LEWISTON — The Lewiston City Council conditionally approved an easement from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on Dec. 8 that the city needs to replace sewer infrastructure along Snake River Avenue, but the vote hinged on a disputed provision in the Corps’ draft that would require a recurring administrative fee.

Public works director Dustin Johnson said the easement is needed so the city can replace sewer lines ahead of planned road work next summer. "We're kind of up against the clock because that portion of Snake River Avenue is set to be replaced next summer," Johnson said, explaining why the timing matters.

City attorney Jennifer Tindall told the council the Corps included "Condition 24," which would impose a site-specific administrative fee every five years on easement recipients. "For cities and counties, it's a violation of the Idaho constitution to incur a debt beyond the current fiscal year," Tindall said, arguing the recurring-fee wording could obligate the city to multi‑year payments that it is not authorized to make. She said staff discussed an option to pay upfront for the 50‑year term and that, if negotiations succeed, the city would not pay more than $16,850 under the preferred approach; otherwise, she said she would return to council with options.

The Corps’ packet also lists an in‑kind consideration valued at $33,600 based on local projects and an appraisal. Tindall explained the Corps sometimes prefers in‑kind payments routed to the local district rather than cash to the national Corps account and said the appraisal-driven figure means the city must remit any shortfall if in‑kind contributions total less than the appraisal amount.

Councilor Klein moved to approve Resolution 2025‑54 "contingent upon successful resolution of condition number 24." The motion passed by voice vote.

What happens next: City staff and the city attorney will continue negotiations with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to revise or resolve Condition 24. If negotiations cannot reach the limits described by the city attorney, the council will be asked to revisit the easement offer.

Documents and packet references: Council members were directed to the easement packet (page 84 of the packet) and Exhibit C, which lists proposed in‑kind projects that together match the Corps’ appraisal.