top of page
Melissa Hartman
No Response
Answer to Question #1
Answer to Question #2
Answer to Question #3
Ann Swanson
Answer to Question #1
I oppose any fees that are found to be unlawful, but as a city councilor, I would want to understand the full legal and budgetary impact before calling for elimination. I’m not a lawyer, so I would rely on legal counsel and financial analysis to guide decisions like this. That said, if these fees are in legal jeopardy, I believe we should proactively plan for alternatives—especially to avoid a budget crisis that could affect essential services. Pocatello deserves a budget that is both responsible and resilient, and that means preparing for all possibilities.
Answer to Question #2
Until both communities clearly support the idea, I lean opposed to full consolidation. That said, Pocatello and Chubbuck are deeply intertwined, and we need to ensure the burdens of growth, infrastructure, and services are shared more equitably. I support efforts to collaborate on things like transportation, emergency services, and economic development to reduce duplication and avoid placing an unfair burden on Pocatello taxpayers. If future collaboration proves successful and the public supports it, we can re-evaluate the idea of combining into one city—but only with fairness and community input at the center.
Answer to Question #3
Yes. Transparency builds trust, and we need more of both in local government. While some lawsuits or accusations may lack merit, the public still deserves to know when serious allegations or issues arise—especially when they involve elected officials or city liability. Our current policies should go beyond minimum legal disclosure and reflect our city’s need to rebuild public confidence. As a council member, I would work to ensure Pocatello becomes a model for open, honest, and accountable governance.
Linda Leeuwrik
No Response
Answer to Question #1
Answer to Question #2
Answer to Question #3
Keven Lewis
Answer to Question #1
I’m concerned anytime a funding mechanism could be on shaky legal ground. If a court has ruled similar fees unlawful, we can’t afford to ignore that. But eliminating them overnight without a replacement plan could disrupt essential services like water and sanitation. We need a clear-eyed audit to understand which services depend on this revenue, and then explore safer, more transparent ways to fund them. Let’s guard every dollar like it’s our own—but let’s also protect the basics our residents rely on. Legal risk isn’t just a budget issue—it’s a trust issue.
Answer to Question #2
I have family in both Chubbuck and Pocatello, so I understand why this is a sensitive issue. But the reality is, Pocatello taxpayers are shouldering costs that benefit the whole region, and that imbalance isn’t sustainable. I’m not saying we merge overnight—but we need to start having honest conversations about shared infrastructure, emergency services, and long-term planning. A more equitable approach could save money and improve services for everyone. Let’s be pragmatic and explore where smart collaboration makes sense.
Answer to Question #3
Yes—transparency isn’t just a buzzword, it’s how we earn the public’s trust. I’ve knocked on hundreds of doors, and what I hear most is that people want a city government that’s open and accountable. That means sharing the hard stuff too, not just the ribbon cuttings. If the City is named in a lawsuit or an official is under serious scrutiny, the public has a right to know—within the bounds of the law. I even support the idea of turning part of City Hall into an open office space where councilors can meet residents face-to-face. We’re not here to hide—we’re here to serve.
Jeremy Marley
Answer to Question #1
I don’t support any fee that’s being used to quietly pull money out of where it doesn’t belong. If the courts already said something like this is unlawful, we should take that seriously and fix it — not find creative ways around it.
Our enterprise funds — water, sewer, sanitation — exist to serve the people who pay into them, not to backfill unrelated budgets. I support full transparency and the elimination of any fee that isn’t clearly justified, lawful, and explained to the public in plain language.
Answer to Question #2
Right now, I’m not happy with the relationship between Pocatello and Chubbuck. Some will disagree, and that’s alright — but Pocatello is not a teat for other communities in the county to draw from without giving back in kind.
I want to see our cities work together symbiotically, where both communities benefit and contribute equally. But at this stage, Pocatello has given much, and it’s time for us to regain our center of balance — strengthen our foundation, prioritize our own infrastructure, and restore local trust before we talk about merging identities or resources.
Answer to Question #3
Yes, I believe the public has a right to know when the City or its elected officials are involved in issues that could affect public trust — as long as confidentiality and legal boundaries are respected.
When leadership hides uncomfortable truths, it erodes trust. When we’re honest and upfront, even about tough situations, it shows integrity.
Transparency isn’t bad press — it’s responsible leadership. And if I’m elected, that’s the standard I’ll hold myself and the City to every day.
Stacy Satterfield
No Response
Answer to Question #1
Answer to Question #2
Answer to Question #3
Dakota Bates
No Response
Answer to Question #1
Answer to Question #2
Answer to Question #3
James Bucci
No Response
Answer to Question #1
Answer to Question #2
Answer to Question #3
Jim Young
Answer to Question #1
I support the elimination of the Right-of-Way fees because as a business owner in Pocatello, I understand the importance of operating our city under a solid legal foundation. When the interfund fees were ruled unlawful in Nez Perce District Court that should have set off alarm bells in our city. These fees have collected millions of dollars from Pocatello Residents since 2014. We’re putting the taxpayers at risk by potentially exposing our city to costly lawsuits down the line which potentially takes away funds better used elsewhere in our city. As someone from the business community, I believe in accountability and doing things the right way. We need city leadership that will address this issue head-on, eliminate these questionable fees, and find lawful ways to fund our city services. That's the responsible thing to do for Pocatello's residents and businesses.
Answer to Question #2
I oppose the "One City" notion right now. Listen, I get the allure of the idea—hypothetically, combining Pocatello and Chubbuck might gain efficiencies and perhaps cut out duplicative service. As a businessman, I am always looking for ways to be more efficient and cut out useless spending. But here's the reality, the public has already had their say on this. In 2020, Bannock County voters rejected even exploring the notion by a 53% no vote. Chubbuck residents specifically showed they didn't care. Democracy is important, and we need to respect what has been spoken by the people.
I've learned each city has its own unique culture, its own priorities, and its own way of getting things done. Forcing one through a merger when one community very clearly does not want to isn't going to bring the cooperation and harmony we'd need in order to make it work. As a member of the business community, I believe that we must consider what Pocatello can influence and what it can do: get its own financial house in order, cut out illicit fees like ROW charges, and get our city government more effective and accountable. We don't have to consolidate with Chubbuck to achieve that—we just need some common-sense leadership and responsible governance. Let's get Pocatello right first. That's why I'm running.
Answer to Question #3
Yes, the public has a right to know. As a businessman, I've found that honesty generates trust. When something goes wrong, being honest with people is what saves credibility. The same is true in local government. When the City is sued, we taxpayers are on the hook for attorney fees and potential settlements. When a city employee is charged with outrageous behavior like sexual harassment, that undercuts the credibility of our government and potentially exposes us to liability. That's not small potatoes—it affects us directly in our community and our pockets. I am running because I believe it is my civic responsibility to ensure we have honest, transparent leadership on the City Council. That means speaking the truth to residents even if the message isn't a good one. Withholding facts that put the City or its officials in a negative light erodes public trust and prevents us from being able to hold our government accountable. Our business community knows that sunlight is the best disinfectant. We need city leadership that functions the same way—openly, honestly, and without hidden agendas. That's the kind of representation Pocatello needs.
Nate Kessel
No Response
Answer to Question #1
Answer to Question #2
Answer to Question #3
Carta Sierra
"Idaho Law/Idaho Lorax"
No Response
Answer to Question #1
Answer to Question #2
Answer to Question #3
Greg Cates
Answer to Question #1
I support the elimination of the “Right of Way” fees and here’s why:
For the past 10 years, City of Pocatello utility users have been charged over $11.5 million in disguised tax through unreasonable “Right of Way” fees. The mayor and city council have been asked directly by members of the public if these fees are legal, but they have yet to provide honest, straightforward answers. So, the question remains…are these ROW fees even legal?
Unfortunately, this would not be the first time our city government has included unlawful fees/disguised taxes within our user fees for city services. Many of you may recall the Hill-Vu class-action lawsuit that the City of Pocatello lost in 2018–19. That case exposed the “PILOT” fee scandal, wherein the city collected “unreasonable” user fees on water, sewer, and sanitation services from 2005 to 2014, resulting in a $4.5 million judgment against the City of Pocatello. In that case, the Supreme Court ruled the PILOT user fees were not reasonable, and the city was required to reimburse approximately 15,000 households.
So, where did these “Right of Way” fees even come from? Well, on the heels of the 11/15/13 injunction ordering Pocatello to cease collection of the PILOT fees, members of our city government, including Mayor Brian Blad and then City Councilman Steve Brown (the same Steve Brown who is currently running for mayor), conjured up this scheme to pad their budget while secretly removing your hard-earned taxpayer dollars from your wallets.
Since implementing “Right of Way” fees in 2014, the city has collected over $11.5 million in what’s being described as unlawful user fees from the citizens of Pocatello. And yes, these fees are still being collected today.
During recent budget hearings for FY2026, I watched as the mayor and city council approved a staggering $1,500,861 million in “Right of Way” fees that will, once again, be stripped from your pockets. It’s insane. They must know it’s wrong, but do they even care?
I sure do! And that’s why I support the elimination of the “Right of Way” fees.
Answer to Question #2
The idea of merging Pocatello and Chubbuck has resurfaced repeatedly, with supporters citing efficiency and opponents defending local control.
Proponents argue that combining the cities could eliminate duplicate services, reduce administrative costs and create consistent policies for zoning, development and public safety. They also believe a unified city could strengthen economic development efforts, increase eligibility for federal funding and present a more cohesive regional identity.
Opponents counter that Chubbuck would lose its independence and that financial savings are uncertain. Past studies, including a 2015 review of fire department consolidation, raised concerns about funding shortfalls. Critics also warn that Pocatello could assume Chubbuck’s debts and that differing community priorities could complicate governance. A 2020 advisory vote showed more interest in a merger among Pocatello residents than those in Chubbuck, highlighting the political challenges of uniting the two cities despite potential efficiencies.
I believe Pocatello must first focus on strengthening its own foundation. Our city faces pressing internal challenges; economic development, infrastructure, and leadership alignment, that need attention before considering major structural changes.
And past studies have shown uncertain financial benefits and logistical hurdles, and public sentiment remains divided. Rather than pursuing a merger, Pocatello should prioritize fixing what’s within its control, building stability, and getting the right people and plans in place to ensure long-term success.
Answer to Question #3
Absolutely. I believe transparency is a cornerstone of public trust. The public has every right to be informed about situations that could reflect unfavorably on the city and its elected officials. Hiding information only fuels speculation and erodes confidence in local government.
When issues arise, they should be addressed openly, honestly and with accountability. Transparency isn’t about avoiding difficult truths; it’s about confronting them directly, learning from them and ensuring that our community knows its leaders are acting with integrity.
As mayor, I will make sure that communication with the public is clear, timely and truthful, even when the news is uncomfortable because real trust can only exist when government operates in the light of day.
Mark Dahlquist
No Response
Answer to Question #1
Answer to Question #2
Answer to Question #3
Brian Blad
No Response
Answer to Question #1
Answer to Question #2
Answer to Question #3
Steve Brown
No Response
Answer to Question #1
Answer to Question #2
Answer to Question #3
Alana Leonhardy
Answer to Question #1
No one likes hidden fees, I support removing them. Part of transparency is simplifying billing. The city needs to represent all of its costs. The state department has to maintain an accessible asset management system its time the city does as well. I don’t think the city government should be running a pay to win game, complete with micro transactions. In a real market companies do this for short term fast revenue gain usually just before they toss it or re-brand. Here we don’t have a choice to switch cancel or switch. Its just a failed scam when public institution tries this. Rates for services should be easy to understand and transparent.
Answer to Question #2
I do not support merging Pocatello and Chubbuck into one city. Personally I feel, the more your tax dollars move away from you, the less representation and effect you have when they are spent. When you are taxed your wealth is taken away and ideally given back in some service. You really don’t want fewer people and more agendas picking who gets that wealth back. If it never leaves your area it always comes back. You run the risk as Chubbuck, of Pocatello taking all your wealth for themselves.
The argument for doing a takeover really comes down to having a deeper shared pocket to spend and manage from. You can do larger projects this way, but nothing is stopping that from happening now. The two cities can work together while maintaining representation.
I am also not a politician. I am a business owner. Having two sets of ordinances competing for my investment is a good thing.
My opinion aside, I wanted to look into this one a little more. This was a deep concern to one of my friends and honestly I wasn’t here last time this question was posed 2020 or succeeded partially 1962. Most recently it was asked as an advisory question in 2020. I only saw one article by ISJ stating county wide 53% opposed 47% for; in the county. I looked into the rolls because I wanted city numbers. I had to put them together myself so attaching rolls and my spreadsheet. By population Pocatello was 53.7% for, Chubbuck was 29%. Only 1 of Chubbuck’s districts made majority for this out of 11. In 1961 there was actually 3 cities. Alameda, Idaho was one. Chubbuck again didn’t vote to join and Alameda did by 68 votes. Under Idaho law at the time the new city is created under the ordinances and name of the larger party(Take Over). Alameda vanished 1962. It was an interesting transition with the Mayor of Alameda going to be congressman and the former residents not doing so great. I recommend others looking into this history before considering it. The story firmed my resolution that it is not a good idea. Chubbuck keep voting strong!
Answer to Question #3
You mention public being made aware of situations. I probably should ask for more clarification on this one, where you don’t mention who should be making them aware. If you mean journalists. I love investigation. As mayor with 500 employees I may not know of scandal another way, absolute support for this. I assume you mean the city making people aware proactively, without trying to hide behind delays and FOIA. I also agree. I see constituents as investors of the city, and public view of a company is directly related to investment.
Question #1
The Right-of-Way (ROW) fees currently built into the three Enterprise Department Budgets are nearly identical to interfund fees that were ruled unlawful in Nez Perce district court. Do you support or oppose the elimination of these fees? Why?
Question #2
Do you support or oppose the "One City" concept of combining Chubbuck and Pocatello? Why?
Question #3
Do you believe that the public should be made aware of situations that could be viewed as placing the City or City elected officials in an unfavorable light so long as such disclosure does not disclose confidential information (Examples: City named in a lawsuit, City elected official accused of sexual harassment, etc.)?
P.A.G.E. sent a Candidate Questionnaire to each Pocatello Mayor and City Council candidate inviting participation to help voters distinguish critical characteristics of each candidate and to help prepare and contrast when deciding the most qualified candidates for Pocatello City Council.
Of the 7 candidates running for Mayor and 9 candidates running for 3 council seats, 6 have responded to our questionnaire as of 10/24/25. Additional responses will be posted if received.
The results are as follows:
Pocatello Mayor and City Council Seats 4, 5, and 6 Elections 2025
Mayor Candidates (7)
City Council Seat #5
City Council Seat #4
City Council Seat #6
bottom of page