McCall council to review public‑hearing rules after resident asks that public be allowed surrebuttal

Marsha Woody, a McCall resident, asked the City Council to amend the city’s public hearing procedures so members of the public can offer a final rebuttal if new information is introduced during an applicant’s rebuttal.

“I am here to request that a surrebuttal opportunity be provided to the public as part of McCall's public hearing process,” Woody told the council, citing Idaho Code 67‑6534 and a recommendation in the Givens Land Use Handbook. Woody proposed adding language to McCall City Code — she referenced “section 3.15 o 4 ks” in the meeting packet — to say, quote, “affected persons of the public shall also be given an opportunity to address final comments to the commission or council,” end quote.

Forrest, McCall’s city manager, summarized the state statute for the council and said the statute requires an opportunity to present and rebut evidence but does not prescribe a specific sequence. “The state statute doesn't dictate specifically the structure or process of a city's public hearing procedures,” he said, and described existing local practice where staff and the applicant may respond after public testimony but the public is not currently given a separate surrebuttal opportunity.

Bill Punkenny, city attorney, told the council the city’s procedure has not been adjudged unlawful but agreed the ordinance dates to February 2006 and “a thoughtful review would be ideal.” Punkenny said one option would be to add explicit language allowing interested parties to respond if new issues are raised on rebuttal, while retaining an applicant’s right to the final word on their own application because the applicant holds the primary property interest.

Council members debated the balance between ensuring the public feels heard and keeping hearings timely and manageable. Several members said they have seen public speakers feel their remarks were not addressed when new material surfaced later in an applicant’s presentation. One council member said the city should consider a mechanism to permit rebuttal for newly raised or incorrect information without enabling repetitive or interminable commenting from large crowds.

Council direction: Council asked staff and the city attorney to draft options for amending the code to make procedures clearer, to preserve fairness and manageability, and to return to the council with draft language and recommendations. The code reference published online appears to show the last amendment in February 2006; staff will include that history in the review.

No ordinance amendment was adopted at the meeting; the council’s action was a direction to staff to return with options for possible code changes.