City Council - Regular Meeting

All right, we will call the meeting to order, beginning with the prayer and the pledge.

Almighty God, send down upon those who hold office in this city the spirit of wisdom, compassion, and justice. Grant that with steadfast purpose we may faithfully serve our community, seeking the common good, protecting the vulnerable, and promoting the well-being and harmony of all who dwell here. Amen. Pledge.

Pledge allegiance.

To the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands,

Okay, all members are present and accounted for. Ceremonies and announcements, we have several tonight. We'll start with the announcements. City hall and city business offices will be closed on Monday, May 25th in observance of Memorial Day. Fire and police emergency services can be reached by calling 911. For water related emergencies, call 208-773-3517. The City of Post Falls, in partnership with American Legion Post 143, invites the community to attend a Memorial Day ceremony on Monday, May 25th at 10 a.m. at Evergreen Cemetery. Join us as we honor and remember the brave men and women who gave their lives in service to our country. And there is still time to vote in today's primary election. Polls close at 8 p.m. To find your polling place, visit kcgov.us slash elections. Uh, next up is I'm asking for the appointment of Mark Brantle as chief of police.

I'll move to confirm the appointment of Mark Brantle as chief of police.

Second motion in a second for the discussion. We'll call please.

Stig leader. Well, the only time I'm first, so, um, I will be voting no for this and I want to be clear that that is not a reflection of you, Mr. Brantle. That is a reflection of the process. I greatly appreciate that you have stepped into a really big situation and you have served our city for many many years very selflessly and so I want to be really clear about my opinion of your ability to do the job personally. My concern of course is with the appointment process that I've talked about maybe ad nauseam many times before but I've consistently believed that the appointments to major leadership positions should include an opportunity for public discussion or a council interview before the vote. And since that wasn't an opportunity that was presented at this point, my vote will be no. Plew?

Aye.

Molloy? Aye. Ziegler?

Aye.

Mosby?

Aye.

Luca?

Without reservation, aye. Thank you. Motion passes. Congratulations, Chief Brannell.

Do you solemnly swear that you will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Idaho and that you will faithfully discharge the duties of the Chief of Police for the City of Post Falls according to the best of your ability?

I do.

Congratulations. Sorry.

Good evening, mayor and council. For the first time, I'm Mark Brantle, your chief of police. I want to say thank you to the mayor and council for the confidence that you have placed in me to lead the police department into the future. I'm committed to continue the work that has made the department one of our community can be proud of. To my family, thank you for the unwavering support throughout my years at the Post Falls Police Department. The new role will bring new challenges, and I am grateful knowing that I will continue to have your encouragement every step of the way. To my law enforcement family, I promise to work every day to ensure you have the support and resources needed to continue the outstanding work that you do for this community. I am truly humbled to be standing before you as your chief, and I sincerely thank you and all of you for your support. Thank you.

All right, next up is the appointment of Scott Tuliners to the Parks and Rec Commission. Scott, are you here? Could you just tell us a little bit about yourself so they get to know you and why you'd like to serve on the commission?

Yes, sir. My name's Scott Tuliners. I was born and raised here in Pulse Falls. I'm a 23-year law enforcement officer. I started my career with Kootenai County Sheriff's Office, and then moved to the Idaho State Police in 2004, and I'm still currently employed there. I'm currently a motor officer. So I'm the one you see running around the brand new Harley that I just got. So my family and I are actively involved in Parks and Recs. My youngest son, Quinn, he plays football for the last five seasons with the Parks and Rec League. So I was asked by Brian Myers, one of the Parks and Rec managers, to apply for this because he thinks I'd be good for the position with my community involvement. I did move away for about 19 years. I got moved to Boise with the state police, and we finally made it back in 2023. And I know a lot's changed, but it's still home. So I would like to be part of the planning of it because I do have a lot of investment in this community. My favorite park is Falls Park because I've gone there as a kid. My grandparents took me there before. There was the boardwalks, all there was was a chain link fence on the south side. And it holds a pretty strong place in my heart. We actually poured my dad's ashes off that dam after he passed away from cancer four years ago. So I'm happy to answer any questions. I'm not sure how much information you guys want, but I've been an active member of this community for a long time. Tried to be part of the parade last year because I thought it would be cool to have a post-false graduate in the parade as a law enforcement officer, but never heard back. So maybe this year. Questions for Scott?

I think you answered everything that I would have asked you, so thank you so much. Awesome.

Thank you.

You got through the gauntlet, dude.

I've done a lot of public speaking. I taught active shooter for 10 years for all across the country. So being up in front of crowds is not an issue. I'm not afraid to speak in front of anybody. We're not going to shoot at you. That's good. It only happened once, so.

Do you have any particular greater visions for the park system in Post Falls going forward, whether services or actual facilities or both?

Yeah, I mean, I understand we're coming into a time of a budget issue. I mean, that's been felt all across the state. So, I mean, you know, I'd like to see at some point with flag football, especially in the springtime, it is crowded out at Warren Field. And it would be nice if, like, we could add on to maybe the one over by Orgill, more football fields at some point, or, you know, maybe get an extra port-a-potty out there. pay the referees a little bit more money. Obviously, we have to grow, but I mean, I need to get in and kind of learn what the process is before I start throwing out all kinds of crazy ideas. And you guys, well, hold on. We're not ready for that yet. So, I mean, there are improvements I'd like to see, but again, I understand we're coming into some budgetary cutbacks this go-around, and hopefully that changes.

I very much appreciate that answer. Thank you.

Thank you.

kind of building off of that answer, my question was when you're considering any kind of improvements of that nature or other amenities, you know, what kind of factors or criteria do you look at or do you plan to look at in determining whether it's going to be a long-term, a good, sustainable investment, like the people are going to use it?

Well, I'd actually want to get public input. I don't know if we do that via social media, I mean, but I think a lot of times we get, people get in these places and they start thinking of their own ideas and they need to reach out for public opinion because it's really about what the public wants. I've observed some of the comments lately about some people comment about Spokane Street, how it's looked a little bit more modern, and so I am paying attention to that already, just kind of getting a feel of what people want, because really I'm an extension of their voice, not of just what my opinion is.

Well, certainly I think with your background, I think you have a pretty well-established opinion about what should be in post-fall, so I would look forward to seeing your input as well. Well, thank you. And thank you for your willingness to step up and participate. I appreciate that. Thank you.

I'm sorry, can I ask, pool, yes or no?

Pool? Yeah. Wouldn't be opposed to it.

Great, okay.

Can it be in my backyard or is it open to the public? No, I'm just kidding.

say you have a long history of doing dangerous things safely so welcome to your foray into politics I look forward to seeing what you will do with the parks in this position I I think it's a just it looks like an extension of your love for the community and your your service so far so thank you again for your willingness to serve and to do so in something that I think that is, the parks, we don't put enough emphasis on what that means for quality of life. when you can go to a park and there's not graffiti and the bathroom's open and the toilet paper is there and there's no etching on the mirror or graffiti and dangerous hoodlums hanging around in the parks and all that and people can feel safe there. That is a real gift that we have here and so thank you for your willingness to steward that. Thank you. I think we're ready for a motion.

I would move to approve the appointment of Scott Tolaners to the Parks and Recreation Commission. Second.

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

Plew.

Aye.

Malloy. Aye. Ziegler. Aye. Pepe. Aye. Luca. Aye. Stiglitter. Aye.

Motion passes. Thank you. Thank you. And the final item under Ceremonies and Announcements is the Traditional Family Values Month Proclamation. Whereas traditional families consisting of a natural mother and father, children, and extended family have been a cornerstone of society, fostering security, stability, and values of citizenship, and whereas the freedom to uphold these values rooted in the laws of nature and protected by the U.S. Constitution is vital to societal well-being, and whereas traditional families have declined significantly with the percentage of households consisting of married parents with children declining from 52% in 1960 to 18% in 2020, while single person households rose from 13% in 1960 to 28% in 2018. Divorce rates increased from 27% in 1950 to 45% today, and births to unmarried women rose from 5% in 1960 to 40% now. And whereas stable families yield lower rates of mental illness, addiction, crime, and teenage pregnancy, providing the lowest cost option for individuals and society. And whereas the Idaho State Legislature passed in 2025, HCR 18, declaring a traditional family values month to bring awareness to traditional families and the challenges they face. Now, therefore, I, Randy Westland, Mayor of the City of Post Falls, Idaho, do hereby proclaim Mother's Day, May 10th, to Father's Day, June 21st, 2026, as Traditional Family Values Month in Post Falls, recognizing the value of families with a natural mother, father, children, and extended relatives. Celebrating the first week, including Mother's Day, for motherhood, the second week for sons, brothers, and uncles, the third week for grandparents, the fourth week for daughters, sisters, and aunts, the fifth period, including Father's Day, for fatherhood and marriage between a man and a woman. And witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and cause to be affixed the great seal of the City of Post Falls, Idaho, on this 19th of May, in the year of our Lord, 2026. Any amendments to the agenda tonight?

We have none tonight, sir.

Declarations of conflict, ex parte contacts, or site visits? Seeing none, please present the consent calendar.

Item A is minutes from the May 5th, 2026 City Council meeting. Item B is payables, May 6th through May 20th, 2026. Item C is Prairie Medical Campus phase one construction improvement agreement. Item D is adoption of updated personnel policy. Item E is adoption of updated surplus property disposal policy. And item F is adoption of the updated procurement policy.

Questions on the consent calendar?

I move to approve the consent calendar as presented. Second.

Motion and a second for the discussion. Roll call please.

Maloy. Aye. Ziegler. Aye. Mosby. Aye. Luca. Aye. Stiglitter. Aye. Plew.

Aye. Motion approved thank you. We're on to public hearings Prairie Avenue annexation and this one is a continued hearing so I will reopen the public hearing and we'll hear the presentation.

Good evening, Mayor Westland and Council President Molloy and other members of City Council. John Manley, Planning Manager, introducing the Prairie Avenue annexation, file number ANNX255. As referred to, this was a continuation of the project that you see here highlighted in red. That's the project location. It's north of West Prairie Avenue between Greens Prairie Road and Highway 41. So, did take some time to kind of go over the history of this. June 18th, 2019, this did come before the city council and you can see there it was proposed the high density multi-family R3 which was denied. And then you see on March 10th, that was the Tullamore Vista proposal for an RM proposal which was denied. October 10th, 2023, Copper Basin Prairie Annexation tried to propose a mix of R3 and community commercial services, and then that was denied. Then, on March 17th, just a bit ago, they proposed the R1, It really wasn't denied. I think the annexation was sought that was suitable to be annexed. It was more of a zoning element and some conditions for connectivity and road connectivity that were a concern. So we did notice this as a 20-acre annexation for the residential mixed. In your staff report, you did see that there was a development agreement that you guys chartered both staff and the applicant to work towards mitigating a potential proposal for your consideration. So you see here, this is the key condition that was in the development agreement. I think it's 5.2.7. And these are the five abutting parcels that more or less, this states that until said parcels have provided an improved connection to either Green's Ferry Road or Prairie Avenue. That the purpose that they would not be able to connect and through Lynn street and Lynn streets right here. So how we would do that is as part of. let's just say the 20 acres came forward first. We would not allow a road to dead end. We would stop like five feet short, throw in some Jersey berries or whatnot and that wouldn't allow connectivity. So that way the whole 20 acres could develop and none of that traffic could go through until such time that we either had a connection through Cecil Road or an east-west road out to Greens Ferry. So that was a way to deal with that Lynn Street concern. Looking at the surrounding zoning, you can see here, like was discussed last time, you do have the CCS community commercials up on the northwest corner of this proposal, and then on the southwest you have community commercial mix, that's that red and yellow. To the northeast and to the east, you have the tech mix zone. And the areas that was discussed before that the applicant does have current approval for multifamily, that's on the northeast portion right here, those two right there. The southern portion you see here is not part of the project for Copper Basin with what they own. To the west, you have a mixed development proposal potentially. I'm not going to go over this too much. We already talked over the road classifications. They haven't changed since last time. Looking over the review criteria and the comp plan, we already discussed the future land use and where it's at at the 41 North Focus area. Here's where this project fits in the site. Here's the commercial node, which you guys considered last time. I think that's why you chartered us to kind of look at a different zoning other than our one. Looking at the same goals, grow and sustain a balanced resilient economy for Post Falls, providing community prosperity and fiscal health, I might argue that the residential mix may charter that a little bit further as it does allow you to create more attainable housing within it. It also, because you are allowed to have 10% commercial, it would allow some flexibility to maybe put some along Prairie Avenue. Additionally, the residential mix also provides up to 20% multifamily as part of the zoning district, which may allow it to blend in with some of those higher uses that are adjacent. Looking at goal seven, plan for and establish types of quantities of land uses in Post Falls, supporting community needs in cities of long-term sustainability. That's goal seven. Looking at policy 15, kind of touches on the housing issue that I just mentioned. and then looking at policy 33 looks at annexation should assist completing the transportation plan and then continuation of sidewalks.

Let's go see what the,

So going back to this, if this is annexed and developed, it would allow along the northern tier everything to be annexed for the most part between Highway 41 and Green's Ferry. For surely it would be all annexed to Charville Road, which would allow the appropriate pedestrian separation from the future busy Prairie Avenue, as well as getting the road improvements along Prairie Avenue as well. Looking at does the proposed zoning district create a demonstrative adverse impact in the delivery of services by a political subdivision providing public services within the city. Here's the agencies that were notified. These are the comments that we'd received. Nothing that really poses a concern. And I'd stand for any questions you might have for me on the revised proposal going from R1 to RM and the conditions that are currently in it. Or other ones that you might consider.

And just a clarifying point before we get further for public comment and everything else, the decision to annex has already been made and voted on. We are just considering the zoning of the parcel. So we're in the legislative decision has been made and we're doing the quasi-judicial applying the zoning to it.

Thanks for working on this, Mr. Manley. Can you Explain to me what it would look like if the project, the R3 project sites to the north started to develop after this project site, but the two projects to the west didn't.

You mean these over here?

Yeah, how are those two that are required in 527 to make an improved connection to Greens Ferry or Prairie going to do that without those other two?

So if I hear you correctly, the question is, is hypothetically speaking, if the two parcels to the northeast developed after the completion of the 20 acres, how would that unfold?

Yeah, how would they be able to meet this addition into the development agreement if the parcels to the west don't develop?

What we would do is we wouldn't allow so the multifamily could develop. We would be pushing for Cecil Road improvements from Prairie Avenue up to that project. Because that was the concern is to mitigate the temporary situation where people would, because of an unfinished portion of Cecil, use Lynn Street as their means out. So we wouldn't allow that, once again, with having that five foot separation, we wouldn't allow an east-west connection from Cecil until that time. What we would though, more than likely, would require that connection once the Cecil Road was to complete that street network. That way we would have interconnectivity.

Should we add Cecil to the development agreement? It says Greens Ferry, which doesn't seem like a possibility. Or Prairie.

Well, the way that's worded to Prairie.

It says Greens Ferry or Prairie.

Yeah, the reason why it's stated that way, and we did discuss it internally, is it's inferred the only way to get to Prairie is through Cecil from the multifamily. So they would have to approve Cecil Road to get that connection. They're not going to like, you can't get to Prairie via any other means.

Okay, which is why I was confused about the wording in this and the reality that I see on the map.

Because it says... We can add Cecil. I don't... It gets to the same place.

Sure, and I guess if you guys understand and the verbiage makes sense to everyone else, it just says Greens Ferry or Prairie. So then I'm like, well, why is Greens Ferry an option if we can't get to the other side? But Cecil and Greens Ferry are kind of the same road idea when you look at this. They're access to... Prairie but Greens Ferry is called out and Cecil isn't and so that to me that just logically I was confused as to the point of that but we're just saying access to Prairie.

Yeah and it actually bypasses a potential nuance situation within that then we got to bite on what proportionate share of Cecil so let's just say.

Then you could just leave it the way that it is as long as it means the same thing I would just wanted to figure out why we had called out Greens Ferry.

Yeah, I might argue this actually adds maybe a little more protection than getting into Cecil.

Okay, sounds great.

The way I read it, it is kind of an inference, is that the two parcels to the east of what we're talking about, or excuse me, to the west of what we're talking about tonight, reference Greens Ferry, and then the north and the northeast would reference Cecil.

Okay, so I'm not totally off base here. Yeah, okay.

The usage of, I don't think that we're talking about having the north and northeast parcel access Greens Ferry as a condition of, development, right? It kind of infers which road.

It says you could do either. Hypothetically, if the community commercial mix could figure out something, and let's just say they did create an extension to Gallup Lane to the east, then that would establish a route for all development to a controlled intersection here. That would satisfy that condition also.

Yeah, if I could just read the condition. Until said parcels have provided an improved connection to Greens Ferry or Prairie. So if you said an improved connection to Cecil, that wouldn't necessarily connect you to Prairie.

And is that because Greens Ferry has a higher road classification than Cecil? Because Greens Ferry and Cecil boast both provide you the same access to Prairie. And if Prairie is what we're talking about, then Greens Ferry and Cecil are the same thing.

And I would say that there is no improved connection on Cecil right now. So if you, let's say you take that project site that John was pointing to and you go east over to Cecil, Cecil doesn't exist all the way down. So what portion of Cecil? And so it needs to be the improved connection all the way down Cecil needs to be improved all the way down to Prairie in order for that to work. Does that make sense? So the improved connection to Prairie is Cecil.

I'm sorry, are you trying to tell me that them connecting to a road that doesn't exist won't meet this qualification? Yeah, I understand that part. I'm just, I guess if it makes sense to you, then that's fine, but it seems weird. If your point is just to make improved connection to Prairie, which is the first answer that you gave to me, then Greens Ferry and Cecil are the same. They provide the same access to Prairie. But my original question was, since Greens Ferry is called out, what does improved connection to Greens Ferry look like when they have no connection to Greens Ferry? But you're saying that it would have to be some sort of, like, turned to the west and that red property would have to build out i don't know you said the name and i forgot it and so that would qualify as well and that's fine that was my first question in what world would they be able to connect to greens ferry if those properties didn't build out and the answer is there isn't one and so then the only option for them to connect to prairie would be to go through CECL. CECL is not called out in this, which seems slightly odd to me when I looked at it before. But if it makes sense to you, that's fine. But yes, I understand that they couldn't build out to a non-existent road to meet this qualification.

Further questions? OK. Does the applicant wish to speak?

Okay. Thank you, Mayor, City Council, Drew Dittman, Lake City Engineering, 126 East Poplar Avenue in Coeur d'Alene, for the record. We don't have much to add. This, again, is our fourth time around. The annexation process is done. We're working in the zoning. We've been working with John and Rob Paulus extensively on getting this development agreement where we think we need it to present to you guys. And so we're just here to answer questions tonight Steve white the developer the owners here as well I know he presented last time in my absence, but we're here more or less to answer questions, so All right More of a comment.

I do appreciate you guys taking the time and work to get the connectivity and Uh, issues answered because as you know, the last four times I was voting to deny that was been your concern for the last four years.

For sure. For sure. I think we've got, like I said, we've worked with, with John and Rob back and forth for, for weeks on getting the verbiage right on Cecil or not Cecil. And there's so many potential ways that it could happen. We think we've got it where we need it. So hopefully you guys agree. Thank you. Thank you.

Any public testimony?

I think we just have one, sir.

Mr. Mayor, Council, Pete Hawley, Fire Chief of Kootenai County Fire and Rescue. My comment and statement today is not specifically in regard to this property, but in general to annexations as a whole. So I would ask you to consider this statement to be inclusive of any annexation that you're considering as a council. The fire district remains neutral on annexations and land use decisions. Those decisions belong to elected officials, property owners, and the community. The fire district's role is to evaluate developments from a fire and life safety perspective, and that has been our consistent position. It is worth clarifying why. Annexation by the City of Post Falls typically involves property already located within Kootenai County Fire and District Service area. The district's response obligation does not change when a parcel moves from county to city jurisdiction. The same engines respond from the same stations under the same standards. Annexation is a land use decision between a property owner and the city. It is not a fire service decision and the district has no proper role in advocating for or against it. Where the district does have a role is in what gets built. KCFR reviews proposed developments against the international fire code and applicable life safety standards. That includes occupancy type, access water supply fire fire flow suppression systems and the operational implications of structures such as high-rise buildings assisted living facilities large assembly structures on those questions the district will offer professional opinions and those opinions are grounded in adopted code rather than preference a final point worth stating even if the fire district held opinions on annexation and growth policy, it would not be appropriate to deploy them. Property rights and land use decisions belong to owners and to the elected officials accountable to the community. Public safety is not a tool to be used in support of one side or the other in those decisions. The moment a fire district begins leveraging its position to advance or oppose development, it stops being a trusted public entity. and a safety institution and becomes another political voice. KCFR will not take that path. The district's credibility with every resident and every property owner, regardless of where they stand on growth, depends on it. The district will, however, continue to evaluate the operational impacts of growth and plan for them. Sustained service levels require that resources keep pace with the community we are asked to protect. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Any other public testimony? Seeing none. No, sir. Is there anything in there that you would like to rebut? Thank you. All right. Then I will close the public hearing, and we're on to deliberation. It sounds like they've done exactly what we asked them to do, so we can go through the zoning questions.

Yep. So is the proposed zoning district consistent with the future land use map and focus area contained in the currently adopted Post Falls Comprehensive Plan?

It is. The zoning designation is one of the implementing zones in the comprehensive plan for this focus area. The goals is the connectivity. This will help prairie improvements, both for traffic vehicle and pedestrian connectivity. Provides a variety of housing types, which is a goal of the comprehensive plan.

Is the proposed zoning district consistent with the goals and policies contained in the currently adopted Post Falls Comprehensive Plan that are relevant to the area under consideration?

I'd say connectivity, like you said. It's like our biggest street.

Also, too, this focused area has, particularly Long Prairie, is focused provisions for multifamily commercial and tech uses. So this fits that.

I believe in accordance with comprehensive policy number one, the RM zoning will maintain or enhance levels of service as noted in the materials through impact fees. I think that it will, in accordance with comprehensive policy number two, the zoning is compatible with the single family homes to the west and south of the property. I think in accordance with comprehensive policy number 26, Annexation and applying this particular zone will help, as council has already mentioned, improve connectivity, particularly through sidewalks, trails, and bicycle paths, because as noted in the materials, at the time of development, multi-use pathways would be required. Thank you.

Could I add one more? Sure. As we talk about the comprehensive plan, I actually think it's worth talking about where we put density. And when we are intentional with the small amount of density that we put off of places like Prairie and Highway 41 and Greens Ferry, it actually helps retain our small town charm in the areas that we really wanna keep it. Like we're not gonna make this area of Post Falls feel like a small town or be charming. This is a highly busy industrialized area. So if we can put some well thought out density then we're able to keep that kind of sense of walkability, small town charm, open spaces in other places of the city where we find it really important and fiscally we do need some of these denser pockets. So I think it's helpful that we've been so intentional about this one. To the goal of small town charm. To? I don't know what number it is, I'm sorry.

I'll find it.

Okay.

All right, and the last criteria, does the proposed zoning district create a demonstrable adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing services within the city?

None have been noted.

Well, we just talked about fire. We didn't talk about how zoning affects the level of service. We only talked about annexation, so again, There's more to serve when we build something up, and it's worth considering.

All right. I think we're ready for a motion.

I would move that the Prairie Avenue Annexation ANNX-25-5 be assigned the residential mix zone designation.

Second. Motion and a second. Further discussion? Roll call, please.

Ziegler?

Aye.

Mosby?

Aye.

Luca?

Aye.

Stiglitter? Aye. Clue?

Aye.

Molloy?

Aye. Motion passes, thank you. Next up in unfinished business, we have the Mullen annexation. And this is just continued deliberation. This is not a hearing. Correct.

All right, once again, City Council, John Manley, Planning Manager, We're re-discussing the Mullen Avenue annexation, annex 25-7. So we already have cited this in the past, the owners and the applicant being the North Idaho Surge Hospital with the representative being Angie McVey. They requested the annexation of 4.39 acres with that community commercial services zoning. There is the location of the site that we discussed just a bit east of the northeast intersection of Syringa and Mullen Avenue. They did have a little part that was not part of their proposal. We kind of discussed these items here, the conditions of the site and the service and the road connectivity. So go into kind of what was discussed. So staff did cite as part of that hearing that the annexation may align with the comprehensive plan and the business commercial future land use. We also cited that the proposal may support infill development, commercial growth, economic development, increased connectivity even though there was that portion that is missing. It would improve those on the east and west side of those a bit. We also looked at it would be an expansion of city sewer service over the prairie. Moulton Avenue is a minor arterial. CCS zoning could allow multifamily housing with a special use permit. The applicant during that hearing did cite that they would likely be marketed for future commercial or mixed-use development after the annexation. From the notes, you guys discussed the following, that it would be infill development, it would assist removing a county island. There would be sewer connectivity, there would be some roadway improvements, and there may be some economic development benefits. There was some concern with some high density residential development along the nearby single family homes and being along Mullen Avenue. There was a representative from the north that did want to have a larger landscape buffer because concerns for that multifamily. They also sought some height restrictions and some additional setbacks. I will note that oftentimes those are placed at the time of special use permits. You guys, being counsel, did ask if the applicant would be interested in adding a development agreement that this piece of property stay commercial only and not residential. And then Angie McFay did respond back. I can't speak for them, but I believe yes. So in conclusion of that, the ownership group received this, and then I'm going to go to go over kind of, they have like, I believe five points of what they contest is they contest that Angie's response was qualified rather than definitive and acknowledged. She can't speak for ownership as this was not prior to the hearing. That was one of their concerns. The proposed condition prohibiting multifamily residential development was introduced during council deliberation. It was not previously identified as a requirement through noticing or in the staff report. They also cited that because multifamily is an allowed use within the CCS district through the city's established special use permit process, the ownership group believed or believes that the restriction should be applied through that process. Four, the ownership group's perspective is that the compatibility concerns related to future multi-family development would normally be evaluated through the special use permit process itself where site design, buffering, landscaping, setback, traffic, and neighborhood impact could be addressed on the actual proposal rather than a categorically proposed or prohibited annexation. And then the ownership group does not desire this condition and would like CCS as defined in the code. That kind of wraps up the ownership group there. Field might be able to chime in and assist where we go from here. But it was just more or less because that condition was placed. as part of the development agreement, to give you guys an opportunity to discuss that further, and where should staff go in drafting this development agreement to get their signature?

I would start, I guess, I think all the points are quite valid. If the process is already set out in the special use permit, then I can see the point of ownership liking the property to be annexed and zoned as defined. So I think my opinion is that they do have a valid point and I think that's the direction that we should go.

I would say, however, that the question was not zoning, it was annexation. And the question was, is it in the city's best interest if residential high density is going to be a part of it? I certainly didn't believe it would, and I believe Councillor Stiglitter's question to the applicant's representative shows that, and I don't want to speak for you, Councillor, but it seems like you thought the same way. So in other words, this would not have been annexed, more than likely, had that agreement not been put in place. And now we are at the point where the ownership group who, and let me ask, is there anybody here from the ownership group today? So for the second time we're being asked to make a decision on this property where they can't even show up and have a discussion.

To clarify, this is not a public hearing, so that part is closed.

Okay, but I would say that in the first one there definitely was, and they sent somebody, and we made an agreement, and their representative agreed to it, and now we're expected to make a different decision and they want the regular process. Well, there was a time to advocate for that. That time has passed and now we're in this in this conundrum as to what to do with it? Because this is currently in the city, right?

So that's kind of an interesting question. I know you raised it as far as where we are in the procedure. This was presented. It went through a sort of council head nod. Sometimes we take a vote on the annexation. Sometimes we just... sort of look for unanimity before proceeding forward with the zoning question. This was one where I believe there was sort of unanimous head nodding from the council saying that this property is in the best interest to be annexed. we went through the review criteria for the CCS zone outlining again the questions that we just went through for the previous and following sort of that process during that sort of initial ending deliberation the question about the development agreement was brought up and so There was a vote sort of to approve with that condition. There may be an argument that that is an approval of the annexation piece, but we do take this as sort of a holistic one vote for both of those items. So, I would treat this as if the annexation piece there was that unanimity as far as the annexation decision, even though we didn't take a vote on it. So it's not, I wouldn't say it's officially the annexation is approved, but there was that unanimity. If we had taken a vote, it would have likely come out as annexation was in the best interest of the city. So I would... As you think about this, I would consider it as if that was the vote, even though we didn't take a vote on it, if that makes sense.

So the current state of the property is that this is not annexed into the city. There is no agreement.

No, because the, so any time, any time a annexation comes before the city council, the city council can add additional items to development agreements, that sort of thing, just like what we did here. That always goes back to the property owner. They cannot agree. The council could assign a different zone. Like, yes, we want to annex this property, but we want it to be RM instead of R1. In that case, the property owner could say, I don't want it to be RM. I would only come in if it was R1. They could refuse to sign the documents to continue on in the process. So, no, there has not been a... annexation ordinance, it is not recorded, it is not signed, it is not inked. We merely have a vote on the first sort of step after the public hearing of yes, we think this is a good idea, this is what we think. I direct staff to bring this back to council for a final decision. There has not been the final written decision in this matter. Thank you.

As the grumpy old man on the council, this points to a much older and larger problem in that we do not have a commercial-only zone in Post Falls. And so that's been a topic for how long have we been talking about that, John? I'd say at least two. I'd say more like five or six years because we're the— The car wash ended up over off Highway 41. That was initially CCS and the plans. They were going to dump a bunch of apartments there, and then they changed direction on that. So the direction was that we're going to address that on the next comprehensive plan, which is in process now. It gets in a little bit of, it puts us in a tough place because I think the applicant is correct that there There is a zone that allows for multifamily by special use permit, and we're a little bit handcuffed because there is no zone that says commercial only. So for better or worse, I think if that's important to us as a council, then we need to continue to work with staff and direct staff in the next comprehensive plan to have one. So that way we have an option that is clear and concise when something like this should come up. As far as the current situation, I'm not sure there's a whole lot that we could cleanly do about it because that option doesn't exist.

Are you, I want you to keep going. Okay. I mean, that was going to be my point, which is, I think council was clear that we don't feel like this is an ideal, um, location for up to 100% with a special use permit of high density housing. Um, we do like the idea of bringing it to the city, but we don't have a clean way of offering it to the applicant to be what council. Could potentially feel like it should be, which is commercial only. Um, and so we've had to use this development agreement lever, um, at least for two years. Cause I keep whining about it for sure. And yeah, yeah, for sure. Um, and if the applicant, I mean, and that's the decision that we have to make at council for council, council, um, councilman Zig leader. I appreciate. I did it. Ziegler. I appreciate that. I agree. I don't think that their points are invalid points from their perspective. The question is, as a body, do we think that what they're proposing is the best thing? Or do we think that what we have to offer is what's truly right? And I think that that's like, I don't think they're wrong to ask this. If this is what they want with their property, there's nothing wrong with the request. But is it what we want? And I suppose We have a development agreement. That solution doesn't bother me one bit, but it seems to bother the applicant. So what other solution could we come to that meets both of those needs? And in their original packet, they said upon annexation and rezoning to CCA, I think this is from them, I'm pretty sure. mullen avenue the owner intends to market the parcel for sale as commercially zoned property and i wonder if limited commercial um well i mean i guess they can still do multi-family with a special use permit which would still be up to 100 in limited commercial same it's at the medium density is it so it would be like town homes or twin homes or something

Duplexes or townhomes, yeah.

Okay. I mean, maybe that's more palatable to both parties, but to Councillor Luca's point, it's difficult to have this conversation when we don't have clean tools and when we don't have the applicant. So I'm not sure what the answer is. I'm not comfortable with what they're asking for, so that's something that I would not be a supporter of, but I'm still in support of the development agreement or looking at other solutions.

So I have a process question about if we were to approve this as written CCS with a potential of higher density housing under special use permit, that is a planning and zoning decision, but what is the application and approval criteria for the special use permit to allow that type of density?

Okay, hold on here. So, So these are the criteria they go through here. Look at A, whether first two are kind of, you know, one is does it meet the intent of the zoning district? And then the second one is it is allowed by a special use permit, which B, the second one is if it says it's generally allowed otherwise they wouldn't be there. C is whether it's in the health, safety, and welfare of the public and the land uses in the vicinity and whether the proposed use will or will not comply with the goals and policies in the conference plan. And there's some six, I thought we had another slide.

Is there something about parking?

Then they can, there's also six additional, I don't know if field can find those. But there's six additional things that they can add that's above and beyond code. So that's the unique thing about special use permits that's a benefit, is if it's not stated in the code, you can require things that's above and beyond what's not in code. So currently, we don't have a code requirement that we have right here. The six items are one minimize adverse impact on other development. The second one is controlling the sequence and timing of the development. Third one is controlling the duration of development. Fourth one is assuring the development is maintained properly. Fifth one is controlling the location and setback of the development. So like the neighbor who wanted to increase setback, you know, you could through especially show that, or if you want to increase buffering or trees, you could have a higher standard than what code would require. And then the sixth one is requiring more restrictive standards than those generally required in a zoning ordinance. So theoretically, like if you're against single family, you could have a two-story max adjacent for so many feet, and then you can stagger up to a third story. That way you're not sticking three stories against a two-story. You're just matching a two-story structure against the two-story structure. So some codes do that. So...

So theoretically speaking, the applicant could come forward, if we were to approve it as is written now, come forward with a special use permit application, which would be reviewed by P&Z, and they could enact any of those special conditions that would make it more palatable, like the setbacks and landscape and things like that. They could just deny it, the special use permit, and say, no, we're not doing that. which then, if the applicant appealed, would come before us. Am I correct in that process?

Yeah, more than likely. If it wasn't approvable, then, I mean, they would have to find a goal or a policy that it was in violation in the comp plan and justify the denial, you know. But, yeah, I mean, they could be denied. But they could also be approved without it ever coming back to Council, right? Yeah, that's kind of the intent of how kind of special use permits work is they are generally said you know what these uses in a lot of cases are should be allowed but because of some special circumstances with the surrounding environment you might be annexed to it could be going in reverse you could be next to a paint booth and you may not want to put a bunch of residents in an apartment real close to a paint booth. So you may require further separation in that situation to protect those residents. Or the inverse, against single family, doing some of the stuff we discussed.

It's kind of like, it's uses that could be permitted outright but there are things that we want to take a second look at and have a bit more of a review process for.

Certainly, and I don't want to cast dispersions on planning and zoning at all, I don't. I appreciate their service and what they do. It is the workhorse here for the land use process. However, in this case, if we approve this as what the applicant is asking for, it could go through planning and zoning, they could approve this under a special use permit, which it seems like they want to preserve that right for a reason. And council, the people's elected representatives have stated, at least certain members have stated that they don't believe that that is in the best interest of the city. And so for the people to be able to speak to their representatives and not through appointed PNZ members, they need to have that right. They should retain that right and I, you know, this is, I believe if we polled residents and asked them, I would say they would agree that it's not appropriate for that street. for a number of reasons, to have multifamily development in that little tight area where we would have traffic concerns about people who are getting in to the hospital and out of the hospital in various stages of ambulatory ease. And there's a lot going on in that area. And so the additional traffic could be a concern. And I think the public would share that view and would not want us to approve something that has the ability to become multifamily. when it should be commercial and I sincerely hope that our comprehensive plan when it comes up for a vote has a purely commercial zone so we don't have these conversations where every single zone it seems like that has C in its name has the right to have multifamily. We should be able to make those decisions And I'll just say, all right, I won't vote yes on any comp plan in the future that doesn't have that. It is a non-negotiable for me. And this is why. Now we're faced with this sort of situation where the... The will of the council I thought last time was that yes, it makes sense to annex this if it doesn't become apartment buildings or other multifamily, it makes sense as a commercial development. But we don't have a way to state that other than the way that we did and their representative agreed to that. the ownership agreement that were the ownership team doesn't like that idea. It seems like they want to preserve the right to put apartments where we don't believe, or at least I don't believe it's appropriate. So I have no choice but to work with the tools that we're given.

Well, they want to sell the property, right? Correct. They want to have the most options available to whoever would buy the property. So that's probably why they don't want anything hampering. Um, And I am with you, Councilor Lupo. Most of what you said, I would not support this without that agreement.

Can, if I recall our previous conversation about this correctly, it was like residential at the R3 level. Is there an appetite to allow less density residential so that the development wouldn't say no residential at all, but we allowed residential at the density of R2 from the council so that it could potentially through, I don't know, whatever process you say, um, a special use permit, um, be allowed to put up some percentage of cottage homes or duplexes.

So that jumped out at me. I thought, you know, you already mentioned the limited commercial that, that seemed of interest to me, especially in light of what, what the comment was from the ownership team on the, the slides you just presented. It sounded to me, and I think you were alluding to this, Councilor Luca, the reason why they wanted to keep the CCS designation as codified was because they thought they would have a better opportunity to get multifamily passed at planning and zoning. And again, as I'll echo Councilor Luca, I'm certainly not gonna cast aspersions on planning and zoning, but that may be the perception from the ownership team. I certainly will not be supporting that high density multifamily on this parcel for the R3, but limited commercial with the potential for R2, I don't necessarily have as, it doesn't trouble me as much. I don't see that having the same degree of traffic concerns as if we're putting up apartments.

But once we approve anything other than a, tacit agreement from the property owner that they won't put residential in we lose control of the process and by we I mean the people's elected representatives lose control of the process because planning and zoning can approve any special use that that they want and so but that special use has to be allowed in that zone so

If what you're saying is correct about the special use permit in limited commercial, it couldn't be used for multifamily. Although on my little chart, it kind of looks like it can. If it really, if it is a special use permit in limited commercial only up to the density of R2, that might be a conversation that we could have and it wouldn't allow 100% multifamily on five acres. Is that what this parcel is?

Maybe it's 10? 4.39. I can pull it back up again.

Okay. I don't know that like even 100% at R2 in this specific spot is possible. ideal, but I just want to throw it out there as something that we could see is more palatable. And if it's not, then we don't have to say yes to that either. I also don't want it to seem like we have a council that is against development and wants to be difficult with development. I don't think that in general we are. We want to find a solution for this developer in the county pocket, in an island. It's better for everyone if we have it developed correctly. But the question that we're faced with is how much control do we want to give up? What is the most correct thing to do? And so I'm just trying to throw options out there for us to find a solution.

I think that's a really good point. And I think where I'm at on this, because I don't want to see in our three high density residential in that parcel is exactly what we talked about originally when we were looking at this. But from an applicant's standpoint, I think, again, the points that they're making are very valid. Like, we as a city have provided this guideline for this particular parcel in this area. It meets all of that criteria, except that we don't like how our own policy is written. Because it allows for a different way of getting to the result. And I don't think it's incumbent upon the applicant to jump through the hoops to make sure that we like what we wrote. So in fairness to private property rights and the owners that are coming forth to us, because I agree with you. I don't want to make any kind of decision on this that would make it seem like this council is against development. But in doing this, it does create a lot of confusion, I would assume. on the applicant's part of all we're asking for from you is to follow your own process. I mean, that's how I read this. And to your point about appointed officials, I do think obviously they're not directly elected, so there is a degree of separation there, but they're also appointed and confirmed by your elected official. So I would think that there would also be a level of trust there that they know the process and why they were appointed to do what we're asking them to do.

Certainly, but if the public is mad at them for doing that, they don't have as much option, at least not as directly, to make a change. To your point, I would... They could change the person who appointed them. Right. Over a period of six years, they could...

It reinforces the fact that we need to be careful about who we appoint.

Yeah. And to your point about the process, I would 100% agree with you if this was already in the city. If you're in the city and this is your zone, then you can do whatever that zone says. And you know what? We have to deal with the consequences of that. This isn't in the city. They're asking us. It's just like if I knocked on your door and asked for permission to come in, you can set the rules. And in this case, they're knocking on our door and asking to come in. And we're saying, yes, if you promise to take your shoes off, you can come in my house. If you don't, you can't come in. So yes, if you agree with us that we don't believe that residential is appropriate for this neighborhood where we have two urgent care and surgical hospitals and an additional medical complex directly to the west of this property, a car dealership across the street, but we don't believe that more residential density makes any sense in this square. If you don't agree with that, that's fine, then you're welcome to continue to have a single house on there as it's, or whatever the county tells you you can have. But if you wanna come in the city, at least to get my vote, I can't speak for the rest of the council, at least to get my vote, this is the terms. And it's completely, our process is we can say that when annexation is the question. When zoning's the question, if this was the property to the west that was already in the city, then you can do whatever that zone says.

I agree with you to a point because I think we all agreed on the outset that this was a smart annexation into the city. Like it met all the criteria for the city to annex the property that was not in doubt. And I feel like from that point, we're like, except that we're gonna contradict our own policy. So that's the part where I don't really think it's fair to the applicant, but.

I would just offer that I would imagine they're looking at this thinking they're gonna put this on the market, and if this has this restriction, they would see that as a reduction in their property value.

Yeah, and I think they're 100% correct. And I think our process for application of the special use permit kind of addresses that.

Yeah. Because if it is incompatible with the surrounding areas, that should be addressed during the time of special use permit.

Right. And like I said earlier, the process is, if we reject it in a special use permit process, then it would come before us anyway.

I'd also add that if an affected party wants to challenge an approval, an appeal on approval, that would come before city councils. It would also come before us.

So one of the owners of the neighboring parcel could file an appeal and that would come to us.

That is correct.

I would say I would feel more comfortable with it if we could put a restriction on ourselves, which I don't think that we can do, but tell me if we can. It would say that if a special use permit is sought and approved by Planning and Zoning that we could require internally that it comes for a review to the council, then I would be okay with that and give the applicant what they want. I don't want to see them have a reduction in their property value or anything like that. And if something comes up to where it was, let's say the entire neighborhood to the east got sold and there was some master plan development or whatever that we thought made sense and they wanted to be part of that, then okay, maybe a special use permit makes sense. As just this little narrow thing that has a house cut into it. You know, we're trying to envision what this is gonna be. I can't see it.

As far as the reduction of property value goes, though, this is where this one gets weird for me is that, you know, now we have separated out the annexation and zoning thing, which that didn't used to be the case only a few years ago. So now we've kind of painted ourselves into a corner because we had a head nod on annexation, and now it seems like we're kind of stuck. But, you know, by annexing into the city, that's a substantial increase to their property value because now there's a whole lot more they can do with it. So I guess I'm not completely... sympathetic to a decrease in property value with a restriction. Because just by annexing it in, it's wildly increases the value of the property. The part that, one, I don't like that we had to vote on the annexation separate from the zoning, because that puts us in this spot. And two, it was the whole, we don't have a commercial on the zone, which we can't fix tonight.

So I think our options at this point are we could redo the motion without the condition to give them what they want and then just planning and zoning to do the special use permit process or we could tell them no, what we decided before stands and then they can make the decision to either sign it or not and they could sell it with the condition or they could sell it as unincorporated or we could try to do some other zone but then they may not like that either.

I think you could also deny the annexation if need be.

You were making it sound up front like we couldn't do that because we already nodded our heads.

There was no final decision. So when we make the motions, they come back for a final decision. I wouldn't treat it that way. I think, again, there was head nods, there was unanimity, but there wasn't a final decision before council. I think that is a... It's legally possible if that helps. I think that you could still, we could still bring back a final decision that just denies the annexation. That is in the realm of possibility, but that may be harder to do.

Is there perhaps another option in that we table this and direct staff to work with the applicant? Is there any other zone that doesn't allow 100% R3 on a special use permit that they would accept, limited commercial for example.

There is always that option. We could, similar to the last public hearing that we had, we could theoretically come back with an RM zone with a development agreement outlining all the uses and where things could be. That's certainly a possibility. I think anything, if we go sort of that direction, I think we're re-noticing it as a public hearing and bringing that back again, especially with a amended sort of development agreement. But yes, that is certainly possible as well.

If we just flatly deny the request and the applicant wants to bring it back with any amendments or with a new zone, will they have to pay for the whole fee over again?

Yes, and they wouldn't be able to bring it back for a year, I believe.

But if we do what Counselor Molloy is proposing, would they have to, they might just have to pay for it to be re-noticed should they come to something that they like?

That's correct.

Okay. Maybe that's the kinder way to do it.

I would support that motion.

So that would leave them with the option of either take what was offered before or come back with a new idea. Correct?

Can we say to the applicant based on the conversation we have because we have not had a vote that the appetite of the council is not there to have residential in this neighborhood. But we would love to have you as part of our Post Falls City family here, but as commercial, and have a negotiation and decide if they still want to move forward with it or not. I mean, I certainly wouldn't want them to have to wait a year and pay another fee and all that stuff. That's unnecessarily burdensome.

We're in a public meeting. This is deliberation, so this is all on the record. They'll be able to review the statements made.

And is the informal poll, is the real heartburn no residential at all, or is it a bunch of three-story apartments, the heartburn?

My heartburn is 100%, my heartburn is mostly R3 and then more specifically that the zone they're asking for is 100% R3 because at least CCM is only 50%.

I'm going to play the grumpy old man and just say nuke it. Just deny it. We told them what we would consider. It seems like we kick it around and waste a bunch of time by giving them all these little things that they can do, that's fine. But, I mean, we made our position clear. And I just, you know, you guys can all disagree with me, but I would just prefer to nuke it.

I think the risk of that is that the comprehensive plan and city policy also makes the position fairly clear that CCS is an implementing zone. So that's why they are understandably pushing back. It's like, hey, your comprehensive plan says that we can do this. So we're trying to get them to voluntarily scale that back.

I'd also be adding an executive session to the next council meeting.

would say if we can come to the table with them and come to an agreement on both sides that would be the ideal outcome i would also just reiterate i think even if it's a standalone process outside of the comprehensive plan we need a commercial only zone like yesterday so i would i would be pushing for that probably from this meeting forward because it seems like we get

this type of question of the in between a lot which i think we can we can clean up our internal process and make that happen i would agree with counselor ziegler and i would answer uh council president molloy's informal poll question uh for me the the heartburn is over the r3 not so much on Categorically no residential. I think there is a scenario in which residential could be okay at the R2 level, possibly. I haven't actually considered the CCM zone levels of R3, but for me it's just having that much R3 on that parcel, that doesn't fit. It's not necessarily no residential at all.

That would be consistent to your last discussion was to be at R2 or less, more or less. Yes.

Yeah, and I'm not opposed to any residential either. I mean, obviously, residential is allowed currently on the property per the county rules. So I'm fine with matching whatever the current rules are for the county whatever our appropriate zone is for the city if that's our one or two whatever that they can currently do with the property that's fine I mean we're trying to be more permissive than what the county is allowing and this is I believe it's suburban AG zoning currently so I think that we're trying to be charitable and do what I can to be in the best interest of both the city and the person who has an interest in the property. So yes, some level of residential would be okay, in my opinion, but it's consistent with what's currently allowed there. And if you want to come in the city and do something more, then let's agree to not make it a high density.

So I'll take your poll, Mr. Malloy, and say I would not like any residential there, just commercial. I just look across the street. I don't know. I know surrounding other areas there is obviously some farms and residential, but just make it all commercial.

The informal poll says it's five to one. So in that case, I would move to table this issue on direct staff to work with the applicant to see if there is a zone that is amenable to them that does not permit by special use permit or anything else 100% of R3 residential. The hope of the council is that we would have certainly a lower density of residential, if not also commercial.

Second.

A motion and a second. Further discussion?

Would you consider amending the motion to be no more density than what is currently allowed on the property? No, because that's so incredibly low that. Okay. Thank you.

All right, roll call, please.

Mosby?

Aye.

Luca?

No.

Stiglitter? Aye. Plew?

Aye.

Molloy? Aye. Ziegler?

Aye. Motion passes, thank you. Mrs. Tables? Next up, solids conveyor purchase contract with JDV Equipment.

Good evening, Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, Andrew Arbini, Projects Division Manager. I know it's very exciting. So you've heard from me a few times on this project, and spoiler alert, there will be a few more through the course of the project. But tonight's request is for the city to purchase two pieces of equipment that will be installed during the construction phase of the project. So these are two requests this evening. I do want to note, I just noticed the typo here. It's correct in the council packet, but it should be item B and C. I think things got shifted around. So item B would be the conveyor equipment, and item C would be the BDP dewatering press. I put together a presentation outline. We'll go over a little bit of the project background, I think, at this point. Pretty familiar but talking about what we're building just a brief recap recap and then talk on the specifics of each request and Finish with a next steps and where we are today So this project includes two sub projects project one and two project one prioritizes the improvements of improving the existing redundancy of the solids treatment and So project two will construct the balance of those improvements. Design of the project started this last summer in July. Since then, we've worked on a few things. So we brought a sole source declaration to council in fall. That was approved. Following that, we negotiated directly with BDP for purchase of that press needed in project one. So that is purchased and in fabrication slated for delivery early 2027. And then most recently, Council approved the pre-construction services contract with Apollo, so they've been on board with JUB and the city working through the design phase of both project one and two. This is an illustration of what we're talking about with the dewatering press. The end result is a dewatered solid that would be transported by a conveyor to the sludge hopper and then ultimately carried off the site.

Is there a different color that you could make the sludge?

It's accurate.

Yeah, yeah, something.

I can touch this up next time in a computer program. So brings me to the first request. So project one is purchase of a JDV brand conveyor. So the installation of the belt press, the BDB belt press that was approved with project one requires a conveyor to carry the solids. Since we brought Apollo on board and subsequent design conversations, we identified this being a long lead item. It was originally anticipated that we could include it as part of the construction contract, but it was flagged as six months or more from the time of notice to start fabrication to delivery. In order to meet that priority goal with Project 1 and getting the system online and functional in early 27, it's recommended that we pre-procure this equipment and then the city will assign it to the contractor. So this is the first image is the layout in the existing facility. You can see the green text box is pointing to the conveyor on the existing BDP. So you get a sense for what it would look like. Outlined in red, that will be the new BDP that was authorized last fall. And then the request, this request is for the box in blue. That will be the conveyor. high level view, and then example of a conveyor, what it actually looks like. So the process for procuring this, the conveyor is somewhat generic. We looked at a couple different brands and decided to, based on the value of it, we were able to solicit for quotes and competitively price that out. We solicited from three vendors and received two responses. The low response was from JDV in the amount of $87,000. So the total ask tonight with a contingency is the 96,000 number there. And then this is part of the larger project code. So I will jump to the second item, which is the purchase of a second BDP bell press. Some recap, maybe for the newer council members, last fall when BDP was declared a sole source. We use this justification. This basically comes straight out of Idaho code, allows the city to make that declaration. And this was largely based on city operates an existing BDP press. At the time that was installed, I believe around 2010, in its current facility, footings were placed for a second unit, which is where the Project 1 unit will be installed. So that was largely a justification made in being able to go out and negotiate directly with BDP. We did look at an alternative unit from another vendor, significantly higher cost at that time. So that also helped further that direction. so the request this evening as i mentioned project two constructs the balance of the improvements project one is moving forward we're on track and getting that operational first thing in 2027 that's that's been our priority proj that gives us some breathing room and then to focus on project two which gives us a little more time to sequence sequence these improvements through the design we do need another dewatering unit uh... so with the project to we looked at is there another technology that we want to pursue under project to do we want to change the type of technology used for the dewatering process ultimately we determined we we want to stay with the dewatering press and we went back to bdp and had a conversation about what that may look like they were willing to negotiate i should say they were willing to hold the price of the the unit we paid for in project one and are willing to facilitate it as a change order again we did reach out to another vendor just to get a feel for has anything changed would there be you know would this be something to competitively price and they were significantly greater than than the bdp brand So the direction forward approval tonight would purchase this unit and then it would be assigned to the contractor in a future construction contract. I tried to make this as clear as I could. So the green box is the existing press we're operating today. Project one, plan to have that in operation in early 27. This request this evening, as part of the change order, will add the third BDP unit total. So we'll have three in operation at the end of this project. And that will go in a new facility that's being constructed as part of the project to improvement. And then we also have space for a future press down the road that's identified in the master plan as a 2040 beyond need. So the request this evening. THE CHANGE ORDER AMOUNT IS 681,000. IT BRINGS THE TOTAL CONTRACT VALUE WITH BDP TO THE 1.45 MILLION. AGAIN, THIS IS FUNDED FROM THE SAME PROJECT CODE. PROJECT SCHEDULE. Intended to illustrate a little bit of where we've gone, at least to me, it feels like we've moved through a lot of steps in the last year. So currently we're on the two highlighted items. Next steps moving forward, we're on track to construct the project one improvements in early 2027, and then project two would be thereafter, and then that would continue, anticipate through 2028. We do plan to come back this summer with an update on where we are, hopefully have a little bit more information on the project overall, and then also an update on the project budget and direction there. With that, I will stand for any questions.

Is there, I'm trying to remember from the tour that I took of the facility, is this replacing another unit that's currently in operation but is old and at the end of its life cycle?

Eventually. So the project one unit will essentially replace the current older, it's the oldest unit on site. A much smaller and older, it produces a fraction of what this BDP unit can. We will keep that in operation until we have enough of the units installed. It may be two, it may be that we need all three before we can actually decommission that oldest unit. But yes, the intent is that the oldest unit would be removed. Thank you.

Do we not need a conveyor for project two?

We do, and I did not... Sorry. No, at risk of... I thought I might make it really confusing, so I did skip... a bullet point there. Sorry if I'm making anybody sick flipping through this. Okay, so I did have a note about the project two does require a conveyor. However, given that it's a longer time frame to construct that project, talking with the CMGC Apollo construction, we believe we can include that in the construction contract and they would have enough time in their bid to get the get the product ordered and it would be here in time for the construction of the project to improvements.

OK, so we wouldn't have to order it like one off like we are here. It would be part of project to correct.

OK, yeah, it will be under a construction contract with the contractor. Gotcha.

OK, what happens if we say no?

If we don't purchase this, the biggest impact will be project one. We would we would not have a conveyor and ultimately we would not be able to operate the BDP unit in project one. When it arrives, we would be waiting, say we ha we can get the BDP unit installed in January, but that's also the, the time when we just order the conveyor. then we'd probably be looking at July of 2027.

So you'd have to wait until we said yes to the conveyor to make project one functional?

Correct. And that it would be likely part of the contractor's construction contract, which just the timing of that will not come until later this year. And that six-month, eight-month delay then just kind of ripples through the project.

And if we said no to project two, then we just wouldn't have a third contract?

dewatering system from BDP that we use for oh gosh I want to say surplus but that's not redundancy right yes okay great thank you yeah the project two improvements address the long-term long-term growth in the in the redundancy in our in our planning period that we're we're working on

That's all I got.

All right. I'm waiting for some motions. I would move to approve the solids conveyor purchase contract with JDV Equipment in support of the water reclamation facility solids handling improvements project. Second. Motion and a second. Further discussion?

Roll call, please.

Luca?

Aye.

Stiglitter? Aye. Plew?

Aye.

Malloy? Aye. Ziegler?

Aye.

Mosby?

Aye. Motion passes. I move to approve the change order with BDP Industries for an additional belt press in support of the Water Reclamation Facility Solids Handling Improvements Project. Second. Motion and a second for the discussion. Roll call, please.

Stick Leader. Aye. Plew.

Aye.

Malloy. Aye. Ziegler.

Aye.

Mosby.

Aye.

Luca.

Aye. Motion passes.

We're on to new business. First item, Professional Services Agreement, JUB Engineering for the Pole Line and Greens Ferry Project.

Good evening, Mayor, City Council. This is Chris Schneider, staff engineer here for the Greens Ferry Pole Line Improvements Project and contract with JUB. The scope of the work, as you can kind of see here in the diagram, is to relocate the signal pole. When the signal was originally constructed, we did not have the rights of way in that northeast corner. That was still in the county at that time. The pole was designed for the eventual move, so we do have the additional arm length. It just needs to be relocated to its final location. In doing so, we would be able to finish the pedestrian access throughout that intersection, getting all four corners established. We would then continue the project south, widening Greens Ferry Road. At this time, since it doesn't continue to the north, that would be a right turn pocket. which should help with some of the stacking concerns we've seen on Greens Ferry in those busier hours. We would also be doing some pedestrian multimodal access on the school's property, getting connection from pole line down through Horse Haven. Looking down at the Horse Haven intersection, more or less the same situation, the road widening, ADA improvements, and that trail. Hopefully this would create some more additional safe access routes in and around this area. Some of the transportation master plan projects that are involved in this are the P-16 signal upgrades, a portion of P-17 Greens Ferry Road widening, and the multimodal 27 Greens Ferry multimodal improvements. We are not at this time looking at that P-15 for the turn restrictions as there's not yet a warrant at Horse Haven to restrict that. The engineer firm that we are working with on this project, JUB Engineers, would be looking at doing the project management, surveying, traffic engineering, design, bidding, and construction phase services. With a 10% contingency on the design, we are looking for $430,410 today. The funding source for that will be impact fees. The design period would be throughout this year, hopefully completed in the later portion of the year so that we can go out for bid in 2027 and get this constructed while school is closed during summer. Naturally we will be keeping all the work outside of school year, that way we don't have a bunch of other issues. Any questions?

What modes are included in the multimodal?

So specifically that would be on that east side of Greens Ferry getting a 10 foot pedestrian asphalt trail from Horse Haven all the way up to Pole Line. So that would allow for strollers, bikes, walking, et cetera.

So it's just a path and a wider road. It's not bus stops or train stations or airports or anything.

Currently, you can kind of see in these two photos, there is a portion of a trail. I believe they measure between six and eight feet wide, but they don't actually connect. There's a gap in the middle of that block. So if any portion of that can be saved and included, potential cost savings on the actual design. But we'll expand it as we can once we get into that phase. And it's northbound lanes for the entirety of the project? Correct, so it'll be from Pulline Avenue down south just past Horsehaven, top of my head, Cornell Road I believe is the next local roadway and then we head into County Pocket so we will taper that back at this time.

So is there no change then to the southbound because of that County Pocket?

Correct because of that county pocket we will look at potentially here on Horse Haven that northwest corner trying to establish the final location and ramps for that corner and maybe in a portion to the north but no actual lane width expansion at this time.

So at any point though we could be looking at that property owner in the county pocket could decide that they want to sell and a developer could be coming to us and then we could be looking at potentially widening the entire street on the southbound way as well. I'm just curious if there have been any discussions with that one property owner to see if they have any intent to do that in the near future because it'd be nice to do all this in one pretty package and save some money on the development of it do you know if any of those conversations have happened as far as i'm aware those discussions have not yet happened but they still could we haven't yet designed anything for this

If that were not to happen, that would likely be the sort of project where that developer would come in for the widening and we would propose the additional width included in a different impact fee project as a reimbursement. Thank you.

We're at greens ferry and pray. Oh, and pull line. Oh my Atlanta. I'm like, I am trying to look at this map and I'm like this, I have way more questions than I thought that I had. Okay. The school's part of the city. Yes.

Correct.

Yeah. Okay, great. And at the time that they were annexed and developed, we didn't have greens ferry classified high enough to need the widening on the east side.

I apologize, I do not know the history on this, as I wasn't here back then. I would assume not, as we are just now kind of getting, as I recall, transportation master plan shows us as a three-lane road, potential to go wider, currently it's a three-lane road. We're pushing towards that wider section as we've done to the north.

Okay, I think I emailed about funding, and I know that you mentioned that we're just paying it out of impact fees. Mm-hmm. But in the email, it referenced specific developments that have paid. Oh, the terminology is paid. Cash out. Cash out. Thank you so much. Have cashed out. And those are the developments that are to the south between Pole Line and Horse Haven.

Yeah, those are the – you can kind of see them behind my notes here. The northwest, southwest, and southeast projects, they each cashed out. give or take $30,000 or $40,000 between 2005 and 2013, somewhere in the last four years as these were identified as impact fee projects that was added into the impact fee fund, just to simplify our managing of those dollars 20 years later.

which might just be my complaint of a bigger thing. We allowed them to cash out for something that is not even a quarter of the total cost of what this is going to be. Is that right? I mean, I did very quick math, but.

The most I'll say is this is why we don't cash out anymore.

We don't cash out anymore.

As far as I'm aware.

rarely very rarely not in my time so far okay because i think we're also using cash out dollars for maybe like crown reserve i think it was reference to some of the like up there what is that bodine or something bodine avenue avenue but anyway okay so then we're just taking the rest out of impact fees that we've collected from the rest of the city to subsidize this intersection correct okay i guess if we're clear about it i don't know that i could really say no but

Good news is $50,000 in 2007 is worth a lot more than $50,000 now.

Oh, okay, because we've been managing it and maybe, like, yeah.

Yeah, well, inflation, you know, so if they were to pay the same purchasing power today, it would be closer to $120,000 as opposed to $50,000 just because of inflation, right?

Yeah, but we let them pay, so it's not worth that much.

Yeah, also we, well, I don't know about these exact dollars. I don't trace each one, but. The impact fee dollars are invested, so they earn interest. Okay. It just takes a little to sting off it anyway.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Okay. I mean, I don't mean to, like, berate you about the money, and I don't think there's a potential that we can say no about it, but bummer. Okay, cool. Thanks. All right.

I would move to approve the professional services agreement with JUB Engineering for the pole line and Greens Ferry project. Second.

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

Plew?

Aye.

Malloy? Aye. Ziegler?

Aye.

Mosby? Aye. Luca? Aye. Stiglieder? Aye.

Motion passes. Next up, Safe Streets for All Grant Application and Resolution.

Good evening, Mr. Mayor, members of the council, and John Beecham, Public Works Director. Here tonight to talk about a grant application we would like to submit and a resolution to go with it. I will start with what is this Safe Streets for All? I will get to some of the details of it. But this is a federal grant. It's administered by the Department of Transportation. It used to be called, well, a prior version of this was called Safe Routes to School. And you may have heard that in other communities where people were putting in sidewalks or crosswalks, things like that. In the bipartisan infrastructure law about five years ago, the new version of this was Safe Streets for All. That was implemented for, was that three years under the Biden administration? Now two years, this is the second year under Trump administration. Some of the fundamentals of how it's being implemented have changed, but it is that same program from five years ago. So the overall goal of the program is to reduce roadway fatalities and serious injuries. It's a goal pretty much anybody can get behind. We'll get into the details. There are two types of these grants. The first, which is what we're looking at applying for, is a planning and demonstration grant. The second type is an implementation grant. So it's actually easiest to think about those in the reverse order. Implementation is money to build improvements that make your streets safer. Planning grants outline what those improvements would be and qualify you for the building grant later. So I'll talk about this in a second. So our recommendation is that we apply for the planning grant that lets us create an action plan. So an action plan is sort of a term in this regulatory world or in this grant world that you can think of it as akin to a transportation master plan, but it's not that. The benefit of it is twofold. First, it gives us a list of projects we can work on that will improve safety for road users. The second is it qualifies us for grants to make those improvements. So like I said, this program's been around for, that I know of, at least over 10 years with funding every year. The requirement to get funding to build something has always been you must have one of these action plans in place. So if you don't, you don't get to apply for the implementation grants. A budgetary cost of what an action plan would be is at a high end $440,800. We asked a consultant who's helping us with the application, who's done these before, what that would cost. That was their high end estimate. There's a 20% match. If we are awarded the grant, that amount would be $88,000 and change. I will note a couple of things. We are not asking for this money tonight. We're not asking to accept this grant tonight. We are here to say we are considering applying for it. There are a lot of things that would have to happen before we accept it. If we were awarded the grant and if you all eventually accepted a contract for the grant, it's probably a fiscal year 2028 project just because of how quickly or not quickly the federal grant process works. So we would likely not even know if we received this until the end of this calendar year. So and then we have 12 months to negotiate a contract and a couple of years to five years to implement it. So this is not a tomorrow project. So I did receive a question about how, what is the difference between an action plan and an ADA transition plan and transportation master plan? I was actually really happy to get that question because I had asked the same question as we were going through this. I wanted more details on it. it complements those other plans this is really The goal is to fix the things at the specific locations in the city that would make those intersections safer. So I've added this slide, it's not in your packet, but sort of to elaborate on that idea. Transportation master plan zooms out and looks at the whole city. You've seen the maps and they're color coded and they've got a couple of dots on them of what this intersection is doing. The question it's answering is how do we make the whole system of roads in the community work the best? It's focused on level of service. The ADA transition plan, I was here a couple meetings ago to talk about, has a very different focus. Its focus is do the things that we own satisfy the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act? It doesn't look at how well they will function. It doesn't look at how they interact with the rest of the city. It is do they meet this specific law? It's very compliance focused. If you'll visualize two pieces of sidewalk that don't connect, and I'm doing this on purpose, the middle of that is what the safety action plan provides. It's the bridge between those two plans. So it is not looking at the slope of the ADA ramps, nor is it looking at the number of cars going by on the intersection. It is looking at what could we do at this specific intersection to address a concern the public has raised or our staff have raised that could make it safer. So sometimes that's going to be a crosswalk gets painted there just to improve the visibility of the intersection. So drivers and pedestrians expect to see each other. It could be connecting a sidewalk gap, like I was saying, so that if you're walking along in the wintertime, you don't take a detour out into the road to get to school or the grocery store or something like that. So it's really, It's a lot more finely detailed than the Transportation Master Plan. It is looking at specific locations, and the goal is really to get community impact. What has the community observed that if we only had a sign here, if we only had a sidewalk that connected this, if we only had a crosswalk, this location would be a lot safer. It puts those all into a plan, prioritizes them by benefit, and qualifies you for grant funding to implement it. Does that answer the comparison to, pause at this slide, because I think that's, it was a question I had going into this. I want to make sure I could explain it well.

I still feel like there's going to be a lot of overlap, but.

There will. These three plans complement each other. They're not, they're talking about the same roads at the end of the day, but they do look at different things. There's a resolution in your packet. This is something we would like to include with the grant application. It's essentially stating that we think that goal of reducing roadway deaths to zero would be a good thing. The details are in your resolution, but generally speaking, this is an advisory policy or advisory resolution. We're not committing to spend X number of dollars per year. We're not committing to future projects. We're just saying we agree with this goal. We think reducing crashes and reducing injuries, reducing fatalities is a good thing. So it formalizes that commitment. It doesn't necessarily, it doesn't come with budget implications. It is a demonstration that we would like to work on this. This is another slide that wasn't in your packet and I added to hopefully address some of the questions that came up. So where we are tonight is just general direction. Yes, staff, go ahead and submit this application. If you approve the resolution, we'll put that in the packet with the application to hopefully improve our chances. As I mentioned, the following step would be award notification. Call it six to nine months from now. Following that, there would be a contract development process. So that's where any of the details of, okay, if you're going to accept this money, you have to meet the following conditions. One of those conditions on all federal things is you have to go through an open procurement process. It's going to be really similar to the procurement process for a consultant we would use anyway. There are requirements for implementation grants about Davis-Bacon wages. That was a question that came up. So yes, if we apply for a secondary grant under this, it would come with those conditions. This planning grant would not have those conditions in it, the prevailing wage conditions. So that is really when we would talk about the policy implications of this. If there are commitments in that contract that staff are uncomfortable with or you're uncomfortable with, that's when we would have that conversation. This is really just the let's put our name in the hat and see if we qualify for this money conversation. There would also be, and I'm not sure if bullet three or bullet four comes first, but there needs to be a budget conversation. I mentioned the cost will be close to $90,000 for our match, so that would need to come forward in a future budget year. We're not asking for that for fiscal year 27. And if, obviously, if there's no budget for it, when the contract comes forward, we would not, we wouldn't bring it forward because we wouldn't have any money for our match, so we couldn't sign the contract.

So we would only be paying 20%. 20%. Oh, okay, sorry. I read your slide the opposite, that,

No, it's a way better deal than that. It would be a federal.

Actually, yes, it is, because I was not happy with the 80%. Well, yeah, I thought it was their match. Yeah, that's what I read, too. Is that how you, okay.

Yeah, I apologize if I made the slide unclear. Yeah, to be abundantly clear, we would pay one-fifth of the cost. The rest, the other 80% would be through the federal grant.

In other words, we match. Only 20%.

In government speak, the match always comes from the applicant.

Okay, can you start from there so that I can be in a different frame of mind than about? No, I'm just kidding.

So I kind of wanted to highlight different council decisions. There would also be a consultant contract that would come forward. So assuming we have the budget, assuming we accept the grant through a contract there, we would also hire a consultant to help us with this work. I mentioned that number, I think the $440,000, that's the high end. We could potentially do the work for less than that. It would give us a different outcome. So that would be a conversation to have during budgeting. But we can't go back and ask for more grant money. We can ask for, we can accept less if we need to. And then at the end of the plan, we would have this plan put together, bring that forward for your adoption as well. So that would outline, here's what we found. Here's what would be recommended to work on it. Here are the projects that are recommended to address those things. That is also an advisory plan. It doesn't commit us to doing those things. It gives us a roadmap for things that we could work on. All of our master plans are master plans. They're not construction contracts or design contracts. With that, I'd be happy to answer any questions. I expect there might be a few because I had some previewed, but I didn't have a chance to make enough slides for all of them.

I will say that the list of questions that I sent out, you've answered some of them in just the fact that there will be several opportunities for review of anything prior to any agreement. I did have a concern that if we put this grant in and we were approved that now it exists and it's done. So many of those concerns that I have were allayed through that, so thank you for that. But one that persists is that if we come up with an action plan, now we have a public document that is stating that this is our action plan for you know, does it create a presumption, and maybe this is a legal question, does it create a presumption then we should be following that action plan whether we get the grant or not, and that if there is a traffic fatality or whatever in one of these areas that we have identified, that now we have set ourselves up for this, presumption that we should have done that already, whether or not we got a grant for it or not. Because I know that this, and correct me if I'm wrong, this grant requires that we adopt a vision zero, zero fatality mindset, which takes the presumption off of the driver to be responsible and puts it on us as a planning agency to design things in a way that fatalities don't happen. Is that correct?

I would not characterize the Vision Zero as shifting any of the responsibilities from the driver or the pedestrian. So I think of it as a crosswalk, a good way to think of this as a crosswalk. There is a crosswalk at every intersection, if I remember my driver's licensing test correctly. It may not be marked. So if you're a pedestrian, you're able to cross at any intersection. If you're a car, you know that you need to, if you're driving a car, you know you need to stop for pedestrians at intersections. But sometimes, people through either the design of the roadway system or the way the intersection is structured or the amount of traffic, sort of forget that. So we go out and we paint these white lines on the road to remind the pedestrians this is where you walk and remind the cars, remember there's a crosswalk here. But the liability doesn't change. It's still on the pedestrian to be smart and don't step out in front of a truck. It's still on the truck to watch for pedestrians as they approach the intersection. So I don't think it shifts that to the city's responsibility for people to navigate these road systems correctly. I think we're just trying to find ways to make that easier for people and to make the easy thing the right thing, as Warren would say if he was here. I don't know if you want to speak to the liability portions of the field.

I think that's a great way to put it. I mean, there's a lot of things that we do because we should do them. but they don't necessarily trigger liability, if that makes sense. I fully agree.

And the flip side of that coin is if somebody gets hit by a truck and they could say, well, you should have had a plan, you didn't. So there's always something somebody could try.

Yeah, and I came up with that because there was some of the analysis that I read about transportation, federal transportation grants. Some organizations had mentioned this is something that happens that there's a presumption that the action plan sort of becomes a part of now your transportation master plan and future decisions by consultants and all of that, that it has to be taken into account and it is a way for the federal government to insert its standards into a local government and take away some of its autonomy for what amounts to, in the course of our budget, kind of a pittance. We're going after these federal dollars that isn't much, 400 and some thousand dollars, and would we potentially lose some autonomy in the way that we make our transportation decisions and have the reporting requirements or the audit requirements? I believe there's a requirement for equity analysis in the projects that are supposed to be geared towards underserved areas, and tell me if I'm wrong on that.

I can speak to that a little bit. So in the original version of the implementation of this, there was a lot more focus on the equity analysis, looking at underserved portions of communities. Now the analysis under the last two years of the implementation of this program is to consider income for census tracts, which is The data is readily accessible and it is considerate in prioritizing your projects. It doesn't say you must prioritize the projects in this census tract or that. But the actual analysis would be something that's relatively straightforward and you're not committing you're going to put all the money here and not there. We also have a manageable number of census tracts. We're not a sprawling metropolis quite yet.

All right, so I think we need a motion to pursue the grant.

No, I thought Nathan was going to say something because he took a breath while I was waiting. But my personal experience with city staff is that we already kind of do this all of the time. Even many years ago I went, and it was my first – Mr. Polis, my first encounter with him when I didn't want to talk to the person at the counter that wouldn't give me what I wanted. So then I asked to talk to Mr. Polis, and now we have a crosswalk at a place that I think is really reasonable. I find that city staff does this and is very good at taking our residents' concerns about sidewalk safety and pedestrians into consideration and making plans now. I think we talk about the Walmart turn lane all of the time, right? Like we identified that that was a problem and we fixed it all by ourselves. We've just talked about, was it Charlville? Somewhere around Tullamore, right? And the crosswalk and the tree and the stop sign and we're changing it because we had a bunch of more car accidents there than we wanted. In a lot of ways, I feel like we already do this, which makes me think this isn't really necessary. But then Mr. Beecham, you also have a lot of stuff on your plate and manage a lot of money and a lot of projects and you've taken the time to research this and look at it and bring it to us, which makes me think that maybe It is worth our consideration if you're taking a lot of your time to present it to us. It's not a whole lot of money. I like it better that our match is 20%. That makes a huge difference to me. But I think I quibbled for a long time over the ADA one, which might have been less money. It just was irritating, I felt like. I do still think that we probably have a lot of this data from the other studies that we're doing and our residents that are very vocal about stuff. So I guess that's all to say I'm not excited about this. I don't think that it's strictly necessary like the other things that we talk about. But I could see that if you think that it's something worthwhile and worth the city's time and money, I would be open to the idea.

Couple things I would answer that with. I think one of the benefits is to compile these, we do get a lot of complaints and some of them result in a change, some of them don't result in a change and that takes as much time sometimes. And sometimes it's, well, it's not what you're asking for but we're gonna do this other thing. So if there was a sort of a programmatic way to collect a whole bunch of those ideas at one time, get them into a plan so that we can work on the high priority easy ones, the high priority ones, and the easy ones sooner. I think we would be addressing more of the community's concerns in a way that makes sense so it's not just the loudest person. It is maybe the improvement that makes the best decision. Maybe it helps 500 kids, but the kids don't come to council meetings and talk about it. So something like that. The other piece of it is funding. So I mentioned the sidewalk. We have gap sidewalks, and they are a source of irritation to everyone, including me. So I have money to maintain sidewalks. Engineering has money to do impact fee projects where a sidewalk is needed. What neither of us have is a funding source to go with those gap sidewalks. This is a way where we could apply for grants that says, we need funding for this. We have a gap, and this would allow us to be eligible to go after that grant funding. So that is sort of a visualization of what I think this gets us. Long term, and I talked about the timeline for the grant. Long term, I think it qualifies us for a new revenue source to address some of those annoying issues that we currently don't have a good funding source for.

Have we spent any money on the consultant that's helping us with the application?

We have. If I recall correctly, it's about $10,000. I signed that contract for them to prepare the grant application. So you were talking about time to put into this. Yeah.

So we already have.

The weighing that was spending that money as well worth the time because we would not do this with the staff time we have available.

Okay.

What we're really gunning for here is the implementation grants, right? Correct. That's the big deal.

I do think having the plan is helpful, though, because it sorts through the things that are really impactful versus a little bit helpful.

I don't think you're wrong, but I think when we have budget conversations and we talk about having to cut things or not, um, not hiring more staff or decreasing our level of service, we're all ready to have really hard conversations about what we're doing there. But then we kind of get these onesie twosies little requests for not a lot of money. And in those situations, we tend to not continue on that more difficult conversation. Um, like, you know, it's how you buy Starbucks every other day and you don't see that money go. So that's just what I would like to bring back to the forefront, you know, is like, we are looking at budgetary constraints in the years coming forward. So like, if we didn't do this, it wouldn't break my heart if we needed to spend the money. But if your professional opinion is that it's going to save us money in the longterm, um, and it's not a whole lot of money, then I'm happy to support it and go forward at this time. But.

That is the goal, to save us money in the long term.

That's the first time we've said that, though, so we should probably remind people of that.

For the record.

Are you open with that? A lot of money. Will there be any more consultant money needed to get us to a completed grant application?

No, I think this gets us to the grant application, that $10,000 I mentioned, gets us the grant application submitted. I think the contract review is something that I'll put in a ticket for our legal team to take a look at when we get there. The next consulting fees would be if we hired someone to help us implement the plan or to build the plan.

Post award though.

Post award.

So there's no more expense. So we've already paid to get us this far. We should put the thing in there and say if we're one of the, I think there's only like 70 projects or something that they're going to approve nationally. So hopefully we would be successful in that, at least have the opportunity to talk about it. Thank you.

I'm good.

All right. I'll move to approve the safe streets for all grant application and resolution.

Second. Motion and a second. Further discussion? Roll call, please.

Malloy. Aye. Ziegler.

Aye.

Mosby.

Aye.

Luca.

Aye.

Stiglitter. Aye. Plouffe.

Aye. Motion passes. Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up, ordinance updating door-to-door solicitation.

Just ban it.

All right.

Some of us like to campaign that way.

No, it doesn't exclude campaign.

Okay, all right.

I will get there. It says you need new windows.

Good evening, Mayor and Council. Field Harrington, City Attorney. I don't get to come up here that often, so it's kind of nice. This is something that's been brewing for a long time. I think the clerk reached out back in 2022 because the city clerk's office used to handle all the door-to-door solicitation permits that would come in, which she would then just transfer over to the police department. The police department was kind enough to take that over back then, but in sort of mid-2025, the police department started asking for some changes to the ordinance, so... so tonight's just the first review of a proposed update to our city code again it's focused only on commercial residential solicitation so discuss consideration final adoption would come later we'd bring it back at the next meeting or a future meeting after any proposed edits are made Why update the code? I'm going to have Frank Bowne come up and give you sort of the background from the police department perspective for a couple slides, and then I'll take it back over.

Mr. Mayor, council, thank you. Frank Bowne, and I serve as a patrol lieutenant with your police department. really the reason to update this is currently we have no mechanism to deny anybody a door-to-door permit meaning they could be a convicted murderer rapist burglar and we can't deny them as long as they disclose it and that is quite often is what happens even today two gentlemen came in i don't i shouldn't call them gentlemen But two of them came in. One of them in another state was convicted of kidnapping and murder. The other one was arson, felon in possession of a firearm, and two burglary convictions. The only reason I was able to deny them is because they did not put that on their application. They omitted it. So that's how we denied them. Had they put that on the application, we would be forced with our current code to give them a permit to go door-to-door and So if you think about this most of these operations occur during daylight times when people at work, so you have somebody that's a burglar this Gives them the opportunity to find out who's not home during the day and they can case that property and IN THE INSTANCES OF OTHER CRIMINALS OR CRIMINAL ACTIVITY, THEY GET TO FIND OUT WHO IS HOME ALONE DURING THE DAYLIGHT HOURS. AND SO WITH THE NEW PROPOSED CODE, IT DOESN'T RESTRICT CAMPAIGNING OR RELIGIOUS PROSTHESIZING OR FUNDRAISING OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. THIS IS FOR COMMERCIAL DOOR-TO-DOOR SOLICITATION. Normally how this happens is you have large companies and they will contract with a third party company To do the canvassing and their door-to-door sales Most cities have something in place that will restrict who they're gonna allow into their neighborhoods and currently we do not have that and so this has been going on for a long time and I think it there's a change that needs to be needed because we don't want these people in our neighborhoods Any questions?

Maybe. How many applications do you, like what is the frequency of these applications that you're getting?

In the summertime, currently right now, the way the application process works is they have to come into the police department and hand fill out an application. And we'll get, some days we'll have 20 people all come in at once with their manager and they'll all have to individually fill those things out. The way we're wanting to go is it'll all be online. THE BACKGROUND PROCESS, THE APPLICATION PROCESS, BUT WE WILL GET 12 TO 20 PEOPLE AND NOT A DAY, BUT PERIODICALLY. AND DURING THE SUMMERTIME, THERE ARE A LOT. THERE ARE HUNDREDS OF CANVASTERS THAT GO OUT THERE. SO THIS WOULD LIMIT THAT BECAUSE THESE COMPANIES WILL NOW HAVE TO HIRE RESPECTABLE PEOPLE. I think it'll slow down the door-to-door stuff, and then the people that are actually doing the door-to-door will be somebody that we would more want in our neighborhoods. So we get a lot of them, especially in the summer. We were hoping to try to get this done before summer happens so we could start limiting that. Any other questions?

This may be in a different section, not in this document, but what is the enforcement of violation of commercial solicitation without a permit.

So in this, I'll give that to him.

Are you talking about on the new proposed?

Yeah. So if you catch someone, you know, is it just a trespass call that the homeowner makes? To be trespassed off the property or what's the enforcement?

So currently right now, if if they're violating whatever the rules are, I can revoke their permit and tell them and call their manager and say he's not allowed to do door to door anymore. If they violate that, then it's a misdemeanor. But that's the only thing that we can do. If they've disclosed everything to us and we're required to give them a permit, the only way we can revoke it is if they are aggressive in their solicitation, like they're told to leave, they won't leave, and we'll take appropriate police action there. If there's a no soliciting sign there, but they go up and try to solicit anyway. If they violate those rules, we can pull their permit. But as long as they're following those rules, there's nothing we can do. There's no teeth to it.

I see. So, I mean, it would be a similar case if they just didn't have a permit, right? Correct.

Correct. Well, if they didn't have a permit, what is the enforcement there?

Some misdemeanor.

Do they carry the permit with them then?

Yes. Once we issue the permit, they're required to carry it with them and they're required to show it upon request from either the resident or from law enforcement. If they refuse to do that, then I can revoke it. Or if they don't have it on them, I can revoke it currently. Most of the people that are like that, shouldn't have a permit to begin with. So we're trying to get it to where we can stop that before.

So I do have a question. And first of all, thank you for explaining the background from the department as to why this is needed. I think having the tools to deny a permit is important, especially with the very sobering realities you've shared with us. I am curious, though, if we're going to put this system online, is there no benefit to forcing these people to come into the department where they would have to actually see someone and present their face physically with their application? for one of these permits? I mean, I'm envisioning a situation where someone, maybe they've got a warrant or something. I mean, I'm sure that would be flagged, but what if it's in some other state or I don't know what that looks like. If someone gets a permit,

where they wouldn't have otherwise applied for one because it would force them to enter a police station is there a benefit to that so the way that we're trying to and i'll let field talk more to it but the way that we have it set up right now is that there will be a third party background check and they'll check every state they check for warrants they check for all the criminal history they send us the report they have to submit their driver's license all of that stuff If there are any warrants that gets caught, now we might not get them on their warrant because they didn't come into the police department. However, we're not going to issue them a permit. So on that part of it, the benefit to doing it completely... Online is that it frees up our record staff so you can imagine You have 20 people come in they all have to hand fill out there Currently they have to hand fill out their applications that all has to get processes that takes two of my records people out for two hours so having them have to PAY THE FEES FOR THE APPLICATION AND THE BACKGROUND PROCESS, AND THEN WE GET THE REPORT. WE WOULD LOOK AT HOWEVER THE CODE IN ITS FINALITY IS, AND DO THEY MEET THE REQUIREMENTS, OR IS THERE ANYTHING THAT'S DISQUALIFYING? AND THEN WE JUST CLICK A BUTTON AND SAY, OKAY, YOU HAVE YOUR PERMIT. IT GIVES THEM THEIR PERMIT, OR YOU'RE DENIED.

STUPID QUESTION, THOUGH. How do you verify that the person who filled out the application is actually the person who's going to be going around with a permit? Do they have to come in and show their ID before they pick up a permit?

I'm not sure how we came up with that.

So we're gonna process these through our, we're gonna process these the same way we do any sort of business licensing permit. So it'll go through that system. They will have to submit their ID and then they will get sort of, I believe they'll get sort of a digital copy of the permit just like any of our other sort of business licenses. The caveat there is they will have to make those things match if somebody asks for it or if they get a complaint in the PDS to get out there. And it's a misdemeanor. So any violation of this code section will be a misdemeanor.

I like the idea of making it a misdemeanor. That sounds fantastic. But I agree with both of the other counselors. I don't know that this, this almost seems more freeing because how much easier to lie and put someone else's ID when you're doing it on the computer than when you like walk in. Right. Is that's, that's your concern.

Yes. I could pretend I'm Nathan and fill everything out.

Yeah.

And I've got a rap sheet five pages deep. He's got nothing. I get my permit, and then somebody's got to ask for it and match it up to my ID before you can figure out if you charge me with a felony or not.

So could we require a verification step where after they get the permit, they have to come in and show their ID?

Yeah, that's exactly what I was going to suggest, that everything could be through the internet, but then before that permit becomes valid, it has to be checked at the PD. And that would still... free up a lot of time for our record staff because it would really just be a verification check and then a stamp or whatever and go, okay, now you're valid. I think that would fill the gap.

It seems like, yeah, come on in. Let's have a conversation. Correct.

That actually might be a good idea. We won't tell them that we know they have a warrant and go, hey, you've got to come verify. By the way, you're under arrest.

I like that a lot. I love it. That would make me feel much better.

Agreed.

All right. Any other questions for me?

But can we not give them the paper? Like, don't give them the certificate until they come to the PD?

Yeah, we could work it out to where they have to come to the PD to get it.

Yeah, I like that. Otherwise, you just walk around with it unstamped until somebody asks you. It's really no different.

Yeah, I agree.

I did have a question about the, and maybe this is for you, Phil, that the application process is that they have to have the proposed dates and times of solicitation activity. I mean, could they say we're going to be generally soliciting Monday through Friday during daylight hours between June 1 and whatever, or do they have to list the specific calendar days and specific calendar times for each one of those days?

So I keep yelling into this microphone. It can be either way. The way it's drafted right now is just proposed general dates and times. The ordinance itself does have a you can only do door-to-door solicitation from 9 to sunset, but I I think that's more of a process question on the back end. I think what we're trying to glean from the application is we're not trying to make it so onerous that nobody can do door-to-door solicitation. But we want to get enough information that if there's a complaint or if something comes in that we have a packet of information that we can generally rely on to contact the person, the company, and do those sort of enforcement mechanisms. So I think that's a little bit discretionary. We're having our building staff sort of develop the web form. I don't know how that's going to exactly be, whether it's just like a description box or anything like that, but I would imagine that the PD will look at that and whoever is reviewing that application is going to say, you know what, there's not enough information here. We need more specificity as to the date and times, or yeah, this generally looks okay. But there is a human element to the review once the packet is complete and goes to the PD for approval.

Councillor Luca, if it's helpful, however they're doing it seems to work because I think I brought a complaint to the mayor and staff, I don't know, two months ago, something like that. Do you not remember? You're looking at me like you don't remember this at all. I had a resident or a friend that had someone come to their door and was concerned about the interaction and I was able to send it to staff and they were able to identify like the actual person that was there through the records that they were able to keep and were able to

convey to him that the questions that he was asking were weird and that he shouldn't behave that way on someone's doorstep anymore so it's kind of whatever whatever they're doing now seems to work yeah and i'm comfortable with with there being some ambiguity and i just would just say that let's let's not make it so onerous that that a legitimate business person can't do it because they're like hey I have some extra time because my my first lawn care job canceled so I have a couple hours today maybe I can go out and try to hustle some business well now they can't because they didn't put Tuesday the 3rd of July or whatever on their list we had it in our neighborhood we had somebody come last night that was a legitimate business owner and pest control and was polite and of that and it's clearly not casing the joint so we wouldn't want to inhibit those people so I just say use your discretion on that I would not think that they would require that sort of level of specificity so

What changes? The code as drafted just for ease is a repeal and replace rather than a red line. It continues to require individual permits like we currently do. We're gonna utilize an online application process requiring the background check. The background check will be the same background check that we use for our other background checks at the city both for employees and volunteers for Parks and Rec. kind of cover the requirements, name, address, email. We will also, we don't require emails now, so part of the background check, they have to do it with the email, so we'll get an email. The background check company will send them an email. They'll have to pay the fee directly to them and fill out that, and then the report comes to us. Review standards After the come after a completed application the completed application is when we get all the information the background check all of that So once the completed packet is to the PD issued within ten business days Denial based on the listed criteria In writing again, this will be accomplished mostly digitally as to As to having them to come in to pick up the permit, I will take a look at the ordinance to see if it's required to put that in the ordinance, but that might just be a policy on the back end that we do. But I'll review that language before I bring it back. Um, the disqualifying conditions against, uh, serious, serious convictions that happened at any time, uh, certain felony convictions that are within the last 10 years, certain misdemeanor convictions in the last five years and any active, uh, felony or violent misdemeanor warrants, uh, as well as what we currently have, the, uh, not putting things on the application. So if we find something that you didn't put in your application that comes back, that'll be a disqualifying. Again, allowed only from nine to sunset. They must honor no soliciting and no trespassing signs, must leave when asked, cannot do any sort of fraud or misrepresentation, can't claim that the city has endorsed them by showing their permit. nor can they block access to the residents or the resident from getting through. Any questions? And I do have, one sec, wanted to add, again, focus is on commercial activity because of the sort of unsolicited contact at private residences. It's narrowly drafted to exclude sort of those First Amendment constitutional issues, political campaigning, religion, non-commercial, non-profit, as well as youth school fundraising. So we think it is tied to certain crimes that are amenable to sort of burglary, violent crimes. related to resident safety and so we think this strikes that sort of middle ground for a reasonable safeguard.

Does the current ordinance require the licensee to show a license to a homeowner to whom they're soliciting? just to prove that they're licensed to be there. I'm envisioning a scenario where someone walks up to a door and I know a great many people have a ring camera now or some similar doorbell camera system. It might be nice if that was a requirement that upon request they had to show it and then if they didn't then that's pretty clear evidence of a violation, it would make enforcement really easy.

Theoretically. Yes, the ordinance requires presentment of the permit upon request. So it's not a, you don't have to show it unless you're asked for it.

Thanks.

Yep.

To the definition of door to door solicitation, if someone is just planning to do literature drops for their business, would they need to get a permit? It says any unsolicited in-person contact. So if they're not planning on making contact, they would not need a permit, correct?

I would say the current definition as drafted is in-person contact. So if they're just going around putting door hangers on doors, that probably isn't that sort of knocking in-person contact. So probably would.

If someone comes to the door then, sees them or whatever, and comes to the door, then it's up to them to have that conversation. They still don't need a permit. It doesn't become a contact or whatever. Right. So we're still all right.

fact dependent. If somebody comes to the door and they're sort of non-permitted and the homeowner asks to see something or anything like that, I think it's just, I was only here to hang up the door hanger. Feel free to contact me via the door hanger. But if you then If they didn't start trying to engage in sort of door-to-door solicitation, like, oh, now that you're home and you've opened the door, let me tell you about these awesome solar panels, that may start crossing into that line. But again, I leave that up to PD's discretion when they investigate those type of complaints.

Makes sense. I'm thinking about also the, you were walking up and that guy's mowing his lawn and said, hey, I'm just dropping this off for you, have a good day. They can ask questions if they want and you're not in violation. Thanks.

As the grumpiest old man in town, Aaron might cause you to have a violation.

If you spray them with your hose, you're probably gonna get in trouble.

I'm not spraying anybody with a hose.

I move to approve the ordinance updating door-to-door solicitation. And as a side note, add that either by policy or by ordinance, there's a requirement for an in-person ID check. In fact, the permit's issued.

Second. Motion and a second. Further discussion? Roll call, please.

Ziegler?

Aye.

Mosby? Aye. Luca? Aye. Stick Leader? Aye. Plew?

Aye. Molloy? Aye. Motion passes, thank you. Next up, citizen issues. This section of the agenda is reserved for citizens wishing to address the council regarding city-related issues that are not on the agenda. Anyone wishing to speak? Seeing none. Administrative staff reports. We have one on publishing council agendas.

He's back. All right, publishing council agendas. Good evening, Mayor and Council. Field Harrington, City Attorney. Again, filling in for Warren. We had just sort of a question as to how we can get agendas to the Council earlier. want to be a little bit of background of of kind of how your agenda gets prepared uh... and sort of the proposed path moving forward so uh... currently city staff uses uh... civic plus software to sort of uh... get the submittals for the agenda as well as to approve and publish the agendas. Staff has prepared a multitude of drafting guides, sample memos, sample PowerPoints, templates, et cetera, to aid other staff in preparing their agenda items. All of that is available under a section on our intranet page for agendas and meetings. Currently the submission deadline is five o'clock. two Fridays before the council meeting. We do have an exception for invoices and council minutes and some of those more ministerial items which are allowed to be submitted the Wednesday before the council meeting. So after this middle happens on Friday, admin reviews the draft agenda on Monday. They adjust the number of items on the agenda to keep the meetings manageable. They may adjust the placement of things on the agenda. And then they will also go through the staff memo, the attachments, and presentations for sort of quality control to make sure that they're digestible, easy to understand, that sort of thing. Then they are, if there are any edits to be made, that will be kicked back to the submitting party to make those edits, which need to be back by Tuesday. After that sort of approval happens, it's checked off, it moves to finance review. Finance will, And this is, again, currently as it stands. Finance reviews on Wednesday, make sure that there is a correct budget code and fund, availability of funds for items that require funding, and identify any other updates to fee resolution, budget amendments, transfers, anything that needs to happen from the finance department. after that it goes for legal review uh... generally on thursday uh... legal reviews looking for compliance with notice requirements uh... other compliance with just state local federal laws, as well as contract documents, making sure that we're using the most updated form of our contracts and looking for those type of items, make sure that the state items are included, that sort of thing. After that review is complete, the draft agenda is sent out for everybody, all departments to sort of make their final comments by Thursday afternoon, and the agenda is published at noon on Friday for you all. So, Council President Molloy asked if it would be possible to get the agenda out earlier to allow more time for review. As the agendas are getting larger and supporting documents can be in the hundreds of pages so Yes, it's going to be difficult but generally doable. We don't want to, the first idea was okay we'll just push the submission back two days and everybody has to have it on the Wednesday two weeks before the council meeting. We didn't want to do that because I think everybody's, all of staff has gotten in the sort of rhythm of making sure that they get their items in by Friday. So on the back end, so we want to leave that the same, but on the back end we want to speed up the review processes a little bit. So admin's going to sort of do their review by noon on Monday and kick back any edits that need to be made to individual submitters by Monday afternoon. They will need to complete that by end of day Monday. And then finance and legal review will be on Tuesday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and then the sort of final minutes and invoices, they get submitted on Wednesday because of the timing of those. Get those in on Wednesday and then hopefully have the agenda published by close of business on Wednesdays. So that should give you an extra two days of review time. That being said, holidays, unusual circumstances, that is going to be a goal, but certainly not a hard and fast rule. We will try our darndest to get it by close of business on Wednesday, something happens something comes up it still may come may get pushed back the trade-off if there are items that are don't pass the quality review that are going to take longer than an afternoon for a staff member to fix we are just probably going to have to delay that item to a future meeting and so they'll be a little little bit me making sure that that that you submit your best product is going to be key to making sure that you get it on for the next agenda, because if there are any issues, we're gonna have to kick it out. Again, we think this is a win, we think we can do it, but we'll be checking to make sure it doesn't become too unmanageable. So, any questions?

No questions.

I think even Thursday would be an improvement, so that you have it Thursday afternoon, you can review all day Friday.

No, pretty please Wednesday.

I mean, pretty please Wednesday. Again, the goal will be Wednesday when we get the final

invoices and finance stuff but again it'll be a goal not a rule I do appreciate all the effort you guys put into that and part of it too is if we have some extra time to review and the public has extra time to review then we can get any questions into you guys in advance of the meeting too so those can be answered ahead of time and hopefully shorten the process on the back end too so I do appreciate that

And we absolutely appreciate advanced questions. Thank you.

I appreciate an advanced agenda.

We'll work together.

Look at us go.

All right, next up is mayor and council comments. Nothing from me tonight. Anyone else?

I normally say go vote, but I hope you did.

Yeah, we get to go see the results.

And congratulations to all you campaigning that it's over. Yeah.

All right, we do not need an executive session for once, and so seeing no further business, this meeting is adjourned.