Recap of Jan 27 City Council Meeting

Hi everyone! Here’s a slightly delayed recap from the January 27th Council meeting. We experienced some Zoom technical issues that prevented the session from being recorded, and unfortunately none of our recovery attempts were successful. We believe we’ve identified the root cause, so this shouldn’t happen again. In any case, below is my summary of how the meeting went.

General Meeting Notes

We heard two public comments:

• A request for information on how the City is preparing for the possibility of ICE activity in Cheney.
• Support for Cheney accepting the SAFER grant to help fund and staff the Fire Department.

We also heard two informational presentations:

• Sheriff Nowles and Sheldon Jackson discussed Spokane County’s regional shift from a Housing First approach to a Treatment First approach for addressing homelessness. This funding shift is to align the County to a recent executive order from President Trump. The County will be seeking participation from regional cities, including Cheney, through an MOU.
• Ben Brattebo and Derek Vilar from Spokane County presented a proposed West Plains Aquifer Protection Area (APA). If Cheney chooses to join the APA, Council would need to approve participation by mid‑March for the measure to appear on the August ballot for voter consideration. The projected cost per household for this APA would be about $22. Joining the APA would unlock funding for Cheney to use for things like filters on our City wells.

We unanimously approved two standard resolutions:

• Resolution F-461: It was discovered that no formal agreement has existed since 2004 between the City and Inland Power & Light allowing City/EWU fiber to be attached to Inland’s poles along I‑90. As a result, no pole‑use charges have been billed since 2004. Inland Power & Light agreed to limit the reconciliation payment to the past five years. This resolution approved the new agreement and the associated payment.
• Resolution F-462: The Light Department requested replacing a 2026 budget‑approved purchase of a Puller Trailer ($207,000) with a Vactor Trailer ($146,180.81), which meets a higher operational need and is less expensive.

Fire Department FEMA SAFER Grant

The first resolution on the agenda was unquestionably the main focus of the evening. Fire Chief Jenkins presented Resolution F‑459, requesting final approval to accept the SAFER grant that Cheney was awarded. This grant has come before Council several times over the past year, with required approvals at each major step of the process. Because some of the timeline was questioned by Councilmember Barthels, I want to begin by reviewing the history of this grant cycle to ensure everyone has the facts straight.

Grant Overview

The SAFER grant is a three‑year matching grant. Our application requested funding for four firefighters covered by the grant, plus a fifth firefighter funded by the City to demonstrate our commitment and investment. For the four grant‑funded positions, the cost share is 75% federal / 25% City for the first two years, shifting to 35% federal / 65% City in year three. By year four, the City would be responsible for the full cost of all positions, meaning we would either need to fully absorb those expenses or make difficult staffing decisions if funding was not available.

As with all federal funding, the grant comes with federal terms and conditions, which change over time. The current terms include a requirement that the accepting agency cooperate with ICE. Given ICE activities nationwide, the City has concerns about this condition and believes it conflicts with State law. Working with our City attorney, we drafted a legal response to accompany our acceptance letter outlining these concerns. There was a possibility that the federal government would reject our modified acceptance and decline to award the grant under those conditions.

Timeline

• June 10, 2025 - City Council Regular Meeting
  • Agenda | Minutes | Recording
  • A small $6,500 contract was pre‑approved by Mayor Grover (under the $10k threshold) to hire a fire‑grant specialist to write our SAFER grant application. This was shared with Council as an informational item.
• June 24, 2025 - City Council Regular Meeting
  • Agenda | Minutes | Recording
  • Resolution F-385: The completed SAFER grant application was brought to Council for approval to submit. All Councilmembers (including Councilmember Barthels) voted in favor, with the exception of Councilmember Overhauser, who voted no.
• October 14, 2025 - City Council Regular Meeting
  • Agenda | Minutes | Recording
  • Resolution F-421: Chief Jenkins returned to announce that Cheney had been awarded the SAFER grant and sought approval to accept it. Councilmember Barthels moved to defer the decision for 60 days and to request an extension to the original late‑October federal deadline. The goal was to give Council time to get through budget season and ensure confidence in the City’s ability to fund the required matching costs.
• November 12, 2025 - City Council Regular Meeting
  • Agenda | Minutes | Recording
  • Note: This meeting was moved to Wednesday to accommodate Veterans Day, and Councilmember Posthuma was unable to attend due to a conflict.
  • Resolution F-421: The acceptance deadline had been extended to November 24th, bringing the item back for decision. The vote among the six members present was tied 3–3: yes votes from LaBar, Nazzaro, and Belock; no votes from Overhauser, Schmidt, and Barthels. Mayor Grover broke the tie with a no vote, resulting in the grant being declined.
  • Note: Under RCW 35A.12.100, Mayors may not vote— even to break a tie—on matters involving the acceptance of a grant requiring matching funds or involving payment of money. It is unclear whether this vote was valid at the time. Ultimately, the issue became moot, as the grant was later able to return for reconsideration by the full Council in January.
    • "The mayor shall preside over all meetings of the city council, when present, but shall have a vote only in the case of a tie in the votes of the councilmembers with respect to matters other than the passage of any ordinance, grant, or revocation of franchise or license, or any resolution for the payment of money."
• January 13, 2026 - City Council Regular Meeting
  • Agenda | Minutes | Recording
  • Note: I am not sure how we were able to bring this item back for reconsideration.
  • Resolution F-459: FEMA granted another extension to January 31, 2026 and reopened our application to allow changes to our acceptance. Chief Jenkins again presented to the newly seated Mayor and Council, reiterating the importance of the grant and asking for approval to accept it. Councilmember Barthels moved to defer the vote to January 27th to allow additional time to answer questions about the City’s long‑term funding obligations. I seconded the motion and requested creation of a working group to help Chief Jenkins address those questions.
• January 23, 2026 - SAFER Grant Ad-hoc Working Committee Meeting
  • The working group convened to help Chief Jenkins prepare for the January 27th meeting and work through Council’s funding concerns. During this meeting, the idea emerged of hiring two firefighters without pursuing the grant versus hiring five with the grant.
  • Note: My understanding of the meeting comes secondhand, as I was not part of the working group. The group consisted of Councilmembers Barthels, LaBar, and Nazzaro, along with the Mayor and staff. Because this did not constitute a public meeting, no minutes or recording were required or produced.

The January 27th meeting brought us to another presentation from Chief Jenkins, this time focused on the financial plan for how the City could meet the required matching funds if we accepted the SAFER grant. Funding our share was really the final outstanding question in deciding whether to move forward.

As shown in Chief Jenkins’ handout, hiring two firefighters for three years without the grant would cost the City roughly $940,000, while hiring five firefighters for the same three‑year period with the grant would cost about $1.2 million. That’s only about $300,000 more over three years—or roughly $100,000 per year—to staff five firefighters instead of just two. For that relatively small additional investment, the increased staffing, coverage, and long‑term benefit to our Fire Department would have been significant.

I do wish these funding discussions had begun earlier—ideally when the previous Mayor first approved hiring the grant writer—but regardless, I genuinely appreciate the work Chief Jenkins put into identifying potential funding options once it became clear how critical that analysis was. Tracking down this level of detail isn’t really the Chief’s responsibility; it’s the Council’s role to manage the budget and determine how to secure the necessary funds. Even so, the Chief went above and beyond to help identify funding sources that could make the grant viable. Based on the numbers presented, the cost of hiring five firefighters with the grant for the first two years was nearly the same as hiring only two without it; only seeing an increase in year three. Either way, we would have needed to secure funding at that level.

When it finally came to a vote, the motion to accept the grant was rejected, with Councilmembers Hahn, Barthels, Posthuma, and Nazzaro voting against it. Councilmembers LaBar, Belock, and I voted in favor. I supported accepting the grant because, if we’re going to hire two firefighters regardless, we will be securing the funding needed. So for roughly the same cost, we could bring on five firefighters, improve coverage, and bring Cheney closer to recommended staffing levels. To me, that seemed like the responsible choice for public safety.

I can’t speak for anyone else’s vote, but I believe many of the “no” votes stemmed from long‑term funding concerns and a desire to secure future revenue before committing to staffing levels that require it.

At the end of the meeting, Councilmember Posthuma requested that work begin on a resolution to hire two firefighters without the grant. That work has been underway since then, and the resolution will be presented tonight, February 10th, for Council consideration. This resolution only authorizes the hiring; a budget amendment will follow once the funding details are finalized.

Wrap Up

If you’ve made it this far, thank you for sticking with me through a long post! I wanted to clearly outline the SAFER grant details because there have been many questions about why the grant was ultimately turned down. The last meeting also included some incorrect statements about the timeline and approval history, so I felt it was important to lay out the facts as clearly as possible.

I hope to see you tonight at our next Council meeting! As always, I encourage everyone to make your voice heard on important topics, like funding our firefighters, by providing public comment. It truly helps Council and City staff understand what matters most to you.