trust that removes all public control from decision making or from deciding who the decision makers are and what could be the potential danger to the employees if there is not accountability to the public?

I think we've had a lot of litigation recently on whether the president can fire various members of appointed boards as well. And that certainly, at least some people considered that that caused or drew into question the independence of those boards. If we say, yes, the city council can appoint trustees, then can city council then fire the trustees? Then we are really getting into, and I'm not sure that we would consider that the trust is a public body, but in any event, it's an independent, It's by statute to be independently managed and administered and we feel that this is an important step.

Is there anything in the trust agreement as it currently stands that allows the plan sponsor to remove a trustee?

I would have to look at the agreement. I think it's all in the same section of the agreement which is 5.4.

I don't have the full agreement. In my staff report or packet, it only has 5.4 and- Okay, 5.3, I apologize, discusses the removal of trustees.

A trustee may be removed from office at any time for good cause upon written notice signed by a majority of the Board of Trustees. Which notice shall be sent by certified mail. And then it talks about the reasons for the removal of a trustee.

So the current plan does not give the plan sponsor, the city of Coeur d'Alene, the power to remove any of the trustees. So if they're appointed, they would still be independent because we don't even have the power to remove them.

Well, that's a philosophical question for the council to decide whether appointment power can influence even an independent trustee. I mean, that's a question that's beyond my function.

Well, thank you for answering my questions. I appreciate it, Mr. Adams.

Dan English.

Let's see. As I'm hearing this and kind of weighing the different things, I'm wondering in my mind and having served several years on the Urban Renewal Board, which it seems to me has a lot of similarities of, you know, appointed by mayor and council and but then it's got these independent duties and fiduciary things and uh yet it seems to me that if i recall that they you know that the urban renewal board could uh remove somebody um but if that goes back the mayor so just kind of refresh me how is this similar or different from urban renewal board and the powers

Well, I guess clearly that the members of the urban renewal by statute are appointed by mayor and affirmed by council. That's not the case in a self-insured trust. That's not explicit in the self-insured trust.

And I guess my feedback at this point, too, and we had, you know, at the county while I was county clerk and auditor, and we did go to a self-insured. And so, I mean, that whole thing is good. But I just see, again, and kind of going along with what Mr. Shickley was saying, is it just seems to me that... The backstop should be people who are elected accountable to the public versus employees. Or if we really wanted to... I suppose really do it without a conflict of interest and again maybe this where the code needs to be tuned up is that you know have an independent board of city people who make those decisions on you know who should be on but it seems like and I'm glad you pulled this from consent calendar because this seems way more complicated just from our discussion than a simple

Can I ask a clarifying question to what Dan said? Oh, yes. Please do. Dan, you said that- Which Dan? Oh, Dan, English. Sorry. Excuse me. Provided backstopped, that the city council can provide a backstop. But I want to clarify that statement because I'm understanding that the city is not involved in any of these actions because the trust must act as an independent body or according to paragraph 5.3. So the backstop wouldn't, am I misunderstanding that? We wouldn't be the backstop because we cannot remove somebody.

I don't know, maybe that's a failure.

I thought I heard you say that.

Yeah, I mean that's, yeah. I guess I would say without having a whole lot of more information, if I had to make a stand on it now, I would say, I would... stick to that and say yes we are the backstop we're the ones who are you know elected by the people and you know have authority obligation and we have fiduciary responsibility to do something so again this is something seems like it needs more clarification and i guess i'm kind of wondering what's broke that has to that had to get fixed or or

I think what's broke was that they had an item on the consent calendar to make the appointment, and I objected to it. OK. OK. Mr. Sheckler, did you have something to add?

Just a comment for what Councilmember Evans brought up. In my view, I think that this is appropriate for the city, the plan sponsor, to retain the authority that the original plan contemplated, which was that the plan sponsor makes the appointment. I think that that creates a proper guardrail for the plan to be administered by people who the elected officials have decided are of good character, judgment, and competence to be trustees for the city's health insurance plan. I don't think Amazon, if they do a self-funded plan, would relinquish control from selecting the trustees for their self-funded insurance plan. I don't think any corporation would do that. I don't think any business would do that. I think they would attain the control to decide. Yet we've separated out our ability to remove those trustees in the plan itself. We've already done that. We don't have the ability to remove them. So if they make a decision that we don't like, we don't exercise political control over them. They remove themselves by majority vote. And I just don't think we need to change to this plan at this time. I don't see that. I think that, you know, I don't see the need for it.

I do want to point out the red lines aren't here, so you don't really see what the original Was their original 5.41 or the 5.41 was that blue? No, that's an entirely new section. It's a new thing. OK, so there were no red lines. But basically, one of the reasons that I wanted to bring this forward was because there really isn't anything regarding the appointment of a trustee in the original either. So it doesn't really say it has to go through like it did before. It has to go through the mayor and the council, or it has to be on the consent calendar. It didn't say it was vague. So we need to clarify exactly if council wants that, We should really codify it because it was just not there. And that was one of the reasons, I mean, when I asked Randy about it, Randy's like, well, it's silent. It doesn't say.

My read is that it says a written notice signed by the plan sponsor. That's the city of Coeur d'Alene. So I think this mayor and council would make that decision. That's my read of how it works under the existing practice, under the existing document that was approved by the Department of Insurance. And then that appointment would then again be approved by the director of the Department of Insurance within 30 days. If that was improper for any reason, they would reject the appointment, I would presume. I see.

Christy, please.

Thank you. Well, thank you for all the comments and the information back and forth. This has nothing to do with the staff noted in the staff report. It's really about governance. And I always resist losing any of council and mayor authority on making appointments. I think they're autonomous once they're appointed. And I don't believe that some of the language in here that we can have a possible conflict of interest, well, we'd have to do something to cause a conflict. So I don't support the rewrite, Randy. We are the elected officials in charge of the governance of the city of Coeur d'Alene. And one of our roles is approving appointments. And so I agree with these two that I don't see the need for this change. I think it just kind of rubs you the wrong way that you would, Mayor and Council, the seven of us, we have the ability to approve or disapprove something that comes forward. And just having our authority removed is unnecessary and kind of abdicating our role.

Kiki. I have a couple questions, Randy. When this plan was originally drafted, was it created with input from the Department of Insurance?

They ultimately approved it. I'm not sure at this point how much, whether they provided us with a template, but they ultimately approved the plan and the agreement.

Okay. I kind of assumed that part. I just want to ask this hypothetical question because it indicates that the city is the sponsor of the plan and that the trustees are to operate administrative. It gives more detail on how they operate, remove people, hire people, what they do. So theoretically, one of my impressions was that, um, the city as the sponsor was to create the initial board. That board was then supposed to operate, keeping itself positive and healthy and doing what it needed to do on behalf of the employees. And then the city would be more of in a written obligation, um, administrative sponsor party, which assured that the documentation and the operations of the trust were going to the department of insurance properly. and that they were operating properly according to the agreement. So I kind of looked at it as trying to keep that trustee board very separate from what the council could or couldn't do. So I didn't have that take on the fact that we should be appointing people that if a trustee group was trained and knew their fiduciary responsibilities and they unanimously picked one person, why would we not trust the people that were in charge of that on behalf of the city employees to do their job. So I looked at it a little differently from what you were saying about that authority because of the fact that it is a different kind of agreement and plan under a different state organization. So that was kind of my take on that. Now, whether we need to change this verbiage or not, I sure feel like we should at least have more legal input from Department of Insurance if it's available as to what should be happening here rather than we just change verbiage and it upsets an entire operating system. So I don't know if that's a possibility that we have to get from inside the Department of Insurance their legal purview on this.

We can certainly try.

Amy. Sorry, I spoke out of order, but was nodding I think that would be very helpful this is something that we're struggling through at least the interpretation of this to make sure that we're doing right by the trust and the trustees and our employees and ourselves right so some more information I think would be beneficial and who that's from I'm not entirely sure but Department of Insurance sounds like a place to start so

I'm curious what Councilmember Sheckler brought up that hasn't been changed in the language, which is the preamble to 5-4, which simply says, the trustee shall promptly be appointed by a written notice signed by the plan sponsor upon the written notice of the director. Wouldn't that technically imply that the plan sponsor would be the City, which would be my signature under the direction of the City Council, which would be the way it was done under Mayor Hammond? I mean, isn't that a proper interpretation of that?

It is an interpretation, but it does say that the plan sponsor shall provide the notice, and the notice accomplishes or completes the appointment. I think it's still not clear from that language who actually makes the recommendation for trustee.

I don't think that that's... Is that an issue with council who makes the recommendation or is it the appointment process?

Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

The appointment process, I don't care what name they bring forward. It's our authority, in my mind, the appointment process. And I'm just not willing to consider other options. In fact, I'd I'd like to, regardless if we want more information tonight, I want to make a motion against this language.

Dan English. Well, I also see this as kind of a philosophical matter having to do with the structure of boards and the difference between kind of operations of a nonprofit board or a kind of a business board. And we have a recent example in the community where the hospital, which had a publicly elected board chose deliberately to make a to go the nonprofit route and it was specifically over picking of you know trustees and all of that so and and I think I mean both of them obviously have their place and we sometimes were in kind of a little hybrid ground here with government boards but I guess I would agree with everybody it's a It's too early for any final decision on this tonight.

Mr. Mayor, I would like to consider this as a motion that we table this without rejecting the language so that that language can be submitted to some legal authority at the Department of Insurance so that we then have their opinion on that language to change it. make sure that what we're doing here is not just crafting our own template. That is not going to be something that's going to be in compliance.

Mr. Mayor?

Yes.

If I could just comment, Kiki. I don't think that's the issue for me, or possibly these two, whether the language is legal.

If she's going to make a motion, let's have a second before we discuss a motion.

All right, I'll second it for discussion. All right, there we go. Thank you. It's not whether the language would be legal with the plan. It's the process. It's who makes the appointment. And so any kind of legal speculation back from an insurance provider really doesn't change my opinion on who's in charge of the governance. And so I don't think that that's going to have an impact. Certainly won't for me. I reject this language that takes away the authority of the mayor and council to approve an appointment.

Dan Checkler. I agree with Council Member Wood. I think that the Department of Insurance isn't going to give us legal advice. They've already approved our plan as it exists. The plan says that the successor trustee shall be promptly appointed by a written notice signed by the plan sponsor. the city of Coeur d'Alene. That was approved by the Department of Insurance. They approved this plan, and the question would be, I think the other direction is, would they approve this amendment? And, you know, I don't know whether they would or not. They've approved the current plan. I would not want to seek legal input from them. I think we should just deny that.

I guess that's where I was just going with leaving the amendment in there is because then they have to review it. If that's what we're trying to do is say we're contemplating changing our plan, this is what we want to change it to, and they could review it before we went through the efforts to actually make those changes and then have them rejected.

Well, they very well may approve it, but that doesn't mean we approve it.

That's the bottom line.

They can say you can do it this way or you can do it that way, but the choice is yours, and I think we still have to make the choice. Right.

Well, I think we don't have to contact the Department of Insurance or the Attorney General and say, do you approve this language? We can ask them, what is the state statute on who makes the appointment? We can just ask them straight out. Can the mayor in this particular case, the trustees made one recommendation, the mayor had indicated he would nominate somebody else. So the question becomes, does state law provide for that, an answer to that question?

I guess I go back to Mr. English's question. Why the change in direction? Mayor and council have approved the trustees in the past. Why now? Why the change in direction?

Well, the trustees had voted to recommend a particular person as a successor trustee. And the mayor had indicated he did not approve that and would recommend somebody else to council.

So Randy, I'm sincere when I say this. We all know, and you've been around a long time, we don't write policy around one person. We just don't. And this is policy being written around one person.

This is a clarification of the language. We view it as a clarification of the language, not changing the policy. Because as we've discussed, the language is not clear. And is, and... We just were asking for clarification. If council says we don't want this clarification, it may be the duty of the trustees to ask the Department of Insurance anyway what the answer to the question is, if there is an answer.

I think it goes a little bit beyond clarification. I mean, I think it actually removes the oversight that council has demonstrated in the past just by precedent. with Hammond making the appointment and then the council approving an appointment earlier this year, even if it's on a consent calendar, that's still a public vote. it does say in the staff report right above financial and analysis this is the mayor suggested we might consider modifying the employment employee benefit trust rule so that appointments are made by the trustees for approval by council so that there isn't any ambiguity and then the response that you wrote in the staff report said this suggestion was followed by the trust resulting in the amendment under the consideration now but The amendment under consideration does not have any language in there regarding approval by council. So here we are.

Christy. Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a motion to reject resolution number 26-06.

There is a motion on the table. Yeah, there's Kiki's motion. Oh, all right. Thank you.

Sorry, Kiki. And my motion was to table this for more information, and whether that be the Department of Insurance via the trustees contacting them or finding out. I mean, this wouldn't have come up if there wasn't a conflict on who the appointee should be. So we, in my mind, have to get clarification on what happens when that conflict comes up again. What if they appoint a trustee and we don't like that trustee? So we don't have that clarification in this agreement. So that's what I'm looking at.

And I think the discussion from the three of us has been, Whose decision is it? Who makes the appointment? And we want it to remain in the realm of mayor and council. So if you're going to call for a vote on that.

Let's go ahead. All those in favor of Kiki's motion signify by saying aye. To table. Oh. To table. To table. That's the motion, right?

But Mr. Mayor, to be clear then, if the shoe was on the other foot, do we have clarification in this language once that's removed? Council retains authority, which I don't have any problem with that. And then the trustees come up and say, well, we want to have this guy over here become a trustee. Do we have clarification that council can say no? You can't.

I think it has to be signed by us. It has to be signed by the plan sponsor.

Does anyone understand we're voting on Kiki's motion to table? All those in favor of table, Nay. I believe the nays have it. So we are back to our discussion. And I would say, just from where I sit, I agree with Randy in the language of the trust. I think the trustees should make the appointment. I think they should bring that to us as they have in the past. And then if we don't like it, we can say no. And I think that was really the point of contention. So do we have the authority to say no to an appointment as the plan sponsor?

Yeah, thank you, Mr. Mayor. And I agree, I have no objection to the trustees bringing forward a name. No objection whatsoever. But I would make a motion to reject resolution number 26-066, Amendment to the City of Coeur d'Alene Benefit Trust Irrevocable Trust Agreement.

Second. Motion and a second. Any discussion on the motion?

So my only discussion is what happens now? We're not going to change the language. So is it now, according to our city attorney, that council has created this policy that says this is the interpretation of the document as we've decided because three people said this is how we interpret it and that was a majority. So is that where we're at with this particular agreement?

Again, I asked Randy for clarification. And if the direction from council is that we want clarification and that the appointment would be presented to the council for approval, then that should be what it would be, that the trustees make an appointment, it's presented to council for a vote. And is that your understanding of where we would be at that point?

Yeah, past precedents. Past precedent. What we've done all along, it would continue to come to us.

Mr. Sheckler. Mr. Mayor, I think those are two separate issues. We're voting on the motion to reject amending the language of the plan. That's a separate issue from interpreting the existing language of the plan. Thank you. So I reject the proposed amendment to the plan. I don't want this new language that completely removes council authority. How to interpret the existing language is a separate question. Yes. Thank you. And perhaps we should have a separate motion for how to interpret the existing language. But I think that we should stick with one issue at a time.

OK. We will. It's a wise choice always. We're sticking with one issue at a time. The motion is to reject resolution number 2666, amendment to the city of Coeur d'Alene, benefit trust, irrevocable trust agreement. Roll call.

Sheckler.

Just to be clear, the motion is to reject. So a vote in the affirmative is to reject the language. That is correct. I'd vote yes.

English?

Yes, I would have asked the same thing. Yes.

Wood? Yes. Evans? And I'm just going to be, I have a clarifying question. Then we can bring another motion forward for clarification. Absolutely. Yes.

Miller?

Aye.

Very good. We're still on the same topic.

So do you want to take a stab? Go ahead.

Mr. Mayor, I would make a motion that we solicit the remaining trustees of the Coeur d'Alene Employee Benefit Irrevocable Trust Agreement to provide us a name for our consideration at the next council meeting to fill the appointment of successor trustee.

motion is to for the trust trustees to provide us with a name for consideration at the next council meeting is there a second yes second and then discussion thank you so um does that mean that we would tell our group to just bring one one name forward

That's, my understanding is yes. Okay. We're not making an appointment, and I don't think, in the name of independence, which is what Randy's talking about, it is a separate entity, it has a separate text ID, is that they should bring forward the name, as they have in the past, for approval by council. Okay. One proceed.

Mr. Mayor, is there a way that we can capture Christy's question? Because I think it's going to keep coming up, and that's the separate issue that we're facing tonight. not as much as if we have the ability to appoint, but if there is a disagreement or multiple names brought forward. So how can we clarify that?

So they bring forward a name and say they bring forward someone who we all universally define as odious. And so council votes no. They reject that. Then I think the job would fall to the trustees to come up with another name. Would they bring forward an odious name? I seriously doubt it. But that possibility would exist. And Randy, I would be correct in that assumption in that the trustees would then, if a name was rejected, the trustees would bring forward another name.

That's how I understand the discussion to be going.

OK. That's normal.

Yes.

Mr. Mayor, I would also couch my interpretation is I think that it's appointed by the plan sponsor. So I think this body has full authority to make the appointment regardless of whoever they recommend. But in the interests of comity, in the interest of respect, in the interest of deference, I would want to give great weight to the recommendations of the trustees. But I think we retain that authority. So I don't interpret my motion to be necessarily requiring us to do that. I'm just stating that I think this is the best practice for us in this context.

It's a question that might muddy the water based on that. So if they came with somebody and Either A, we rejected, or B, before we got to the final vote, it's like, well, I would like to nominate Susie instead of Sam there, or would we only deal with the one that were brought forward that night?

Well, actually, if you couldn't reject any, so if I made an appointment, you could reject it. But you don't actually, the way I read the code, because I read up the code on appointments, is that at that point, the mayor has authority to nominate another name. If the mayor fails to nominate another name, the name can come from council. Oh, okay. That's the way I read the code, and I don't know Randy.

Yeah, and I kind of wasn't thinking of the pecking order, but up here in a way somewhere that we could bring a name. So, okay. I don't know if we could.

Mr. Mayor, may I? Yes. Just one more follow up to that. I would just say that I think that we can cross that bridge when we come to it. If it becomes an issue, then we can address how we'll handle it at that time.

I agree. And I would like to say one more thing just about the trust and the trustees. Right now, the trustees who are sitting on there are some very key city employees. And you all do a tremendous job for the city. I hear fantastic things, commentary about you. all the time. And these are the current trustees, which Mr. Adams is one, Ms. Tosi is one, Ms. Ebner is one, and Renata was going to be nominated as a replacement.

And these are all very— And Mr. Becker.

And Mr. Becker is already on there, too. And these are all—the four of you are all very key employees. And so one of the questions I had when I was mulling this over was, it is said that the trust is independent. But yet if you have all these key employees who serve very powerful positions within the city, then how is that really independent? And that was a question that went through my mind. So anyway, we can take a roll call on the current motion, which is to bring the nomination forward at the next council meeting.

Sheckler.

Yes.

English. Yes. Wood. Yes. Evans. Yes. Miller. Okay.

That was really good. We'll just call that a motion carried. Now we're moving on to a public hearing. This is item I-1. which regards fee increases there is a sign-up sheet if you've signed up to testify at the hearing these are amendments to the city's fee for services as proposed by the building library planning streets and engineering and water departments staff report by Renata Ronda McLeod our municipal services director okay

Excuse me, I've got the smoky voice, so it's my allergies for the season. I am here to present the information for you tonight. We do have the department heads that are involved here in the audience, so if you have specific questions come up on the fees, they will be here to answer your questions for you. Sorry. So as you know, according to Idaho code, if we're going to amend any of our fees over 5%, we're required to have a public hearing, and so that's why we are here tonight. As you also have heard me say several times over, we will bring you a list even though it's under 5%, or if we have something to clarify, or if we're removing a fee. That's not required by code, but it helps us as staff to keep track of them in a better way to bring them to you all at once. What I'd like to also explain to you is that we've actually had four notices in the paper. We normally only have two but we added in some planning and zoning and street engineering fees halfway through the notice process and we did have time to amend that and so it has been posted to our webpage since July 14th and there has been four notices in the paper as well. So lots of public notice on this one. So I'll just go through a couple of the highlights, as you know from the staff report, what was posted to the webpage and in the packet. There's several more fees than what I'm gonna cover tonight, but you have the opportunity to question any of them that we have in there. So the building department is requesting several fee changes. This is so that they can increase some of the costs according to, cover some of their staffing costs and hopefully aid in the acquisition of building permit software and potentially additional staff that will help expedite permit reviews and integrate technology into that. Some of the highlights include the reinstatement of an expired permit fee. As you know after so long your permit goes invalid and then you have to reapply. So instead of the full fee payment they can come in and pay the reinstatement fee rather than paying the whole kit and caboodle again. There's also an appeal fee that they are starting. A project review fee is a new one. And they are amending the processing fee for manufactured home settings. Their entire building valuation chart, that as you bring the building permit in, whatever your project cost is estimated at, that's what your building permit fee is. Hasn't been updated since 2018, so they are now bringing it forward with the new international building code fee of 2026 publication. So they're bringing that up to current rates. And they had some clarifications regarding plan review and processing fees, clarifying they're non-refundable. So that is some of the highlights from the building department. The library is instituting a 3D printing fee that is only for material costs. As their materials have increased with the economy the way it is, all that filament is costing them more. They really didn't want to have to charge a fee to the patrons, but it really is getting to the point where they need to recover some of those costs. Their software is super cool. They can put the pattern in and it'll tell them exactly how much material it's going to take and what that cost will be. So the patrons will know prior to what the cost will be. The planning department has also spent some time going through their fees and increasing them based on their staffing time and efforts. They have also looked at the fee in lieu of parking. It hasn't been updated since 2008. So we were extremely low on that one, so that seems like a big jump, but it is appropriate for this day and age.

One moment.

Should we save questions to the end or should we ask them as we're going?

Renata, would you prefer to be interrupted or wait for the end?

Whatever you would like.

I'm good. I have received more than one comment and or piece of input on the fee in lieu of parking. So I'm just wondering about off the top of your head, if you can say how that originated, how many are we actually getting of that and is that something that we

depending on what the will of council, might want to hurry up because I think it's a very rare fee and I don't want to misinterpret how it is utilized. So, Hillary?

And I'd just like to see what the rest of council thinks about that particular, it's a little bit of a hot button, so.

Sure, happy to help answer that question. We've had two projects that I'm aware of since I've been with the city of Coeur d'Alene, so the Thomas George paid for some fee in lieu of parking and then we're recently on 3rd Street and I believe Indiana. So we have had that and the fees are definitely below what they should be. Sandpoint recently updated theirs to $25,000 of parking space. So the numbers I'm bringing forward this evening would be more appropriate and are based on the code and how that has been written. The fees are supposed to be set aside, and they have been. Katie's team has done that, so we followed the ordinance for that, but it would be worth, I know some council members have said maybe we want to get rid of this. I think in the interim it's wise to at least increase them, and then we can have that conversation about do we want to remove this or at least evaluate how that would work in the future. Currently how it's written, the calculation's a little, it's based on the assessed value, so I was able to get that from the county, with the number of towers and some of the very expensive builds in downtown, that can skew it. You could be charging as much as $35,000 of parking space based on the assessed values. So I do think it's time to update it. We can certainly, if you're not ready this evening, we can postpone it, but I would think it'd be wise to at least update them now and then we can have the conversation about potentially removing it or changing how the code is written in the future.

So it started in 2008 and it was a way for the city to bank spaces that would otherwise be available. They did that once before and they banked it until the line item was removed from the budget. So we don't know where the money is or no one's really tracking it. But we do want to make sure we raise the fee even if we're going to remove it, just because if council decides not to remove the fee, then we do need to keep it in line with what the fee should be. So that was Hillary's approach here, which I think is a good idea because we can't. We will be discussing this, I guess, soon. I guess it's coming to council, and we're going to be discussing that. But in the meantime, just in case, we should put it up there where it should be in case council decides it's a good idea to keep it.

Yeah, I have no problem with the increase. I just wanted to make sure that we have the ability to consider all aspects of it. Once the parking space is given up, it's given up. So you can't go backwards and recoup that. And as you know, we don't have much land to spare. That was my question. Kristi.

I agree with Kiki completely. I'm very concerned about continuing this program. So I'm happy to hear it will be on a future council agenda and, of course, increase the fees tonight. But we just can't get back that. It's one-time money, yet we never get the space back. And so I think maybe it worked in 2008. I don't think it works in 2026. OK.

Thank you, Hilary.

Okay. And then, of course, we know the short-term rental program is no longer in existence, so we are removing that from the fees as well, if you want to have Hillary speak to that a little bit.

So...

Sorry, should I wait? Kiki asked a question.

I was just going to ask the question of Ted, and he ran away. Ted.

Move things around if you need to, or you can wait until after the public hearing. We have a sign-up sheet in the back if you haven't signed up yet and you would like to testify and do so. If you missed the opportunity, I can allow you access after those who signed up have testified. Very good, thank you. So first we have Scott Ferguson, who is in favor and would like to testify at the hearing. Scott?

Thank you, Mr. Mayor and members of City Council. Good to see you again. It's my pleasure. My name is Scott Ferguson. I'm the executive director of Save Vincent DePaul in North Idaho and want to just express my thanks for the opportunity to be a part of this year's comprehensive plan. Our organization works diligently to make sure that those who are in need have shelter, have safety, and have hope. And a part of finishing the project that's been proposed for our women and children emergency transition shelter is essential to that plan. One statistic that we are really proud of in terms of what this particular service provides is that we saw approximately 210 individuals and families utilize this resource last year, and 86% of those individuals found permanent housing within 90 days. So what we're most proud of is not just that we have the opportunity to enhance much utilized resource, but with this particular funding ensure that those who are in need are taken care of with quality care and compassion. And with that, they find permanent supportive housing and obviously a sense of self-sufficiency. So on behalf of St. Vincent de Paul and our organization, our staff, we are so honored to support this particular comprehensive plan and hope to see this continue in the future. So thank you.

Thank you, Scott.

Nancy Phillips.

She is in favor and does want to testify.

Good evening, Mayor, Council. So I am from Lake City Center. I am the executive director there. UNO is mostly for Meals on Wheels and our congregate meals program. However, our building is so much more. It's a gathering place for our entire community. host lunches three times a week. We have educational programs, wellness programs and classes, celebrations, and just the community gatherings of all people of all ages. It is a place where friendships are built, connections are made, and the community comes together. Being nominated for the CDBG to replace our furnaces and our air conditioning is a must. You know, the winters can get cold. Last year, we actually had to use little space heaters because our furnaces went out for a while. Luckily, it wasn't a terrible winter, not as much snow, so we were grateful about that. And then here, when the heat gets, the temperature gets a little hotter, the air conditioner does not work as well, so we utilize fans. So the CDBG would help us bring more comfort to those that we serve. So we are thankful that we are nominated for this. And the community, my staff, and my board thanks you.

Thank you, Nancy. Next we have Heather Summers, who is in favor and would like to testify. Heather.

Good evening, Mayor and City Council. I'm the Executive Director of Elementary Education and Federal Programs for Coeur d'Alene School District. And I just want to thank you for considering this grant for our McKinney-Vento program in the school district. We do a lot of things for a lot of families and kids in the school district in conjunction with many, many, many community partners, including St. Vincent de Paul. But there is a gap for emergent housing in our community, and that's for families who have young boys, adolescent boys in particular. Many of our shelters and community resources do not house young boys. And so when we have a family who is struggling, we can often find places for The family, if they want to separate from each other, we can place them in different places. Most families don't want to do that, and we don't want them to have to do that. So what this grant does for us is allows us an opportunity to quickly house families with Young boys, that's not the only families that we house. We'll emergently house any of our families. But that is a gap. So when St. Vincent de Paul and other resources are able to step in and help, there are families that they're not able to help right away. And so this gives us the opportunity to house those families for a short amount of time, a couple of weeks. Sometimes we extend beyond that if the need is there. And if we know that there's housing upcoming somewhere for these families that are permanent, it's the shelter that these young boys can't access. So we have about 184 McKinney-Vento families in our school district right now that we serve. The block grant last year served eight different families, 29 individuals, and 15 students. And we continue. The grant isn't complete until the end of September. So we do have families who are in emergent housing currently. And we suspect that we'll continue to house families through September 30. this really does provide a stop gap and a place where families can stay together. So we're just incredibly grateful for your consideration. It is something that we've found helpful and working together with all of our community resources have been able to keep families safe and together. So we appreciate your consideration. Thank you, Heather. Thank you.

That's all I have listed on the sign-up sheet. Is there anyone else who would like to testify? We'll close the public comment portion and look for council action.

Mr. Mayor. Yes, Mr. Secretary. I identified a potential apparent arguably conflict of interest. I think I'll need to recuse myself from discussions or considerations. I regret I didn't bring it up earlier. Thank you.

Mr. Mayor.

Yes, Christy.

Well, I would just like to state that it was kind of you to come forward to talk to council. And it's true, we have the final formal action. But the hard work of determining the greatest need was done by our staff. And so many kudos to the staff for digging in and seeing where the greatest need is.

Kiki, sorry.

It's getting late in the day, but I just have to share that I think I heard our building department brain go oh a bunch of surge protectors with space heaters and our fire chief was going in a senior center i mean i could hear that from here you guys so that that was that was a good one yeah let's fix it mr mayor i'd like to make a motion to approve the community development block grant cdbg plan year 2025 annual action plan

Question, is that 25 or 26? 26. Sorry, 2026 annual action plan.

Second.

All right, motion to second. Any discussion on the motion?

Mr. Mayor, if I may, I'd just like to say thank you for all your work preparing this for us tonight, and a special thank you to Heather, Nancy, and Scott for all the work you do in our community. Yes, you did it.

Thank you very much. We will do a roll call.

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

Yes. Motion carried. Now we need a motion to enter into executive session.

Mr. Mayor, I'll make a motion to enter into executive session pursuant to Idaho Code 74-206A1A to consider a labor contract offer or to formulate a counteroffer.

Second.

Motion and a second. Any discussion? Roll call, please.

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

Yes.

English? Yes.

Motion carried. We are in executive session.