Good evening.

It's May 19th, 2026.

This is a meeting of the Cordlane City Council, which I will call to order.

Clerk will take the roll.

Evans here.

English.

Here.

Gabriel.

Here.

Miller.

Kerr Scheckler.

Here.

Wood.

Here.

Very good.

Item B is our invocation.

We have John Pulsifer from Interfaith CDA doing our invitation.

Please rise.

Our father in heaven, we're grateful to be here to this evening for the city council meeting.

We're grateful for this beautiful city that we live in.

We're grateful for the mayor and for the council members for the time and the efforts that they put in to serve our city.

We're grateful for our city staff and our first responders, and pray that each of these individuals will be blessed in their professional service and in their service to our community and in their in their homes and their family lives.

We pray that as we meet together today that the council members and the mayor can have their their hearts filled with compassion and their minds filled with with wisdom, that they can carefully balance the decisions that they will have to take into account, and that they can make decisions that are uh for the best of the community and carefully weigh the the rights and privileges that uh each individual has in the matters that come before them.

And we pray for this blessing in the name of Jesus Christ, amen.

Thank you, John.

Let's see.

Christy, could you leave us in the pledge, please?

One nation under liberty and justice.

Thank you.

So we have uh item D, which is amendments to the agenda.

Does Council have any amendments to our agenda?

Okay.

We'll move on to item E, which is public comment.

I have two people who've signed up on the public comment sheet.

We have Virginia Tate.

Good evening, Council.

I was advised to sign up as I'm on the last agenda item this evening, but I am here for questions and later comment.

Very good.

Thank you.

And the second person is Stephen Petrosky.

Good evening, Council members.

Ditto what she said.

Very good.

Thank you, Stephen.

And Virginia.

Um, or Jimmy, of course.

Uh anyone else would like to make public comment.

Very good.

We'll move on to the next item, which is item F.

Council announcements.

Any city council member have an announcement?

Yes, Kenny.

I'd like to, it's my pleasure to, and I haven't told him yet, but Chief Hugo's here, his second day on the job, and he's hit the ground and running yesterday, and it's great to see him here and welcome.

Thank you.

And Kyle, I didn't get the name, I'm sorry, Kyle Maureen.

Another one of your folks got awarded, didn't they?

Another example of your great water department and all the great things your staff is doing.

So thank you very much for that.

Thank you.

Excellent.

Thank you, Kenny.

Kiki, please.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

I would just like to invite everyone to Quarter Lane's Historic Preservation Commission.

Uh, reception and awards.

So this year, the 2026 Heart of History Award is going to be celebrating the community's grassroots effort that saved the historic Roosevelt School.

So that will be May 22nd at 530 p.m.

at the Museum of North Idaho, and they're asking that you are SVP so you can contact the city of Cordelane, T.

Clark at C D A I D dot org, or just give us a call and let us know you want to be on the list.

Good.

Any other announcements?

No.

Okay.

We're going to move on to the mayor's comments, and I'm going to start with an obituary notice.

We have a video to play as well.

And I would like to say, please join us in extending our heartfelt condolences to the family of Donald E.

Johnston, who recently passed away at the age of 97.

Don served as the city's mayor from 1978 through 1982 and council member from 69 to 1977.

In honor of his service, we've put together this video footage of his accomplishments while in the Army and to honor his service.

Additionally, uh last year we were able to get some audio from Don, and we're not hearing the audio out here.

It's not showing up on the big screen either.

Um you will hear his audio at the end of the video once we get the video played.

Looks like it's going out to TV land, but it's not coming.

There it is.

And we need audio.

This is just life marching.

And you just tell your boss, I'm gonna do the best I can.

Don't ever lie to him.

So he was just like a block that way, and just a real pillar of the neighborhood, the community, and um yeah, real close John McHugh, just some good people come from down that way.

Yeah, there was a quote from him at the end of that about doing the job as mayor, which I hope went out to TV land and you could have read it in this room.

Um I would like to add that we honor his many years of service and extend our deepest sympathies to his family and loved ones.

I used to uh have uh lunch with him once a month.

I don't know if any of you were invited to the uh the forum that was up there at the Breakfast Nook.

It was like all the the old folks would get together and uh and Don was a regular up there, and I remember the last time I saw him I asked him, you know, how old he was and how he got there, and he said he was 90 years old and he drove.

So anyway, a good man, appreciate it.

Um I would also like to make uh I have an appointment here for Adam Kroger to the Arts Commissioner.

Mr.

Mayor, I make a motion to appoint Adam Kruger to confirm the appointment of Adam Kruger to the Arts Commission.

Second.

All those in favor?

I very good, thank you.

I also have another item I would like to mention.

Um last month there was a I had an outburst here because I was rather uh surprised that uh uh by comments that were made.

There was a um a question posed to the city attorney, and um I viewed it as a setup as sandbagging.

And what I didn't know was there was an email that was sent out on Thursday, April 16th, to Mr.

Scheckler and Miss Evans.

Carbon copied to Mr.

Jacobson, Miss Tosey, and Mr.

Hunter.

And the email said I am writing to you as legal counsel for the city, Dan Sheckler.

It is your motion that the mayor seek.

If this is from the legal council, is it appropriate to discuss in a public meeting?

It's not marked as uh confidential.

It's your motion that the mayor is seeking to circumvent Amy, you are council president.

This is concerning as his action would be in controversy contravention of the city personnel rules adopted by council, providing that the city administrator appoints a police chief and is not justified by the statute he references.

And of course, this is the point that I disagree with Mr.

Adams.

And in fact, in post falls tonight, the mayor is making an appointment based on that statute.

Um, as you now know, Mayor Guken intends to make his own appointment for police chief.

Below is the discussion he had with me as legal counsel for the city.

This morning I also sent him an Idaho Supreme Court case, Bunt versus Garden City, which reviewed the history of Idaho Code 5204, and it goes on to mention that case and some other items, but I just am incredibly disappointed uh that our city attorney would first of all send a targeted email to specific council members when his job is to represent the entire council, and second of all, to do this in what, in my opinion, is an effort to embarrass and undermine the authority of the mayor.

And I wanted to make that public because I think the public needs to know.

Amy, you have a question?

Maybe comment, please.

Sure.

Um I reached out to Randy for his legal opinion about this, because my understanding from the process that you established was that the appointment needed to come from Ron Jacobson, our interim city administrator.

And when that process was deviated from, I had concerns.

My job as a councilwoman is to represent the city citizens and protect us from getting into any kind of legal mess.

And I was concerned about that.

And I reached out appropriately to our city attorney who I should reach out to for advice on this.

If your concern was with me, why didn't you reach out to me?

Because you're not an attorney.

I wanted legal advice.

Seems to me, Ms.

Evans, that your effort was to embarrass me and you succeeded.

And I understand uh based on the tone of this email that it was the attorney's intention to embarrass me as well.

And this provides a concern for me because I expect honest and complete legal advice.

And based on your action and his action, I do not believe that I'm getting it.

Um and this is also a pattern from you of having concerns about things that I say and things that I've done, and you don't bring them up to me, you bring them up at a meeting or you bring them up at an opportune time, in my opinion, to embarrass me.

And I think this has been going on long enough.

Mr.

Mayor, the only person who can embarrass you is yourself in your behavior.

Um may I make a comment as well?

Yes.

Thank you.

Um I learned of the email today.

And I have to tell you, I was pretty upset when I saw it, because through this entire process of trying to select a chief of police, I have felt something was off.

And I've voiced that very loudly.

I felt like the process was not right.

It was broken.

I've been very vocal about that.

And I've taken some certain actions to to try to address it.

Um then when I saw this email, and I've tried really hard to trust and get over it.

But I saw the email and it was very clear that it was directed to the council president and to Mr.

Scheckler.

Maybe I don't know because he's an attorney.

I don't know why.

Um, and it was instructions on how to basically undermine the mayor.

And or at least ask the question.

And so I thought, well, okay.

I haven't imagined all of this.

This is truly happening.

And then the the uh Idaho Fidelity Alliance, I don't know who they are, they're a government watchdog group.

They actually did some public information requests, and that's how the email came to light, and some text messages that came to light.

There was discussion going on.

And so, of course, I'm upset about it.

I like Amy.

I like her as a person, Amy, I like you as a person, but we made you council president to represent the council.

And I kind of agree with Dan.

If you have an issue over something he's doing, by all means disagree with him.

But why isn't it brought to him?

Why was it does look like sandbagging?

It just does.

Like you waited for a public meeting and it was orchestrated by our city attorney and two council people.

So I I'm not happy about it at all.

I'm quite upset about the shenanigans that have gone on in this entire process.

Mr.

Sheckler.

Thank you, Mr.

Beacon.

I would first like to raise an objection to the fact that this is not on the agenda, and the public has not had an opportunity to know that this discussion is going to be had, nor has council been doing it.

So when we're discussing things like uh orchestrating, this is an ambush where I was just accused by council member Wood of orchestrating something by receiving an email from our city attorney.

Actually, I said I thought you were included because you are an attorney.

Okay.

I don't know that you were.

I thought I thought I just heard you say that you would I had orchestrated something.

And I don't think that's accurate.

I think the city attorney.

No, I think Randy orchestrated it.

I have the floor.

Oh, thank you.

The city attorney sent me an email on April 16th, and he sent it also to Amy Woods.

And he indicated in that email, the whole email wasn't read by Mayor Guggen.

But he indicated in that email that he's writing, Amy, you are council president.

And he write he writes to me, Dan.

It is your motion that the mayor is seeking to circumvent.

Could you just set the date and the time contact with the money?

Looks like it's April 16th, 2026, 814 a.m.

Okay.

Thanks.

And so I'm just pulling this up now during this meeting.

I wasn't given prior notice that we would be discussing this.

But here it is, here we are.

And the it says, Dan, it is your motion that the mayor is seeking to circumvent Amy or a council president.

And then he provides his legal analysis.

And he goes on to state his legal analysis in detail, citing Bunt versus Garden City, State versus Whalen, Idaho Code 50-204.

He describes the 1967 Idaho session laws, Section 68.

And he goes on to describe all of that.

And he says, therefore, my legal opinion, as stated to the mayor, is that the mayor cannot do this.

So in the email, he also references that he had previously provided this same legal opinion to the mayor.

He notifies the council president.

He notifies me who is requesting the motion to be placed on the agenda.

And I only think it's appropriate for him to provide both Council President and me his opinion.

If anybody else wants this email, they certainly could request it, but I don't understand what the problem is to have legal advice from the city attorney being provided to the council president and to a member of City Council making a motion.

And I think that if we're going to discuss this, we should put it on the agenda.

So I move to table this discussion and put it on the agenda for the next city council member, so the public is given notice that this will be discussed, have an opportunity to weigh in, and then allow us to discuss this without springing it at a city council meeting.

So I'm just going to put it on the next agenda for you.

Will that be okay?

Yes.

Okay.

So we're going to go ahead and put that on the next meeting's agenda for a discussion.

There's no action being taken.

And we are allowed at council comments to just say things that are on our minds.

It's really only time to uh to air concerns or to honor someone.

Um yes, Christy.

May I also request items on the agenda?

Certainly.

The next agenda.

Absolutely.

So I, along with that discussion, and I'm sorry, Amy, but I am going to ask that we review Amy being council president, because you just mentioned that two people received the legal advice, not the full council.

And the council president didn't come to the mayor, didn't come to the rest of council.

So I'd like to review that.

I'd also like to review the employment of Mr.

Adams, because I think the full council should have full, I guess, confidence that we are all represented.

Mr.

Mayor?

Yes, Kiki.

This is really disheartening to hear all of it.

But I have had a sense for quite some time with over this police chief issue that there was a lot of orchestrating going on and that there's a lot of information that some council members, Christy, you with your um heavy involvement and and and dealings with the police department.

And I know Mayor Gugin has had by him saying so, many discussions with Captain Hagar.

And I feel like there was orchestrating going on, but I don't agree with the fact that Mr.

Adams did anything inappropriate, including sending the emails to the people who he felt it was important to.

I feel like there's um there's division among council and that some council members are going after staff members.

I feel like that is occurring.

That's my sense tonight.

I don't know why and where that comes from, but to call the city attorney to have his employment reviewed to be put on an agenda, that seems just highly inflammatory and inappropriate.

Mr.

Mayor.

So I I I have no problem with discussing discussing these things if it's an executive session item that we think that there's some grounds for this, but to pull forward all of this to an agenda item when it's brought up and announcements is to me just not good policy-making decisions.

It's not good business, and it's really going to lead us down some negative, negative rabbit holes.

We're already there.

I agree.

I don't think we should put it on the agenda talking about our attorney on just a normal agenda item.

That has to be executive session.

And what on God's name are we trying to accomplish here?

I mean, what in the world are we doing?

I just don't want to be the mayor with a city attorney who works to undermine my authority.

But what if he's not?

What if he's not?

Then we'll find out.

Find out.

The city attorney represents the entire council, and I believe it's extremely inappropriate to send out targeted emails.

He should send out an email to all of you and inform all of you.

And I want to say this, and then we're going to move on because we're going to make this a discussion.

But he replied to the two people who inquired.

Excuse me.

How is that targeted?

Show me the proof that they inquired.

I think they just came from his office to undermine the mayor.

I don't believe that to be.

And go to a man who I believe has demonstrated a contempt for this mayor.

We're moving on to the next item.

I will continue to seek legal counsel from the city attorney.

And I will include you in conversations as I always have.

And except for that our our monthly meetings have been canceled, so I don't know.

We're moving on.

Consent calendar.

Mr.

Mayor, I'll make a motion to approve the consent calendar as presented, including resolution number 26-036.

Second.

Motion and second.

Any discussion on this?

There is an item in here regarding the uh 4th of July parade.

I don't think anyone hears from the chamber, but that is one of the items.

And it was up on the board too.

Any discussion?

Okay, roll call, please.

Gabriel?

Yes.

English?

Yes.

Wood?

Yes.

Evans.

Yes.

Sheckler?

Yes.

Miller.

Yes.

Motion has carried.

Item H1 is resolution number 26037.

Approval of amendment number one in the professional services agreement with the associated underwater services incorporated for wastewater outfall maintenance services in the amount of 36,658 dollars and 34 cents.

We have Mike Becker from the Wastewater Utility.

Good evening, Mr.

Mayor and Council members.

This evening I would like to present the wastewater's request for amendment number one to an existing contract with associated underwater services.

We abbreviate them AUS for simplicity.

And this is with regards to our outfall project.

We have come before the council several times on our outfall project.

Roughly the outfall that we're looking at right here exists in the Spokane River.

It was constructed in 1985.

What you're looking at in the left-hand side is a picture of the outfall as it uh appears on the ground before we installed it.

And the picture on the right is how we installed it.

Fast forward 40 years, we do not uh install things in the Spokane River with heavy machinery in the river per se.

So what you're looking at won't be allowed as part of this project.

Our outfall has 10 diffusers, and what you see there are the diffusers, those cone-shaped objects on top of the green uh saddle on that 30-inch pipe.

Our outfall has a discharge capacity of 11.9, and depending on the river elevation, can actually elevate up to 15.7 million gallons a day.

Now March of last year, we hired AUS to do an inspection.

Their findings uh concluded that we had significant uh what was called a fluvial aggregation.

What is that?

That is sediment deposition as a result of the river flow.

And uh what you're looking at here is in 19, I'm sorry, uh 2021, one of our diffusers was at ground level four years later.

We had the pothole around that diffuser to gain access to it.

And so uh what I did is uh hired the same firm to do a what we call bathometric survey of the outfall right there.

And as you can see in this photograph, these are the individual diffusers that have been potholed.

And we have approximately seven of them that we had to dig down to expose.

In red is where we deposited it.

This would be downstream of our outfall.

So eventually the river will sit there and level that out.

I provided a conceptual sketch of our outfall, and as a result of that four years of deposition, you can see our outfall is approximately 50% filled.

Um one of the fusers is completely buried and non-operational.

Um again, this was last August, so we don't know what kind of shape it is in today, but what I'm doing today is presenting uh this contract amendment for cleaning out our outfall.

Now, why did it the pot why did it change so quickly?

Um to be quite honest, many of us don't have an answer for you.

Uh what we do have is I expanded out that bath metric survey, and as you can see in the middle of the Spokane River here, this is your river, here's a treatment plant, here's our outfalls.

We have a ridgeline that's forming up in the middle of the river.

So uh big deal, right?

Um actually, if you think about it, if you take a three-foot diameter pipe flowing half full and put that same amount of water in two 18-inch diameter pipes, you have an increased flow velocity that occurs.

And that increased flow velocity is probably this is purely speculative, responsible for the sediment deposition.

So, what are we going to do about it?

Well, the first thing we want to do is get council's approval for this amendment.

Let's clean out our outfall.

Again, it's 50% full of sediment.

That means we only have 50% capacity out there.

We don't want to compromise that any further.

Let's get that cleaned out, and then as a maintenance project, we will continue to do uh these inspections on our outfall.

Um because this is a maintenance project, we don't we're not required to file any permits or notifications with the Army Corps or Cutney County Waterways or Idaho State.

And with that, I'll entertain any questions.

Any questions?

Can he like I when you brought this to us earlier?

You made a comment that there's a chance that this could change because we don't know what we were getting into, correct?

That we we can change when they go and do the survey, we don't know exactly what they're going to find.

So that's what this is they found more than we thought was going to be there.

Correct.

Yeah.

So yes.

And you gave us a heads up that that would probably happen anyway, so thank you.

Yes.

Any other questions?

Okay, looks like you did a super job.

Okay.

Thank you.

Looking for a council action then on resolution 26037.

Mr.

Mayor, I'd make a motion to approve the amendment number one to the professional services agreement with the Associated Underwater Services Incorporated for wastewater outfall maintenance services in the amount of 36,000 658 34.

Second.

We have a motion and a second.

Any discussion on the motion.

Okay, roll call, please.

English.

Wood?

Yes.

Evans?

Yes.

Sheckler.

Yes.

Miller.

Hi.

Gabriel.

Yes.

Very good.

Thank you, Mike.

But you're still there.

I'm still resolution 26038, which is approval of a professional services agreement with JUB Engineers for the 2026 Water Resource Recovery Facility, WRRF plan update in the amount of 1,278,800.

Please continue.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Thank you again for approving of the amendment number one in the previous presentation.

So I'm here to request the wastewater's request on updating our facility plan.

What is our facility plan?

Our facility plan basically outlines our capital improvements and operations of our treatment plant.

So it basically tells us is it time to do something different?

Is it time for new equipment?

Is it time to upgrade this equipment?

And so, as in accordance with Idaho statute, last year we came before the mayor and the council with an RFP that hired J uh solicited uh local engineers to sit there and submit.

We received four of them.

We selected JUB engineers because they were the highest ranked.

Now as you may recall, we came before you and said, okay, um, we have several items that we're gonna be presenting, and one of them is our updating of our facility plan.

Um the facility plan is is the how-to for us.

And so this was done last in 2018, and it dealt mostly with capacity-related issues at the treatment plant.

This new facility looks at the entire treatment plant, the biological process, the capacity, you know, uh what new technology is out there that we should consider.

So uh with that, uh we have worked with JUB.

We have a history with them.

They've done a great job for us in the past.

They've done three sewer uh system collection, I'm sorry, collection system sewer master plans.

That's the pipes out in the right-of-way.

They've done two compost facility master plans, and they have done numerous projects with us.

So we have a good history with JUB.

So it's with that that uh we're requesting that council approve a professional services agreement with JUB and the amount of one million two hundred and seventy-eight thousand seven hundred uh seven hundred dollars.

And I'm losing my voice.

Mike, that's really a lot of money.

Yes, is that is that just what it costs?

Um we went through a negotiation process and we actually met with JUB to negotiate them on the scope of services six times, and this is what we whittled it down to.

So, yes, it is seems like a lot of money, but keep in mind that it's outlining what we're gonna do for the next 10 years, and you know, our wastewater projects are usually really cheap.

Um we try to be thrifty with the public's money.

So this is one of those cases where we have oh my goodness.

Well, anyway, let's uh Kiki has a question.

So, Mike, did you talk to other engineering firms?

Yes, we uh we actually went through the RFB process.

We did a pre uh pre-selection meeting.

Um we it's kind of like a pre-bid meeting, um, and we laid out okay what our expectations were, and uh kind of said, okay, this is kind of the direction that we see ourselves going.

And you know, tell us what are we on the right track.

Um out of the engineering firms, JUB said, hey, uh, first of all, your schedule is really aggressive.

You should probably consider you know other options here.

And then again, um some of the other firms that uh basically cookie-cuttered their RFP.

I was kind of disappointed.

Um you could have changed the name from the city of Cord Lane to the city of whatever in their proposal, and it was so disappointing to see that they didn't they weren't interested in you know providing us with what we needed for our facility plan.

I just want to make sure that we're going out to other engineers to try to get the best services and the best bang for our buck, and I I feel like we see the repeat of the same engineering firms often.

So I just want to make sure we're being diligent there.

Fair enough question.

I think uh the firm that we reached out to the furthest um.

Well, we received one from Seattle, um, one from Boise.

I'm sorry I don't have all our locations memorized right now, but I was quite surprised with you know the turnout.

We actually had two firms uh that submitted on this that were very thorough.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

Big chunk of change here.

Okay, thank you, Mike.

We'll move on to a motion.

Mr.

Mayor, I make a motion to approve resolution number 26-038 approval of professional services agreement with JUB Engineers Incorporated for the 2026 water resource recovery facility plan update in the amount of 1,278,800.

Second.

We have a motion and a second.

Is there any discussion on the motion?

Very well, roll call, please.

Wood, yes, Evans, yes, Sheckler.

Yes, Miller.

Aye, Gabriel, yes, English.

Yes, motion here and council members.

Thank you, Mike.

Motion is carried.

Move on to item H3, which is resolution 26039, approval of the purchase.

You okay?

Approval of the purchase of a 2027 dump truck from Kenworth Sales Corporation through the Source Well Cooperative purchasing program in the amount of 280, 760 dollars from Ben Mark Ben Martin, assistant wastewater director, more money for wastewater this time for a big Tonka truck.

Correct.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor, members of council.

Uh thanks for your time tonight.

Uh basically coming to you for your guidance on how to replace uh our aging dump truck.

So we have two dump trucks that haul biosolids from the treatment facility to the compost facility.

And so they take turns running loads up to that compost facility.

We've got one truck that was replaced in 21.

And the truck we're trying to replace is 13 years old.

Starting to show its age, and so we're uh we've budgeted for this replacement, and so I'm here to seek your guidance on that.

Uh so what we're proposing is uh basically a bigger truck.

Uh so the truck we're we're proposing to buy is a Kenworth uh T 880 dump truck.

It has 50 percent more capacity than the trucks we run right now, and so uh as you recall, we've just finishing up our solids building improvement plans uh near the bike trail where the dragon is.

So uh that new building, it's a larger building, it's enclosed.

So part of that project was to try to keep the odors in that building, keep them contained and treated, and the other part of it was so we could basically put a bigger truck in there so we have more time to fill that truck.

So the benefits of the bigger truck, it buys our operators more time to go work on other projects.

So right now they're they're stuck kind of babysitting the process of filling that dump truck.

Well, this frees up a little more time for them to go help with other things throughout the treatment plant.

Uh also bigger truck, it's fewer trips to the compost facility, so kind of saving on road repairs, stuff like that fuel.

So this is what we're proposing, and uh this is the truck bay where we fill the dump trucks that was recently completed.

So with that, a stamp for questions?

Any questions about the big truck?

Can he?

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Real briefly, how many trips a day?

So it it averages about two to three trips per day, two to three truck loads per day.

So from that facility.

Seems like a lot.

It's a lot.

Yeah.

Yep.

Thank you.

Mr.

Sheckler.

About how many man hours a day do you think this will save?

Oh, good question.

Um I would estimate two hours a day, at least two hours a day for for an operator.

So freeze up, freeze their time up to go help with other projects in the treatment plant, cleaning and uh maintenance items.

So yeah.

Any other questions?

So um does the Ben, does the uh does the truck just sit there and like get slowly filled?

So but it's not running the whole time.

Right.

Yeah, it sits in this truck bay, and uh one of the improvements we made in this solids truck bay is a conveyor chute.

So if you look at these plastic uh things hanging down, those are basically drop gates where the sludge can fall into different parts of the truck.

So yeah, it just sits there, and then the operator can push a button and open gate number two, let that spot fill.

And with the smaller truck, this is the actually the old smaller truck.

They have to move that truck every half an hour or so.

So a bigger truck kind of frees up some of that time where they're not moving the truck back and forth.

Good.

So it is a dump truck.

Yep.

Because it dumps in there.

I know that Mr.

Anderson probably would have a better pun, but save that for later.

We're looking for council action.

I'd like to make a motion to approve resolution number 2609, approving the purchase of a 2027 dump truck from Kinworth Sales Company through the Source World Corporate Corporative Purchasing Program, the amount of 280,760.

Second.

We have a motion and a second.

Any discussion on the motion?

Someone wants to ride in the truck or anything.

Okay, roll call.

Evans, yes.

Sheckler.

Yes.

Miller.

Aye.

Gabriel?

Yes.

English?

Yes.

Wood.

Yes.

Very good.

Motion's carried.

Thank you, Ben.

Thank you.

Move on to item H4, which is resolution number 26040.

Approval of a contract with La Rivere incorporated for the 2026 pedestrian ramp improvement project for 319,000.

We're just spending money.

$319,689 staff report by Chris Bosley, our city engineer.

Thank you, Mayor and Council.

If you remember a while back, uh we brought to you a contract with HMH HMH engineers to evaluate our ped ramps on projects where we had recently done an overlay.

Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act requires that we provide accessible ramps when we resurface a roadway.

It doesn't count for chip seal, but it does for uh an overlay.

So that's the difference that we're seeing there.

These are some of the ped ramps that were in the project areas where we did our work in the last couple years.

So now we're trying to catch up on these and get these ped ramps upgraded to meet federal rules.

Uh this these slides or these exhibits were taken from the report that was given to us by HMH engineers when they finished their investigation, which shows how they measure all these ramps, which is pretty standard, and I believe it's an ITD uh exhibit.

Um then these are the locations where we put a bid package together um for these ped ramps at these major intersections.

And so we put it out to bid in late April.

On May 7th, we opened bids, and the results were very close.

Uh less or about $2,000 difference between the two of them.

So not you not normal that we get bids that close, but the Riviera was the apparent low bidder, or is the low bidder.

It's not just apparent anymore.

Um so with that, I would ask you to approve the contract with La Riviera for this project.

And Chris, this is for ADA compliance.

Older ramps.

Very good.

Any questions for Chris from Council Kenny?

Mayor, this is toward you as well.

This comes from the ChIPSEAL overlay budget, correct?

Yeah.

So next budget, we will have the ability to put that back in so we can start playing catch up a little bit.

Hopefully.

Yeah, and uh follow-up to that, Kenny, and it's a good point.

Which didn't we not have at one point in time a separate ADA sidewalk abatement budget?

We have a sidewalks uh uh yes, we do have an item for concrete.

It's not nearly enough to handle something like this.

So we have to dip into the other fund as Councilman Gabriel.

Correct.

Okay.

Yeah, we'll we'll work on that, Kenny, and I I know that's your priority, and I appreciate that.

Kiki.

That was my question.

Oh, okay.

That was her question.

Any other questions?

No.

Looks like we're good.

I'm ready for council action on this one.

Mr.

Mary'd make a motion to approve resolution number 26040.

Approval of a contract with La Riviera incorporated for the 2026 pedestrian ramp improvement project for 319,689.

Sorry, motion and a second.

Any discussion on this motion?

Roll call, please.

Sheckler?

Yes.

Miller.

Hi.

Gabriel.

Yes.

English?

Yes.

Wood?

Yes.

Evans.

Yes.

Very good.

Motion carried.

Thank you, Chris.

But you're not done.

We have item H5, which is resolution 26041, which is establishing a two-hour parking restriction on Wallace Avenue between 1st and 2nd Street with a 15-minute parking restriction at 110 Wallace Avenue.

It's to you again.

All right, thank you.

This is the second time I bring you a parking matter since the parking commission was dissolved.

So the streets downtown, as we all know, have a two-hour parking restriction.

They go as far north as Indiana.

That was the last item I brought here was for some addition what was for a 15-minute parking zone on Indiana.

Now we're moving up to Wallace, the next street north from downtown.

We know that across the street from this block is where the Roosevelt is and where the condo units are going to be built very shortly.

So the property owner, Jonathan Burns, had reached out to me.

He is here if you want to ask any questions of him.

If you if you could uh just for people who are looking at home, Chris, can you wiggle the mouse up to the area where we're looking supposed to be looking at?

Yeah, so I put an orange bar across here representing two hours, and then this little spot right here is the 15-minute parking zone.

Um it's actually not quite that big, but it encompasses both driveway approaches where you can't park anyway.

Sweet.

Okay.

Um and uh Mr.

Burns had come here and made public comment, and that's what initiated this conversation.

Very good.

And so here is a photo of the or a Google street view of the street that uh gray forerunner there is where the 15-minute parking is desired.

It's in a in that spot right between those two approaches.

And you can see the other cars parked down the street on that side of Wallace.

And so we're recommending establishment of a two-hour parking restriction with the 15-minute zone at 110 East Wallace.

And I should also throw in there that I didn't have this information at the time that I put the staff report together, but I was able to talk to Diamond Parking to find out how much extra it would be to patrol that block.

And they said at this time there wouldn't be any additional charge, but I'm sure that would come up in negotiations for the next contract.

And that was uh going to be a follow-up that I was going to have, maybe to Ron, in that this doesn't take effect until we do the new contract, or would it take effect right away?

In our discussion with Diamond, we have m made them aware that this is coming forward, and they seem to be willing to address it and patrol it uh at this time, and then we'll address it in the next contract.

Excellent.

Thank you so much.

Thank you for your work on that too.

Um Ron has been working on the uh the diamond contract, and uh it's actually it's uh it's a very good contract with the city.

So appreciate that.

And any questions for Chris from council on this item.

I have I'm not not gonna make it hard.

Oh, Kiki.

I have a few.

Um Ron, do you know when the next diamond contract is scheduled to be negotiated?

Yes, but I'd kick it over to Renata because she's gonna be much smarter than me.

I think it goes through 2028, the current one.

Through what?

2028?

We have been working with Diamond on a couple other issues, though, so I don't think this is going to be an issue until that contract comes up.

Can we make comment or absolutely I have a question?

I I and I did actually mention this to Chris in the past, because I kind of have um a couple issues with it.

One is this is the second time since our parking commission has disbanded that we've had a one-off where we did something for one block.

Um the second is I'd really like to get this business owner what they need.

But I feel like this is um this is gonna set a precedent that's just gonna be another block, another 15-minute, another business, and and it could even spread to more residential areas saying, well, if this one person got it, you know, why can't we get it?

And what is the policy and the precedent setting criteria we have that says we agree to this or not?

What I'd prefer to see is um potentially pulling back our parking commission in an at least an ad hoc committee to take a look at with all the new building, the new businesses, um, the new high rises that we have.

Do we need to expand our footprint for the two-hour parking and set new criteria for what those 15-minute spots are?

So I'm not against getting this for this particular business, but I would like the caveat to say that it's time for us to review this because this precedent could just keep us going through them block at a time.

You want to put that on an agenda for discussion?

I I would like to hear if council agrees with any of that.

I'd like to put it on the uh put it on an agenda, but what I don't want to do is cause a huge amount of staff time for something that that isn't gonna get any traction.

So, seems reasonable to me to have the discussion.

All right.

So I'm gonna do that.

We haven't voted on it because it's not an item, but I will put it on the next agenda so that we can talk about uh parking, downtown parking.

And we do um Hillary is in the audience um we do have the uh downtown height restriction thing coming forward at some point in time too.

And maybe we could marry the two and discuss that.

I know parking is part of that, so maybe we'll just build that up and all at once.

So that'd be great.

Thank you, Kiki.

Any other questions on this one item?

Well, Christy.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

For this particular request, though, I would make a motion to um approve resolution number 26-041, establishing a two-hour parking restriction on the south side of Wallace Avenue between 1st and 2nd Street, together with a 15-minute loading unloading zone at 110 Wallace Avenue.

Second.

Motion and a second.

Any discussion on the motion?

Roll call, please.

Miller.

Just sorry, my discussion question is coming out of my brain slower than it needed to.

But um, on this motion, if we approve that, does that affect putting this on the agenda item?

It is just allowing this one business to have it until we have a chance to take a look at it all.

Is that where you're going?

Okay.

Wanted to be clear.

Thank you.

Yes.

Gabrielle?

Yes.

English?

Yes.

Wood?

Yes.

Evans?

Yes.

Yes.

Very good.

The motion is carried.

And thank you, John, for bringing that up.

Um we do care here at the City of Port Alane, and and that actually happened a lot faster than I thought it would.

So appreciate that you brought it up and thank you to Chris and Ron and Renata for putting in the effort to get this to happen.

I item H6 is up for next.

We're talking resolution 26042, approval of an agreement with Virginia L.

Tate for the provision of water services outside the city limit at 4176 East Potlatch Hill Road and future annexation.

We have Kyle Marine, who is our water department director.

And we may also hear from Hillary, our community planning director, and Randy, who is our city attorney.

Please take it away.

Kyle.

Thank you, Council, for having me.

I apologize.

I'm trying to get this expand, but it is not working right now.

I will click through them this way if that's okay.

I apologize.

Should council allow water service to 4176 East Potlatch Hill Road without annexation and/or require city infrastructure improvements.

So I put a short presentation together that includes information on my staff report.

So the property owner at 4176 Potlatch Hill Road had come to the water department and to the city because of their well going dry.

They requested service from the city at the time.

During that process, annexation was going to be a requirement because they were contiguous to city limits.

Moving forward with that, discussions began to move forward.

Um, and annexation agreements take time.

So we agreed with the property owner to set up a temporary connection, which is this connection here.

It is a hydrant on a fill station that goes across with a line that goes up the house that serves the property in question.

Fill stations are mainly designed for construction purposes or temporary water.

Um with the annexation agreement, took some time to go through and discussions went back and forth.

Um unfortunately we couldn't come to an agreement.

Fortunately, the fill station did not freeze the winner.

The property owner took good care of the fill station to where it did last winter, but we had a light winner, which was fortunate.

Um water services out city limits.

We created a policy.

I'm sorry.

I don't know why this is not zooming out.

Uh policy number 17.001 in uh lieu of uh services outside the city limits due to Idaho water originally having water lines that ran outside of the city area before the city took it over, and then the city incorporated the water department, and we still had services outside city limits.

The city did not want to serve uh difficult, did not want to serve uh water outside city limits for any type of growth unless they annex in the city at the time.

The city came forward or a requested from the water department to create a policy to uh bring forth and allow services outside city limits under certain conditions.

So the outside city limits policy was created.

It was updated in 2017, and this is a brief description of the policy.

And it still won't zoom.

A pre brief description of the policy that explains the the rules that we put forth and council accepted.

Excuse me.

Can I ask a question about that?

Go ahead.

Absolutely.

Kyle, do you know when this policy 17.001 was first created?

I believe it was originally created in 2005.

And then it was updated in 2000 or in 2017.

Thank you.

With that policy in 2017, there was uh maps that were identified and locations, and every property was identified that fronted an existing water main outside of city limits on whether it could get services outside the city limits without current annexation current annexation and sign agreement to annexate once the properties were contiguous.

And it also identified properties that were contiguous that needed to be annexed at that time.

The properties in question is this property here, and it was identified as a single family dwelling unit at the time for a singular service, which is 4176 each East Potlatch Hill Road.

Umce the uh applicant came in and met with city staff to go over the requirements for annexation.

There was a lot of items that were brought up by city staff that would require would be required upon annexation.

Uh this is driving me.

That's why this won't work.

I apologize.

I cannot get this to zoom up or move out of my way.

Um, with the water system, ultimately, this does not affect the water system.

We have the capacity and the availability to serve the parcel with water.

The concern with serving the parcel water without requiring annexation is that additional properties may come forward, causing issues in the future for annexation.

Um we've got the water department's requirements here.

I also got the fire departments listed that was sent to us by them.

We have the uh annexation administration requirements, sewer requirements, uh, and then the final report.

And this, I put together a quick map, and you can't see it that well.

I apologize that it won't zoom up of about 28 other parcels that were denied through this process because they didn't meet the criteria or they didn't want to annex.

Um I will stand for any questions, and I believe the amplified applicant has time to uh discuss as well.

Any questions for Kyle on this?

I know that this is gonna be really complex, especially.

I mean, I've been talking about this for a while, but if you just are new to this, you might not fully understand what's going on, so please ask your questions, Christy.

Thank you.

Kyle, appreciate your staff report.

Um you did put in here, which I think is of interest to the city, there's no direct cost to the water department to serve this parcel.

You also put ultimately the city water system has the capacity to serve this lot with no effect to other existing customers.

The requested connection would not reduce system pressure or service levels to other customers.

So I I appreciate that you've done a fair analysis that this is not going to cost anybody anything or reduce services to others.

But I don't know if you have talked at length with um fire personnel that if they don't have water up on that hill, because we dig in and we don't offer a good neighbor agreement, and we know there's a business up there and there's other homes.

I gotta imagine that people's lives are at risk.

And what's more important here?

I I guess I'm not concerned about a precedent because everything comes before council one by one, and we decide whatever sitting council it is, one by one, whether we're going to approve something.

So have you assessed the fire danger, or have you asked the fire department to assess the danger?

And if so, what have you come up with?

Yes, each department was uh discussed with on the requirements on what they would require upon annexation.

I believe the fire department here, I don't want to speak on their behalf.

I just took their notes that they passed down to us, put them on the presentation for your viewing pleasure.

Um but if you have any specific questions for fire capacity or needs, I would strongly ask that the fire department come up and answer those.

Okay.

I I guess um, yeah, I can do that later.

I'll let other people I do want to uh interject here if I could just interrupt you for a second.

So this is as it's not annexed, it's serviced by Kooteny County.

For what fire.

Yes, correct.

This is not the court lane fire, would it would uh uh do a uh what an interagency agreement if they were closer, but as this is not annexed, it's not in the city, it falls under the jurisdiction of Kootenai Fire and Rescue.

Correct, yes.

Okay, and there is a hydrant, one of their hydrants that's at the uh entry to the property currently.

At the access road that enters the property, correct.

Okay, but that's not a city hydrant.

There we have city hydrants along the frontage road that accesses their I'm gonna say road to their property.

The fire department requires a certain distance because they don't have I'm speaking before the fire department, I apologize by mess here.

But um the county fire department has, from what I understand, uh tankers.

They haul water.

So they have the big capability to fill up the hydrant, run up the road, pump it out, and put out a fire.

Um and council Gabriel, I'm sure could elaborate a lot more on this.

With the City of Corane Fire Department, they don't have tankers.

They have to hook to hydrant and they require to be within a certain distance of a building to put that fire out.

Um with the requirements of the fire department, from what I understand, they need hydrants with a certain footage of the building to be able to fight that fire uh adequately and safely.

And to fill in council in with a a little bit more detail, because I have been in the weeds and we'll get to you, Dan.

But um the uh the annexation requirements are not only that the road be improved up to city standards, but that two fire hydrants and a fire line, another water line be created by the uh by Ms.

Tate in order to reach annexation requirements.

Is that do you have that in your report at all?

Yes, uh I have it right here on the screen.

And I like I said, I apologize, it's a little small.

So what their requirements that they sent to uh city staff was they must meet fire flow of 1,500 gallons per minute at minimum of 20 psi, which the city fire hydrants do.

Uh hydrant spacing must be 500 feet.

That's one of the big catch-alls on this.

There's a hydrant not within 500 feet.

Um from what I understand, the measurements is up that was taken, and I do have a picture of this fill station.

This one is is on a hydrant.

I don't have the measurements from here over the hill, but I do believe it's several, it's it's a lot further than 500 feet.

Yeah.

And the fire department is not interested in running a hose up this hillside to fight a fire.

They would bring the truck and apparatus up the road to access it and there be uh I don't know how many feet of of hose that would have to be put in to get to the truck to get it to fight the fire.

And this is a uh uh cost that would be borne by Ms.

Tate.

Correct.

She would be responsible if to meet annexation agreements in order to upfront all those improvements and but what she's wanting is a water line.

Correct.

All right.

Dan English had a question.

Were you asking?

I think that's the one.

If the on the other side of her parcel, um, there may be future parcels that want to annex in to the city of Court d'Alane.

Um if this parcel isn't annexed in, um, what sort of consequences would flow as far as extending sewer or water if this one parcel is connected but not annexed in, how does that affect things?

Great question.

So under normal circumstances on an annexation of parcel or um uh subdivision or anything along those lines, there would be always the requirement for the two and through uh requirements, which is similar to the wastewater, which this isn't the greatest map, so I do apologize.

We have water and a hydrant at this point that would have to bring it down this road to the pro into the property.

That way when this gets annexed, it could be extended on to the next parcel and the next parcel and the next parcel to continuously move that water line on in city limits as things are annexed.

Does that answer question?

Yeah, I think so.

And Mr.

Ingle.

Okay.

Well, and um I'm reminded the book of ecclesiastic tells us there's time for seasons for different things, and as we get to the outer boundaries of Court of Lane, we know we're going to be fine-tuning it.

Um, it's been talked about over the bridge for a long time.

Um, but at this time for the need to write there, and um if every one of them wanted to come in, it's still only a known universe of 28.

Um I think this is the time that that makes sense.

And then I would fully expect following up in years that you know some of the ones down the river may very well want to, and that might make sense, but for now this is a very identifiable area need.

Um so I think it makes sense and I'll support it.

Yes, Kenny.

Thank you.

Mr.

Mayor.

Ms.

Tate, we've had many conversations for many years about this on trying to figure this and get her to the finish line, and I would love nothing more than to get her to the finish line on this.

The fire flow has always been a huge issue for us for not specific to her residence, but where her residence sits.

We've done fire smart programs up there that have tried to cut down the vegetation in the hopes that any wildfires up there wouldn't be as big as they would be because of the mitigation work that we've done.

My concern, and I agree with Councilmember Wood on this, is every one of these that come, we get to take a look at.

My only concern about this is unfortunately we do set precedents, and how are we going to tell those folks down the road no if we don't say yes to this?

And I'm gonna caveat that with I really want to get this to the finish line for you.

Hang on a second.

Thank you.

Um thank you, Kenny.

I I think that the difference here is the history.

And there isn't anybody else up there that has gone through the history that the Tate family has of trying to get appropriate water to their property.

Of no fault of Kyle.

He's just the latest um person in the chain of um city employees that this got kicked down the road and kicked down the road.

And when you look at the expenses that the Tate family has gone through to jump through this hoop and then that hoop, and then the goalpost changes a bit.

And and uh I mean, frankly, it's gone on for decades.

And what they're asking for now is just allow a good neighbor agreement, get them the water that they need.

If we don't allow this, they don't have water at all.

That is not good neighbor, and their their parcel abuts the city on three sides.

Again, these some of these things are just common sense decisions.

You take them case by case.

I think that the Tate family is more than earned a good neighbor agreement with the City of Court of Wayne.

Yeah.

Well, just to follow up on Kenny's two.

Um, yeah, we would look at case by case, and normally when we look at things, you know, we start out kind of neutral, but in this case, I don't think it's neutral.

I think it's, you know, somebody would have to make a very good case of why we shouldn't approve those future ones.

So again, yeah.

The future.

Makes sense, I'll be supportive.

Kiki, you have a question?

I'm just trying to uh digest what the future holds here.

Um because we look at this long road where the two and through is not going to be there if we do the good neighbor water because it's not going to come up through the road.

Is that right?

Correct.

So then anything uh up that road is what do they do?

Is it going to be up to the developer to go backwards to connect down?

It would be, yes.

So we're kicking the can down the road, not for the Tates, but for the next property owner.

And so they're going to be in here saying we want to plat out this 20 acres now, and we don't want to put this the water line all the way down to the main potlatch road, probably.

So we're all okay with that, that that's the situation.

I'm I'm just ask kind of batting around the crystal ball of planning.

And and Hillary, do you have anything to weigh in on that as far as what are there has there any been any discussions of any other potential options through this decades of negotiation that could address that problem?

Good evening, uh, mayor and council members.

So we have had a few meetings with the Tates um last fall to kind of figure out how we could help them with this scenario.

And the fire service has been the biggest challenge.

And so I think the the good neighbor agreement that's before you this evening does have in there the provision that they would have to agree to annexation if a developer adjacent to their property or if the city extended water service down Potlatch Hill Road.

I think those are the provisions that we came up with that would at least ensure that there would be the opportunity for other properties to be developed in the future.

It's definitely a challenging situation with the infrastructure, and we did discuss the concern about having the the fire lines and water lines along a road that isn't within the city, so it's county road, and so that was something that we had we had coming.

A couple of different iterations of the agreement that we had discussed with Ginny and her sons.

Thank you.

So uh Kyle Um if council moves forward and allows this connection, then what happens to the policy?

Good question.

Um we'd have to look at the policy, and if we wanted to change the policy or keep it as is, and if somebody wanted to contest the denial of their uh service outside city limits, it'd have to come to council.

Uh the probability of that I would think would greatly increase if it was approved, which is a concern.

Um you have properties on Blackwell Island that are interested in connecting.

I prefer not to add services over there because um capacity is uh an issue, which that one might be an easier one to deny, but you have areas that are just outside city limits, uh parcels that don't want to annex just to not pay the taxes so they can get the uh city services.

Um it's a good question.

We'd have to look at the policy a little harder.

Yeah, and that was um, and Kiki, you kind of alluded to this earlier with parking, in that, you know, we go ahead and we we say this is allowed, and we've all of a sudden said, well, we made an exception to our policy, which means those 28 other properties you referred to can look at that and salivate and say, wow, we could just take this to City Council.

Now, granted, they don't have the history here, and that's really important to me is that there is history here.

Um I think the biggest uh problem that that Ginny Tate has is that she has a spine and she's standing up for herself, and government hates that.

They want you to go away.

And that's why they do the things they do.

Hopefully you'll back down and go away and make things easy.

But didn't you just tell the other guy that we really like business we really like to help people?

I mean, did we just didn't you just tell him that we really like the hopefully we're changing and we're showing a new leaf.

But in the case of Ms.

Tate, and if you read her narrative, you would find out that there was a lot of stuff going on that normally of a a typical person would probably just say, you know what, I'm gonna give up.

And I hope Mr.

Burns wouldn't give up if all of a sudden we gave him the runaround, and we didn't.

So the fact that Kyle's here, that this is coming forward, that we are given the opportunity for council to make a decision on this, is I think it's a step in the right direction.

This is uh breath of fresh air for Ms.

Tate, which she hasn't had in a a long time.

So that's that's but uh uh my point to all this was basically if you want to see it again and you go forward with this, and my opinion would be to go forward with it, then brace yourselves.

Just heads up, Christy.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

I would just say I I think um Councilwoman Miller asked a great question.

When was the policy enacted?

And long before your time, Kyle.

So but the it was enacted in 2005, updated in 2017, but the Tates have been dealing with this since the 80s.

And well documented effort to comply and get some uh water up there.

So I'm I'm not concerned about a precedent at all because no one is going to have this kind of history to come along with their request like the Tates do.

Annie?

Well, um I think we can read where in the interest of things.

Um then I would make a motion to approve resolution 26-043 approving of an amendment.

Oh no, that's the okay.

To approve resolution number 26042.

Approving an agreement with Virginia L.

Tate for the provision of water services outside the city limits at 4176 East Pontlatch Hill Road and future annexation.

I apologize.

I would like to ask a quick question on whether you're approving uh connection or you're approving annexation without the requirements.

Okay, so the good neighborhood.

Where did we go sideways?

The good neighbor agreement.

There were two options.

Oh, I didn't see that.

So it's the good neighbor agreement, I believe, is what we we've been talking about.

I'm going to withdraw mine for right now.

Someone else who's preparing my parents.

And future so is that and there?

Does that mean that's an option in the uh in the motion?

And I apologize.

So it's you can approve uh connection.

I guess council's got the option to do whatever they want realistically, but um you can uh approve connection without annexation or approve the good neighbor policy where they're required to annex at a later time at the council's discretion.

How does how does how does that work uh at the council's discretion for a later time?

So uh with the good neighbor agreement, we have um, and I believe that was included, but I apologize if it wasn't.

So with the good neighbor agreement, they agree to connect to services um for city water, paying cap fees, connecting, follow all city water policies, and then they will annex at the time of continue being contiguous, which there they are, or when council requests them to be annexed.

Would that be considered a poison pill then?

So we go ahead and allow her under good neighbor policy, but lo and behold, she's right next to the city, she's forced to annex.

Great question.

Or uh a later date they're required to annex and then the the requirements would fall in place.

So I I apologize if I'm confusing.

Do you have a question?

I was clarifying that very point in that in the Good Neighbor Agreement, which is has A, B, and C and a couple dozen items.

What page number was?

It says um I don't know.

We don't know what page we are.

Anyway, okay it's in there.

It's in there.

Then I'm fine.

I'm sorry.

But it appears, and I'm hoping that this is true, that the Tate family has read this and agrees to it before we say yes, we want to go this direction, and then it becomes up for negotiation.

But it says that the agreement um upon acceptance shall bind and become obligatory to their heirs that they will annex when certain things occur.

Randy has a question or not have a question.

It's not page 189 right after the resolution.

Oh, okay.

Thanks.

Oh, thanks.

My little one of three was on top of it.

So that's that's the the policy, and if you don't want to and I don't know how if that would trigger a forced annexation or not.

I mean, I think council should just be really clear when you make the motion as to what uh the future would hold on this.

Um I don't I I do not I know what Ms.

Tate wants, and she doesn't want us to change rules again.

Right.

And I I guess I was going with the um to get it across the finish line and get her the water she needs.

And this last one says that if the Tate family opposes annexation in the future and doesn't comply with the city's performance requ requirements, the city may terminate water service.

So that's that's part of what they're agreeing to is that we get that eventually the future is going to change.

And tell me if I'm off base here, but we don't have the crystal ball to know when is the parcels around them going to want to annex or develop and how is that going to look.

And so, but it just does say when those situations change that they aren't going to oppose annexation.

I would assume be involved in some of the expense of that down the road.

Can we can we add that and like attach it to the property, etc.?

Is that something we can put in the motion?

Well, it's in the agreement.

It's in the agreement, but I I just my fear is forced annexation.

I don't want all of a sudden have here's your water.

Oh, and here's the bill for annexation.

That's that's what I don't want to see happen.

If I may that agreement that was referenced, it's in the packet has a provision that's specific for annexation.

It says Tate agrees to request annexation of her real property at the time any property adjacent to 4176 East Potlatch Hill Road is annexed into the city and is required to extend water system infrastructure in East Potlatch Hill Road, or if the city's water infrastructure is otherwise extended down East Potlatch Hill Road.

Tate shall be subject to all procedures and applicable fees at the time of annexation request.

In addition, Tate agrees to negotiate in good faith all the terms and conditions to be included in an annexation agreement, which she shall execute.

Tate agrees to comply with all city policies, codes, and regulations in effect at the time of annexation.

So it doesn't just say we're going to require her to annex next year when we decide.

It's specifically if the properties next to her or if the city is to extend water, city water infrastructure down.

Hold your question, Ginny, so we can get through the council's questions, and they may answer your question for you.

So go ahead, Christy.

Thank you.

Um Hillary, yeah.

My question I will ask you, but it it's obviously directed at Ginny.

Have you reviewed this entire document with the Tates and have they agreed to this proposal?

This is an agreement that we shared with them last October.

I don't know if Jenny is in complete agreement with this or not.

She had sent us back some comments previously, but we had so this is outside of a good neighbor agreement.

To have the good neighbor agreement, they have to agree to all of this as your proposal.

This is based on language in our good neighbor agreements that the city council has entered into previously.

So that's how this language was built into there.

Plus, we added the provisions that were specific to the site for the water and this the fire protection services.

I was just unless there's any other questions for Hillary or Kyle at this point in time.

Jenny, if you could come forward and uh address these issues.

Um I know that there's a lot of history, and you you like to talk about the history, but if we could just concentrate tonight on moving forward, I think council is looking uh for information from you on what you would like to see uh what you're afraid of and how we can help you.

Well, thank you.

Thank you, Council members.

Um, I think the first distinction we need to point to is that the request for water goes back to the 80s when the city came to us to bifurcate our property, and in exchange for bifurcating our property to allow the traffic to Armstrong Park, which was annexed into the city with no other way to get up the hill.

We were promised we were we were guaranteed by contract.

This isn't a good feeling, it isn't a good neighbor.

We're not all we had nothing to do with the construction of Armstrong Park.

We're not familiarly related to Mr.

Armstrong or to the developer.

Uh nor were we in in business with them.

In exchange to allow the road to go up the hill, we were guaranteed water and sewer hookups.

So this is the biggest difference that I see between us and everyone else that may be asking for water.

I don't think anyone else has that same agreement.

Uh further that, oh, back in 2018 or 2019, we took our north four acres of our property, of my property, and annexed that into the city.

And that is how those fire hydrants got there.

This fire hydrant that that Kyle is referencing that we're hooked up to is one that I paid to put in.

The city didn't pay to put that in.

I paid to put that in.

The water line carrying the water to us that was guaranteed by contract was never installed.

So that's a conversation for another time.

Certainly we don't want to bring up here, but that is by fact, and uh I'm certain if one were to request that information, they would find letters from Mr.

Scott Reed addressing the fact that that water line was improperly installed at the time.

My first request for water and the hookups from that contract came in 1995, long before your current good neighbor agreement.

So there are your major differences that cause us to be slightly different than everyone else.

Um we'll see on the letter that that uh Miss Hillary just spoke to from the city of Port Elaine to me, has not been sent to me.

It's dated May 19th, 2026.

I don't have it, I've never read it.

Oh, okay.

No.

Okay.

So they're saying the good neighbor agreement that is in front of us, you've never seen.

That this particular agreement dated this date, I have never seen.

It's were you sent a copy of the packet?

Um I pulled down a copy of the packet today.

All right.

But I have not seen this.

Uh they have not come forth and discussed this.

I will go so far as to say there's been discussion of fees incurred by the Tate family that we have asked for offset on CAP fees that are not addressed in this letter.

Uh there were the one, and and I'm sorry, I'm trying not to go into he said she said because this goes on quite some time.

When my son Steve and my son Jeff and I met with uh Troy prior to his a couple well, several times prime to his uh retirement.

We had an agreement to annex, an agreement to be annexed as we were, as we sat at that moment.

And we left the room agreeing that that's how we were going to proceed.

Several days later, and right before it went to council, less than 48 hours before it went to council, we were issued a letter similar to this, but since I don't have that in front of me, I can't look word for word, that was completely different than what we had agreed to in the room.

And so this is where the problem goes on and on and on.

And I know in my seven-page highlights that uh you realize we've been paid close to 100,000 dollars in engineering and fees that have produced nothing.

And every time we get that following, Mr.

Sheckway has a question.

Is this related to what she's talking about?

Yeah, Mr.

Mayor, I I think that with this good neighbor proposal that she has not seen.

I think I think we need to postpone this till the next council session, give her an opportunity to review this and propose changes so that we can see what she is proposing that may be consistent with this or inconsistent with this, so that we can try to get this past the finish line.

But I just get the sense that we're not ready to move forward until she's had an opportunity to review this and propose to us exactly what we want to do.

Actually, I'd like to speak to that, and and I apologize.

I don't think it's that council and the majority of the city are not prepared for it.

I think that this is what happens every time we come forth that there is a surprise, a twist, a turn right as we reach the finish line.

And what we are asking for this evening is to complete our good neighbor agreement and take that water hookup as it is complete.

I think this is just once again the same thing that always happens, and it has happened since I have come to the city since 1995 to try to cure the contract that guaranteed us water and sewer lines.

And as I did note in my memo to the city, that the sewer lines are in there properly installed.

It's the water line that was not properly installed.

We have I have put out an incredible amount of money to cure that on my end, but I am not a municipality.

And one of the things that was in packets is that I permanently abandoned any hope of trying to hook up to a well, that I abandon any well right, not just abandon my well, which was required to do the city hookup, but to abandon my water right altogether, and then hope I get a good neighbor agreement.

This is not fair.

There is no way for me to win this.

One second.

Uh Kiki, please.

I um I just wanted to say one thing in that it isn't uncommon for previously discussed agreements to come to a packet like this with the date of the date that the mayor is going to sign it, should it be approved?

So I don't know that this I'm not saying that it is or isn't.

I'm just giving you some plausible reasons why this could be the same verbiage you've seen before, but it does have a current date on it.

And I think I'm where Councillor Sec Scheckler was, is that if you're saying that you've never seen this and don't agree to it, we don't have the ability to take action on it.

Actually, one that they sent me several months ago was similar to this, and obviously I don't have it side by side for line item by line item, but the city is uh failed to come back and discuss the changes.

And when I had a quick legal agreement or legal counsel review it, there were several items that needed to be direct or discussed and uh confirmed or cleared up.

And City can't fail, they refuse to discuss it with us.

Let me put that another question.

From Dan English.

Yeah.

I just I want to I hopefully maybe you could if there's something we could give tonight, I think we should take action on anything we can, and then we can follow up on details.

But with this much time, money, energy, you need to come away with this from some certain, and we want to too.

What is your wonder what would you really like to walk away from here tonight and what could we haggle out later?

What I would what would be nice to walk away from here with tonight would be to agree to complete the install underground so that there's no damage to the fire hydrant, complete that action while there is long-range planning going on.

And in I'm sorry, Mr.

Scheckler, you are or Councilman Scheckler, you're new to this one.

Uh the real problem, and I and I want to go all the way back, apart from the issue with the water line.

If you go farther back than that, it goes back to the highway district.

And the real problem here is the highway district.

So if you're familiar with Potlatch Hill Road, yeah.

Where it turns into what we'll call the uh unimproved portion, we call dirt.

That was acquired from my grandmother in 1955 with East Side, well, and it was before it was East Side.

I probably Courtalane Highway District, I don't know.

The highway district took it whoops for the reason that it was going to have an egress on the hill, a second egress at Silver Beach.

Since then that's been kicked down the can, and Eastide's saying not only can they not improve the road and won't improve the road, but they won't put in the second egress because ITD raised the freeway.

So this has been a constant finger pointing.

I have been to more East Side Highway District meetings than I have been to City Council meetings.

Uh and and while we've discussed this several times, still more with East Side Highway District.

Eastside Highway District is the reason that the road can't come into the city, which is the reason why the water line, which we paid for all the engineering, the big water main to come up the unimproved road to put the fire hydrants in.

Eastside is the reason that that's not in there.

So it it's this is going to be years in the resolution, I'm afraid.

Dan Scheckler.

Thank you.

I I want to get you the good neighbor agreement that you need.

What I have before me is the good neighbor agreement that was proposed that you haven't seen.

And what I'm concerned about is I'm a lawyer by trade, so what I think of an agreement, I think it's words.

It's the terms and conditions contained in the document.

It's the commas, it's the paragraphs, it's everything in the document.

And I guess what I want to know is what are the precise terms of the good neighbor agreement that you want, and can you propose that to us or change this document given some time so that there's a a motion we could make that could then adopt a good neighbor agreement.

I mean, I just don't want to adopt a good neighbor agreement that's in front of me if it's not the good neighbor agreement you want.

I certainly, and I appreciate that.

Um where I'm going to take point on that is that the planning department has pointed the finger and said that I am supposed to come to the table and negotiate fairly and in good faith, and yet it is the city and the department heads sends Mr.

Maureen that have changed the terms of the agreement every time we get to the end of the field.

So it is a little frustrating to have it called upon me to negotiate in good faith when there are others that have failed to do so.

What would you like from us tonight?

I don't want any heads on the pikes.

I would like to get our water connection complete.

I would a future wise love to annex to the city of Court Olaine.

Again, my biggest problem is it is millions of dollars to change that road.

And uh unfortunately, while I have a gorgeous view, it came with zero dollars.

It it didn't come with pre-barreled oil, as we often joke about.

It didn't come with any amenities.

In fact, it came with an outcast.

Would it be okay if we uh basically uh directed staff to provide you with a water connection and then to work with you to negotiate a future annexation agreement?

That would be lovely.

Okay.

That would be the I would make that agreement.

But in the interim, you have the water connection, so that takes the good neighbor agreement out of this completely.

Well, I think you I'm I don't I'm not an attorney, but I think you have to have the good neighbor agreement, although I did pay for that fire hydrant, and the agreement when we annexed our North Four Acres into the city was that we could continue in a kind fashion to move forward towards an agreement of water and sewer to my residents.

So because council does have I mean the the thing that was proposed in the packet uh it's not required to be adopted.

We can we can direct them to provide or to work with Jenny for an agreement going forward without having to delay it any further.

And that would be my concern.

I mean, obviously you can tell from the story, and if you read the narrative, that there's been a lot of delays and a lot of lane changes in this entire process and and um Yeah.

I just want to be clear that what we're doing, though, is saying we're directing staff to negotiate an annexation agreement, give them their water service in the meantime, but that annexation agreement is going to deviate completely from our normal annexation policies.

It would be a I don't know, Hillary, how would how would you move forward with this, not knowing that it's not technically an annexation agreement, it's a pending one, or it's something that could happen in the future, a requirement.

I think your challenge is just how this the city code and state statutes related to annexation.

So this is really it's better kind of under this other agreement format.

Um I did look through my documents and the the document that is in your packet, while it has today's date is verbatim to what you received in December, December 11th.

So I do have that in here.

And Ms.

Tate at the time did send back on the 12th of December changes to the agreement, adding where she disagreed and where the city should be paying for fees or giving credits and things like that.

So we did not come to agreement at that time.

I don't think you responded other than to say that it was pulled off council agenda.

No option to discuss it came forth after that point.

I kind of remember that.

And we did have meetings since then with the mayor with you as well, so and Troy, just to kind of work through what were the what is the path forward because we were kind of at that impasse.

But I I'm not sure it's probably Randy might want to speak to what kind of agreement.

We need some kind of agreement probably to provide the water service.

The good neighbor is the best format we have, but it sounds like we may need to work through some of the provisions of the agreement language.

But I don't think an annexation agreement is going to work with she's not ready to annex.

Um if I could wave a wand and have Eastside Oh, sorry.

If I could wave a wand and Eastside Highway District would fix the road and bring it up to code, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

And in Troy did bring uh Ben Weymouth from Eastide Highway District, the director into a meeting with us where Ben explicitly said when someone died on the road they would consider fixing it.

So that is East Side's position.

It's government.

So you can see that this isn't, and I guess I'm trying to make it clear.

It is not something that I have not tried to deal with.

I've been from county to east side to the city for 30 years.

Yeah.

As well as when things really get fun, they throw in Panhandle Health District.

So it has been an incredibly educational time, which has cost it a great deal of money.

Uh, but ultimately I I can't disagree with Hillary that we're we're at an impasse.

I can't put down this water main that I got to pay for the engineering for down the unimproved road because it belongs to the county to Eastside Highway District is actually who it belongs to, or under their maintenance, who refuses to do anything about it.

Yeah.

And this is this is why I mean I admire you for not giving up because most people would just basically say to heck with it.

So but Dan Scheckler does have a question.

The the email you responded back to her where there were some changes or suggest some suggested changes to the language of the good neighbor agreement.

Yes.

Um would you be willing to share with us what those changes were?

I'm afraid I don't have that in front of me.

I mean, I'm happy to share it with you at a later date, but I I don't have it with me.

Um I wish I could answer that question.

Kiki.

Mr.

Mayor is a follow-up to to that suggestion.

Would it be would it be a feasible plan to have staff sit down with you, draw up in that good neighbor agreement where the sticking points are with each of your possible resolutions to those and let council view that in a staff report?

I I This has happened multiple times.

It's got to get to an end eventually.

We do.

I'm kind of like, I I I'm afraid Ms.

Miller, I've been down that road before.

And as I read the staff report today, it didn't reflect some of the dis properly, some of the discussions we had, or at least half the room's interpretation of what was discussed.

Um meanwhile all the concessions are asked to be made on my part when in fact I've already did my part.

I already annexed my North Four Acres.

I already and I already paid for a fire hydrant.

That fire hydrant is less than 250 feet from any structure on my property.

Although, you know, I I understand the firemen don't want to run a hose down the side of the hill, but it is, in fact, less than 250 feet from my structures.

I am geologically cannot change the where the road sits because that's the way the land lies.

Um I don't know.

I I don't know how we could come up with something that sticks into the future, and I and I certainly did not say I did not want to annex, and that is exactly why I have a problem with this staff report.

It says I refused or I didn't want to, or I changed my mind.

I never changed my mind about wanting to annex.

I simply said that I can't move the road.

And I simply said that years ago we came to agreement with Mr.

Pickle, and he directed our engineer, uh, his pick, he got to pick the engineer to resurvey the road.

So Meckle came out to survey the road, and we paid for the engineering firm to draw what it would cost to put to bring that water main up the road, and we got that far, and then we submitted to put that in.

Now that at the time was about 250,000.

Not I mean, to get the install done at the time.

Only to send a request to Mr.

Thomason and Mr.

Pickle to have it turned down.

So I I'm at a real loss as to how many more things are y'all gonna ask me to pay for.

Kiki.

So I'm just going to back, circle back to my question.

Is it feasible for you to take the current good neighbor agreement, which you had some response some questions back to around December, five months ago.

Sit down with staff and between the two parties, create a comparison report of what you want to see in it versus what staff says is they're capable or able to put in it so that we have all the facts in front of us when we're trying to make a decision on what to do for you.

Considering they haven't responded to that email other than to say they pulled our item off the agenda, and mind you, when they sent me that letter, I had less than 48 hours to respond and get it in front of uh the city clerk so it could get to the packet.

Less than 48 hours.

I'm I'm I'm sorry, I'm not trying to be difficult.

I'm saying that this is the pattern of behavior that I encounter.

So when you what you ask of me seems very difficult because here we are, this is dated May, the other one was in December, they haven't come back to talk about it.

They haven't come back and say, here's a resolution, here's a workaround.

But meanwhile, if I don't take that water underground or finish the connection underground, there's a problem to the city water line.

We are lucky to have a light winner this year.

I I again it's a conundrum, and I think it's a two-piece, I think it's a two-part answer.

I think first we have to approve a water connection with Part B being future discussion, but I I can't tell you what East Side is going to do.

That's that always seems to be the sticking point, and I can't tell you what they're gonna do because no one's died yet on the road, according to them.

And I can't tell you who's gonna decide how they want to change their property.

Dan Sheckler.

What if we cut staff out of the loop?

And what if you came back to us in two weeks with your email from December that said what changes you wanted to make to this good neighbor agreement?

And you let us know exactly what changes are in dispute so that we can decide and and and move forward with this promptly at next council meeting.

A little nervous about cutting staff out of the loop because there are legal obligations we have.

And statutes we have to follow.

So good, Mr.

Mayor, if I may.

Sorry, uh no, Dan English was over reading.

Sorry.

As one more middle ground, what would you feel about having that meeting with the staff, but also a council member would be part of that, and I would be willing to volunteer.

I've known I know that proper lived here my whole life, but that would be then we'd have kind of a mixed party.

I'm I'm afraid we've gone that route before.

Christy.

Thank you.

Uh I I actually like Mr.

Scheckler's proposal that it's back to us within two weeks.

Um course staff would help guide us on what they think is appropriate versus what's actually doable for you.

And then we decide.

Um I I don't want to kick it down the road.

Here you are.

We finally got you here.

Um, but it looks like we still don't have all the information.

You still don't have all the information.

And if we're going to m to make a decision that doesn't bind you to something that could harm you in the future.

That's my biggest fear.

Then we probably need you to to give us that document that you gave to staff.

Kenny.

Ms.

Tate, I think I hope what you're hearing here tonight is we want to get this done for you.

And I think part of the reason we're asking for more information is not roadblocks is to protect you.

I mean, that's what I feel is we're trying to do is protect you, get you to the finish line, get you your water, but we don't want to sign something and you say, well, I didn't say that.

I think we want to get every all the information done so you're protected and we can move on.

And and I appreciate that.

I and I truly appreciate that.

I uh as you can imagine, struggle with some of the complications that have occurred during this arduous journey.

Um I have many times met with City, and there's several people in here that have heard me say that.

We've sat down and had agreements, and we go back to the table to get ready to sign, only to have different wording in the document.

So I guess I would say I am more than willing to do this, but I get to write it.

It it it keeps changing.

Uh and I have more than once walked out of a room saying this is not what we agreed to.

This statement is a lie.

And it it breaks my heart to say that of my city.

For those of you that don't know, my family has been here almost 150 years.

It breaks my heart to have to go through this.

I'd like to to make a motion to follow up on uh Mr.

Scheckler's proposal to that we put a timeline on this.

And we're back here in two weeks.

Um so my motion, Mr.

Mayor, is to table this for two weeks, give the Tate family time to come back with the information prepared for council to review that speaks specifically to the good neighbor agreement and future annexation and any expenses that um that seem exorbitant and not agreeable because this has been going on and on and on.

That would be included in the information brought to council for the next agenda.

Second.

You have that, Renata?

No, not exactly.

Kiki.

Any discussion on this motion?

Okay.

And Jenny, you're gonna work with staff.

Um if you send an email, make sure you carbon copy me on it so I can be in the loop and see what's going on.

Um question for staff.

You're given two weeks to come up with something.

Is this is this doable in your world?

I mean, it's an order from council, but I want to make sure that it's something that you're not gonna come back and say, Whoa, we're just we're not ready.

See, it seems like you guys are real close on a couple issues, and so I just want to and Kyle actually I I think the question is more for Hillary because this has to deal with the with a pending annexation.

And so you you know what what Jenny's told you in the past regarding things that she's requested.

How is this gonna work for you in two weeks?

I think it's not just planning.

I think this would need to be water and legal as well as planning.

Um and potentially fire, but in the document that I have that Jenny had sent back that she had initialed all the changes she had made, we have all that from before, so we could sit down and look at the two documents and kind of figure out what those changes need to be to bring it back to you.

So I I think the two weeks is doable.

Randy, do you have any conflicts?

No.

Um we can send you her response immediately.

Okay.

Um I do note that uh Woody and Joy met with her on January 29th to discuss her changes.

Okay.

Very good.

All right.

So we have a motion on the table.

Any further discussion on this motion?

Okay.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

The motion carries.

Thank you.

And thank you, Ginny, for your continued patience and hopefully we're like right at the end.

Sure hope so.

Thank you.

Appreciate it.

Thank you.

Thank you, Stephen.

All right, we're gonna move on to item H 7, which is resolution number 26043, approval of an amendment to the collective bargaining agreement with local 710 regarding Article 8 entitled staffing.

Staff report by our interim fire chief Bill DeWriter.

Billy, good evening, Mayor and Council.

So, as of April 1st, the Cootney County EMS system uh funded another day for our Medic 34 car.

So now we're staffing our Medic 34 car Monday through Friday.

So that increases our minimum staffing to 19 during those days.

KCMSS has also agreed to staff or to fund Medic 34 as of October 1st for the full seven days.

So this amendment to this article is to capture both of those.

So we're not back here at the end of the year changing that amendment again or changing that article again.

Um we're hiring more coming up to go through the academy this fall to cover the extra three people that are needed to staff that ambulance uh for the full seven days a week, 24-7.

And that uh is anticipated to be as of January 1 of 2027.

Makes sense.

Any questions for Bill?

Yes, Kenny.

Just real quick, as part of the is on to KCEMS, they did commit, as Bill said to paying for this into perpetuity.

And I think I appreciate more anything you bringing this up because you don't get to do it twice.

So thank you.

Very good.

Any other questions?

Mr.

Mayor, I would make a motion to approve resolution 26-043, approving an amendment to the collector bargaining agreement local 710 regarding Article 8 entitled staffing.

Second.

Any discussion on this motion?

Roll calls, please.

English?

Yes.

Wood?

Yes.

Evans, yes.

Sheckler?

Yes.

Miller, aye.

Gabriel.

Yes.

Motion carries.

Moving on to item H 8, Council Bill 26 1008, approval of repeal of municipal code 564 entitled amusement machines and arcades.

And Renata is going to be doing double time here.

If you don't mind, I'll just present really quickly from here.

Uh this is mostly a housekeeping item.

Um, it's a code that's been on our books since 1982.

If you remember the days of arcades where all the kids hung out.

So I think it was really just a code that the city enacted to try and protect youth and have some sort of oversight.

Um really just isn't uh any sort of business license we've issued for over 15 years.

Um we haven't seen a need for this section, so it's really just kind of a cleanup.

Other cities that have something similar, like the Dave and Busters over in Spokane Valley, Triple Play over in Hayden.

Uh they don't have any regulations for those type of business, they just treat them as a normal commercial business.

Um so staff is recommending a repeal of this section.

Yes, it was uh funny when I read this in the code um because uh back in the 1940s they would license pinball machines.

And that's where it came from.

And and I uh asked Kelly Setters, I said, so when was the last time you issued a an amusement device uh license?

And she's like never.

And I said, should we get rid of it?

And she's like, yes.

So that's how we got here.

Any questions for Renata?

Any people play pinball here?

Space invaders, anything?

Oh, you do, you play pinball.

Very good.

Okay.

Well, given that there's no questions, we could look for a motion.

And this is uh this is a um code amendment, so we have to start with uh with changing uh the um the word.

I would make a motion to dispense with the rule and read council bill number 26-1008 once by title only.

Second.

Okay, motion and a second.

Any discussion.

I'll uh we'll do a roll call.

Wood?

Yes.

Evans.

Yes.

Sheckler.

Yes.

Miller.

Hi.

Gabriel.

Yes.

English.

Yes.

Motion carried.

Clerk will read the title.

Council Bill number twenty-six one zero zero eight.

An ordinance of the city of Court Lane, Cooteny County, Idaho, repealing Court Lane Municipal Code, Section Five.

So we'll now take a motion to adopt the council bill.

Mr.

Mayor, I move to adopt Council Bill twenty-six dash one zero zero eight.

Second.

Any discussion on the motion?

Very good.

Roll call.

Wood?

Yes.

Evans.

Yes.

Sheckler.

Yes.

Miller.

I Gabriel.

Yes.

English.

Yes.

Motion carry.

We're off to item I, which is an executive session.

We'll look for a motion to enter an executive session to communicate with legal counsel for the public agency to discuss legal ramifications and legal options for pending litigation or controversies, not yes, litigated, but imminently likely to be litigated.

So move.

Actually, you have to read this.

I have to read what you just read.

This is okay.

Motion and a second.

Any discussion?

Roll call, please.

Evans?

Yes.

Sheckler.

Yes.

Miller.

I Gabriel.

Yes.

English?

Yes.

Wood.

Yes.

Motion is carried.

We are in executive sessions.

Thank you.

Okay.