Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Procedures topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
McCall council asks staff to review public‑hearing code after public comment on surrebuttal rights
Summary
Following a public comment asking that the public be allowed a chance to rebut new evidence introduced at hearings, the McCall City Council directed staff and the city attorney to propose options to clarify the city’s public hearing procedures and alignment with Idaho statute.
A McCall resident asked the City Council to amend local hearing procedures to allow a public surrebuttal — a final chance for affected persons to respond if new evidence appears during applicant rebuttal — and the council asked staff and the city attorney to return with code revision options.
Marsha Woody told the council she reviewed Idaho Code and land‑use handbooks and believes McCall’s hearing rules should explicitly provide “an opportunity for affected persons of the public…to address final comments” after staff and applicants make final remarks. She cited Idaho Code (as printed in the council packet) stating hearing procedures must allow affected persons to present and rebut evidence.
City staff and legal view: City Manager Forrest (first name used in packet) and City Attorney Bill Punkenny told the council that the statute describes the need to allow affected persons to present and rebut evidence but does not prescribe a single hearing structure. Punkenny noted McCall’s existing procedures have not been judged unlawful but also observed the city’s code was last updated in 2006 and could benefit from a careful review.
Council direction and context: Council members said they have heard from speakers who felt they lacked an opportunity to respond if new information arose during hearings. Several councilors said they want a review that balances the public’s right to respond, the applicant’s need to close the record (the attorney noted the applicant typically has the last word), and practical limits on meeting time and fairness when many people speak. The council asked staff and the city attorney to draft options clarifying whether, and how, a surrebuttal or other procedural step could be added to McCall City Code.
Why it matters: The change would be procedural (how hearings are run) but could affect how public input is handled in contested land‑use applications and may reduce later legal challenges if the process more clearly documents opportunities to rebut newly introduced evidence.
Next steps: Staff and the city attorney will prepare proposed language and options for council consideration; no ordinance or final code change was adopted at this meeting.
Ending: Council framed the review as timely given more complex land‑use applications and the age of the current code and requested staff return with options that preserve fairness and meeting efficiency.
