Council orders review of public‑hearing procedure after resident requests surrebuttal right

Marsha Woody told the McCall City Council she wants the city to add an explicit surrebuttal step to land‑use public hearings so members of the public can respond to new evidence presented by staff or applicants after they have given testimony.

Woody read language from the meeting packet that she said quoted state law and referenced a land‑use handbook and a court matter. She asked the council to add a sentence to McCall City Code section 3.15.04.k that would say, in effect, “affected persons of the public shall also be given an opportunity to address final comments to the commission or council.”

Why it matters: land‑use hearings determine whether projects meet local rules and can affect neighbors’ property rights. Ensuring participants can respond to new evidence is a due‑process issue the city’s legal counsel and staff said merits clarification in the municipal code.

City Manager Forrest (identified in the meeting as the city manager) told the council the state statute quoted in the packet sets a high‑level requirement that hearings provide “an opportunity for all affected persons to present and rebut evidence,” but it does not prescribe an exact procedure. Forrest said McCall’s current practice — public testimony followed by staff and applicant responses — has generally aligned with the statute but that several other jurisdictions make the opportunity to respond to newly introduced evidence explicit in local code.

City Attorney Bill Punkenny said the city’s hearing process “has never been adjudged to be unlawful” and that, in his experience, McCall’s hearings have been fair. He noted the city code governing hearings was last revised in February 2006 and recommended a “thoughtful review” of the ordinance. Punkenny said one option would be to add language allowing interested parties to respond when new issues are raised during rebuttal while still giving the applicant the final word in most cases because the applicant typically has the greater property interest at stake.

Several council members described occasions when public speakers left the podium without a later chance to clarify or rebut material raised after they sat down. Council members asked staff for options that balance meaningful public engagement, fairness between applicants and neighbors, and the need to conclude hearings in a reasonable time.

Outcome: The council directed city staff and the city attorney to review the public‑hearing procedures, draft options (including language that would explicitly allow limited public response to newly introduced evidence), and return to council with recommendations. No ordinance change was adopted at the meeting.

Clarifying details: the packet cited a state statute (identified in the packet as “Idaho Code 67‑65‑34”); staff noted McCall’s hearing code was last amended in February 2006; the city attorney suggested codifying a response opportunity when new issues arise but retained that applicants often have the last opportunity to speak because of their property interest.

Next steps: staff will present code amendment options for council consideration at a future meeting.