SANDPOINT — City councilors met briefly Oct. 2 for a regular meeting examining proposed changes to Sandpoint’s new user facility fees.  

In an effort to promote equity for developers of all sizes and reduce Sandpoint’s administrative burden, all present councilors voted to shift back the timeline for NUFF payments and eliminate the extended payment plan option for fees over $100,000.  

Before votes were cast, city engineer Brandon Staglund broke down the proposed two-part revision to Sandpoint City Code.  

The first component of the amendment revised the schedule of fee payments. Prior to the Oct. 2 meeting, developers paid NUFFs — upfront fees charged when new buildings join Sandpoint’s water and sewer systems — at the time the building permit was issued. Now, that timeline is extended, and developers will pay before the utility service is activated.  

“This is not about the cost of them or the amount,” Staglund said of the change. “It’s just about when you pay them.”  

According to Staglund, the revision will help small developers by reducing upfront cost barriers that can be inhibitory. During the public comment period of the meeting, Gottfried Tabert, a local builder, spoke in support of the change.  

“I think it would be beneficial for a builder and everybody,” Tabert said.  

Staglund also noted that while the new system’s timeline will delay revenue for the city, it will not change the amount Sandpoint receives.  

The second component of the rewrite ended Sandpoint's practice of offering extended payment plans for developers launching large projects. Prior to the vote, new developments with a NUFF exceeding $100,000 had the option to pay the fee over a five-year period.  

The primary motive for the change, according to Staglund, was to improve Sandpoint’s cash flow and reduce the administrative burden that comes with managing payment plans. He also told councilors the policy change would mitigate Sandpoint’s risk of payment defaults, but that it could hinder large-scale developments in the city.  

Sandpoint’s extended payment plan for property owners transitioning from septic systems to the city’s sewer network remains unchanged.  

Before the council examined NUFFs and City Code, Councilor Kyle Schreiber voiced concern about adherence to parliamentary procedure in recent council meetings, citing events occurring during a Sept. 18 meeting. 

During that meeting, councilors examined a proposed resolution to authorize a grant application seeking state funds to build an asphalt pump track in Sandpoint. After hearing a presentation from Community Planning and Development Director Jason Welker and public commenters voicing support and opposition to the application, Mayor Jeremy Grimm, who was the meeting’s presiding officer, entertained a motion to approve the resolution. 

Schreiber then asked Grimm to open deliberation — a move vocally supported by Councilor Pam Duquette — and explored potential revisions to the application’s description. Duquette then voiced concerns and explored alterations until she was interrupted by Grimm, who called the question and initiated a roll call vote.  

After Councilor Joel Aispuro expressed confusion during the roll call vote, Grimm told Aispuro, “I’m using my procedural authority to call for the vote.” Grimm added, “I think both council members have expressed themselves. I’d like to see where this vote goes.”    

Schreiber stated during the Oct. 2 meeting that under Robert’s Rules of Order, the guidebook used for Sandpoint City Council meetings, calling the question requires a second from a board member and a two-thirds vote to end debate.   

“It’s not something the presiding officer can unilaterally force onto council, and in fact, the presiding officer doesn't even have the ability to make a motion,” Schreiber said.  

Schreiber also criticized what he described as “the pattern of behavior of bringing incomplete bid packages missing critical components to mask the true cost of a project” along with approving change orders for work that had already been completed prior to a council vote to approve the change order.  

“I would ask, ‘Please, can we just follow the proper procedure from now on?’” Schreiber said during the Oct. 2 meeting.  

Council President Deb Ruehle, who served as the presiding officer Oct. 2 while Grimm attended the meeting remotely, told Schreiber, “I would suggest that you sit with law and the mayor and further that discussion, and if you have more to bring forward to us, then please do.”