City Council met in regular session on April 6, 2026, at 6:00 P.M. in the Council Chambers of City Hall.
Mayor Lester presided:
Councilmembers present:
Jared Andrews
Wyatt Perry
Amy Farris
Dylan Canaday
Gabriel Forsmann
Cody Edwards
City employees present: Chief Newman, Public Works Director Mager, City Administrator Kennedy and Attorney Jessup.
MINUTES: The meeting was called to order and the Council minutes of March 16th and March 27th were approved as presented by Councilor Canaday, second by Councilor Perry. Motion carried by a unanimous vote of the Council present.
VISITORS: Adam Rushold and David Watkins, J-U-B Engineers presented the Technical Review Draft of the Wastewater Facility Plan, with Levi Shoolroy attending online to answer questions. The majority of the plant is aging as it was built in 1987. The Phosphorus building was built in 2011 and the Solids Transfer Station and Dewatering Facility added in 2013. Adam and David addressed key issues at the plant as categorized below.
• Treatment plant history and layout
• Compliance with current and future permit limits
• Current condition of treatment plant
• Capacity concerns with existing system
• Alternatives analysis and recommended solutions
• Phasing plan and capital improvement plan
There have been five workshops since September 2024, which included J-U-B representatives, city staff, WWTP operators and Mayor Lester. These workshops reviewed the key issues at the plant and an evaluation of alternatives, which ended with the Technical Review Draft of the Wastewater Facility Plan. This plan as written has four alternatives with Alternative 4 as the recommended option based upon the Pairwise Analysis and scoring. These alternatives are outlined below.
Mayor Lester stated with the alternatives and the phased plan, it is scary because you are asking the residents for bonds every 5 or so years. The city bill is going to go way up and not everyone can afford it. Chillers also have monthly costs, which are very expensive.
Councilor Canaday asked if the new clarifiers would help reduce headworks flow. David stated they are two different systems. They would help with overall flow of the system. The equalizer basin was considered; however it is 2 million gallons of storage and the city was concerned about attracting birds so close to the airport. The costs to maintain the basin then get closer to the cost of new clarifiers. David stated clarifiers are something that are important for the system. I&I reduction should still be a focus. Mayor Lester stated the city most likely will never get rid of all I&I, due to multiple creeks in town and the old system was a septic system which water was plumbed into to make it work well. Many buildings downtown are plumbed into the sewer and there is nowhere else for it to go. Councilor Perry stated he didn’t see the city getting out of the $50 million option which is opposite to what he’d normally say; however, he felt the city should move forward and get feedback from DEQ. Councilor Edwards asked how many new homes will be supported. David and Levi stated approximately 421 people which is about 200 homes. Councilor Edwards asked if PFAS became an issue, does our plan address them. David stated most of what they are hearing is they are trying to tackling PFAS at the source. So if manufacturers can’t put it in, then we’ll see it less and less in the systems. If a mandate came quickly within 5 years, carbon filters would be an option.
It was clarified if the Council chose Alternative 4, they would approve the plan as presented. If they chose a different alternative, it would be revised to reflect the change.
On motion by Councilor Canaday, second by Councilor Farris to approve the Technical Review Draft of the Wastewater Facility Plan. Motion carried by a unanimous vote of the Council present. ROLL CALL VOTE: YES: Farris, Canaday, Edwards, Forsmann, Perry, Andrews. NO: none. RECUSED: none. The motion passed.
COMMITTEE REPORTS: The following committee reports were presented.
• ADMINISTRATOR TRAINING:
o Administrator Kennedy explained the difference between approving and accepting minutes. The Council uses “approve” on its own minutes because they were present at the meeting and could ensure they are an accurate record of the meeting. The Council “accepts” subcommittee minutes because they can’t testify to their accuracy. The council approves or denies recommendations or actions in the subcommittee minutes but not the actual minutes themselves.
o Administrator Kennedy explained the difference between recusal and abstention. Abstention is voluntary, a councilor simply chooses not to vote. It doesn’t require any conflict of interest, and the councilor can still sit with the other councilors and participate in discussion. Recusal is when there’s an actual conflict of interest. When a councilor recuses, they should voice their conflict, step to the audience, not participate in discussion or not vote. City code states every councilor must vote unless the Council excuses them, so in Grangeville’s situation, no councilor will abstain, they will only recuse.
• PLANNING AND ZONING MINUTES: On motion by Councilor Farris, second by Councilor Perry to accept the P&Z Minutes of March 31, 2026. Motion carried by a unanimous vote of the Council present.
o Decision on the variance application submitted by Mountain View School District to have a shipping container in the F Street setback.
Councilor Andrews stated as facility manager for school district he would recuse himself from the discussion and decision on this decision and also the next, which is the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for the school district.
City Administrator Kennedy stated at the P&Z meeting, she explained the council accepted P&Z’s recommendation and restrictions on having a storage container in zone A, contingent upon going through the variance to place it in the setback. The applicant forgot to attend the public hearing, so Kennedy read the application questions and answers for the commission and then provided the staff report that following the last P&Z meeting, staff found a survey in the area and Public Works Director Mager went on site to measure from the survey and determined the container would be approximately 1 foot in the setback. Attorney Jessup stated in addition, P&Z had the evidence that had already been presented at the prior hearing by the applicant, so that evidence could be considered for the decision, even though the applicant didn’t show up to the second hearing.
On motion by Councilor Farris, second by Councilor Perry to approve Mountain View School District #244’s variance to place a shipping container in the F Street setback. Councilor Edwards asked what the F Street setback is. City Administrator Kennedy stated it is 10’. ROLL CALL VOTE: YES: Farris, Canaday, Edwards, Forsmann, Perry. NO: none. RECUSED: Andrews. The motion passed.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: City Administrator explained these were the Findings from last meeting which were to place the shipping container in zone A. On motion by Councilor Farris, second by Councilor Perry to adopt the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Mountain View School District #244 variance to place a shipping container in Residential Zone A. ROLL CALL VOTE: YES: Farris, Canaday, Edwards, Forsmann, Perry. NO: none. RECUSED: Andrews. The motion passed.
CATERING PERMITS: On motion by Councilor Farris, second by Councilor Andrews to approve the catering permits as presented.
• Idaho County Veterans Outreach to cater the Grangeville Community Foundation Awards Event on May 7th from 4pm – 9pm at the Senior Center
• The Rib Guy & Gal to cater for the Grangeville USA Wrestling fundraiser on May 16, 2026 from 4pm to 11pm at the Eagles at 218 North C Street
ROLL CALL VOTE: YES: Farris, Canaday, Edwards, Forsmann, Perry, Andrews. NO: none. RECUSED: none. The motion passed.
BUDGET HEARING: On motion by Councilor Farris, second by Councilor Andrews to set September 8, 2026 as the budget hearing for 2026-27. Motion carried by a unanimous vote of the Council present.
GRANGEVILLE COMMUNITY FOUNDATION GRANT: City Administrator Kennedy explained Jerime Zimmerman applied for a Grangeville Community Foundation Grant for the Lions Park Softball Field project. He listed the school district as the sponsor; however the school’s policy does not allow them to sponsor a grant when it is not on school property. Since this project is on city property, it makes sense; however at $25,000 it will require opening the budget. Last year it cost approximately $250 to amend the budget, which did not include time. Previously, if outside groups wanted sponsorship, they let the city know before budget so it was
21. April 6, 2026
included in the budget for the following year. Mayor Lester stated during the upcoming budget sessions, the Council may need to consider having groups pay the costs to open the budget, if the groups fail to provide information to have it included during the budget process. Councilor Edwards asked if the city could just budget $100,000 annually for possible grants. Administrator Kennedy responded she wouldn’t know which department to add the funds to and didn’t recommend adding extra fluff to a budget. Councilor Perry stated most are good for community, but not at the detriment to the city. On motion by Councilor Farris, second by Councilor Perry to approve the request to sponsor the Grangeville Community Foundation grant for the Lions Park softball field project. ROLL CALL VOTE: YES: Farris, Canaday, Edwards, Forsmann, Perry, Andrews. NO: none. RECUSED: none. The motion passed.
The meeting adjourned at 7:34 P.M.
_________________________________
Wes Lester – Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________
Tonya Kennedy – Clerk
