Sentinel Media records · public agendas and minutes, text only, refreshed nightly from each body's own site · not a newspaper
minutes meeting date 2026-06-02 · fetched 2026-09-17 · 15879 characters · official file · plain text
CITY OF BLACKFOOT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FROM JUNE 2, 2026 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Stufflebeam called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Those in attendance were: Councilwoman Barlow, Councilman Brown, and Councilman Gardner. Councilman Jensen was absent. AMENDED AGENDA Councilwoman Barlow made a motion to amend the agenda to include closure of East Main Street and the fireworks permit applications waiting for approval. Councilman Brown seconded; all were in favor; motion carried. CONSENT AGENDA Councilman Brown made a motion to approve the Consent Agenda as outlined. Councilman Gardner seconded the motion; all were in favor; motion carried. CITY ADMINISTRATOR/CFO GRAHM ANDERSON TREASURERS REPORT City Administrator/CFO Grahm Anderson presented the Treasurer’s Report for April 30, 2026. He reviewed departmental expenditures, investment balances, and provided project updates. He stated that July 7th would be the meeting date for the tentative budget proposal for FY27; the hearing would be held July 28th and then at the August City Council Meeting, he would propose the final FY27 budget for approval. No Council action was required. ADOPTION OF UPDATED ENGINEERING STANDARDS CFO Anderson presented the updated Engineering Standards for the City. Councilman Brown made a motion to approve the updated engineering standards. Councilman Gardner seconded the motion; all were in favor; motion carried. (These standards are available on the City Website https://www.cityofblackfoot.org/280/Community-Development, or at City Hall, 157 N Broadway, Blackfoot, ID 83221) FIRE DEPARTMENT PINNING CEREMONY – CAPTAIN BRANDEN WALL Captain Wall recognized and swore in Jayce Gardner and Brigham Johnson as first-class firefighters. No Council action was required. IAFF UNION AGREEMENT Councilwoman Barlow made a motion to approve a one-year extension of the current IAFF agreement. Councilman Gardner seconded the motion; all were in favor; motion carried. EAST MAIN STREET CLOSURE Councilwoman Barlow spoke about the proposed street closure for a street dance during Music in the Park on June 24, 2026. Councilwoman Barlow made a motion to approve closure of East Main Street, from Judicial to Court, on June 24 from 4:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. Councilman Brown seconded the motion; all were in favor; motion carried. FIREWORKS PERMITS A motion was made by Councilman Gardner to approve submitted fireworks permits and authorize the Mayor to approve additional applications. Councilman Brown seconded the motion; all were in favor; motion carried. PLANNING & ZONING – HIGHLAND HEIGHTS City Attorney Garrett Sandow summarized the Findings of Facts and Reason Statements for each of the two Motions to Reconsider on the Highland Heights PUD; Councilwoman Barlow motioned to approve findings and reason statements for the first motion to reconsider; Councilman Brown seconded; all were in favor; motion carried. Councilman Brown motioned to approve findings and reason statements for the second motion to reconsider; Councilwoman Barlow seconded; all were in favor; motion carried. FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS AND RESOLUTION (REASONED STATEMENT) ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BLACKFOOT June 2, 2026 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: At the duly scheduled meeting of the City Council of the City of Blackfoot on May 5, 2026, the Council considered the Motion to Reconsider filed by Heather McPhie, AshLee Bradshaw, Sherilynn Goodworth, and DeAnne Muchow (“Patrons”) regarding the proposed Highland Heights Planned Unit Development near Highland Drive. The basis for the Motion to Reconsider is set forth in a written Motion filed on April 20, 2026. After hearing the staff report of the Planning Administrator, reviewing the relevant City Code, reviewing State Code, reviewing the recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission, and reviewing documents and the overall record submitted by the City, by the applicant and by any other interested parties, the City Council hereby adopts the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions (Reasoned Statement). Each of the numbered contentions in the Motion to Reconsider will be dealt with as presented in the Motion. 1. Action Taken During Pending Appeal and Mandatory Stay. The basic allegation in this paragraph is that the “appeal” of the P&Z recommendation should have moved forward to Council. The Patrons cite to the Open Meeting Act for a definition of a meeting, which includes “final decision.” Minutes at the P&Z meeting show that P&Z made a recommendation to the City Council to approve the Highland Heights PUD Application. Simply put, the Patrons are misapplying the term “decision.” When looking to the Open Meeting Act, the definitions are specifically and only for that title. In Idaho Code 74-202, it indicates those definitions are “for this title” - the Open Meeting Act. However, this is not an applicable definition under the Local Land Use Planning Act (LLUPA). Under LLUPA, all meetings must be open to the public, and so the legislature was not concerned about defining what constitutes a meeting. Idaho Code 67-6504. Also, and more importantly to this point, under LLUPA the P&Z recommendations are considered advisory, and are not “final decisions.” There are distinctions of a recommendation versus a decision throughout many sections. For example: a. Idaho Code 67-6519(2) discusses the P&Z shall have a reasonable amount of time before making a recommendation or decision on an application. b. Idaho Code 67-6520 discusses when a hearing examiner is used for public hearings they must submit their recommendation or decision in writing. c. Idaho Code 67-6511 discusses how P&Z makes a recommendation and Council may adopt or reject those findings in a zone change. d. Idaho Code 67-6535 dictates a motion to reconsider after a “final decision.” Idaho Case law also recognizes that recommendations of P&Z are not considered a “decision.” In Johnson v. Blaine County, 204 P3d 1121, 146 ID 919 (2009), the Idaho Supreme Court defines a “final decision” as one where a developer has obtained approval to move forward on the project. On a PUD, the developer doesn’t obtain approval to move forward until Council has made a decision. The developer does not have any approval based upon a recommendation. Our Blackfoot City Code is consistent with Idaho Code. Under 11-3-7(B)(1) any decision of P&Z can be appealed to City Council. Then, any decision of City Council is subject to a Motion to Reconsider and potentially judicial review. 11-3-7(D). The emphasis is on the word “decision.” When P&Z makes a recommendation, the final decision maker is the City Council. It doesn’t make sense to appeal a recommendation, when it goes to City Council for final determination or decision anyway. In sum, the recommendation of P&Z is not an appealable “decision.” The proper procedure was followed by not allowing an appeal of a recommendation. 2. Mandatory Conditional Use Permit Procedure Were Not Followed. In this allegation, the Patrons argue that a Conditional Use Permit application and procedure must have been followed, in addition to the Planned Unit Development Process which was followed. The argument is simply not correct and only one application process is required. When an application is made for a project, many times those projects might cross lines between two different areas of code. Highland Heights is a prime example. However, the CUP process and the PUD process are essentially the same. Notice is given, a public hearing is held at the P&Z level, a recommendation is made to Council, and Council then makes a decision. There is no reason to require two separate applications when the process is largely the same. Idaho Code 67-6522 specifically allows this practice as follows: “Where practical, the governing board or zoning or planning and zoning commission may combine related permits for the convenience of applicants.” It was not error for the City P&Z Department to combine related permits. 3. Misuse of Reconsider Procedure to Alter Zoning Without Required Process and 4. Break in Procedure Continuity Undermining Current Approval In these two paragraphs, the Patrons claim the City violated the Motion to Reconsider when zoning the property at issue. And therefore, the current zoning shouldn’t be considered. The Zoning on this parcel was complete in 2024. A motion to reconsider objecting to the change in zoning at that time was not filed in a timely manner and therefore cannot be considered by the City at this time. 5. Failure to Provide Required Large Scale Development Subdivision Information. Essentially, the Patrons are requesting additional information for a Large Scale Development. The Patron’s request to consider the original PUD application as a Large Scale Development is outside of the scope of the motion to reconsider. This was not an argument brought up at the earlier public hearing. Furthermore, the Staff Report provided does not identify this as a large scale development. The Staff Report indicates that all services are already present and that no further improvements are necessary outside of the project itself. There are no costs associated or obligated to the City. For these reasons, the proposed development is not classified as a large scale development. 6. Inadequate Opportunity for Meaningful Public Testimony. The Patrons argue in this paragraph that they weren’t given enough time. Patrons were given time in two separate public hearings to submit testimony in favor of, neutral, or against the proposed PUD. Both Idaho Code and Blackfoot City Code allow the Chairperson to allot the time allowed for each speaker. See Blackfoot City Code 11-3-6(D)(2) and Idaho Code 67-6509. It appears the Patrons did have a meaningful opportunity to present their evidence. 7. Material Deficiencies in the Approved PUD. In this paragraph the Patrons allege there are deficiencies in the facts presented to the P&Z Board. All of the claimed items were covered in the Staff Report by the P&Z Administrator. All of the information in the Staff Report came from the Department Supervisors for each functional area of the City. The Patrons do not proffer any factual or expert information to the contrary. The Patrons simply do not set forth any credible factual evidence that would prohibit this development from proceeding. Based upon the foregoing, it is Council’s determination that all proper procedures were fulfilled. Furthermore, the Motion to Reconsider and the record do not set forth any factual information that is contrary to the recommendations given by the City’s department heads. No applicant has provided any information as to how this development may negatively affect them or their owned properties. RESOLUTION AND CONCLUSIONS UPON MOTIONS DULY MADE, SECONDED AND CARRIED, IT WAS RESOLVED THAT: The City Council unanimously denies the Motion to Reconsider. These findings of fact, conclusions, and resolution formally were adopted by a majority vote of the City Council on June 2, 2026. ______________________________ City Clerk FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS AND RESOLUTION (REASONED STATEMENT) ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BLACKFOOT June 2, 2026 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: At the duly scheduled meeting of the City Council of the City of Blackfoot on May 5, 2026, the Council considered the Motion to Reconsider filed by Karen Schumacher, Derik Williams, Gerry Mathias, Laura Evans, and Brianne Williams (“Patrons”) regarding the proposed Highland Heights Planned Unit Development near Highland Drive. The basis for the Motion to Reconsider (“Schumacher Motion”) is set forth in a written Motion filed on April 20, 2026. After hearing the staff report of the Planning Administrator, reviewing the relevant City Code, reviewing State Code, reviewing the recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission, and reviewing documents and the overall record submitted by the City, by the applicant and by any other interested parties, the City Council hereby adopts the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions (Reasoned Statement). Many of the allegations are similar to the complaints made in the Motion to Reconsider filed by Heather McPhie, et al., (“McPhie Motion”) on the same date. The Council hereby adopts the Reasoned Statement issued in that Motion as if set forth in full herein. The other listed allegations will be dealt with in the same turn as set forth in the Motion. Most of the allegations in Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 5 of the Schumacher Motion to Reconsider revolve around claimed factual deficiencies regarding water studies, water capacity, traffic studies and similar items. No credible factual information is or has been presented by the Patrons evidencing any sort of deficiency. Each of the department heads of the City are experts in their fields based upon their training, education, licensure, etc. Each of the department heads have submitted their recommendations based upon the facts presented that the project complies with the City’s needs and codes. Without facts to the contrary, these claims are without merit. Paragraph 4 alleges failures in considering the appeal of the P&Z recommendation. This issue is dealt with in the McPhie Motion and those findings are adopted as if set forth in full herein. Paragraph 6 alleges deficiencies in requirements for a large scale development. The proposed plan submitted does not require improvements at the cost of the City and is therefore not a large scale development. Paragraphs 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11, all claim deficiencies for items that are not required by City Code. No factual basis is given for claiming these requirements apply or are necessary. Paragraph 12 is in regard to zoning matters that were completed in 2024. No administrative actions were taken at that time and are not appropriate to consider at this late date. Paragraph 13 alleges deficiencies in the Comprehensive Plan. No credible facts are set forth indicating any violations to the Comprehensive Plan. Paragraph 14 is similar to the combined permit issue raised in the McPhie Motion. The same analysis applies and as Idaho Code allows for a combination of permits, no violation has occurred. Paragraph 15 summarizes much of the foregoing. As stated above, the applicants do not set forth any factual basis for their complaints. Therefore, Council determines that no violations of procedure has occurred. Based upon the foregoing, it is Council’s determination that all proper procedures were fulfilled. Furthermore, the Motion to Reconsider and the record does not set forth any factual information that is contrary to the recommendations given by the City’s department heads. No applicant has provided any information as to how this development may negatively affect them or their owned properties. RESOLUTION AND CONCLUSIONS UPON MOTIONS DULY MADE, SECONDED AND CARRIED, IT WAS RESOLVED THAT: The City Council unanimously denies the Motion to Reconsider. These findings of fact, conclusions, and resolution formally were adopted by a majority vote of the City Council on June 2, 2026. ______________________________ City Clerk EXECUTIVE SESSION Councilwoman Barlow made a motion to enter Executive Session at 7:27 p.m., pursuant to Idaho Code 74-206(1)(c). On a roll call vote, all were in favor; motion carried. Councilman Brown made a motion to return to Regular Session at 7:46 p.m. On a roll call vote, all were in favor; motion carried. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 7:47 p.m. City of Blackfoot ______________________________ Mayor Scott D. Stufflebeam Attest: ______________________________ City Clerk Julie Conan Prepared by: Julie Conan
Text is extracted by machine from the official file linked on each page; the official file is the record. Sentinel Media, LLC.