City Council - Regular Meeting

All right, we'll call the meeting to order.

Begin with the invocation 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. And the pledge.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America.

We had some photos of the Memorial Day ceremony at the cemetery on the screen. Thank you to everyone who came out to the Parks Department and the American Legion and everyone who helped to make that a really great event. Okay, we are missing two council members, Aaron Plew and Jack Mosby, who are excused. We do have a quorum. Ceremonies and announcements. First up is appointment of Bill Carlson to the Parks and Recreation Commission. Come on up. Why don't you start by telling us a little bit about yourself and why you're interested in serving on this commission.

My name's Bill Carlson. 40-year resident of the area or more. I'm semi-retired. I've spent a career in the publishing industry. I'm currently, I've worked for the Haggonon Corporation, Coeur d'Alene Press for 30 years. There's a lot to say. I'm married 48 years, I've got three children, three great-grandchildren, and I'm up here tonight looking, seeing that I am semi-retired. This city's given me a lot more than I've given it. I look for an opportunity to serve, work with Park and Rec, make sure that we can maximize all the recreation opportunities there are for all the families of Pulse Falls. Questions for Mr. Carlson?

Mr. Carlson, your goal of being on the commission, do you believe that the current programming and parks facilities and everything we have is good to go and your hope is just to maintain it as it is? Or do you see specific areas that you feel need improvement and how would you improve those?

Well, one, I think I need to get in there and listen and learn a little bit first. But just on the... On the outside, looking in, I do think that we've got wonderful parks. On the recreation side, we could use some more facilities for sports, for ball. That's the only thing that I see. And I think with the cost of land acquisition and whatnot, we'd have to be very studious in how we not only spend taxpayers' money, but look for opportunities that are already there and improve the structure, so to speak.

If I may, I am curious. You've served for our little league. teams, right, for a number of years and have been instrumental in what they do.

I'm sorry, could you repeat that?

You serve like our Little League system and American Legion, is that what I saw?

Years ago when my older sons were Little League era, yeah, I coached Little League and I was on the board, but we're going back into the 80s.

Oh, okay, you're not currently.

No, no, no, not currently, just a grandparent's got kids involved.

Oh, very

As far as American Legion goes, back in the 80s, I also was a district director and ran the American Legion program in North Idaho from Lewiston North.

Oh, nice. Okay, other than baseball, what trends do you see in our area that you'd like to promote in the next few years? Or if I may, if budget wasn't the most constraining resource, what would you like to see done in our parks and post falls?

Again, that's a situation where I need, I think, to get in with the park and rec team, listen and learn. I don't have all those answers. I don't pretend to know all those. But like I say, I think the biggest thing now is just to get in with the park and rec team and listen and learn and react to whatever the taxpayers want. Gotcha. Okay.

Further questions? I have no questions for you, but I do want to say thank you. I appreciate your willingness to engage and get involved in giving back to the city that we love.

So thank you. Thank you. Yeah, I'd just echo that and say that one of the great things about our community that makes it special is how many people step up and you find people like yourself who have lived here forever, which I know these days is kind of like finding an albino unicorn, somebody who's lived here for 50 years. But when you find those people that have a record of service like this, it's just really heartwarming to see and that you're not gonna, you know, rust out and go into the sunset without continuing to serve. So it's just really, it's really great and I think it's one of the things that makes our community special, so thank you.

Well, I think you just gotta keep moving.

All right, thank you, you can take a seat. All right, I'm asking for confirmation.

I move to confirm the appointment of Bill Carlson to the Parks, Recreation, and Urban Forestry Commission.

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

Stiglitter? Aye. Luca?

Aye.

Malloy?

Aye.

Ziegler?

Aye. Motion passes. Thank you. Next up is the Support Local Gems Day Proclamation. Whereas small businesses are the backbone of Idaho's economy, employing two-thirds of Idaho workers, and whereas Idaho consistently ranks among the top 10 states for starting a business and is home to over 200,000 small businesses, and whereas now in its seventh year, the Support Local Gems Initiative continues to engage with Idaho's business community and honor the entrepreneurs and establishments that make Idaho special, and whereas Idaho's small businesses have done an exceptional job overcoming challenges and consistently providing their customers with high-quality service, and whereas our hardworking Idaho businesses, entrepreneurs, and workers have earned our support and deserve to be celebrated during the Support Local Gems initiative. Now, therefore, I, Randy Westland, Mayor of Post Falls, do hereby proclaim the day of Friday, June 12th, 2026, to be Support Local Gems Day in the City of Post Falls, Idaho, and I encourage all residents to recognize this special observance by supporting the local small businesses in our community. This is a good reminder that you don't have to buy everything on Amazon, that we have really good local businesses here that we should work to support to keep that money local. Any amendments to the agenda?

We have none tonight, sir.

Declarations of conflict, ex parte contacts and site visits? Seeing none, consent calendar.

Item A is approval of the city council minutes from April 21st, 2026. Item B is approval of the city council minutes from May 19th, 2026. Item C is payables May 20th through June 3rd, 2026. Item D is March cash and investments report. Item E is approval of the US Department of Justice assistance grant applications certifications and assurances. Item F is North Place East, fourth edition approval. Item G is the Lucky Larry Estate Subdivision Construction Improvement Agreement. And last, H is Rosewater Place Master Development Agreement, SUBD-25-10.

Questions on the consent calendar? Seeing none.

Move to approve the consent calendar as presented.

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

Molloy.

Aye.

Stiglitter. Aye. Luca.

Aye.

Ziegler.

Aye. Motion passes. Thank you. Up to public hearings. Tonight we have none, so we'll go down to unfinished business, item three. First action item is ordinance updating door-to-door solicitation.

So this is on for adoption. We did have a question as far as the administrative process and picking up the permits at the police station. What we've done is removed the word printable from the code, but we wanted to avoid codifying sort of those background process aspects. As I mentioned in the presentation, We have handled that on the back end. The way we're going to run it through the permitting software, it'll generate the certificate, the permit, which then PD will print out, and then they'll be directed to come pick that up from the desk at PD. I also wanted to point out the summary statement at the end of the ordinance needs a little bit of an update. It originally said badges that needs to be changed to certificates, but I'll correct that with the clerk on the back end, but I wanted to make you aware of it.

So the question that I think that I submitted to you was where in this ordinance did it call out that the applicant needed to go down to the PD to receive their permit and have their identity verified in person? So can you tell me where that is?

It does not say that in the ordinance itself. So that provides us with the... That provides the... flexibility on the back end for the city to determine that process and how that gets picked up.

But wasn't that the process that council said that we wanted to make the changes to this ordinance?

So yes, and I believe the direction was either by ordinance or by policy. Okay. And we are going to do that sort of by policy on the back end. Not like an official adopted policy, but that is how we will process these.

I don't know that that makes me comfortable with changing it if what we agreed on as a body and talked about is not going to be made official, either by policy or by ordinance, and will still be left to discretion that is not overseen by council, especially when our discussion was so specific with our concerns about having a print. Am I off base here, or is there any other support for this? Because if there's not, then I can drop it anywhere.

I agree with you. I assumed it would be by policy, but it would be by a policy at some point that we would approve. Because not that I don't trust anybody who's here now, but who knows who's going to be here 20 years from now and says, oh, this is too much work. I just want the people to show their permit on their phone and be good, right? So I would like that enshrined somewhere that's official.

Can certainly do that. So I understood it as more of a administrative decision, but I'm happy to do it either way. So we can take this back and table it, and I can bring it back at a further council meeting.

I mean, do we need to bring it back? If you don't want it in the ordinance, I think that that's a reasonable administrative decision. But do we want to see the policy with the ordinance to make that decision? Or are you saying that the policy will come shortly after? And I'm open to council's opinion about how we do it.

I can certainly bring back a follow-up policy. I will say that PD would really like to have this ordinance in effect. I know we are starting to get a lot of door-to-door applications, and we're getting into that season. the sooner that we can start doing that, the better. So I'm happy to, if we adopt the ordinance tonight, I'm happy to bring back a SOP policy to present at the next meeting.

At the next meeting?

I'm comfortable with that.

Okay.

Yeah, I would ask us to go down that path so that they have what they need for the season. I'm all about it. I move to place the ordinance updating door-to-door solicitation on its first and only reading by title only while under suspension of the rules.

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

Luca?

Aye.

Ziegler?

Aye.

Malloy?

Aye.

Ziegler? Aye.

Motion passes.

Next is also the returning temporary garbage service ordinance. You have to read the ordinance, right? Oh, I'm so sorry. I got lost on the process thinking about the SOP, sorry. ordinance of the City of Post Falls a Municipal Corporation of the State of Idaho providing for amendment of Post Falls Municipal Code by replacing and repealing and replacing chapter 5.20 to establish regulations for commercial door-to-door solicitation providing for permit processing providing application requirements hours of solicitation and conduct standards providing exemptions for non-commercial and constitutionally protected activities providing for appeals and penalties, providing that remaining sections of Post Falls City Code remain in effect, and providing for severability, providing for this ordinance to be in full force and effect from and after its passage, approval, and publication according to law.

I move to approve the ordinance updating door-to-door solicitation and to direct the clerk to assign the appropriate number and that it be published by summary only.

Second. Motion to second. Further discussion? Roll call, please.

Ziegler. Aye.

Aye.

Maloy?

Aye.

Stiglitter? Aye. Luca?

Aye. Motion passes, thank you. We are on to ordinance providing for temporary garbage service.

Anything special on this one?

Nope, this was amended by staff and placed back on the agenda.

I move to place the ordinance providing for temporary garbage service on its first and only reading by title only while under suspension of the rules.

Second motion in a second for the discussion.

Just just that I'm still not comfortable with the I think it's overly restrictive still with the two 30 day calendar periods in any calendar year. If you have a four month project that you're remodeling an entire house or something you should be able to. There should be some mechanism where They could apply for a permit if it's going to go too long or whatever. There should be some flexibility in being able to say this project is temporary, but it's going to go for this long. Not every project can be done in 30 days or only two within the course of a year. And I just don't see the motivation to, it seems protectionist of the it seems protectionist of the franchise provider, whereas the intent of the legislature in passing the law was that we expand competition. So as it's written, I can't vote yes for it.

I just wanted to comment on this. Jason Faulkner, the finance director. If that's the case, the project does run long, then what we have had in the past is the homeowner will contact the person we have the franchise agreement with and they will provide a longer service, 30 yard or a roll off container at that time if it goes longer than temporary. The reason being is that for the temporary you can choose, but the reason we have a, franchise agreement is that we have a one provider for within the city limits so if anything longer than that then it would be the provider that we do have in one thing with having that the franchisee agreement is the city does get portion of the revenue off of the the sale and each month that off of the the fee that we do remit back to Republic Services. And part of that fee does also pay for city staff that subsidizes the general fund because some of, like the utility staff, some of them do take a lot of utility phone calls. And so it does help offset those expenses as well. And for a while it does also do recycling programs and other things. So the city does benefit by having a franchise agreement that way.

Certainly, and I'm not debating whether we should have a franchise agreement. I'm just suggesting that probably the small portion of revenue that comes from that, to the franchise provider from Roloff is small. I'm guessing I mean I mean maybe I'm wrong it's millions of dollars but I don't think that it is because I would assume that most of the revenue is coming off of residential trash collection which is every single house is required to have that. and would still be under this ordinance but for the person who's a contractor and they can get a better rate on a roll off container for remodeling a house and doing roofs and that sort of thing. Should we force them into a protectionist scheme of protecting the franchise provider when the legislature clearly wanted us to expand competition and when it came to temporary so in my view, two 30-day calendar periods is too restrictive. Clearly, we don't want people that are going to get around the franchise agreement by putting an unsightly dumpster in front of their house.

I would argue that Republic Services does have competitive rates with other providers, so I wouldn't say that it's forcing them to pay more. I would say that their rates are competitive with anybody in the area. I don't think that'd be a hardship to ask them to go with the franchise agreement that we have within the city of Post Falls.

Currently. The other piece of this was just trying to keep it as a temporary project and the direction from council was to not have a large administrative burden for managing this and the way we saw it is that if you start going into that four month, six month period, sort of rental is it is it a temporary project at that point and we're going to be sort of on a complaint based reporting structure, we're not gonna be out timing how long these containers are out there and so we thought a temporary project, two 30-day calendar periods, it's easy for a neighbor to be like, you know, they've had that roll-off container there for a couple months now and maybe that's not a temporary project at this point. getting beyond that sort of two 30-day periods, it starts to say, okay, this really isn't a temporary project anymore. And they do still have the option to, if it is a longer project, that they can contract with the franchisee. And I do think we do need to be somewhat protectionist with our franchise provider. because we do get a large benefit for that for less trucks going down our streets and having one service provider.

And I totally agree with you when it comes to residential trash service. In this case, I still feel it's overly restrictive. I have remodeled a house. It did not take 60 days. It took two years and I didn't need a dumpster for all of that. But anybody who's ever gone through that process particularly with an old house knows that it's expensive to have somebody continue to drop off a roll off and come back and pick it up and then come drop one off again and pick it up so that you don't butt up against this calendar day. So if I if I instead I wanted like 10 six day or something like that, each one of those drop-offs, there's a drop-off fee and a pick-up fee. So if you just wanna say, hey, this project's gonna take me about four months, we're gonna work through the summer, we're gonna get all this done, there should be a mechanism for the public to say, this is gonna take me four months, I wanna use my brother-in-law's roll-off dumpster company, and he's gonna cut me a break, and we should just maximize the flexibility for the residents. I feel this is overly restrictive. I don't wanna beat the dead horse, though, so if everyone else wants to vote for it, that's fine, but I will not.

Jason, can I ask, is this an easily trackable metric within whatever software or way that we're using this? I know like when we re-sign contracts with, it used to be Post Falls trash, Kootenai County trash, something else trash. It wasn't Republic, right?

Post Falls sanitation.

Sanitation, sorry. Maybe it would be nice to see what the average amount of time that someone needs a temporary trash can is, and if we pass this tonight, then in a year, we would be able to evaluate.

Sure, we could come back.

Yeah, is this an appropriate amount of time, or do we have people that are out of the data set, and we need to increase it for more protection of the residents?

And I did want to say, it happens very rarely where we have somebody come in from the outside that where the franchisee has to send a letter saying that to have them leave the area. That doesn't happen very often. This is just a, we wanted to have something on the books that said something that had a definition of temporary. Four months isn't temporary. We wanted to have some kind of flexibility. Having two 30-day options did offer some kind of flexibility in the term of the definition of temporary since our contract didn't identify that, so.

Mm-hmm. and I understand the motivation and I agree with it I just there's what if somebody wanted 310 day you know now there are only 30 days of dumpsters but they can't do it under this because now they've come up against the 230 day it's overly restrictive so that's I think I've made the point and we can move on but I won't be voting for it as is if if somebody would like to take it back and fix that to where there's at least for the very rare case that somebody wants one for some other period they could call and say hey could I have this because this is the this is the project I'm doing this is the estimate of time yes but you can have it from July 1 to September 1st and that would be fine but I do think I like Councilmember Stegler's idea of revisiting coming back and and reporting back if there's any

if there's anybody that's had longer than the time that you had mentioned. I think that's fair.

Okay, cool. Input from other councilors? None.

With that, I would move to place the ordinance providing fraternity.

We already have the motion. We had a motion and a second. We were just doing discussion. If there's no other discussion, then roll call, please, for placing the ordinance on its reading.

Malloy? Aye. Stiglitter? Aye. Luca?

No. Ziegler aye motion passes An ordinance of the City of Post Falls, Kootenai County, a municipal corporation of the state of Idaho, providing for amendment of the Post Falls Municipal Code, Chapter 13.32, Solid Waste Collection and Disposal by adding a definition for temporary projects, providing that exemptions from mutual municipal franchise requirements, providing that remaining sections of Post Falls City Code shall remain in effect, providing for severability, providing for this ordinance to be in full force in effect from and after its passage, approval, and publication according to law.

I move to approve the ordinance providing for temporary garbage service and to direct the clerk to assign the appropriate number and that it be published by summary only.

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

Stiglitter? Aye. Luca?

Nay.

Ziegler?

Aye.

Molloy? Aye.

Motion passes. Thank you. We're on to new business. Our first action item is 2026 resolution adopting all hazard mitigation plan.

Good evening, Mayor, City Council. Tonight I have for you the Kootenai County All-Hazard Mitigation Plan update. This is a plan that is prepared by the Kootenai County Emergency Team involving the various agencies, EMS, fire, school districts, cities, about the various hazards we foresee in our county. I think wildfires, snowstorms, electrical outages, and so on. This is a plan that gets updated every five years. We currently have adopted the 2020 version. This is now the newest 2026 version. It was approved by FEMA earlier this year so it is just up to us now to choose to adopt this plan. The main benefit of this plan is it outlines what we see as our concerns in this area as well as what we are currently doing and plan to do to address those concerns and by doing that it makes us eligible for grant dollars. So other than a little bit of time on my side and a little bit from planning, there was no cost from us. The county takes care of it all. We just need to adopt it to get that funding source. So like I mentioned, there's several agencies. We had a couple meetings together to brainstorm what the community sees as issues and how we're gonna address those. For post-fall specifically, these were the main areas of concern. You see a lot of weather-based winter storms, wildfires, that sort, but also more recently, cybersecurity's been on the rise. Public health emergencies become a bigger concern since the 2020 update, and hazardous materials in our area, truck deliveries and so on, have definitely risen since the last update.

Sorry, were these hazards based on the conference call that you had with the agencies on the slide before, or are these like, based on data that says what is actually most risky for our areas?

It's mostly the opinions of the various agencies. So we had an in-person meeting at the county's headquarters where we discussed what are our biggest items. We had bulletin boards saying, this is our biggest concerns. And these numbers aren't data numbers. They're just general opinion. Gotcha. Exactly. OK, thanks. So some examples of some efforts that we're doing, stuff like maintaining compliance with flood insurance programs, purchasing chainsaws for when we have those wind storms that knock down trees, block roads and trails, that sort of stuff. Education, outreach, stuff we've been working on and will continue to work on. Some examples of new ones would be road clearing equipment, de-icers. and educating further on fallen trees is a big one. None of this is we must complete this by the next update. This isn't forcing us into this. It's similar more so to like a master plan where this is what we're hoping to do. We'll give you an update in five years what we did do. We're working on it. We care. We want to make improvements. Please help us if something happens. Any questions?

Can we say no to this?

So technically, yes. What that would mean is unless we put in the time to make our own plan, we would no longer be first in priority for those grant dollars if an emergency happens. So if a wildfire took out the whole south side of the river, other jurisdictions, yeah, other jurisdictions will get money before we do because we don't have this plan. For us, it's just we need to say that we will adopt it.

Okay, and you don't see any risks with the plan?

No, we've had this plan for, I think, at least 10 years, if not more, and this is just the next update for it.

OK. No, it looks good. I would just suggest maybe in a future plan that power failure is called out separately, a mass power failure, either EMP or generation issue or something, which would, you know, you get maybe a couple of days and then things get to get really hairy. So we should have some plan to mitigate that.

I can make note in our file for that one for whoever takes care of it in the next five years.

I move to approve the ordinance amending, no, 2026 resolution adopting the all hazard mitigation plan.

Second motion in a second for the discussion. Roll call please.

Luca.

Aye.

Ziegler.

Aye.

Malloy. Aye. Stiglitter. Aye.

Motion passes. Thank you. We're up to item B, ordinance amending domestic animal regulations, otherwise known as making ducks great again.

Good evening, Mayor and City Council. My name is Justin Souder. I'm in the Planning Division. And yes, we got the ordinance amending domestic animal regulations, file number TA26-1, or affectionately known as the Duck Ordinance. So we're looking at amending Title VI of the Post Falls Municipal Code. It regulates the keeping of animals. Specifically, the proposed amendment would allow the keeping of ducks on single family detached lots. There are also some other clarifications that we will get into. It's just some minor cleanups that we saw as we were going through this section of the code. So this all started back in September of 2025. A resident came to the planning commission and brought up the matter that ducks are currently treated as livestock. And she asked that we look into it and treat them more like chickens. And then this was brought up to the council. And then we were directed by council in December to really look into this and bring an ordinance before you guys. And so that's where we are here today. So this is currently what is allowed in our code. Chickens are permitted on any detached single family lot in the city, up to a maximum of 10 hens. Roosters are prohibited. And then the code also has some regulations regarding on how and where coops should be situated on the property. So here are the setbacks, 30 feet from the front, five feet from the side and rear, 15 feet from the onsite residence, and then 25 feet from any neighboring residences. So we figured the easiest or most streamlined way to add ducks in here was to take the advice of the resident and treat ducks as chickens in a similar way. And so here in red is what we have proposed to allow ducks or treat them similarly as chickens. So chickens and ducks permitted on any detached single family lot in the city up to a maximum combined total of 12 hens and or ducks of which no more than six may be ducks. So we came up with this number based off three different things. One, the resident herself suggested up to five ducks. We looked at some neighboring cities to see what they were doing. Hayden allows up to 10, Coeur d'Alene allows four. And then we also contacted a ducks expert, which we were asked to do. So I talked to a gentleman named Tom Watkins. He is the president and owner of a hatchery in Iowa, and he was at the homesteading conference here in Coeur d'Alene last year. So I reached out to him and asked his opinion on some ducks. He said they are pretty similar to chickens in many ways. One thing that is different is they do need just a little bit more water than chickens, so they can duck their head under the water. but they don't necessarily need a pond or anything like that. And then another difference is he recommended that for the actual enclosure, he would recommend about twice the amount of square footage that a chicken would need. So based on those factors, if we allow 12 chickens, just doing some simple math, if you have half as many chickens and you could have a coop of relatively the same size. So that's how we got to the number six. There'd be no changes and setbacks for coops, hutches, or the duck houses, but just some clarifying language to ensure that they are sanitary conditions for all of those types of structures. And then we also have this table here that there were some minor changes that we needed to address. So this is what the resident was originally referring to as ducks being treated as livestock. So in the same section of the code, the animals in the following table may be kept on properties containing a minimum of 3 fourths of an acre of securely fenced irrigated open space exclusive of a home site and containing at least one acre in total. So as of right now, if you wanted a duck, you would have to have one acre of property. Three fourths of it would have to be securely fenced. And then based on this point system here, you get 10 points per acre, and you would be allowed to have 10 ducks on your one acre property. So with our proposed change, you would be allowed to have up to six ducks on any single family detached lot. And then with this table here, I'll get into an example on the next page. You can also see there was a couple other minor adjustments. Goose and rabbit were added into the two-point system. And then turkeys and pigeons were mentioned earlier in the code, but not referenced at this table. So they were added here. And then chickens were added on here as well. So you could have an allowance of more chickens if you have more than an acre. So for example, if you had a one acre property, you could have two cows, each being five points. This would also work to give you additional chickens or ducks. So if you had an acre property, you could have the 12 chickens that you are normally allowed with your single family detached lot, plus an additional 10 points giving you up to 22 chickens. So that's how this would work. Similarly it would work for the ducks. You'd have six ducks on your single family detached lot and then if you have an acre you get the 10 points allowing you 10 additional ducks for a max of 16 ducks. So that's how this table works. And then one more minor clarification or cleanup highlighted here in red. This section of the code talked about keeping of animals and it referenced three dogs, but it does not reference cats. So we added cats in here as well.

Seems aggressive and unnecessary personally. You can only have four cats?

The cat lady over here.

I'm almost there.

Um, and then of course, modifying the language in here to include the ducks as well, just to make sure everything was clean and consistent.

Can you clarify something for me before we move too far away from the, the space, like the acreage portion. So when I read this and I guess maybe I'm just confused and it would be helpful if you called it out when. we're saying that for a single family detached home, no matter the size of that property, you can have 12 poultry up to 50% being ducks. And then if you have at least an acre, you go into this table, because when you're kind of going through the slides, it almost reads like you must have an acre.

at least of land to start having any of these animals so to have chickens or ducks you just have to have a single family touch law regardless of the size regardless of the size so this this table only comes into effect if you have an acre of property if you have an acre okay thank you that's what i wanted to make sure and i also would note subject to the setbacks

Sure, you have to have room to do the setbacks. Correct.

So if you have a very small lot, you're going to be limited by these setbacks. Gotcha.

OK, thank you. But if I have an acre, if you go back to that graph, and I have 12 poultry animals, I would have 12 points. So the chickens and ducks, they're not part of that point system, is that right?

If I had an acre? Correct. You could have the 12 chickens or ducks, and then if you have an acre, you would get an additional – you get 10 points then to spend however you like.

You get 10 points above the chickens or ducks? Correct. So I could then have 10 more chickens, for example?

Correct, for a total of 22 chickens on a one-acre property.

But only for cats.

Yeah. Yeah.

Yes. As it is written, right now it is proposed. You can obviously make.

The cows and llamas and things like that, do those go into the seven permitted animals? So if I have three dogs. No.

Those I believe it says are excluded. Might not have it on this slide, but I believe.

Nobody else has done it so far. I'll say I just wanted to make sure we have our ducks in a row. I believe it's under the except otherwise specified in subsection 6.8, 8.2, 8.3, 8.4. Because it's under 8.3.

Yes. So I have a question about chicken and duck equivalency. You're saying that a duck.

Those are words you never thought you'd ever hear.

You're saying a duck requires twice as much space as a chicken?

Um, only for, it was a recommendation from the, the duck expert only for a, an enclosure that they stay in. So if you have like a run, they said chickens and ducks don't need any more space than another. But if you were to have a, like a coop, he would recommend twice the amount of square footage for ducks. And the only reason for that was because chickens typically roost. And so you can have chickens on one layer. roosting and chickens below just nesting in the coop, whereas ducks do not roost. And so theoretically they would need about twice the amount of space as a duck would, as a chicken would.

So my question then is on the maximum allowed total of 12, no more than six being ducks. If ducks are worth twice as much as a chicken and you have six ducks and six chickens, that would be the equivalent of 12 chickens.

Yeah.

would mean that the space is too small.

Yeah, you could count it that way. I'd also mention that we don't get into necessarily the standards of how your coop should be. It is covered under best management practices. So it is up to the individual owner to harbor those animals in a way that is beneficial to them. And that language is within the code. It might not be in these slides.

The chickens can roost above the ducks.

Yeah, that too.

But you're saying it'd be like having 18 animals instead of, right, because it's six times two plus another six. Plus another six. Yeah, I see what you're saying.

It really doesn't matter to me.

Chickens get the penthouse. Yes, chickens get the upper levels.

Yeah. Penthouse, yeah.

That's really it. Here's the summary. Allowance up to six ducks on any detached single-family lot up to a maximum of 12 hands or ducks. And there's some minor edits in the table for animals on properties that are at least an acre in size. And then allowance for cats and the permitted animal limits.

Thank you for the work that you did on this and thanks for specifically listening to what council asked for and making the call to the duck expert. I really appreciate that kind of diligence and I think that's why when we meet other elected officials from other cities, they're always very envious of the staff that we have here, so thank you.

Well, you're welcome and thank you.

I move to place the ordinance amending domestic animal regulations on its first and only reading by title only while under suspension of the rules.

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

Ziegler?

Aye.

Maloy?

Aye.

Stiglitter? Aye. Luca?

Aye. Motion passes.

May I ask one quick question? Did we reach out to the lady that brought this up in the very beginning? We did? Okay, great. Thanks.

So we can certainly move for adoption tonight since there's no changes, but that wasn't originally what was anticipated. But we can do that. We will just remove the draft language and we can get it adopted if that's the will of the council.

They thought we were going to argue about this.

So do you want me to change the motion just to bring it back?

No. I mean, if there's no changes, it's as easy as removing the draft.

Just ducky with me. So I'll just go straight to the approval section of this? Yep. Move to approve the ordinance amending domestic animal regulations. Let him read it. Oh, sorry. I thought you weren't prepared for that. That's why.

Oh, no. I'm prepared to read it.

OK. There we go.

An ordinance of the city of Post Falls, Kootenai County, a municipal corporation of the state of Idaho, providing for amendments to Post Falls Municipal Code Chapters 6.8.30 and 6.8.40 miscellaneous animal regulations by adding an allowance for ducks to single family detached lots. to include additional permitted domestic animals and properties exceeding one acre providing for an allowance for cats in permitted animal limits providing that remaining sections of post falls city code shall remain in effect providing for severability providing for this ordinance to be in full force in effect from after from and after its passage approval and publication according to law

I move to approve the ordinance amending domestic animal regulations and to direct the clerk to assign the appropriate number and that it be published by summary only.

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

Malloy?

Aye.

Ziegler? Aye. Luca?

Aye.

Ziegler?

Aye. Motion passes. Thank you. Next up is 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. Is there anyone wishing to speak? Seeing none. Administrative staff reports. Looks like tonight we have none. Mayor and council comments. Nothing from me today. Anything from council? I'm just wondering why my duck is smaller than everybody else.

Why you only got one.

Shelly.

You can have the fire duck down here.

That's council president duck.

They thought you might have a chicken too, so you were limited. Oh, yeah.

You can have my little unicorn duck.

Actually, my daughter would love that.

Further comments? Seeing none, we'll move on. And we do not need an executive session. So seeing no further business, this meeting is adjourned at 6.47.