[00:00:06]
          ALL RIGHT. GOOD EVENING, AND WELCOME TO THE IDAHO FALLS IDAHO FALLS CITY COUNCIL MEETING TO BE HELD THIS THURSDAY, JANUARY 30TH. WE ARE GOING TO I'LL MAKE SOME ANNOUNCEMENTS AFTER WE GET THINGS ROLLING. BUT THE FIRST THING WE'LL DO IS CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER AND INVITE OUR CITY CLERK TO CALL THE ROLL. COUNCIL PRESIDENT BURTENSHAW HERE. COUNCILOR RADFORD. LET IT BE KNOWN COUNCILOR RADFORD IS ON TRAVEL FOR HIS PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT. SO HE IS NOT HERE THIS EVENING. NOTED COUNCILOR DINGMAN. HERE. COUNCILOR FREEMAN HERE. COUNCILOR FRANCIS HERE. 
          COUNCILOR LARSON HERE. MAYOR, YOU HAVE A QUORUM. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I HAVE INVITED COUNCILOR MICHELLE DINGMAN TO LEAD US IN THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. OUR FLAG IS RIGHT HERE. AND PLEASE JOIN US IF YOU'RE SO INCLINED. PLEASE FOLLOW ME. I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS. ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THE MEETING. OUR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS ARE LIVE STREAMED, WHICH MEANS THAT EVERYTHING THAT WE'RE DOING IS BEING BROADCAST ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE. AND THOSE MEETINGS ARE ALSO RECORDED AND ARE THEN ARCHIVED ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE. AND WE'RE VERY PLEASED TO REPORT THAT WE'RE ALSO OFFERING THIS YEAR, FOR THE FIRST TIME EVER, CLOSED CAPTIONING IN BOTH ENGLISH AND SPANISH. AND SO THERE'S A LOT OF ACCESSIBILITY FOR THIS MEETING. BUT WE DO. WHILE WE HAVE A RATHER INFORMAL SETTING IN THE AUDIENCE, IF YOU NEED TO GET UP OR, YOU KNOW, LEAVE OR GO OUT INTO THE HALLWAY OR WHATEVER, FEEL FREE TO DO SO. THERE'S NO PROBLEM WITH THAT. TYPICALLY, THE CAMERAS ARE FOR THIS MEETING ARE AIMED AT THE DAIS AND AT THE PODIUM WHEN WE HAVE SPEAKERS. 
          BUT SOUND IS PICKED UP. AND SO WE WOULD ASK YOU TO WHATEVER YOU'RE DOING IT CASUALLY AND INFORMALLY, JUST DO IT QUIETLY SO THAT WE CAN THE AUDIO WON'T BE DISRUPTED FOR ANYBODY WHO'S WATCHING FROM HOME OR WHO WILL WATCH IT, WHO WILL WATCH IT LATER. WITH THAT, I WILL ALSO TELL YOU THAT OUR PACKET FOR THIS MEETING TONIGHT IS THICKER THAN A REAM OF PAPER, A 500 PAGE. WE HAVE A LOT OF PAGES IN OUR PACKET TONIGHT, WHICH EXPLAINS WHY WE DON'T MASS PRODUCE THE PACKETS. WE TYPICALLY WILL HAVE A FEW AGENDAS AVAILABLE AND THEY WILL BE IN THE POCKET OUTSIDE THE DOOR TO THIS ROOM. IF ANYBODY DOESN'T HAVE AN AGENDA AND THEY WANT ONE, THEY CAN DO THAT. WE ALSO HAVE A QR CODE WHERE YOU CAN FOCUS YOUR PHONE ON THAT. 
          IT'S ON THE BACK TABLE RIGHT THERE BY THE HAND SANITIZER. IF YOU FOCUS YOUR PHONE ON THAT, THEN YOU WILL PULL UP ELECTRONICALLY THAT ENTIRE PACKET. BUT THE VERY FIRST FEW PAGES OF THE PACKET ARE THE AGENDA. IT'S JUST THAT EACH AGENDA ITEM TYPICALLY WILL HAVE DOCUMENTATION, YOU KNOW, MEMOS, OTHER THINGS ASSOCIATED WITH IT. AND THAT'S WHAT THAT'S HOW WE BUILD THE PACKET, BECAUSE THERE'S A LOT OF STUFF ATTACHED TO EACH AGENDA ITEM. SO IF YOU DON'T HAVE A PAPER COPY, YOU CAN GET AN ELECTRONIC VERSION BY AIMING YOUR PHONE OVER AT THE QR CODE. SO WITH THAT, THE FIRST ITEM THAT WE HAVEN'T GOTTEN TO, THE NEXT ITEM ON OUR AGENDA, 
          [3. Public Comment.]
ITEM NUMBER THREE IS PUBLIC COMMENT. AND THIS IS WHERE WE INVITE FOLKS TO COME FORWARD AND MAKE COMMENTS OR SHARE THEIR THOUGHTS WITH THE COUNCIL ON ANYTHING THAT ISN'T ALREADY PART OF A PROCEEDING ON THE AGENDA TONIGHT, OR ISN'T PART OF A LEGAL PROCESS THAT SOMEONE'S INVOLVED IN WITH THE CITY. AND SO THIS IS JUST SORT OF THAT OPEN OPPORTUNITY TO TALK TO YOUR CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS, YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS. WE DO HAVE SOME GUIDELINES FOR PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE BACK OF THE PAGE. ONE OF THE AGENDA, THE COVER SHEET. AND THEN AT THE BACK OF THAT, WE HAVE SOME GUIDELINES FOR PUBLIC COMMENT. AND THAT JUST ASSURES THAT. WE KEEP THINGS. CIVIL AND ORDERLY. AND THE WE ALSO WANT, I GUESS I WOULD POINT OUT THAT A GREAT MANY YOUNG PEOPLE, WHETHER THEY'RE IN SCOUTING OR IN SOCIAL STUDIES CLASSES OR WHATEVER, THEY'LL USE THESE MEETINGS AS A FORUM FOR STUDYING CIVIC, STUDYING GOVERNMENT, AND STUDYING WHAT CIVIC PARTICIPATION LOOKS LIKE. I PRIDE MYSELF ON THE FACT THAT IN OUR COMMUNITY, STUDENTS WHO TUNE INTO THESE MEETINGS, I DON'T. I DON'T PRIDE MYSELF, BUT I TAKE PRIDE. STUDENTS WHO TUNE INTO THESE MEETINGS CAN LEARN QUITE A BIT ABOUT WHAT IT MEANS TO PARTICIPATE IN GOVERNMENT. I WOULD ASK YOU TO DEFINITELY ABIDE BY THE CIVILITY RULES TONIGHT, SO THAT WE CAN SHOW THE RISING GENERATION THAT WE KNOW HOW TO INTERACT WELL. AND SO 
          [00:05:03]
WITH THAT, WE'LL INVITE PUBLIC COMMENT. WE'LL GIVE YOU ABOUT THREE MINUTES. COME ON UP TO THE PODIUM AND ADDRESS THE COUNCIL. ALL RIGHT. I'M SEEING NOT TOO MUCH MOVEMENT. PLEASE GIVE US YOUR NAME AND LET US KNOW IF YOU'RE A CITY RESIDENT. YES. MY NAME IS SCOTT. KLINGER WAS BORN AND RAISED HERE IN IDAHO FALLS. CAN YOU HELP US WITH YOUR LAST NAME? ONE MORE TIME? KLINGLER. 
          KLINGLER. OKAY. THANK YOU. MY WIFE AND I, WE HAVE ALWAYS CALLED IDAHO FALLS HOME. AND WE CARE VERY DEEPLY ABOUT THIS COMMUNITY. IDAHO FALLS HAS A LOT OF VERY WONDERFUL THINGS TO OFFER. WE DO A PHENOMENAL JOB WITH OUR SNOW REMOVAL. WE HAVE WONDERFUL PARKS AND PATHS. WE'VE GOT THE ZOO. IT'S A GREAT PLACE TO CALL HOME, BUT IT IS NOT A GREAT PLACE TO OWN A SMALL BUSINESS. IN PARTICULAR, CHILD CARE. MY WIFE, NICOLE, SHE OWNS THE CAT AND THE FIDDLE PRESCHOOL. THAT'S A UNIQUELY ACADEMIC FOCUSED PRESCHOOL. IT'S BEEN PART OF OUR COMMUNITY FOR 20 YEARS. OVER THIS PAST SUMMER, WE MOVED SPACES. WE'RE IN THE SAME BUILDING, BUT IT'S BASICALLY THE ADJACENT LOCATION AND HAS A DIFFERENT PHYSICAL ADDRESS. INSTEAD OF IT BEING FIVE, FIVE, FIVE, IT'S FIVE, SIX, FIVE, BUT IT IS THE SAME BUILDING. AS PART OF THAT MOVE, WE REACHED OUT AND INQUIRED ABOUT WHAT IT WOULD BE TO GET THE CHILD CARE FACILITY LICENSE UPDATED, AND THAT'S IN PART WHERE MAYBE WE MESSED UP. IT IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO. BUT AS WE HAVE BEEN WORKING THROUGH THAT PROCESS FOR THE MAJORITY OF THINGS, IT'S GONE VERY SMOOTHLY. 
          WE ARE A COMPLIANT CHILD CARE FACILITY, AND SO THE CURRENT LICENSE THAT WE HAVE IS NOT EXPIRED AND EVERYTHING IS STILL IN ORDER. THE FIRE DEPARTMENT CAME THROUGH AND DID THEIR INSPECTION, AND THERE WAS A FEW MINOR THINGS THAT WE NEEDED TO ADJUST. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THEY NOTED WAS THAT THOUGH IT WASN'T PART OF THEIR DEPARTMENT, WE NEEDED TO HAVE A CHANGE OF USE FOR THE BUILDING. IT HAD BEEN CLASSIFIED FOR BUSINESS, AND IT NEEDED TO BE CLASSIFIED FOR CHILD CARE. SO WE IMMEDIATELY REACHED OUT TO AND CONTACTED THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT AND BEGAN WORKING THROUGH THAT PROCESS OF PROCURING AN ARCHITECT, WORKING WITH THE BUILDING OWNER, AND GETTING THAT CHANGE OF USE IN PLACE. EARLY IN DECEMBER, THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT CAME AND THEY OVERSTEPPED. THE DEPARTMENT RESPONSIBLE FOR ISSUING THE LICENSE, AND THEY SHUT DOWN THE SCHOOL, OFFERING NO GRACE PERIOD OR ANYTHING. AND THAT CAUSED SIGNIFICANT TRAUMA AND DISRUPTION TO THE FAMILIES AND THE EDUCATION OF OVER OR NEARLY 75 PRESCHOOL STUDENTS. AND AS A DIRECT RESULT OF THAT, NICOLE, MY WIFE. SHE HAS SUFFERED SIGNIFICANT PHYSICAL AND MENTAL HEALTH CRISES. SHE MAY NEVER BE ABLE TO RETURN TO TEACHING. OVER THE PAST TWO MONTHS, AS WE HAVE FOR NEARLY TWO MONTHS, WE HAVE BEEN TRYING TO WORK THROUGH THE PROCESS. WE HAVE HAD POOR COMMUNICATION. EVERYTHING THAT HAS BEEN TAKING PLACE. I'VE HAD TO STEP IN AND DRIVE THAT PROCESS WHILE ALSO BALANCING A FULL TIME CAREER. A WIFE THAT'S IN CRISIS CARRY ON THE DOMESTIC AND FAMILY RESPONSIBILITIES AND IT HAS BEEN DIFFICULT TO COORDINATE. THE CITY EMPLOYEE SCHEDULES ARE WORKING TYPICALLY TO FIND AND MY WORK SCHEDULE GETTING THINGS LINED UP. BECAUSE OF WHAT WE'VE BEEN GOING THROUGH, IT TRULY HAS BEEN CATASTROPHIC TO THE SCHOOL. NAVIGATING THE BUREAUCRATIC RED TAPE OF CHANGING A VALID AND CURRENT LICENSE TO EDUCATION. WE'VE BEEN PATIENT THROUGH THIS PROCESS. WE'VE BEEN AS COOPERATIVE AS POSSIBLE. MOST DEPARTMENTS HAVE BEEN VERY REASONABLE TO WORK WITH, BUT WE'RE OUT OF TIME. WE'RE OUT OF RESOURCES. OUR GOVERNMENT HAS A LOT OF RESPONSIBILITIES AND PURPOSES, THE LEAST OF WHICH IS PROVIDING LEGISLATIVE SAFEGUARDS TO OUR COMMUNITIES. BUT IN ADDITION TO THOSE RESPONSIBILITIES, I DO BELIEVE THAT WE SHOULD BE SERVING THE PEOPLE AND WHAT WE'VE EXPERIENCED OVER THE PAST COUPLE OF MONTHS. I WOULD NOT CLASSIFY IT AS SERVICE. IT HAS FELT VERY TARGETED AND PUNITIVE. THIS ISN'T THE TIME TO REALLY EXPOUND 
          [00:10:01]
UPON ALL THAT WE'VE GONE THROUGH, BUT ANYBODY WHO WOULD CARE TO KNOW MORE, I'D BE HAPPY TO DELVE DEEPER INTO WHAT WE HAVE GONE THROUGH AND ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. THANK YOU, MR. KLINGLER. WE APPRECIATE THE INFORMATION. THERE ARE PEOPLE HERE WHO MAY BE HELPFUL TO TALK TO, BUT I THINK YOU PROBABLY HAD SOME SIGNIFICANT CONVERSATIONS AT THIS POINT. AND SO BUT BUT NEVERTHELESS, IF THERE'S TIME DURING THE BREAK OR IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO GO IN THE HALLWAY NOW AND HAVE A CONVERSATION, THAT WOULD BE MAYBE SAVE SOME TIME SOMEWHERE ELSE. BUT THANK YOU, THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY OTHERS WHO WISH TO OFFER TESTIMONY AT THIS TIME? OUR TESTIMONY IS NOT THE RIGHT WORD. COMMENT. ALL RIGHT, WELL THEN, SEEING NONE, 
          [4. Consent Agenda.]
WE'RE GOING TO MOVE ON TO THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA, WHICH WOULD BE NUMBER FOUR. IT'S LABELED OUR CONSENT AGENDA. THERE ARE A GREAT MANY ITEMS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA TONIGHT. AND WE HAVE FOUR DEPARTMENTS REPRESENTED, PLUS THE OFFICE OF THE MAYOR AND THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE. ALL ARE ON THERE. SO THESE ITEMS, THE THERE ARE 12 SO FAR OR AT THIS POINT, BUT THESE ITEMS ARE ALL CONSIDERED. STRAIGHTFORWARD, NON-CONTROVERSIAL THINGS THAT ARE BUDGETED FOR, THINGS THAT ARE ROUTINE, PERHAPS IN NATURE. AND SO THEY'RE PUT ON THE CONSENT AGENDA. AND ONCE THEY MAKE MAKE IT ON THAT, THEN THE COUNCIL MEMBERS CAN JUST VOTE YAY OR NAY, AND EVERYTHING ON THAT CONSENT AGENDA CAN PASS WITHOUT HAVING TO MAKE 12 SEPARATE VOTES. AND SO BEFORE WE PROCEED TO READING THE ITEMS INTO THE AGENDA, WE HAVE A REQUEST, I BELIEVE, FOR THE CHAIR WILL RECOGNIZE COUNCILOR BURT. EXCUSE ME, COUNCILOR FRANCIS. YES. I REQUEST THAT WE MOVE ITEM D1 UNDER IDAHO FALLS POWER RELATED TO THE CONSENT AND THE CONTRACT WITH BSI TO THE REGULAR AGENDA AS ITEM A, I GUESS IT WOULD BE A11. AND THEN THAT MOVES ALL THE LETTERS DOWN. YEP. IT DOES. ALL RIGHT. SO THAT'S WHAT WE'LL DO FOR THE REASON I'D LIKE TO DIRECT THE PRAIRIE TO BE ABLE TO EXPLAIN WHAT'S GOING ON HERE AND THE PROGRESS ON IT TO DO THAT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. A REASON ISN'T REQUIRED, BUT IT'S HELPFUL TO KNOW WHAT YOU'RE AFTER AND WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR. ALL RIGHT. SO WE'LL MOVE IT TO THE VERY TOP OF PART FIVE OF THE AGENDA. AND SO CITY CLERK WILL ASK YOU TO MAKE THE NOTES TO REMOVE THAT ITEM D1. AND WITH THAT WE'LL ASK YOU TO READ THE CONTENTS OF THE CONSENT AGENDA INTO THE RECORD. 
          AND THEN THE CHAIR WILL TURN TO COUNCIL PRESIDENT BIRCH OR COUNCILOR LARSEN WILL MAKE THE MOTION. ALL RIGHT. SO CITY CLER. ALL RIGHT. SO NOW WE HAVE 11 ITEMS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA TONIGHT. THE FIRST THREE ARE FROM THE OFFICE OF THE MAYOR. ONE, APPOINTMENTS TO CITY. SO I THINK WE'RE OKAY. THERE WE GO. APPOINTMENTS TO CITY BOARDS, COMMITTEES AND COMMISSIONS TO CONSIDERATION OF APPOINTMENTS TO CITY BOARDS, COMMITTEES AND COMMISSIONS. AND THREE CONSIDERATION OF APPOINTMENT TO A CITY BOARD, COMMITTEE OR COMMISSION. THE AIRPORT HAS JUST ONE. THAT WILL BE THE MINUTES FROM THE IDAHO FALLS REGIONAL AIRPORT BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING, AS LISTED ON THE AGENDA. PUBLIC WORKS HAS THREE BID AWARD NORTH BOULEVARD AND SHELLEY STREET. STORM LIFT STATION UPGRADES A BID AWARD. WEST SIDE PATH CONNECTIONS BID AWARD LINCOLN PARK WATERLINE, IDAHO FALLS POWER REMOVING THE ONE WE HAVE TWO LEFT. ONE IS FOR THE ADMINISTRATION BUILDING RENOVATION, PROFESSIONAL OFFICE ENVIRONMENTS, OFFICE SYSTEMS AND FURNITURE, AND THE SECOND ONE IS THE IDAHO FALLS POWER HYDRO. RELICENSING STUDIES S WCA ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS MUNICIPAL SERVICES HAS ONE. THAT'S THE TREASURER'S REPORT FOR NOVEMBER OF 2024, AND THEN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK LICENSE APPLICATIONS, ALL CARRYING THE REQUIRED APPROVALS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ALL RIGHT. I'LL TURN TO COUNCILOR. OKAY. 
          ALL RIGHT. I'LL MAKE THAT MOTION. I WOULD MOVE THE COUNCIL, APPROVE, ACCEPT OR RECEIVE ALL ITEMS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA ACCORDING TO THE RECOMMENDATIONS PRESENTED SECOND. ALL RIGHT, I THOUGHT I GOT THAT WRONG. OKAY. NEVER MIND. IT'S ALL GOOD. OKAY. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I DIDN'T MISS THAT CITY CLERK. WE'RE READY FOR A VOTE. WILL YOU CONDUCT THAT FOR US, PLEASE? FRANCIS I. DINGMAN. YES. FREEMAN. YES. LARSON. YES. 
          BURTENSHAW. YES. MOTION CARRIES. VERY GOOD. THANK YOU SO MUCH. THAT TAKES US, LADIES AND 
          [4.D.1) 23-28 IFP Peaking Plant - Engineered Structures, Inc. (ESI) GMP Amendment]
GENTLEMEN, TO PART FIVE OF THE AGENDA, WHICH IS CONSIDERED OUR REGULAR AGENDA. AND HERE WE'LL CONSIDER ALL OF THE ITEMS ON THAT AGENDA, DEPARTMENT BY DEPARTMENT. AND AS WE HAVE JUST DISCUSSED, THE VERY FIRST ITEM THAT WE'LL CONSIDER WILL BE A NEW LETTER, A IDAHO FALLS POWER. 
          AND WE HAVE DIRECTOR BEAR PRAIRIE, ALSO KNOWN AS THE GENERAL MANAGER OF IDAHO FALLS POWER, TO COME FORWARD. AND DO YOU WANT TO TALK TO US A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THIS ITEM AND TELL 
          [00:15:01]
MAYBE THE PUBLIC WHAT THE PLANT IS ALL ABOUT? YEAH. THANK YOU, MAYOR AND COUNCIL. THANK YOU, JIM, FOR GIVING ME THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK ON THIS. IT'S A LITTLE DIFFERENT. IT'S A VERY ROUTINE ACTION BECAUSE IT WAS SET OUT IN THE CONTRACT THAT WE ORIGINALLY SET OUT, BUT IT IS A LARGE SUM OF MONEY. SO IT'S ALWAYS GOOD TO, YOU KNOW, DO A LITTLE GIRL WITH SUSPENDERS HERE AND HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN. SO I THINK IT'S GOOD NEWS THAT I COME TO SHARE WHEN WE SET OUT TO BUILD THE PEAKING PLANT. BEAR, CAN YOU MAKE SURE THAT YOU'RE MIKE IS ON ME? PULL IT A LITTLE BIT CLOSER. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. SPEAK UP. SO, YEAH, I COME WITH WITH GOOD NEWS. WE WENT THROUGH THE SELECTION PROCESS WITH ESI BEING SELECTED AS THE MOST QUALIFIED PROPOSAL FOR THE PROJECT. AND THIS IS A DESIGN BUILD BECAUSE WE DIDN'T HAVE A, YOU KNOW, FULL SET OF BLUEPRINTS AND EXACT DESIGNS AND SPECS BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T EVER BUILT ONE OF THESE BEFORE. AND EVERYONE IS PRETTY MUCH BUILT TO SITE AND TO THE EXACT ELEVATIONS AND SPECIFICATIONS UPON YOUR, YOU KNOW, ENVIRONMENT THAT YOU'RE BUILDING IN. AND AS YOU KNOW, IDAHO FALLS IS A UNIQUE ENVIRONMENT. IT'S SINGLE DIGITS ALL THE WAY UP TO 100 DEGREES. 
          SO AND OUR ELEVATION DIFFERENCES, SO WHAT WE'VE BEEN ENGAGED OVER THE LAST 6 OR 7 MONTHS ON THE PEAKING PLANT IS THAT DESIGN PHASE PROCESS DIALING IN ALL THE DETAILS. THE AIR INTAKE SYSTEMS, DOING THE VALUE ENGINEERING, FIGURING OUT EXACTLY WHAT WHAT BEST SUITS US. 
          SO WITHIN THAT ON THE ORIGINAL CONTRACT, YOU KNOW, SCOPE OF WORK FOR THE DESIGN, THEY HAD A PROPOSAL THAT SAYS, YOU KNOW, FROM WHAT YOU PUT OUT, WE THINK THIS IS GOING TO MEET YOUR NEEDS. YOU KNOW, HERE'S THE BUILDING SIZE. HERE'S, YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW, EIGHT BAYS FOR YOUR TEN UNITS AND, YOU KNOW, A BATHROOM FACILITY AND SO ON AND SO FORTH. KNOWING THAT ALSO FROM THERE, YOU KNOW, THERE'S THINGS THAT WE'RE GOING TO DIVE INTO, THE ENGINEERING DETAILS, THE SPECS WILL WILL FINE TUNE IT. BUT THEY GAVE A, A NOT TO EXCEED PRICE WITHIN THAT ON THOSE INDIVIDUAL ITEMS AS WE WENT THROUGH THE SPECIFIC DESIGNS. THEN WE KEPT TRACK OF THE PLUSES AND MINUSES. SO IF WE ADDED SOMETHING BECAUSE WE FOUND THAT IT WAS BETTER, FOR EXAMPLE, THE AIR INTAKE SYSTEM, WE FOUND A BETTER ENGINEERING OPTION, BUT IT ADDED TO THE PRICE. BUT IT IMPROVED THE EFFICIENCY OF THE MACHINE SO THAT IT WILL BE MORE EFFICIENT AND BE ABLE TO GENERATE MORE ELECTRICITY. YOU KNOW, AT THE TIMES WE NEED IT. SO IT'S CERTAINLY SOMETHING WE WANT TO DO. AND THOSE ARE, YOU KNOW, THE FINE, FINE TUNING DETAILS SO THAT AS THE PRICE OR SOME THINGS WE REMOVED REALIZED WE DIDN'T NEED AS MUCH CONCRETE PATHWAYS AND DIFFERENT THINGS. 
          SO WE KEPT MOVING PLUS AND MINUSES AROUND. AT THE END OF THE DAY, WHEN WE ADDED UP THE PLUSES AND MINUSES, AND THEN ALSO IT ALLOWED THEM TO GO GET FIRM BIDS FROM THEIR SUBCONTRACTORS BASED UPON THAT FINAL DESIGN THAT WE SETTLED ON HERE, YOU KNOW, A FEW WEEKS BACK, SO WE CAN REALLY GET IT LOCKED IN. WHEN YOU ADD ALL THAT UP. WE ENDED UP BEING ABOUT $800,000 UNDER THEIR ORIGINAL NUMBER. WHEN YOU TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE THINGS THAT WE'VE ADDED THAT WERE, YOU KNOW, IMPROVEMENTS AND ENHANCEMENTS. SO WITHIN THAT, UNDER THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT AGREEMENT, IF THEY GET IT UNDER THAT PRICE, THEN, YOU KNOW, WE AGREED TO MOVE FORWARD UNLESS THERE'S EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES PENDING, THEY AGREE TO MOVE FORWARD. AND THAT'S THE POINT THAT WE'RE AT IS WE'RE BOTH SEEING THE PROJECTS, YOU KNOW, ON TIME, ON BUDGET AND READY TO MOVE FORWARD. AND WITHIN THIS PRICING HERE, THERE IS ALSO A CONTINGENCY THAT WE'VE BUILT IN FOR A CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCY OF ABOUT $780,000. IT'S ALSO BUILT INTO THIS. SO THERE IS FOR UNEXPECTED THINGS POTENTIALLY, THAT WE RUN INTO ON TOP OF THAT. 
          AND HAVE THEY GIVEN US AN ESTIMATED TIME TO FINISH? YEAH. SO IN THEIR ORIGINAL PROPOSAL WE HAD COMMERCIALIZATION AND TURNING AND TURNING THE PLANT OVER TO US AT THE END OF DECEMBER. SO ABOUT A YEAR FROM NOW, A LITTLE LESS THAN A YEAR FROM NOW, WITH COMMISSIONING HAPPENING IN LATTER NOVEMBER THROUGH DECEMBER, AND THAT TIMELINE THAT WAS SET OUT LAST SUMMER IS STILL ON TIMELINE. AND WE, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE STARTED THE CIVIL WORKS STARTING BUILDING. SO WE, YOU KNOW, SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WE KNEW WOULD CHANGE AROUND PRICE AND FIXED IT. SO WE'VE BEEN, YOU KNOW, CHIPPING AWAY AT THIS AS WE WENT. ALL RIGHT. COUNCIL MEMBERS, IF YOU HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS, NOW'S THE TIME TO ASK. ALL RIGHT. AND SO, DIRECTOR PERRY, YOU ARE ASKING FOR APPROVAL FROM THE COUNCIL, ACCEPTANCE AND APPROVAL OF THIS GUARANTEED MAXIMUM PRICE. IS THAT CORRECT? CORRECT. OKAY. I WILL TURN TO THE LIAISONS, COUNSELOR FREEMAN. AND DINGMAN TO HANDLE THE NECESSARY MOTION. THANK YOU. MAYOR. I MOVE TO ACCEPT AND APPROVE ISS CONSTRUCTION PHASE. GUARANTEED MAXIMUM PRICE AT $23,460,668, 
          [00:20:06]
AND GIVE AUTHORIZATION TO THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS. SECOND, THANK YOU. COUNCILORS. CITY CLERK, WE HAVE A VALID MOTION READY FOR A VOTE, AND WE'LL ASK YOU TO CONDUCT THAT FOR US. FREEMAN. YES, FRANCIS I. LARSON. YES. BURTENSHAW. YES. DINGMAN. 
          YES. MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ALL RIGHT. NOW WE WILL TURN TO THE HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT. WE HAVE OUR DIRECTOR. CAN I JUST ASK JUST ONE THING? JUST BECAUSE I WONDER ABOUT THE IDEA OF A PEAKING PLANT, I KNOW, I THOUGHT MAYBE WE WOULD HAVE JUST A LITTLE BIT OF COMMENT ON THAT. SO IDAHO FALLS POWER IS A TRUE POWER COMPANY FOR RESIDENTS IN IDAHO FALLS. AND WE HAVE HYDRO PLANT. WE BUY POWER OFF OF THE GRID WHEN THAT WHEN THE WATER DOESN'T SUPPLY THE RIGHT POWER. SO PEAKING IS THAT WE ARE BUILDING MORE POWER GENERATION IN THE CITY OF IDAHO FALLS. I'M, I'M IT'S ONE OF THOSE PIECES THE CITY OF IDAHO FALLS. I'M REALLY PROUD OF I'M REALLY PROUD OF DIRECTOR PRAIRIE FOR BRINGING THIS TO US. BECAUSE WHEN EVERYBODY ELSE SEEMS TO BE SHYING AWAY FROM GENERATION, IT'S REALLY A NICE THING TO SAY THAT IDAHO FALLS POWER IS MOVING FORWARD WITH POWER GENERATION. SO IT'S A IT'S A POSITIVE. BUT I JUST I THINK THAT WE'VE HAD ENOUGH CONVERSATIONS ABOUT PEAKING. AND WITH THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE HERE IN THE AUDIENCE, I THINK THAT IT'S HELPFUL TO KNOW WHAT PEAKING IS. SO IT'S POWER GENERATION FOR THE CITY OF IDAHO FALLS RESIDENTS. WELL, IT'S WHEN OUR DEMAND FOR POWER CITYWIDE EXCEEDS WHAT WE ALREADY HAVE AVAILABLE TO US. AND SO TYPICALLY WE HAVE TO GO OUT WHEN OUR DEMAND PEAKS LIKE THAT ABOVE REGULAR, PLANNED FOR OR CAPACITY. WE HAVE TO GO OUT IN THE MARKET NOW. WE DON'T HAVE TO. IF WE GENERATE IT OURSELVES FOR ALL, YOU PUT A REAL FINE POINT ON IT. SO IF THESE KIND OF TEMPERATURES THAT WE'RE SEEING, YOU KNOW, SINGLE DIGITS RIGHT NOW JUST FOR THE LOWEST PART OF OUR HYDRO GENERATION, BECAUSE SNAKE RIVER FLOWS ARE DOWN, WE GET A LOT OF OUR ENERGY FROM THE BONNEVILLE POWER ADMINISTRATION. THEY'RE NOT BUILDING MORE FEDERAL DAMS, HOPING WE CAN KEEP THE HYDRO CAPACITY THAT WE HAVE CURRENTLY IN THE NORTHWEST. SO, YOU KNOW, WHEN WE RUN THESE COLD TEMPERATURES LAST 2 OR 3 WEEKS, ABOUT 20% OF OUR COMMUNITY'S ELECTRICITY IS COMING FROM THE WHOLESALE OPEN MARKET. SO YOU'RE RELYING ON OTHER UTILITIES TO HOPEFULLY HAVE EXCESS THAT WE CAN PURCHASE FROM THEM, THAT PRICE THAT WE'RE PURCHASING AT IS CONTINUING TO GROW EVERY YEAR BECAUSE AS WE, YOU KNOW, START RETIRING OTHER GENERATION RESOURCES, BASELOAD RESOURCES, YOU'RE RELYING ON INTERMITTENT RESOURCES TO PICK THOSE UP LIKE WIND AND SOLAR. AND IT'S REALLY COLD LIKE THIS. THE SUN'S NOT SHINING, THE WIND'S NOT BLOWING. 
          THAT MEANS THERE'S NOT MUCH ELECTRICITY OUT THERE AND PRICES ARE REALLY HIGH. SO THIS WILL HELP US STABILIZE OUR POWER SUPPLY COSTS, HELP US KEEP OUR RATES AFFORDABLE, AND ENABLE US TO HAVE LOCAL GENERATION HERE, WHICH IS VERY RELIABLE ALSO. SO WE'RE NOT GOING TO, YOU KNOW, PUT OUR DESTINY IN OTHER COMMUNITIES OR OTHER UTILITIES HANDS. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT THIS IN THIS FORUM, IN THIS MEETING BEFORE. AND WE'VE ALSO TALKED ABOUT IT IN MANY, MANY OTHER MEETINGS THAT ARE ALL OPEN TO THE PUBLIC. AND SO IF THIS IS THE FIRST TIME YOU'RE HEARING ABOUT IT, LET'S, YOU KNOW, GET YOUR QUESTIONS ANSWERED BY COUNCIL MEMBERS OR THE EXPERTS IN THE ROOM. BUT IT'S NOT A NEW THING. WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THIS FOR A COUPLE 
          [5.A.1) Consideration of Personnel Policy Manual Updates]
OF YEARS. SO ALL RIGHT. SO MOVING ON THEN DARREN JONES, OUR HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR, AND WE HAVE COUNCILOR MICHELLE DINGMAN WHO SERVES AS HIS LIAISON. IT'S A SMALL DEPARTMENT, SO WE ONLY HAVE ONE COUNCIL MEMBER ASSIGNED TO THAT DEPARTMENT. AND SO WE'LL HAVE TO HAVE SOMEBODY JUMP IN. 
          AND SECOND, ANY MOTIONS THAT MICHELLE MAKES TONIGHT. BUT THE FIRST THING IS CONSIDERATION OF THE POLICY PERSONNEL POLICY MANUAL UPDATES. AND THERE'S QUITE A PROCESS ASSOCIATED WITH THOSE UPDATES. AND YOU CAME IN AS A NEW DIRECTOR AND SAW THE NEED FOR QUITE A BIT OF, OF REVISING. AND SO GO AHEAD AND TEACH US A LITTLE BIT ABOUT WHAT WHAT LED YOU TO WHERE WE ARE TONIGHT. THANK YOU, MAYOR AND COUNCIL, FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE ON THE AGENDA DURING 2024. WE WENT THROUGH A ROUTINE REVIEW OF OUR PERSONNEL POLICIES AND UPDATED THEM IN A NUMBER OF WAYS, MADE CORRECTIONS, FIX THINGS THAT WEREN'T WORKING WELL, CATEGORIZE THE POLICIES INTO SIMILAR GROUPINGS SO THEY'RE EASIER TO READ AND FOLLOW AND LOOK UP. AND IN DECEMBER DECEMBER 9TH, WE BROUGHT A FIRST READING TO CITY COUNCIL AND GOT FEEDBACK FROM COUNCIL, WHICH WE INCORPORATED. THEN WE TOOK IT BACK OUT TO ALL CITY EMPLOYEES AND GAVE THEM 30 DAYS TO REVIEW AND PROVIDE COMMENT, AND INCORPORATED THREE CHANGES BASED ON COMMENTS FROM EMPLOYEES AND BRINGING BACK THE REVISED UPDATED POLICIES TONIGHT, HOPING TO GET FINAL 
          [00:25:04]
APPROVAL FROM COUNCIL. PRETTY SMOOTH EXPLANATION, COUNCIL MEMBERS, DO ANY OF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS FOR DIRECTOR JONES? COUNCILOR FRANCIS COMMENT WELL, WE'LL GO FROM QUESTIONS TO COMMENTS AND DIRECTOR WILL ASK YOU TO STAY JUST IN CASE SOMEBODY DOES DECIDE TO ENGAGE A LITTLE BIT HERE. BUT NO, I JUST WANT TO THANK YOU FOR RESPONDING TO THE EMPLOYEES COMMENTS AND WORKING IT IN, BECAUSE IT'S GOOD THAT WE LISTEN TO THEM, AND IT'S IMPORTANT THAT YOU DID THAT, I THINK. THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER COMMENTS? ALL RIGHT. COUNCILOR MICHELLE, WILL YOU DO YOU WANT TO COMMENT OR ACT OR DO WHATEVER YOU WANT TO DO? THANK YOU. MAYOR, JUST A COUPLE OF COMMENTS. I'M JUST VERY PLEASED WITH OUR HR DEPARTMENT AND THE PROGRESS THAT THEY'VE MADE IN MODERNIZING REALLY ARE VERY COMPREHENSIVE PERSONNEL POLICY MANUAL. AND I THINK THAT WHAT WE SAW WAS REALLY AN INITIATIVE TO ENSURE THAT OUR POLICIES WERE CLEAR. I KNOW THAT THERE WAS SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT FLEXIBILITY, AND I THINK THAT THAT'S ALWAYS A BALANCE, YOU KNOW, TO RUNNING SUCH A LARGE ORGANIZATION AND KEEPING THINGS RUNNING EFFICIENTLY. AND I THINK THEY DID A GREAT JOB ENSURING THAT THE POLICIES REFLECT THAT. JUST THE VERY CONTEMPORARY FRAMEWORK OF THE KINDS OF WORKFORCE THAT WE HAVE. AND I'M JUST REALLY APPRECIATIVE THAT DIRECTOR JONES DID AS A COUNCIL MEMBER, FRANCIS NOTED, PUT THE VERY SPECIFIC COMMENTS THAT WERE RECEIVED AND THE VERY SPECIFIC RESPONSES TO THOSE. I THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT FOR STAFF TO SEE THAT EVEN ONE COMMENT MADE A DIFFERENCE, AND THAT YOU TRULY CONSIDERED THE FEEDBACK ON A VERY SERIOUS LEVEL. I THINK THAT'S A REALLY IMPORTANT MESSAGE TO SEND, AND IT'S ALSO VERY AUTHENTIC. THAT'S THAT'S HOW YOU'RE OPERATING. SO I APPRECIATE ALL THE WORK THAT YOU HAVE DONE WITH YOUR WITH YOUR TEAM. JUST A WONDERFUL DEPARTMENT. SO WITH THAT MAYOR, I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE PERSONNEL POLICY CHANGES AS PRESENTED SECOND. ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE A MOTION. WE HAVE A SECOND CITY CLERK. WE ARE READY FOR A VOTE. DINGMAN. YES. BURTONSHAW. 
          YES. FRANCIS I. FREEMAN. YES. LARSEN. YES. MOTION CARRIES. VERY GOOD. THANK YOU. WE HAVE A 
          [5.A.2) Consideration of Employee Benefits Broker Recommendation]
SECOND ITEM COMING TO US FROM HUMAN RESOURCES, AND I'LL TURN THAT TO YOU. DIRECTOR. THANK YOU. MAYOR. LAST YEAR, AROUND THIS TIME, THE CITY COUNCIL PROVIDED PRIORITY FOR THE HR DEPARTMENT TO DEVELOP A HEALTH INSURANCE AND BENEFITS SUSTAINABILITY PLAN, WHICH INCLUDES TO EXPLORE NEW BROKER AND PROVIDER RELATIONSHIPS. SO OVER THE PAST 2 OR 3 MONTHS, WE DID AN RFP PROCESS FOR OUR BROKERAGE SERVICES. WE RESEARCHED BROKERAGES THAT HAVE ROBUST LOCAL SERVICES. SO WE HAVE REPRESENTATIVES THAT ARE IN TOWN, NOT LARGE ORGANIZATIONS THAT DON'T HAVE ANYONE IN TOWN. WE FOUND THREE ORGANIZATIONS THAT WE FELT LIKE MET THOSE NEEDS REQUESTED PROPOSALS FROM EACH OF THE THREE, AND WE RECEIVED TWO PROPOSALS. OF THOSE TWO PROPOSALS, WE AFTER WE RECEIVED THOSE TWO PROPOSALS, WE PUT TOGETHER A COMMITTEE INCLUDING MICHELLE DINGMAN, MARK HAGEDORN, FINANCE MANAGER AND TREASURER, HEATHER WADE, BENEFITS MANAGER AND HR AND MYSELF, REVIEWED THE PROPOSALS AND FOUND THE PROPOSAL FROM GPS TO BE SUBSTANTIALLY LOWER IN COST AND HIGHER IN SERVICES, AND ARE PROPOSING THAT THE COUNCIL APPROVE OFFERING A CONTRACT, A FIVE YEAR CONTRACT TO GPS AS OUR EMPLOYEE BENEFITS BROKER. THANK YOU. DIRECTOR, ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR HIM ABOUT THE PROCESS OR THE SELECTION? ALL RIGHT. WELL THEN LET'S TURN TO OUR LIAISON. AND MICHELLE AND OR SORRY COUNSELOR MICHELLE DINGMAN AND ASK YOU TO ANY ADDITIONAL INSIGHT OR COMMENT. AND YOUR, YOUR, YOUR COLLEAGUES MAY HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT. YEAH. I THINK THAT THE PROCESS COUNCIL WAS, AGAIN, THANKS TO THE HELM OF OUR HR DIRECTOR, IT WAS VERY EFFICIENT. IT WAS VERY CLEAR. IT WAS VERY THOROUGH. WE DID, I THINK, AN EXCELLENT JOB RESEARCHING NOT ONLY WHAT IT WAS PROVIDED IN THEIR PROPOSAL, INCLUDING ALL OF THEIR REFERENCES, BUT HAVING A ROBUST DISCUSSION ABOUT THEIR OFFERINGS. AND I THINK THAT GPS IS A PROPOSAL SCORED SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER, EVEN THOUGH WE HADN'T YOU KNOW, WE HAD WE HAD ALL DONE THE SAME WORK GOING INTO THE MEETING AND DISCUSSING IT. THEIR PROPOSAL JUST SCORED SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER DUE TO THEIR HISTORY OF JUST SUPERIOR SERVICE. I THINK THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT REALLY STOOD OUT. AND OF COURSE, THEIR COST STRUCTURE, AS NOTED IN THE AGENDA, WAS 38% LOWER THAN ALL COMPETITORS WITH A GUARANTEE FEE STRUCTURE FOR THE NEXT FIVE YEARS. SO I THINK IT PROVIDES A LOT OF PREDICTABILITY FOR THE 
          [00:30:04]
CITY. ALL RIGHT. AND SO WITH THAT, I THINK SEEING THAT THERE'S NOT A LOT OF CLAMORING FOR MY TIME, I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND ENTERTAIN A MOTION. THANK YOU. I'LL MOVE TO APPROVE THE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION TO AWARD A FIVE YEAR CONTRACT TO GBS TO SERVE AS THE CITY'S BENEFITS BROKER. SECOND. SECOND, SOMEONE NAMED JIM SECONDED THE MOTION, I THINK. YEAH. OKAY. 
          WITH THAT, WE'LL ASK YOU TO CONDUCT A VOTE. FREEMAN. YES, FRANCIS A LARSON. YES. 
          BURTONSHAW. YES. DINGMAN. YES. MOTION CARRIES. VERY GOOD. THANK YOU. COUNSELOR. WE'RE MOVING TO 
          [5.B.1) Bid Award - Street Overlays 2025]
A THIRD DEPARTMENT THIS EVENING, AND THAT WOULD BE PUBLIC WORKS. AND OUR DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS, DIRECTOR CHRIS FREDRICKSON IS HERE THIS EVENING. WE HAVE TWO COUNCIL MEMBERS WHO ARE ASSIGNED TO LIAISE WITH THAT DEPARTMENT. THAT WOULD BE COUNSELOR FRANCIS AND COUNSELOR LARSON. AND SO THEY'LL BE ARM WRESTLING OVER HERE TO DECIDE WHO MAKES THE MOTIONS AND WHO SECONDS THEM. BUT THE FIRST ONE HAS TO DO WITH APPROVING A BID AWARD FOR STREET OVERLAYS. AND MAYBE SINCE WE HAVE SUCH A FULL HOUSE, YOU CAN JUST GIVE A WORD OR GIVE A TINY BIT OF DEFINITION AS TO WHAT A STREET OVERLAY IS. ALL RIGHT, WELL, THANK YOU, MAYOR. THANK YOU. AS INDICATED, THIS IS THE FIRST OF THREE ITEMS FROM PUBLIC WORKS TO BID THE BID AWARD FOR OUR STREET OVERLAYS 2025 PROJECT, AN OVERLAY THAT WE HAVE. UNFORTUNATELY, WE DO HAVE SOME WARNING SIGNS THAT WE GENERALLY PUT UP AROUND TOWN IN THE SUMMER MONTHS WHEN WE DO SOME PAVEMENT REHABILITATION AS PART OF THAT. THIS WILL INVOLVE A MILLING PROCESS THAT HELPS WITH OUR RIDE QUALITY OF OUR ROADWAYS ON OUR ARTERIAL STREETS. AND THEN WE FOLLOW THAT WITH A PLANT MIX OVERLAY OF ABOUT 1.5IN. SO WE PUT 1.5IN BACK AFTER WE'VE MILLED THAT PAVEMENT. SO IN REGARDS TO THIS PARTICULAR BID AWARD, WE DID OPEN BIDS ON JANUARY 14TH. WE RECEIVED THREE BIDS THAT WERE VERY COMPETITIVE, OF WHICH HK CONTRACTORS WAS THE LOWEST FOR A BID OF $2,699,629.90. THE PROJECT, IF AWARDED, WILL CONDUCT THOSE OVERLAYS THAT WE JUST DISCUSSED ON OLD B ROAD SOUTH OF BROADWAY AND CONTINUED TO WHERE IT TURNS INTO PANCARI ALL THE WAY TO BELEN ROAD. IT ALSO INCLUDES SKYLINE DRIVE FROM THE AIRPORT TO PANCARI DRIVE. IT INVOLVES UTAH AVENUE FROM LINDSAY BOULEVARD TO PANCARI DRIVE. THERE'S ALSO A PORTION OF PANCARI DRIVE FROM UTAH AVENUE TO THE PANCARI DRIVE BRIDGE. SOUTH BOULEVARD IS ALSO PROPOSED TO BE OVERLAID ITS ENTIRE LIMIT, FROM THE YELLOWSTONE HIGHWAY TO SUNNYSIDE ROAD, AND A SMALL PORTION OF FIRST STREET FROM THE IDAHO CANAL TO WOODRUFF AVENUE AND WILL BE OVERLAID. AND LASTLY, WOODRUFF AVENUE SOUTH OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF 17TH AND WOODRUFF ALL THE WAY TO SUNNYSIDE ROAD WILL ALSO BE OVERLAID. SO IN TOTAL, THAT'S ABOUT 16,000 TONS OF NEW PLANT MIX WE'LL BE PUTTING ON OUR ARTERIAL ROADWAYS AND BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT. JUST VERY QUICKLY. WHAT'S THE TYPICAL TIME FRAME FOR, LET'S SAY, A MILE OF ROAD? AS FAR AS HOW LONG WILL IT LAST? HOW LONG WILL IT BE CLOSED? THE CONTRACT IN TOTAL IS 75 DAYS, BUT THAT'S FOR ALL THE WORK. ALL OF THE WORK. YEAH, BUT THE MILLING PROCESS ACTUALLY HAPPENS VERY QUICKLY. THE OVERLAY HAPPENS FAIRLY QUICKLY. PROBABLY THE DURATION THAT PEOPLE SEE THE MOST IS WE HAVE TO LOWER OUR MANHOLES AND WATER VALVES SO THAT THE MILL DOESN'T DISRUPT THOSE. AND THEN WE COME BACK AND RAISE THOSE AGAIN. SO THAT TAKES MORE TIME FOR THAT PARTICULAR PROCESS. BUT THE OVERLAYING PROCESS IS PROBABLY JUST A NUMBER OF 2 OR 3 WEEKS ASSOCIATED WITH THAT WORK. BUT THEN IT'S THE RAISING OF OUR MANHOLES AND WATER VALVES THAT TAKES THE LARGEST AMOUNT OF TIME. BUT THOSE DON'T CLOSE THE WHOLE ROAD. THEY USUALLY JUST CLOSE A SECTION. RIGHT. YEAH. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU FOR THAT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE DIRECTOR? OH, WE'LL GO COUNCILOR FREEMAN. AND THEN COUNCILOR FRANCIS, I'M JUST CURIOUS ABOUT HOW MANY LANE MILES WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE. DO YOU HAVE A. WELL, I KNOW WE HAD 160,000YD■S OF MILLING THAT WE'L BE DOING. SO I WOULD HAVE TO CONVERT THAT WITHOUT CALCULATOR HERE TODAY. I'LL JUST HAVE TO LEAVE THAT TO WHERE YOU ARE. BUT THAT'S THAT'S ROUGHLY THE YARDAGE THAT WILL BE OKAY. THANKS. COUNCILOR FRANCIS. AND I JUST WANT TO ASK YOU IF YOU COULD ASSURE THE PUBLIC THAT THE STRIPES WILL GO BACK ON THE STREETS THE WAY THEY ARE. WE'RE NOT WIDENING THE STREETS. THEY'RE NOT CHANGING. THAT'S A VERY GOOD POINT. LET ME RE-EMPHASIZE. WE DO INTEND TO PUT THE STRIPES BACK AS THEY EXIST TODAY. I WILL MENTION, THOUGH, WE ARE CONSIDERING A STRIPING CHANGE OR RECOMMENDATIONS, AT LEAST FOR THAT SECTION OF SKYLINE NORTH OF GRANDVIEW TO THE AIRPORT. THAT'S CURRENTLY A FIVE LANE FACILITY. 
          THERE'S JUST A QUESTION. WOULD WE BETTER BE SERVED WITH BIKE LANES ALONG THAT OR PARKING? SO THAT IS A THAT IS A CONSIDERATION THAT WE'RE STILL LOOKING AT. THANK YOU. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. COUNCILOR LARSON. DID YOU ALSO WANT TO OKAY. WELL WITH THAT THEN COUNCIL MEMBERS, IF THERE ARE NO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS, CHAIR WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. OKAY, I MOVE COUNCIL APPROVE THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE STREET 
          [00:35:04]
OVERLAYS 2025 PROJECT AND AWARD THE CONTRACT TO THE LOWEST RESPONSIVE, RESPONSIBLE BIDDER, HK CONTRACTORS, INC. FOR $2,699,629.90 AND GIVE AUTHORIZATION TO THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS. SECOND, VERY GOOD CITY CLERK, WILL YOU CONDUCT OUR VOTE? FRANCIS A DINGMAN. YES. FREEMAN. YES. LARSON. YES. BURTENSHAW. YES. 
          [5.B.2) Consideration of State Local Agreement and Resolution with the Idaho Transportation Department for the Holmes Avenue, Sunnyside Road to Taylorview Middle School Project]
MOTION CARRIES. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE ANOTHER PROJECT COMING UP. AND FOR THIS, WE NEED TO APPROVE AN AGREEMENT THAT WE HAVE WITH THE STATE OF IDAHO BECAUSE THEY'RE PROVIDING SOME OF THE FUNDING. DO YOU WANT TO TELL US A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THAT? YEAH. THANK YOU MAYOR. 
          ALSO, FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION THIS EVENING IS A STATE LOCAL AGREEMENT WITH THE IDAHO TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT FOR THE HOLMES AVENUE FROM SUNNYSIDE ROAD TO TAYLOR VIEW MIDDLE SCHOOL PROJECT. THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT IS INTENDED TO WIDEN HOLMES AVENUE SOUTH OF SUNNYSIDE TO AT LEAST THREE LANES. THAT INCLUDES SIDEWALK, CURB, GUTTER AND STREET LIGHTING ON THE WEST SIDE WITHIN THE PROJECT LIMITS. SO IDEALLY, WE WOULD LOVE TO HAVE HOLMES AVENUE BE WIDENED WIDENED TO FIVE LANES, BUT WE DO HAVE A NUMBER OF COUNTY PROPERTIES THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO ACQUIRE IN ORDER TO DO THAT. SO THAT'S WORK THAT WE'LL TRY TO INCORPORATE INTO THAT. BUT REGARDLESS, WHEN THIS PROJECT IS UNDER CONSTRUCTION, THE WEST SIDE OF THE ROADWAY WILL BE BUILT TO FULL URBANIZED STANDARDS, SO IT WILL HAVE BETTER BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIVITY FROM SUNNYSIDE SOUTH TO THE MIDDLE SCHOOL. SO THAT IS WHAT'S INTENDED. THE OVERALL PROJECT COSTS ARE ANTICIPATED TO BE $3,967,600, REQUIRING A 7.34% MATCH, OR $291,222. DESIGN. FUNDING IS AVAILABLE IN THE CURRENT FISCAL YEAR, AND THE CONSTRUCTION FUNDING IS CURRENTLY PROGRAMED FOR PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT, WHICH MEANS IT REALLY DOESN'T HAVE A HOME AS OF YET. BUT THOSE OF YOU THAT SERVE ON THE MPO POLICY BOARD KNOW THAT THIS IS SOMETHING WE GO THROUGH EVERY YEAR AND TRY TO FIND A HOME FOR THOSE CONSTRUCTION FUNDINGS AND GET THOSE DONE AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE. JUST A QUICK COMMENT, WHICH AND YOU CAN TELL ME IF I'M RIGHT OR WRONG, BUT IT STRIKES ME THAT WHENEVER THIS DOES GET DONE, EVEN THOUGH IT HASN'T QUITE FOUND ITS SCHEDULE YET, IT'S GETTING IN QUEUE IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE EVEN THOUGH WE CAN'T DO BOTH SIDES OF THE ROAD, EVEN JUST DOING ONE SIDE WITH SIDEWALKS, IT'S JUST IT'S AN ABSOLUTE SAFETY MEASURE AND WILL AID SCHOOL CHILDREN WALKING TO WORK AND PEOPLE RIDING THEIR BIKES JUST IN THAT LITTLE TINY STRETCH. SO I FEEL LIKE THAT'S IT'S REALLY WORTH DOING, EVEN THOUGH WE MAY HAVE TO GO BACK AND DO THE SAME KIND OF PROJECT ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE ROAD SOMEDAY. SO I'M GLAD WE'RE NOT WAITING. BUT HOW ABOUT HOW LONG IS THE STRETCH THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT? IS IT ALL THE WAY TO THE MIDDLE SCHOOL? IT WILL ACTUALLY EXTEND TO CASTLE ROCK, CASTLE ROCK, SUNNYSIDE. THERE IS AN EXISTING FIVE LANE SECTION AND A FEW HUNDRED FEET SOUTH OF SUNNYSIDE. YES. SO WE'LL TIE INTO THAT AND WE'LL RUN THIS PROJECT THROUGH CASTLE. VERY GOOD. I WASN'T I DIDN'T PAY ATTENTION TO THE MAPS. THANK YOU FOR THAT. COUNCILOR LARSON AND THEN COUNCILOR FRANCIS OR FREEMAN. OKAY, WAIT A MINUTE. IT WAS COUNCILOR FRANCIS AND THEN COUNCILOR OH. ALL RIGHT, THEN WE'LL GO STRAIGHT TO YOU. I'M JUST CURIOUS ABOUT THE RIGHT OF WAY ISSUES. IF WE ALREADY HAVE THE RIGHT OF WAYS ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE ROAD, OR IF WE HAVE TO ACQUIRE THEM. SO WE DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT WE NEEDED ALONG THOSE COUNTY PROPERTIES. OKAY. SO THAT'S ONE THAT WE GENERALLY WILL ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE COUNTY TO HELP US TO PURCHASE THOSE PROPERTIES THAT ARE IN THE COUNTY, WHICH WE DON'T HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DO ON OUR OWN. SO THAT'S STILL SOMETHING THAT WE'LL WORK INTO THIS PROJECT AS WELL. BUT BUT AS I MENTIONED, IF APPROVED TONIGHT WILL HAVE DESIGN FUNDING THAT WILL BE AVAILABLE SO THAT PROCESS CAN BEGIN. OKAY. THANK YOU. MAY I HAVE ONE COMMENT. 
          YES. I WANT TO THANK THE DIRECTOR. I THINK THAT GETTING THIS DESIGN FUNDING READY, READY TO GO, WE HAVE HAD OPPORTUNITY IN THE PAST WITH THE STATE HAS HAD A LITTLE BIT OF EXTRA MONEY FOR A SHOVEL READY PROJECT, AND IF WE ARE READY TO GO WITH THE DESIGN WORK, YOU KNOW, INSTEAD OF LIKE, OH, WE'VE GOT TO WAIT A YEAR, WE ARE MORE LIKELY TO RECEIVE FUNDING FOR THAT PROJECT AS IT MOVES OUT OF THE PD. SO I, I REALLY APPRECIATE THAT WE'RE LOOKING FAR ENOUGH AHEAD, EVEN THOUGH OUR PROJECT HAS NOT BEEN FUNDED YET. THAT KIND OF PLANNING HAS GOTTEN US A LOT OF EXTRA OPPORTUNITIES. SO ALL RIGHT, I THINK WE ARE READY FOR A MOTION. I DO HAVE A QUICK COMMENT. A LOT OF PEOPLE IN THE CITY HAVE BEEN LOOKING FORWARD TO THIS COMING, AND IT'S REALLY A BIG STEP. AND I KNOW IT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN THIS YEAR, BUT THAT CONSTRUCTION WILL PROVIDE A LOT OF SAFETY FOR PEDESTRIANS. SO ALL RIGHT, HERE'S THE MOTION I MOVE COUNCIL APPROVE STATE LOCAL AGREEMENT AND RESOLUTION WITH THE IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FOR THE HOLMES AVENUE SUNNYSIDE ROAD TO TAYLOR VIEW MIDDLE SCHOOL PROJECT, AND AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO SIGN THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS. SECOND. VERY GOOD. THANK YOU FOR THAT, COUNSELOR. 
          [00:40:04]
CITY CLERK, WILL YOU CONDUCT THE VOTE FOR US? DINGMAN. YES, FRANCIS I BURTENSHAW. YES. 
          LARSON. YES. FREEMAN. YES. MOTION CARRIES. VERY GOOD. THANK YOU. AND YET A THIRD ITEM COMING 
          [5.B.3) Consideration of Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Section 5307 Urbanized Area Formula Grants Program Funding Agreement]
IS ANOTHER STATE LOCAL AGREEMENT. AND I'LL LET YOU TEACH US A LITTLE BIT ABOUT WHAT THAT IS, DIRECTOR. SO, MAYOR. OH, NO, THIS IS A FEDERAL TRANSIT, AN FTA. THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE STATE AND LOCAL AGREEMENT. SORRY, THIS IS COMPLETELY SEPARATE. THIS HAS TO DO WITH OUR. YES. THANK YOU. OUR PUBLIC TRANSIT, ALSO KNOWN AS GIFT. SO THANK YOU. MAYOR. YES. 
          THE LAST ITEM THAT WE HAVE FOR BOTH BOARDS THIS EVENING IS, IS A FUNDING AGREEMENT WITH THE FTA FOR SECTION 5307 CARES FUNDING. AND I GUESS IF I COULD JUST PUT THIS IN THE BOX FAIRLY QUICKLY, THIS IS MORE OF A HOUSEKEEPING ITEM. WE CONSIDERED THIS FUNDING AGREEMENT IN NOVEMBER OF 2021. 
          THE ONLY THING THAT CHANGES IN THIS PARTICULAR AGREEMENT IS THAT THE DATES IN WHICH WE'RE ALLOWED TO UTILIZE THAT FUNDING HAVE BEEN EXTENDED THROUGH 2030. SO IF WE COULD GO BACK IN TIME WHEN WE ORIGINALLY TALKED ABOUT MICRO-TRANSIT SERVICES, WE HAVE THIS PROJECT OF NEARLY $4.2 MILLION ALLOCATION THAT WE HAD NO MATCH INVOLVED WITH TO TRY OUT THIS, THIS TRANSIT SERVICE. 
          SO WE FELT LIKE WE COULD STAND THAT SERVICE UP FOR TWO YEARS. AND SO THAT AGREEMENT WAS WRITTEN WITH, I THINK, I BELIEVE IT WAS A THREE YEAR TIME FRAME IN WHICH TO SPEND THIS PARTICULAR MONEY. BUT I FEEL LIKE THAT, YOU KNOW, THROUGH OUTSTANDING FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT FROM OUR TRANSIT COORDINATOR, KATE MARCUS, AND THE EXISTING AND THE PREVIOUS GIFT BOARD, WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO STRETCH THOSE DOLLARS WELL BEYOND THAT TWO YEAR PILOT. SO AS OF TODAY, THAT EXISTING BALANCE STILL REMAINS AT $943,979. SO AS OUR TRANSIT COORDINATOR CONTINUES TO FIND INNOVATIVE WAYS TO STRETCH THAT FUNDING, WE WILL COULD UTILIZE THESE FUNDS INTO 2030, WHICH IS THE NEW DATE THAT WOULD BE ESTABLISHED AS THIS WILL APPROVE THIS EVENING. KIND OF SOUNDS FANTASTIC. IT'S BEEN A GREAT SERVICE IN OUR COMMUNITY. ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE DIRECTOR, COUNSELOR FREEMAN? NO, I JUST HAD A COMMENT. ALL RIGHT. GO AHEAD AND OFFER YOUR COMMENTS. I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY THAT ONE OF THE REASONS THAT WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO STRETCH THE MONEY FOR GIFTS SO FAR IS BECAUSE OF OUR CORPORATE SPONSORS. AND IT'S BEEN, YOU KNOW, THIS HAS BEEN REALLY SUPPORTED BY THE BY THE BY THE CITY AND BY THE CORPORATE PARTNERS THAT WE HAVE AND THE ADVERTISING DOLLARS THAT WE GET THAT WE CAN USE FOR MATCH WITH FEDERAL DOLLARS. SO THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS WE'RE CONTINUING THIS PROGRAM, AND IT'S HEALTHY AT THIS TIME. I MIGHT ADD THAT COUNSELOR FREEMAN SITS ON THAT BOARD AND SERVES AS THE VICE CHAIR OR CO-CHAIR, VICE CHAIR, VICE CHAIR. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, DIRECTOR, COUNCIL MEMBERS, I THINK WE MAY BE READY FOR SOME ACTION. I MOVE COUNCIL APPROVE THE FTA 5307 URBANIZED AREA FORMULA GRANTS PROGRAM FUNDING AGREEMENT AND AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO SIGN THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS. SECOND CITY CLERK, WE'RE READY TO GO. BURTONSHAW. YES. LARSON. YES. DINGMAN. YES. FREEMAN. YES. FRANCIS I MOTION 
          [5.C.1) Approval of a Professional Services Agreement for Underwriting Services]
CARRIES. VERY GOOD. THANK YOU. MOVING ON. THEN. THE NEXT DEPARTMENT WITH BUSINESS IN FRONT OF THE COUNCIL IS THE OUR AIRPORT. AND OUR AIRPORT DIRECTOR, IAN TURNER IS HERE APPROACHING THE PODIUM. AND YOU HAVE TWO ITEMS FOR US. THE FIRST ONE HAS TO DO WITH A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT THAT YOU NEED COUNCIL APPROVAL FOR. THAT'S CORRECT. GREAT. 
          THANK YOU. TAKE IT AWAY. THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT BEFORE YOU IS FOR BOND UNDERWRITING SERVICES. SHOULD WE AS A CITY CHOOSE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH BORROWING THROUGH A BOND FOR THE ACTUAL BUILDING EXPANSION OF THE TERMINAL BUILDING? WE ISSUED AN RFP WITH OUR MUNICIPAL ADVISORS AT ZIONS BANK THAT RESULTED IN TWO PROPOSALS. OUR MUNICIPAL ADVISORS AND AIRPORT STAFF, INCLUDING MYSELF AND BRUCE YOUNG, THE ASSISTANT AIRPORT DIRECTOR, MUNICIPAL SERVICES DIRECTOR PAM ALEXANDER SCORED THOSE TWO PROPOSALS AND HAS RATED STIFEL AS THE TOP PROPOSER. SOME OF THE THINGS THAT STOOD OUT ABOUT THE PROPOSAL INCLUDED THEIR PAST HISTORY WORKING WITH THE CITY, THEIR OVERALL COST AS WELL, AND PROBABLY MOST IMPORTANT TO ME IS THAT THEY HAVE SOME PRETTY SIGNIFICANT EXPERIENCE HELPING OTHER REGIONAL AIRPORTS IN MONTANA, WHICH IS THE OTHER STATE IN OUR DISTRICT OF THE FAA AND BORROWING FOR TERMINAL EXPANSION WORK. ANY COST ASSOCIATED WITH THIS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT WILL BE PAID THROUGH A SUCCESSFUL ISSUANCE OF A BOND AT A RATE OF ABOUT $6 PER $1,000 OF BORROWING. AND OF COURSE, WE CAN'T DETERMINE WHAT THAT IS 
          [00:45:03]
BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH MONEY WE'RE BORROWING AT THIS POINT. SO THAT'S STILL A BIT TO BE DETERMINED. WITH THAT, I HAPPILY ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. ALL RIGHT. COUNCIL MEMBERS, QUESTIONS FOR DIRECTOR TURNER. ALL RIGHT. SEEING NO QUESTIONS. ANY COMMENTS? CONCERNS. YEAH, I DON'T HAVE I DON'T HAVE ANY COMMENTS AS THE JUST AS THE LIAISON TO AIRPORT. 
          I KNOW JUST I DID KNOW THAT THERE WAS A ARTICLE IN THE PAPER ABOUT HOW MUCH OUR AIRPORT IS INCREASING. IT'S LIKE 11 OR 12% YEAR OVER YEAR AND THEN 73% SINCE 2019. SO THAT IS A LOT OF THE REASON THAT WE REALLY DO NEED TO CONTINUE TO LOOK AT EXPANDING THE AIRPORT. WE HAVE INCREASED THE TERMINAL, BUT WE REALLY DO NEED TO WORK ON THE BACK END OF THE HOUSE WITH THE BAGGAGE AND THE BAGGAGE CLAIM, BECAUSE AND THE PARKING, IT JUST IS AN EXPANDING AIRPORT. IT'S THE SECOND BUSIEST IN THE STATE OF IDAHO. GOOD SUMMARY. GOOD SUMMARY. ALL RIGHT. I THINK WE MAY BE READY FOR SOME ACTION. AND I'LL TURN IT TO COUNCILOR BURTENSHAW AND FREEMAN. WHO ARE THE LIAISONS? ACTUALLY, I'M THE ONLY LIAISON AT THE AIRPORT, AND I AGREED TO TAKE A MOTION FOR THAT. OKAY. WHY DO I THINK YOU DID? OKAY, I APOLOGIZE. I'M THINKING IN THE PAST. ALL RIGHT. 
          THANK YOU. OKAY. I WOULD MOVE THE COUNCIL, APPROVE THE SELECTION OF STIFEL NICOLAUS AND COMPANY INCORPORATED TO PROVIDE UNDERWRITING SERVICES FOR POTENTIAL BORROWING RELATED TO THE AIRPORT TERMINAL BUILDING EXPANSION. SECOND. THANK YOU, CITY CLERK. WILL YOU EXPECT TO VOTE? FREEMAN. YES. BURTENSHAW. YES. FRANCIS. AYE. DINGMAN. YES. LARSON. YES. MOTION CARRIES. 
          [5.C.2) Consideration of Clayco, Incorporated’s, Change Order 3 to its contract for the Idaho Falls Regional Airport Terminal Expansion]
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WELL, ALSO RELATED TO THIS VERY SAME EXPANSION. SOME OF THE WORK HAS BEEN UNDERTAKEN OR CONTEMPLATES, BEEN CONTEMPLATED FOR A WHILE. SOME HAS BEEN STARTED, BUT NOT COMPLETELY FINISHED. AND WE THEN AS THE SCOPE OF WORK HAS CHANGED A BIT, WE NEEDED TO RENEGOTIATE WITH THE ORGANIZATION THAT'S DOING SOME OF THIS WORK. AND SO WHY DON'T YOU TELL US A LITTLE BIT ABOUT MORE ABOUT WHAT'S NEEDED? ABSOLUTELY. THANKS AGAIN. THE SECOND ITEM BEFORE YOU IS A CHANGE ORDER. SO IT'S A THIRD CHANGE ORDER TO CLAYCO INCORPORATED'S, CONSTRUCTION MANAGER, GENERAL CONTRACTING CONTRACTORS CONTRACT. THEY WERE SELECTED IN JULY OF 2023 TO BE THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR ON THIS PROJECT, AND ALSO HELPED THROUGH THE PROCESS OF DESIGN AS WELL AS BIDDING SERVICES AS A CITY. AS OUR FUNDING PICTURE HAS ADJUSTED, WE'VE CHANGED THAT INITIAL SCOPE OF WORK, RESULTING IN THE FIRST TWO CHANGE ORDERS THAT COVERED REPACKAGING THE WORK. TO ADDRESS THOSE CHANGES, AS WELL AS SELECTED DEMOLITION AND SOME SPACE SPECIFICATION VERIFICATION IN THE BASEMENT OF THE. NOT ALL OF THAT WORK WAS COMPLETED, BUT IT DID LEAD TO A PROPOSED CHANGE ORDER LAST JANUARY OF JUST SHY OF $2.1 MILLION TO PURCHASE LONG LEAD ITEMS IN A CHILLER AND A COUPLE OF OTHER ITEMS THAT ARE LISTED IN THE AGENDA ITEM. WE DID NOT RECEIVE SOME EXPECTED GRANT FUNDING IN 2024, AND SHORTLY AFTER I STARTED, I GOT THE GREAT CHOICE TO PAUSE THIS PROJECT. HOWEVER, CLAYCO DID FINISH THEIR WORK THAT WAS ASKED OF THEM AND THEY WERE PAID WITH THE EXCEPTION OF SOME DOLLARS AT THE END OF THOSE OTHER TWO CHAMBERS. 
          WHEN WE RE-INITIATED THIS PROJECT IN NOVEMBER, IT IS SEPARATED FROM THE PREVIOUS ITEM BECAUSE THIS IS GOING TO BE THE USABLE UNIT OF WORK THAT'S REQUIRED UNDER OUR FEDERAL GRANTS FOR. THE DELIVERABLE, IF YOU WILL, TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. SO THEY KNOW THAT THEIR DOLLARS HAVE BEEN SPENT WISELY. THAT IS THE UTILITY AND INFRASTRUCTURE PACKAGE OF WHAT WE'VE BEEN REFERRING TO IS THE ENABLING WORK. WE HAVE A LOT OF UTILITIES TO MOVE OUT FROM UNDERNEATH THE BUILDING, BUT INTO A WHAT WILL AMOUNT TO A FAIRLY SMALL STRUCTURE, BUT A STRUCTURE THAT WILL NOT ONLY MEET THIS COMING EXPANSION, BUT ULTIMATELY THE FULL BUILD OUT THAT'S CONTAINED IN THE STILL UNDERWAY AIRPORT MASTER PLAN. SO THE CHANGE ORDER BEFORE YOU GETS US TO BIDDING FOR THAT ENABLING WORK PACKAGE. CHANGE ORDERS FOR $93,365. IT DOES INCLUDE APPROXIMATELY 50 TO $60,000 OF UNUSED FUNDS. OUT OF THOSE TWO PREVIOUS CHANGE ORDERS, AND BRINGS THE TOTAL CONTRACT TO $684,993, PLUS ANY REIMBURSABLES THAT ARE ELIGIBLE UNDER THE CONTRACT. THESE FUNDS ARE AVAILABLE WITH EXISTING GRANTS THAT WE HAVE THE GRANT AGREEMENT FOR, OR DEDICATED FUNDS THAT WERE COMING TO IDAHO FALLS, BUT WE HAVE NOT PUT AN APPLICATION IN FOR. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. CLARITY ON THAT. COUNCIL MEMBER, ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE FOR THE DIRECTOR? I JUST HAD ONE QUICK QUESTION. AND THAT IS WILL THIS INFRASTRUCTURE 
          [00:50:05]
UTILITY FACILITY OR. YEAH, I'LL JUST CALL IT FACILITY FOR LACK OF A MORE SPECIFIC WORD, WILL THAT BE LOCATED ON THE AIRPORT OPERATIONS IN THE AIRPORT OPERATIONS AREA, OR WILL IT BE APPENDED TO THE BUILDING? IT WILL BE IN WHAT'S CURRENTLY BASICALLY RIGHT ON TOP OF OUR FENCE THAT DIVIDES THE PUBLIC AREA OF THE AIRPORT FROM THE NONPUBLIC AREA OF THE AIRPORT. 
          ULTIMATELY, IT WILL BE PART OF THAT. OKAY. IT JUST STRIKES ME AS SOMETHING THAT NEEDS TO BE VERY HARDENED AND VERY SECURE, BUT I IMAGINE THE PUBLIC SIDE WON'T HAVE ACCESS OR WINDOWS. IT WILL BE ACCESS CONTROL. VERY GOOD, VERY GOOD. OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT. WE'RE READY FOR A MOTION OR SOME ACTION. OKAY, I AM READY. I APPRECIATE DIRECTOR TURNER FOR HELPING KEEPING US STRAIGHT ON THIS. WE HAVE RECEIVED THE GRANT MONEY. IT IS A USABLE UNIT OF WORK. WE KEEP CHANGING THIS. WE KEEP WORKING TOWARDS THIS CONTRACT OVER AND OVER AGAIN SO THAT WE ARE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE FEDERAL GRANT. SO I DO APPRECIATE ALL OF YOU. YOU'LL SEE, I'M JUST MENTIONING THAT BECAUSE OF HOW LONG THE MEMO IS IN THE PACKET, IT'S BECAUSE IT REALLY IS QUITE COMPLEX. AND HE DOES A GOOD JOB KEEPING US INFORMED. SO WITH THAT I WOULD APPROVE THAT. I WOULD MOVE THAT COUNCIL APPROVE CLAYCO INCORPORATED'S CHANGE ORDER THREE TO ITS JULY 2023 CONSTRUCTION MANAGER GENERAL CONTRACTOR CONTRACT FOR THE IDAHO FALLS REGIONAL AIRPORT TERMINAL BUILDING EXPANSION AND AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO SIGN THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS. SECOND. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, CITY CLERK. ARE YOU ABLE TO CONDUCT A VOTE FOR US? LARSON. YES, FRANCIS. AYE. DINGMAN. YES. BURTENSHAW. YES. FREEMAN. YES. MOTION 
          [5.D.1) Purchase Water Meters and Cellular Endpoints for Public Works]
CARRIES. VERY GOOD. ALL RIGHT. THE FIFTH DEPARTMENT TO BRING SOMETHING FOR ACTION IS MUNICIPAL SERVICES. OUR DIRECTOR, PAM ALEXANDER, WAS READY AND JUMPING UP WHEN THIS CAME UP. AND YOU HAVE, I THINK, THREE ITEMS BEFORE US. AND AT LEAST ALL OF THESE ARE ON BEHALF OF A DEPARTMENTS OTHER THAN YOUR OWN. PERHAPS. BUT THE FIRST ONE IS TO PURCHASE WATER METERS FOR PUBLIC WORKS. WANT TO TALK A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT THAT? THANK YOU MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL. SO PART OF THE MUNICIPAL SERVICES RESPONSIBILITIES IS TO SUPPORT OUR OTHER DEPARTMENTS, PARTICULARLY WHEN IT COMES TO CENTRALIZED PURCHASING. SO THIS ITEM THIS EVENING IS ACTUALLY TO DO A COUPLE OF THINGS. FIRST OF ALL, IT IS TO REQUEST THE ACCEPTANCE AND THE APPROVAL OF A QUOTE THAT WAS RECEIVED FROM HYDRO SPECIALTIES COMPANY. IT ALSO THIS EVENING WE'RE ALSO IDENTIFYING THIS VENDOR AS A SOLE SOURCE PURCHASE. SO GIVING A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND, IN JANUARY OF 2023, THERE WAS A WORK, A WORK SESSION CONDUCTED BY OUR PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT AND OUR WATER DIVISION DIRECTOR THAT TALKED ABOUT THE EVALUATIONS THAT THEY DID ON PURCHASING WATER METERS FOR THE CITY AS BOTH FOR RESIDENTIAL AND FOR COMMERCIAL. AND AT THAT WORK SESSION, IT WAS APPROVED FOR HYDRO SPECIALTIES TO BE THE SOLE SOURCE PROVIDER, IF YOU WILL, FOR THE WATER METERS. AT THIS TIME, THE WATER DIVISION NEEDED SOME ADDITIONAL WATER METERS, BOTH FOR RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL, AND THEY'RE ASKING FOR APPROVAL OF THE QUOTE THAT WAS RECEIVED AS A SOLE SOURCE FROM HYDRO SPECIALTIES AND THE METERS THAT ARE LISTED IN THE QUOTE HAVE A VARIETY OF SIZES THAT ARE SUPPORTIVE OF BOTH OUR RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES. FOR OUR WATER METERS. THANK YOU. OKAY, WITH THAT EXPLANATION, COUNCIL MEMBERS, ARE THERE ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR DIRECTOR OR ANY QUESTIONS FOR DIRECTOR ALEXANDER? ALL RIGHT. WELL, WE DON'T I DON'T HEAR YOU, BUT WE DO HAVE TWO COUNCIL MEMBERS WHO SERVE AS LIAISON. COUNCILOR BERTRAND, COUNCILOR LARSON. I BELIEVE COUNCILOR, COUNCILOR LARSON IS INDICATING THAT HE WILL BE MAKING THE MOTION. ANY COMMENTS FIRST. OKAY. THANK YOU. I MOVE THAT COUNCIL DECLARE HYDRO SPECIALTIES COMPANY AS THE ONLY VENDOR REASONABLY AVAILABLE TO. FOR THE PURCHASE OF BADGER WATER METERS AND CELLULAR ENDPOINTS, WHICH WERE COMPATIBLE OF EQUIPMENT, COMPONENTS, ACCESSORIES AND REPLACEMENT PARTS IS THE PARAMOUNT CONSIDERATION AND THE PURCHASE OF PRODUCTS, MERCHANDISE OR TRADEMARK GOODS IS FOR RESALE AT A CITY FACILITY. PER IDAHO IDAHO CODE 6728082, A TWO AND SEVEN, AND ACCEPT AND APPROVE THE QUOTE RECEIVED FROM HYDRO SPECIALTIES COMPANY FOR QUANTITIES OF BADGER METERS AND CELLULAR CELLULAR ENDPOINTS, FOR THE TOTAL OF $191,395.60, AND DIRECT STAFF TO TAKE NECESSARY STEPS TO COMPLETE THE PURCHASE OF BADGER REPLACEMENT AND RESALE PARTS. SECOND, I THINK YOU BREATHED DURING THAT ONE SHOULD HAVE DONE 
          [00:55:04]
IT IN ONE BREATH IF YOU REALLY WANTED TO WIN. WELL DONE. WE HAVE A MOTION WITH A SECOND CITY CLERK. WILL YOU CONDUCT THE VOTE? LARSON. YES. BURTENSHAW. YES. DINGMAN. YES. FREEMAN. YES. 
          FRANCIS. AYE. MOTION CARRIES. VERY GOOD. THANK YOU. WE HAVE ANOTHER MOTION OR ANOTHER 
          [5.D.2) Transfer of Fire Department Supplies Dispenser to District 91]
DEPARTMENT THAT NEEDS A SOME ACTION. AND THIS IS AN INTERESTING ONE THAT TEACH US. 
          YES. THANK YOU, MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL. SO ANOTHER THING THAT MUNICIPAL SERVICES DOES IS WE ACTUALLY KEEP TRACK OF ALL OF THE SURPLUS OF CITY PROPERTY. AND THIS IS A REALLY NEAT AGENDA ITEM THIS EVENING. AND AS THE MAYOR MENTIONED EARLIER, WE DO HAVE INTERACTION WITH OUR STUDENTS IN THE COMMUNITY. AND THIS ACTUALLY IS A REQUEST TO TRANSFER THE FIRE DEPARTMENT. 
          WHAT WE WHAT WE CALL IT'S THE DISPENSER OF MEDICAL SUPPLIES AND MEDICATION THAT WAS USED PRIOR TO US UPGRADING IT TO A SAFE, SAFE TYPE OF SITU, LIKE A SAFE, LIKE LITERALLY A SAFE TO STORE SOME OF THESE SUPPLIES AND MEDICATION. AND WE HAD IT THIS PARTICULAR ITEM, IT IS IT IS A VENDING MACHINE AND IT LOOKS LIKE A VENDING MACHINE AND IT ACTS LIKE A VENDING MACHINE. AND WHEN WE RECEIVE THE UPDATE FOR THE FIRE DEPARTMENT'S USE, THIS PARTICULAR VENDING MACHINE WAS PLACED ON SURPLUS. WE HAD IT ON SURPLUS FOR ABOUT 3 OR 4 TIMES. THE MINIMUM. RESERVE WAS NOT MET. AND EXCUSE ME, WE TOOK IT OFF THE SURPLUS TO LOOK AT WHAT OTHER RESOURCES WE HAD. AND IRONICALLY ENOUGH, WE ACTUALLY RECEIVED A REQUEST FROM A STUDENT AT COMPASS ACADEMY THAT SAID WE WERE WONDERING IF THE CITY WOULD HAVE ANY LEFTOVER VENDING MACHINES THAT THEY WOULD BE WILLING TO DONATE TO THE DISTRICT FOR A PROJECT, A BUSINESS PROJECT THEY'RE DOING AT COMPASS ACADEMY. SO OUR CHIEF OF STAFF HAD CONNECTED WITH THE STUDENT AND THE PRINCIPAL, AND A LITTLE POSITION PAPER WAS PRESENTED TO THE CITY. AND I ALSO WANT TO THANK OUR FIRE CHIEF NELSON FOR ENTERTAINING THIS THIS OPPORTUNITY FOR A STUDENT TO BE ABLE TO PLACE A PROPOSAL TO ACTUALLY RECEIVE THE DONATION OF THIS VENDING MACHINE TO THE DISTRICT FOR USE FOR STUDENT SNACKS AND THAT TYPE OF THING. SO IT'S REALLY A BUSINESS PROJECT FOR THEM, AND IT'S A REALLY GREAT OPPORTUNITY. AND WE WOULD LIKE TO ASK THE COUNCIL'S APPROVAL TO ALLOW FOR US TO TRANSFER THAT VENDING MACHINE AS TO THE DISTRICT. AND IT IS CONSIDERED A SUB GOVERNMENTAL UNIT IN THE STATE OF IDAHO STATUTES. SO THIS IS ALLOWABLE AS FAR AS A TRANSFER GOES. VERY GOOD. THANK YOU. COUNCIL MEMBERS, ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? ALL RIGHT. WELL THEN I'LL TURN TO COUNCILOR LARSON FOR THAT MOTION. I MOVE THAT COUNCIL, APPROVE THE TRANSFER OF A FIRE DEPARTMENT SUPPLIES DISPENSER TO DISTRICT 91. SECOND. VERY GOOD. CITY CLERK. 
          WE'RE READY FOR A VOTE. FREEMAN. YES. BURTONSHAW. YES. FRANCIS A. DINGMAN. YES. LARSON. YES. 
          MOTION CARRIES. CONGRATULATIONS TO THE STUDENTS. WE HOPE YOU HAVE A GREAT BUSINESS EXPERIENCE 
          [5.D.3) Purchasing a replacement for Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) software. ]
THERE. MOVING ON. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT ENTERPRISE RESOURCE PLANNING SOFTWARE. OKAY, SO WE DID HAVE A PRESENTATION ON MONDAY FROM OUR ER WHAT WE CALL AN ERP PROJECT TEAM. OUR ERP PROJECT TEAM LEAD IS OUR CITY TREASURER, MARK HAGEDORN. AND AT THIS TIME I'D LIKE TO TRANSFER IF IT'S IF IT'S OKAY WITH THE CITY COUNCIL TO ALLOW OUR CITY TREASURER TO COME UP AND PRESENT THIS ITEM AS HIS AS A WORKGROUP, INCLUDING MR. HAGEDORN AS THE LEAD ON IT HAS WORKED SO DILIGENTLY ON THIS PROJECT. SO WITH THAT, I'M GOING TO TRANSITION HIM OVER. GREAT. 
          WELCOME, MR. HAGEDORN. OUR CITY TREASURER. WE'RE ANXIOUS TO HEAR A LITTLE BIT MORE. THANK YOU, MAYOR COUNCIL, FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY TO COME FORTH AND BRING FORTH THIS AGENDA ITEM FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. THIS HAS BEEN MANY YEARS IN THE MAKING. THE CITY'S CURRENT SOFTWARE THAT WE'VE HAD FOR 25 YEARS LACKS THE ABILITY TO INNOVATE WITH OUR CURRENT PROCESSES AND HAS SOME OPERATIONAL DEFICIENCIES AND A LITTLE MORE DIFFICULT TO USE. MORE AND MORE, WE'RE HAVING TO MOVE THINGS OUTSIDE OF THE SYSTEM AND DO IT MANUALLY THROUGH EXCEL SHEETS AND, AND OTHER KINDS OF CALCULATION TABLES. AND SO WE WENT OUT FOR A REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL AND GOT TEN BIDS. AND WE'VE BEEN DOING RESEARCH FOR THE LAST SIX MONTHS ON WHICH OF THE PLATFORMS WOULD BEST ENABLE THE CITY TO ENVISION THE FUTURE. AND WHAT WE HAVE FOR YOU IS THE BEST PLATFORM THAT ALLOWS US TO GROW WITH OUR PROCESSES AND WITH OUR TECHNOLOGIES, TO BE ABLE TO BRING AND TO MEET ALL THE CORE PRINCIPLES OF THE CITY ARE EMBRACING DATA AND PEOPLE 
          [01:00:02]
MATTER. AND THAT WE CAN REALLY GET TO, TO INNOVATE AND BECOME BETTER FOR THE NEXT 25 YEARS OR, OR LESS SOFTWARE TO CARRY US. AND SO WHAT WE HAVE BEFORE YOU IS A PROPOSAL, AND IT'S 3.2 MILLION FOR IMPLEMENTATION COSTS. AND ANOTHER 300,000 FOR THE FIRST YEAR OF MAINTENANCE COST FOR THIS YEAR. ONE, THIS WILL ALLOW US TO ENTER INTO A STATEMENT OF WORK AND GIVE US THE OPPORTUNITY TO DEVELOP A CONTRACT WITH THIS COMPANY THAT WILL LATER BE APPROVED AND SIGNED BY THE MAYOR. IF YOU APPROVE IT TONIGHT. AND THE REASON WHY IT'S KIND OF BACKWARDS IS BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THE INDUSTRY DOES, BECAUSE THEY WANT SOME ASSURANCES THAT THEY'VE ALREADY SPENT ALL THIS MONEY AND COMMITMENT FOR US TO CONSIDER THE SOFTWARE. THEY WANT TO HAVE THE PROPOSAL APPROVED BEFORE THEY SEND MORE RECENT SOURCES OUT TO SIT DOWN WITH US FOR THE NEXT THREE WEEKS AND DEVELOP A STATEMENT OF WORK. AND IF THERE'S NO SIGNIFICANT CHANGES FROM THEIR PROPOSAL, THEN WE'LL BE ABLE TO HAVE THE MAYOR SIGN THAT THERE IS AND WE'LL COME BACK TO COUNCIL AND HAVE THAT PRE-APPROVED. OKAY. SO THE DEVELOPING THE STATEMENT OF WORK, I HAD SOMEHOW COME AWAY FROM OUR PRESENTATION THINKING THAT THAT WAS A FEW MONTHS WORTH OF WORK. YOU'RE SAYING IT'S ONLY A MATTER OF WEEKS? WELL, THEY COME ON SITE AND THROUGH ME FOR THREE WEEKS, AND THEN THEN IT GOES INTO LIKE THE NEGOTIATION OF TERMS WITH THE ATTORNEYS, WHICH USUALLY TAKE A MONTH OR TWO. ALL RIGHT. AND SO WE AFTER THIS ACTION TONIGHT, WE'RE AUTHORIZING THAT THAT NEGOTIATION TAKE PLACE. BUT THE FINAL NEGOTIATION THEN THAT IS SUBJECT TO A SECONDARY APPROVAL OR A SECOND APPROVAL AND A SECONDARY APPROVAL, IF THE SCOPE CHANGES SIGNIFICANTLY AND THE PRICE CHANGES, OKAY, AND THOSE THINGS CHANGE, THEY COME BACK TO COUNCIL. BUT IF THEIR PROPOSED SCOPE IS WHAT WE ACCEPT DURING THE UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT WILL HAPPEN, THEN THERE WILL BE NO NOTHING. THIS APPROVAL WILL BE SUFFICIENT. OKAY. THAT THAT PART DEFINITELY. I WASN'T SUPER CLEAR ON BECAUSE I WAS WONDERING HOW DO WE KNOW WHAT THE COST IS GOING TO BE BEFORE THE SCOPE IS FINALIZED? BUT YOU'RE SAYING THAT THEY'RE HOPING THEY THEY MADE A REALLY GOOD GUESS. OKAY. SO TO SPEAK. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. COUNCIL MEMBERS, ARE THERE ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS OR DID MY DUMB QUESTIONS CLEAR UP YOURS? ALL RIGHT I THINK THEN LOOKS LIKE THE SILENCE MEANS WE'RE READY TO GO. COUNCILOR LARSON. SURE. I MOVE THAT COUNCIL, RECEIVE THE PROPOSAL AND DIRECT THE CORE TEAM TO MOVE FORWARD, TO DEVELOP A SCOPE OF WORK WITH STRATA SPRY POINT AND REPLACE THE ERP SOFTWARE SYSTEM AT A TOTAL PROPOSED COST OF $3,240,811 FOR IMPLEMENTATION AND $306,421 FOR THE ANNUAL MAINTENANCE COST IN YEAR ONE, AND TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO SIGN ALL NECESSARY DOCUMENTS UPON COMPLETION OF THAT SCOPE OF WORK. SECOND. ALL RIGHT, CITY CLERK, WE ARE READY FOR THIS. EXCITING, VERY SIGNIFICANT. TOOK US A LONG TIME TO GET HERE. VOTE BURTENSHAW. YES. LARSON. YES. DINGMAN. YES. 
          FREEMAN. YES. FRANCIS I MOTION CARRIES. VERY GOOD. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. SO WE'VE REACHED THE POINT IN THE AGENDA WHERE WE HAVE ONLY ONE DEPARTMENT'S WORTH OF BUSINESS LEFT. IT'S WHAT EVERYBODY'S BEEN WAITING FOR. OR TO THOSE OF YOU AT HOME, WE HAVE A FAIRLY FULL ROOM TONIGHT, BUT I AM GOING TO PROPOSE THAT WE TAKE A BREAK BEFORE WE GET TO THAT, SO THAT WE CAN BE FRESH AND READY TO CONCENTRATE ON ONLY ONE THING WHEN WE COME BACK. AND SO I'LL PROPOSE THAT WE BE BACK IN OUR SEATS NO LATER THAN 845 ON THIS CLOCK, WHICH COULD BE 846 SOMEWHERE ELSE. BUT IF WE ARE ALL READY TO GO AND THE ROOM IS QUIETING DOWN ALL BY ITSELF BEFORE THEN, WE MAY CLICK ON JUST A MINUTE OR TWO BEFORE THEN, DEPENDING ON HOW HARD IT IS TO CORRAL PEOPLE. BUT IF YOU START SEEING THE LIGHTS FLICKER ON AND OFF OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, YOU'LL KNOW THAT WE'VE EXCEEDED OUR TIME. AND I'M TRYING TO GET EVERYBODY BACK APPARENTLY, WE HEARD THE POP WE'RE ON. WE'RE LIVE WITH OUR AUDIO, AND I HAVE A FEELING WE'RE LIVE WITH OUR VIDEO, SO. 
          AND WE'RE AHEAD OF TIME. I THINK I TAKE THAT AS A SIGN THAT PEOPLE WANT TO GET ON WITH IT. 
          SO LET ME JUST GIVE A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND HERE. COUNCIL. CITY COUNCIL HAS MANY ROLES. 
          [5.E.1) Public Meeting-Appeal of Revocation of the Conditional Use Permit and Reasoned Statement of Relevant Criteria and Standards for U-Pick Red Barn revoked on 12/17/2024 by the Board of Adjustment.]
THEY BUDGET, THEY LEGISLATE, AND FROM TIME TO TIME AND THEY OVERSEE THE WORK OF THE CITY. 
          AND FROM TIME TO TIME THEY'RE ALSO CALLED UPON TO PARTICIPATE IN QUASI JUDICIAL PROCESSES WHERE THEY HAVE TO BE VERY, VERY CAREFUL ABOUT THE WAY THAT THEY ADMINISTER A PARTICULAR PART OF 
          [01:05:01]
THE LAW. TYPICALLY, THAT APPLIES TO LAND USE. AND IN THIS CASE, THEY'RE ACTING IN THE ROLE OF ALMOST AN APPEALS COURT, KIND OF A COURT OF APPEALS. AND SO THERE ARE DIFFERENT RULES THAT APPLY. 
          AND SO THEY'RE TAKING OFF THEIR INFORMAL HATS, AND WE'RE PUTTING ON THE FORMAL HATS OF HOW DO WE CONDUCT OURSELVES IN THIS KIND OF A PROCEEDING. THIS IS AN APPEALS PROCESS. IN SOME PARTS OF OUR CODE, I THINK IT'S REFERRED TO AS AN APPEAL HEARING. I'M GOING TO CALL IT AN APPEALS PROCESS RIGHT NOW, SIMPLY BECAUSE IF YOU SAY HEARING, SOMETIMES THAT CONNOTES TO PEOPLE THAT THERE'S A PUBLIC ELEMENT OF TESTIMONY, AND IN THIS CASE THAT IS SPECIFIC, SPECIFICALLY NOT A PART OF THIS PROCESS, ACCORDING TO THE CITY OF CODE. AND SO WE ARE WANTING TONIGHT TO BE VERY CAREFUL TO FOLLOW THE CITY CODE IN THE WAY THAT IT SPELLS OUT THAT A PROCESS LIKE THIS SHOULD BE CARRIED OUT. AND SO LET ME JUST GO THROUGH A FEW BASICS AND THEN WE'LL GET ON WITH THE HEARING. THE FIRST BASIC IS I WANTED TO FIND OUT IF THERE ARE ANY COUNCIL MEMBERS WHO WOULD DESIRE TO RECUSE THEMSELVES FOR REASONS THAT ARE KNOWN UNDER, OR WOULD BE REQUIRED UNDER IDAHO LAW. ARE THERE ANY COUNCIL MEMBERS WHO ARE PLANNING TO DO THAT? OKAY, IDAHO LAW IS, I DON'T KNOW ALL THE ALL THE RULES, BUT TYPICALLY IF SOMEBODY STANDS TO GAIN FINANCIALLY FROM A DECISION, THEY TYPICALLY ARE THAT'S THAT'S A CONFLICT. AND SO IF WE DON'T HAVE THAT KIND OF A CONFLICT, WE DON'T NEED TO HAVE ANY RECUSAL. SECONDLY, SOME GROUND RULES FOR TONIGHT. ONE IS, AS I MENTIONED, NO TESTIMONY. AND THAT IS PURSUANT TO OUR ORDINANCES SPECIFICALLY 11.64 SEE IF YOU WANT TO LOOK IT UP, THE REVIEW TONIGHT IS ALSO GOING TO BE LIMITED TO THE RECORD. WHAT HAS BEEN DECIDED AND DETERMINED AND ENTERED IN AS FACT. ALREADY WE WILL NOT KNOW NEW INFORMATION AND NO NEW TESTIMONY. RIGHT? NOTHING NEW IS ALLOWED TO COME INTO THE DECISION MAKING. HOWEVER, IF COUNCIL BECOMES AWARE THAT THERE IS A SIGNIFICANT ELEMENT OF NEW INFORMATION, THAT WAS PROBABLY SHOULD HAVE BEEN A PART OF A PRIOR DECISION MAKING, THEY CAN THEY CAN ACT ON THAT. SO WE'LL TALK ABOUT THAT LATER IF WE GET TO THAT POINT. THIRDLY, I WOULD ASK KIND OF FOR THE VERY SAME REASONS THAT WE TALKED ABOUT BEFORE. WE HAVE YOUNG PEOPLE THAT WILL VIEW THESE PROCEEDINGS, AND WE WANT TO SHOW THEM THE VERY BEST. I'M GOING TO ASK FOR DIGNITY AND ORDERED MEETING. AND AN ORDERED MEETING WOULD MEAN THAT WE FOLLOW THE PROCESS THAT'S LAID OUT OR THAT I WILL LAY OUT. AND THAT IS TYPICALLY WHAT'S IN THE CODE. AND SO THAT WOULD INCLUDE NO CHEERING OR CLAPPING. IF SOMEONE MAKES A POINT THAT YOU FEEL PASSIONATE ABOUT, SMILE. BUT NO, NO. DEMONSTRATIONS OF NO BOOING EITHER. AND SO IF SOMEONE DOES IT BY ACCIDENT, WE'LL SAY, HEY, I'LL DO THAT IF IT HAPPENS A SECOND TIME. AND SOMEBODY JUST DECIDING THAT THAT'S THEIR FREE SPEECH AND THEY WANT TO REALLY STAND ON THAT HILL TONIGHT, YOU WILL BE ASKED TO LEAVE THE MEETING. I REALLY WANT TO KEEP THIS AS AN ORDERED PROCESS. I HOPE THAT YOU DON'T THINK I'M ON A POWER TRIP. SIMPLY, I CARE ABOUT THE DIGNITY OF OUR PROCESS. AND THEN FINALLY, I'LL JUST TELL YOU WHAT'S HOW THE PROCESS, HOW THIS HEARING OR THIS PROCESS WILL THE APPEAL WILL PLAY OUT. WE'LL OPEN THE PROCESS, THE WE'LL OPEN THE HEARING, THE APPEALS HEARING. THEN WE WILL I WILL ASK OUR CITY ATTORNEY TO GIVE SOME INSTRUCTION TO THE CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS AS TO WHAT THEY SHOULD BE LISTENING FOR IN AN APPEAL, BECAUSE IT'S VERY SPECIFIC. THEY'RE NOT JUST HEARING EVERYTHING ALL OVER AGAIN AND DECIDING ALL OVER AGAIN. THEY'RE LOOKING FOR SOMETHING VERY SPECIFIC SO THEY WILL GET SOME SORRY ATTORNEY'S INSTRUCTIONS. SECONDLY, WE'LL MOVE TO THE APPELLANTS ARGUMENTS. I BELIEVE OUR APPELLANT TONIGHT HAS THREE INDIVIDUALS WHO WILL BE SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF THE APPEAL. THEN WE'LL TURN TO THE CITY STAFF AND THEY WILL OFFER EXPLANATIONS FOR THE ACTIONS THAT WERE TAKEN OR THAT ARE BEING THAT THEY SOUGHT. AND THEN WE WILL HAVE A REBUTTAL FROM OUR APPELLANT. THEY GET THE LAST WORD AND THEN THEY GET THE LAST FORMAL WORD. BUT THEN COUNCIL MEMBERS GET THE LAST, LAST WORD BECAUSE COUNCIL MEMBERS, YOU HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO ASK QUESTIONS. AFTER EACH PRESENTATION, HOWEVER, I WILL TURN AND SPEAK TO YOU AND SEE IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS. I WILL ASK THAT YOU NOT INTERRUPT ANY OF THE PRESENTATIONS WITH A QUESTION, BUT SAVE THEM FOR THE END. SO GRAB A PIECE OF PAPER IF YOU DON'T HAVE ONE, I'VE GOT SOME PAPER, BUT KEEP NOTE OF YOUR QUESTIONS AND SAVE THEM FOR THE END OF EACH PRESENTATION. AND THEN WITH THAT WE WILL MOVE TO DELIBERATION. OR MAYBE WE CLOSE THE HEARING PROCESS, AND THEN WE MOVE TO DELIBERATION. AND THEN THE COUNCIL CAN COME UP WITH THEIR DECISIONS. DO THEY HAVE TO HAVE A REASON STATEMENT FOR EACH DECISION, OR DO THEY JUST MAKE 
          [01:10:03]
THEIR DECISIONS TONIGHT? THE LOCAL LAND USE PLANNING ACT REQUIRES A WRITTEN STATEMENT, BUT THE COUNCIL SHOULD DELIBERATE TONIGHT AND MAKE A DECISION. MY OFFICE WILL PROBABLY HELP YOU WRITE THAT REASON DECISION FOR YOU TO APPROVE LATER. SO WE WILL. 
          WHATEVER YOU DECIDE TONIGHT, WE'LL WRITE UP AND WE'LL BRING IT TO YOU IN A WORK SESSION, AND YOU'LL HAVE A CHANCE TO REVIEW IT. WE'LL MAKE CHANGES IF IT DOESN'T ALIGN WITH WHAT YOU DECIDED TONIGHT, AND THEN YOU'LL HAVE THAT OPPORTUNITY TO ADOPT THAT WRITTEN STATEMENT, OKAY? OKAY. SO BUT THE DECISION HOPEFULLY WILL BE MADE TONIGHT. IT'S JUST THAT THE WRITTEN STATEMENT WILL BE CRAFTED AND ACCEPTED LATER, I SHOULD SAY, AND CLARIFY THAT YOU YOU AREN'T REQUIRED TO MAKE THE DECISION TONIGHT. YOU COULD, YOU COULD CONTINUE YOUR DELIBERATIONS AT A LATER DATE. HOWEVER, I THINK IT'S HELPFUL WHERE EVERYBODY'S HERE ALREADY SO THAT NOBODY HAS TO COME BACK, THAT THEY CAN WATCH THE DELIBERATION HAPPEN. YOU WILL BE REQUIRED TO DELIBERATE IN PUBLIC. SO DELIBERATING TONIGHT AND MAKING A DECISION TONIGHT ENABLES EVERYONE WHO'S INVESTED TIME TO COME AND WATCH THESE PROCEEDINGS, OBSERVE THE DELIBERATION, HEAR EVERYTHING FULLY AND KNOW WHY COUNCIL MADE THE DECISION THAT IT DID. AND ACTUALLY BEING ABLE TO JUST DO IT ALL IN ONE FELL SWOOP ALSO MEANS THAT THERE WILL BE NO DOUBTS CAST UPON WHETHER OR NOT YOU HAD A CONVERSATION, YOU KNOW, WITH, WITH JUST A COUPLE OF THE PEOPLE WHO ARE IN THAT ON THE COUNCIL LATER. I MEAN, IT JUST KEEPS THE PROCESS VERY, VERY CLEAN. SO I WILL BE WE'LL BE COGNIZANT OF THE TIME. SO THAT'S OUR PROCESS TONIGHT AND WE'LL MOVE ON THEN AT THIS POINT TO OPEN THE APPEAL AND WE'LL ORDER ALL TESTIMONY AND MATERIALS PRESENTED TO BE PART OF THE OFFICIAL RECORD OF THIS APPEAL PROCEEDING. AND WITH THAT, I WILL ASK OUR CITY ATTORNEY TO HIGHLIGHT FOR NOT JUST THE COUNCIL'S BENEFIT, BUT FOR EVERYBODY'S BENEFIT, WHAT IT IS THAT THIS DECISION TONIGHT IS TO BE DONE. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, MAYOR. AS THE MAYOR ALREADY EXPLAINED, TONIGHT IS AN APPEAL ON A DECISION THAT WAS MADE BY THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT UNDER THE IDAHO FALLS ZONING CODE, SECTION 11 SIX, DASH FOUR, SUBSECTION E AND F COUNCIL TO REVIEW THE APPEAL ON THE RECORD THAT WAS CREATED AT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT HEARING THAT REVOKED THIS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. YOU SHOULD REVIEW THE DECISION THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MADE FOR ERROR. THIS IS NOT WHAT IS KNOWN IN LAW AS A DE NOVO HEARING, WHICH MEANS THAT YOU GET TO HEAR THE MATTER AND MAKE YOUR OWN DECISION. INSTEAD, YOU'RE GOING TO BE FOCUSING ON THE ALLEGED ERRORS THAT ARE BROUGHT BY THE APPELLANT THAT WERE MADE BY THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, AND RENDER A DECISION ON WHETHER OR NOT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ERRED. YOU MAY, AT THE END OF THE HEARING, YOU MAY SUSTAIN THE DECISION OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT IN WHOLE OR IN PART. YOU MAY REVERSE THE DECISION OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT IN WHOLE OR IN PART, OR YOU MIGHT REMAND THE DECISION BACK TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT WITH INSTRUCTIONS. IF YOU DECIDE THAT YOU ARE GOING TO REMAND THE DECISION BACK TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, YOU SHOULD INDICATE TO THE BOARD ON WHAT THE REASONING WAS THAT YOU ARE REMANDING IT BACK TO THERE FOR ADDITIONAL HEARINGS. THE CODE IS CLEAR THAT THERE SHOULD BE ONLY A COUPLE OF REASONS WHY THAT SHOULD HAPPEN, AND IT SAYS THAT THERE WAS SHOWN AT THIS HEARING TONIGHT A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE THAT THERE IS NEW MATERIAL INFORMATION THAT WAS NOT AVAILABLE OR READILY DISCOVERABLE AT THE TIME OF THE DECISION OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, OR THAT IT'S SOMEHOW IN THE PUBLIC'S INTEREST TO DEVELOP SUCH ADDITIONAL MATERIAL INFORMATION ON THE MATTER. SO IF THROUGH THE COURSE OF THIS HEARING, YOU DETERMINE. AND WHAT I'D ENCOURAGE YOU TO FIND IS THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT COULD NOT HAVE REACHED THE DECISION THAT THEY MADE WITHOUT MORE INFORMATION. THAT WOULD BE THE REASON WHY YOU WOULD REMAND IT BACK, IN MY OPINION, FOR IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST, BECAUSE THEY SIMPLY DID NOT HAVE ENOUGH EVIDENCE. BUT YOU MAY ALSO REMAND IT BACK IF THERE'S IF YOU FIND IT BEYOND A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE THAT NEW MATERIAL EVIDENCE HAS BEEN DISCOVERED THAT WAS NOT AVAILABLE AND COULD NOT HAVE BEEN BROUGHT BEFORE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. THAT'S SORT OF THE END OF MY COMMENTS. I DON'T KNOW IF THERE ARE QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT I PRESENTED. IS THERE A PARTICULAR STANDARD THAT NEEDS TO BE BROUGHT TO THE DECISION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS AN ERROR MADE IN THAT? I MEAN, I'VE HEARD ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS AS THE STANDARD. CAN YOU EXPLAIN HOW THAT MIGHT BE APPLIED? SURE. 
          SO THERE'S ON APPEAL, THERE'S VARYING STANDARDS OF REVIEW THAT AN APPELLATE BODY MIGHT ASCRIBE 
          [01:15:05]
AS THEY'RE REVIEWING A DECISION THAT A LOWER BODY MADE. SO WE'RE THE STANDARD THAT THE COUNCIL IS APPLYING IS WHAT'S KNOWN AS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION. YOU MIGHT HAVE HEARD IT BEING CALLED ARBITRARY, CAPRICIOUS. YOU'RE ESSENTIALLY REVIEWING THE DECISION OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND DETERMINING WHETHER OR NOT IT WAS A REASONABLE INTERPRETATION OF THE LAW, WHETHER IT WAS A REASONABLE DECISION BASED ON THE EVIDENCE THAT WAS PRESENTED TO THEM. AND SO YOU MAY EVEN FIND YOURSELF IN A POSITION WHERE YOU MIGHT DISAGREE WITH THE FINDINGS THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MADE. BUT RECENTLY, THE IDAHO SUPREME COURT HAS RENDERED A DECISION IN A CASE CALLED VETERANS PARK ASSOCIATION VERSUS CITY OF BOISE. THIS DECISION IS ONLY TWO WEEKS OLD, IN WHICH THE SUPREME COURT WAS CLEAR THAT CITY COUNCILS THAT HAVE ADOPTED THE ZONING CODE, LIKE OURS AND BOISE HAS A SIMILAR PROVISION WHERE THEY REVIEW FOR ERROR OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. BUT YOU CAN'T JUST REPLACE YOUR OPINION WHERE YOU HAVE A DIFFERENCE OF OPINION. YOU HAVE TO DO MORE. SO YOU HAVE TO IF YOU'RE GOING TO MAKE A FINDING AND IT'S AND YOU'RE MAKING A FINDING THERE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MADE A MISTAKE, IT'S GOT TO BE A MISTAKE. THAT'S MORE THAN JUST AN HONEST DIFFERENCE OF OPINION. IT'S GOT TO BE A MISTAKE THAT WAS MADE THAT NO REASONABLE BOARD COULD HAVE MADE BASED ON THE EVIDENCE THAT WAS PRESENTED, OR A MISTAKE THAT WAS MADE OFF OF THEIR MISUNDERSTANDING OF THE LAW THAT'S CONTAINED IN THE ZONING CODE. WHEN THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, AND NOT SIMPLY BECAUSE YOU WOULD HAVE CONCLUDED DIFFERENTLY JUST ON SOMETHING THAT'S CLOSE. IT HAS. YOU'RE LOOKING FOR AN ABUSE OF THEIR DISCRETION. YOU'RE LOOKING FOR A DECISION THAT WAS ARBITRARY, CAPRICIOUS, OR MADE WITHOUT CAREFUL THOUGHT OR REASONING. THAT'S THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR TONIGHT. 
          THANK YOU. I THINK THAT'S VERY IMPORTANT TO HIGHLIGHT SIMPLY BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT TO ALLOW EMOTION OR POLITICS OR ANYTHING TO GET INVOLVED. WE WANT IT TO BE VERY CLEAN. SO UNDERSTANDING THE STANDARD IS HELPFUL. ALL RIGHT EVERYBODY WITH THAT I THINK I DO HAVE I DO HAVE SOMETHING. JUST TO MENTION I DO NOT HAVE A I DON'T HAVE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST. I HAVE NO MONETARY GAIN FROM THIS. I DO HAVE TO TELL LET COUNCIL KNOW. I THINK THEY KNOW THAT I HAVE HAD MANY, MANY CONVERSATIONS THAT ARE CONSIDERED EX PARTE CONVERSATIONS TO THIS PARTICULAR HEARING OVER THE PAST 18 MONTHS, WORKING WITH THE PRIMARILY THE OWNERS OF U-PICK, TRYING TO HELP WORK THROUGH THE CITY PROCESSES, BUT THAT THESE CONVERSATIONS DO NOT BIAS ME FROM MAKING A DECISION ON THE RECORD AS ESTABLISHED BY THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. I WOULD SAY THAT COUNCIL MEMBERS, ANOTHER ROLE THEY PLAY IS TO HELP THE PUBLIC. WHEN THE PUBLIC IS NEEDING SOMEONE TO ADVOCATE FOR THEM WITH THE CITY. SO HELP. AND SO WITH THAT, THANK YOU. APPRECIATE THAT. ANYTHING ELSE. ALL RIGHT. LET'S GO AHEAD AND WE'LL HEAR FROM THE APPELLANT I BELIEVE FIRST WE HAVE MISS ALLISON WHO'S GOING TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL. AND WHEN YOU GET TO THE MIC LET'S MAKE SURE IT'S ON SO THAT WE CAPTURE WHAT WE NEED TO. CAN YOU HEAR ME? SURE CAN. THANK YOU. I'M JUST GOING TO KIND OF GIVE A BRIEF STORY OF WHY WE'RE HERE TONIGHT. WE STAND BEFORE YOU TODAY BECAUSE WE NEED YOUR HELP AND YOUR ATTENTION, YOUR LEADERSHIP, AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, YOUR COMMITMENT TO FAIRNESS. WE ARE ASKING YOU TO REVERSE THE DECISION BY THE BOA TO REVOKE OUR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, WHICH TOOK US OVER A YEAR TO OBTAIN. IT WAS REVOKED FOR TWO REASONS. WE OPENED WITHOUT AN APPROVED SITE PLAN AND WITHOUT A PERMIT FOR OUR PIZZA KITCHEN. THESE WERE THE LAST TWO ITEMS ON A LENGTHY LIST OF CONDITIONS PLACED ON US, AND WE ADMIT ALL OTHERS. WE WERE AT THE FINISH LINE JUST BEFORE THE LAST MEETING WITH THE BOA. WE ARE HERE TO REQUEST FROM YOU THE REVERSAL OF THEIR DECISION, SO THAT ALL OF THE WORK, MONEY AND TIME FROM US AND THE CITY STAFF IS NOT WASTED AND WE CAN PICK UP WHERE WE LEFT OFF AND OBTAIN OUR PERMITS. THIS ISN'T JUST ABOUT A SMALL BUSINESS TRYING TO SURVIVE IN A DIFFICULT WORLD. IT'S ABOUT THE LEGACY OF SOMETHING MUCH GREATER, SOMETHING THAT HAS BROUGHT JOY AND MEANING TO THOUSANDS OF FAMILIES IN OUR CITY FOR THE PAST TWO DECADES. THE YUP'IK RED BARN WAS STARTED AS A HUMBLE PUMPKIN PATCH, A DREAM NURTURED BY TWO LOCAL TEN YEAR OLD BOYS WITH A VISION. AND OVER THE YEARS, THAT DREAM HAS GROWN, EVOLVING INTO A CHERISHED TRADITION, A DESTINATION WHERE FAMILIES GATHER, MEMORIES ARE MADE, AND THE SPIRIT OF COMMUNITY THRIVES. BUT NOW WE ARE FACED WITH A CHALLENGE. THE VERY PEOPLE WHO SHOULD BE SUPPORTING LOCAL BUSINESSES, FOSTERING GROWTH, ENCOURAGING SUCCESS AND EMBRACING WHAT WE'VE BUILT ARE SHUTTING US DOWN. WE 
          [01:20:02]
NEED TO SHARE OUR STORY AND WE WOULD LIKE YOU TO HEAR IT WITH OPEN EARS AND OPEN HEARTS. LET ME BEGIN BY EXPLAINING THE CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING OUR SITUATION, WHICH HAS BEEN MARKED BY FRUSTRATION, CONFUSION, AND FRANKLY, A LOT OF UNNECESSARY OBSTACLES. THE YUP'IK RED BARN OPENED ITS DOORS THIS PAST YEAR NOT BECAUSE WE INTENDED TO CIRCUMVENT THE SYSTEM, BUT BECAUSE WE WERE TOLD MULTIPLE TIMES THAT IF WE MET SPECIFIC CONDITIONS, WE COULD HAVE PERMISSION TO OPEN SIX PROFESSIONALS, INCLUDING CITY ATTORNEYS AND EXPERTS, CONFIRMED THAT ONCE THOSE CONDITIONS WERE MET, WE WOULD HAVE A CLEAR PATH FORWARD, AND WE DID EVERYTHING ASKED OF US AND WE FULFILLED EVERY REQUIREMENT. YET DESPITE MEETING THOSE CONDITIONS, THE CITY REFUSED TO COME AND INSPECT AND ISSUE A PERMIT FOR THE PIZZA KITCHEN. THIS DECISION, AFTER MULTIPLE APPROVALS AND ASSURANCES, LEFT US BEWILDERED AND FRUSTRATED. WE WERE TOLD WE COULDN'T GET INSPECTIONS WITHOUT A PERMIT, BUT WE COULDN'T GET A PERMIT WITHOUT INSPECTIONS. THIS VICIOUS CYCLE STALLED OUR PROGRESS, BUT THE REAL HEART OF THE ISSUE COMES WITH OUR SITE PLAN. TIME AND TIME AGAIN, WE SUBMITTED REVISED PLANS ONLY TO SEE NEW REQUIREMENTS AND ROADBLOCKS ADDED AT EVERY TURN. NEW DEMANDS WERE PLACED ON US, DEMANDS THAT IT NOT BEEN COMMUNICATED CLEARLY, AND WITH EACH NEW REQUEST, WE FOUND OURSELVES SPENDING MORE TIME AND RESOURCES TO MEET THE EVER CHANGING EXPECTATIONS. THIS WAS ALSO STALLING THE PROCESS OF OBTAINING A PERMIT FOR THE PIZZA KITCHEN. AND NOW, RIGHT BEFORE THE HEARING TO REVOKE OUR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, WE WERE INFORMED THAT OUR SITE PLAN HAD FINALLY BEEN APPROVED. BUT THERE WAS A NEW HURDLE. THE CITY IS ASKING FOR AN EASEMENT, SOMETHING THAT HAS NEVER BEEN CLEARLY EXPLAINED TO US. THE CITY ALREADY HAS A RIGHT OF WAY ON ROLLING DEBT, BUT THE CITY IS NOW ASKING FOR MORE, WITH NO COMPENSATION OR A CLEAR PROMISE OF IMPROVEMENT. THE CITY DEMANDS OUR LAND FOR THIS PURPOSE, AND WE'RE BEING TOLD WE MUST EAT OVER PORTIONS OF THE PROPERTY WITHOUT ANY GUARANTEE OF BENEFIT. THE CITY OWNS 70% OF ROLLING DEBT AND HAS YET TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE IMPROVEMENT OF THIS ROAD. IT MAY TAKE ANOTHER 20 YEARS FOR THE CITY TO DO THEIR PART. WHY ARE WE BEING ASKED TO GIVE UP OUR LAND WITHOUT VALUE IN THIS EXCHANGE? WHY IS THIS BEING PRESENTED AS AN ULTIMATUM? THIS ISN'T ABOUT PROGRESS. THIS IS ABOUT CONTROL, AND IT'S A CONTROL THAT IS UNJUST AND UNREASONABLE. WE HAVE FOLLOWED THE RULES, WE HAVE MET THE CONDITIONS, BUT WE'VE EXPANDED AND CONTRIBUTED TO THE COMMUNITY. BUT DESPITE OUR BEST EFFORTS, WE ARE FACING NOTHING BUT ROADBLOCKS AND DELAYS, WITH NO CLEAR EXPLANATION OR SOLUTION. AND NOW WE ARE TOLD THAT OUR CHERISHED FIREWORKS SHOW, AN EVENT DEDICATED TO THE MEMORY OF OUR FOUNDER, NEIL WALKER, AND TO ALL OF THOSE WHO HAVE FACED THE TRAGEDY OF LOSING A CHILD, MAY NO LONGER BE ALLOWED. THIS SHOW IS A BELOVED TRADITION. SORRY, ONE THAT BRINGS TOGETHER HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE TO CELEBRATE LIFE AND HONOR FOR THOSE WE'VE LOST. TO DENY THIS IS A DIRECT ATTACK ON THE HEART OF OUR COMMUNITY. BUT THERE IS MORE. THE CITY HAS REPEATEDLY REJECTED OUR SITE PLANS, CITING REQUIREMENTS THAT THE CITY COUNCIL HAD ALREADY OVERRULED. THE RULES ARE BEING BENT, IGNORED AND MANIPULATED TO CREATE FURTHER DELAYS. THE PROCESS WE'VE GONE THROUGH HAS BEEN FLAWED FROM THE START, AND THE TREATMENT WE'VE RECEIVED FROM THE CITY STAFF IS NOT JUST FRUSTRATING, IT'S UNJUST. THIS IS NOT ABOUT OUR BUSINESS. THIS IS ABOUT A SYSTEM THAT THE CITY HAS PUT IN PLACE. IT'S ABOUT THE WAY THAT THE CITY INTERACTS WITH EVERY DEVELOPER AND EVERY BUSINESS TRYING TO INVEST IN THE COMMUNITY. IF THIS IS HOW THE CITY HANDLES EVERY PERMIT APPLICATION, IT'S NO WONDER THAT DEVELOPERS ARE CHOOSING TO BUILD OUTSIDE THE CITY LIMITS. WE ARE HERE TO ADVOCATE NOT ONLY FOR OUR PROJECT, BUT FOR A BETTER SYSTEM, ONE THAT IS TRANSPARENT, FAIR, AND CONSISTENT. IF THE CITY CONTINUES TO FUNCTION IN THIS ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS WAY, IT WILL DRIVE BUSINESSES AWAY AND IT WILL CREATE UNNECESSARY DELAYS, AND IT WILL DAMAGE THE FUTURE OF DEVELOPMENT IN THIS CITY. WE CANNOT ALLOW THIS TO BECOME THE NORM. WE CANNOT ALLOW BUSINESSES TO BE BULLIED, COERCED AND TREATED UNFAIRLY. SO I ASK YOU, MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL, WHAT HAPPENS WHEN A COMMUNITY'S GROWTH IS STIFLED BY THOSE IN POWER? WHAT HAPPENS WHEN LOCAL BUSINESSES LIKE THE RED BARN ARE PUNISHED FOR DOING THE RIGHT THING? WHAT MESSAGES ARE WE SENDING TO FUTURE DEVELOPERS WHO WANT TO INVEST IN IDAHO FALLS? THE CITY STAFF HAS OMITTED KEY DETAILS FROM THIS STORY, SUCH AS NUMEROUS SITE PLANS WE SUBMITTE, GOING BACK ON DECISIONS THAT WERE MADE BY CITY COUNCIL, REVERSING SOME OF THE BOA'S DECISIONS AND THEIR ONGOING INSISTENCE ON REQUIREMENTS THAT CITY COUNCIL HAS ALREADY OVERRULED ON THE CITY STAFF'S COMMENTS, MISSED THE FACT THAT THEY HAVE CONTINUALLY STRUNG US, ALONG WITH NEW AND UNNECESSARY DETAILED DEMANDS WHICH GO FAR BEYOND PIZZA KITCHEN ALONE. THIS SITUATION ISN'T JUST ABOUT ONE PROJECT, IT'S ABOUT THE FLAWED PROCESS FOR REQUESTING AND OBTAINING PERMITS. IF THIS IS HOW THE CITY TREATED EVERY DEVELOPER, IT'S NO WONDER THERE ARE DELAYS, FRUSTRATION, AND BUSINESSES CHOOSING TO DEVELOP 
          [01:25:01]
OUTSIDE OF CITY LIMITS. IF EVERY APPLICANT FACED THE SAME HURDLES, THE CITY WOULD NEED A MASSIVE NEW OFFICE JUST TO HOUSE PLANNING AND ZONING, JUST TO KEEP UP. WE ARE NOT JUST ADVOCATING FOR OUR PROJECT, WE ARE CALLING ATTENTION TO A SYSTEM THAT IS MAKING NEW DEVELOPMENT AND EXISTING ESTABLISHMENTS MORE DIFFICULT FOR EVERY PARTY INVOLVED. WE SHOULD BE ENCOURAGING GROWTH AND NOT STIFLING IT. WE SHOULD BE CELEBRATING BUSINESSES THAT BRING PEOPLE TOGETHER, THAT CREATE JOBS, AND THAT ENHANCE THE QUALITY OF LIFE. IN IDAHO FALLS, OUR SEASONAL BUSINESS IS MORE THAN JUST A PUMPKIN PATCH. IT'S AN INTEGRAL PART OF OUR COMMUNITY. IT'S A PLACE WHERE MEMORIES ARE MADE, A SYMBOL OF THE JOY THAT BINDS US TOGETHER, AND AN ASSET TO THE LOCAL ECONOMY. WE HAVE BEEN REFERRED TO AS PUTTING THE CART BEFORE THE HORSE BY CITY STAFF. UNFORTUNATELY, BEYOND OUR CONTROL, WITH THE ILLEGAL ANNEXATION INTO THE CITY, A ZONE WAS ASSIGNED TO US BASED ON THE ASSUMPTIONS BY CITY STAFF ON HOW OUR BUSINESS WAS OPERATED. THIS PUT US IN A SCRAMBLE, ATTEMPTING TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE, AS WE HAD ALREADY BEEN OPERATING FOR SEVERAL YEARS. AT THAT POINT. WE ARE ALMOST THERE, BUT WE CANNOT DO IT ALONE. WE NEED YOUR LEADERSHIP. WE NEED YOUR SUPPORT. WE NEED TO KNOW THAT YOU, AS REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PEOPLE, WILL STAND UP FOR FAIRNESS, GROWTH AND FOR THE VALUES THAT MAKE THIS CITY A GREAT PLACE TO LIVE, WORK AND BUILD. IF THIS IS HOW A BELOVED 20 YEAR OLD INSTITUTION LIKE THE RED BARN IS TREATED, THAT IS ONLY OPEN SIX WEEKS OUT OF THE YEAR. WHAT DOES THAT SAY ABOUT THE FUTURE OF THE DEVELOPMENT IN THIS CITY? WHAT DOES IT SAY ABOUT THE FUTURE OF IDAHO FALLS? WE CAN DO BETTER AND WE MUST DO BETTER. I URGE YOU, CITY COUNCIL, TO TAKE A STAND, TO STAND UP FOR FAIRNESS AND STAND UP FOR GROWTH AND STAND UP FOR OUR COMMUNITY'S VALUES. THE EPIC RED BARN AND THE FAMILIES OF SERVES AND THE FUTURE OF THE CITY DESERVE BETTER THAN THIS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MISS SHANDLING. I BELIEVE OUR NEXT SPEAKER WILL BE MR. ROLLIE WALKER. WELL DONE. WELL SAID. ALLISON. 
          SOME THINGS CAN'T BE SAID BETTER. I'M HERE FOR JUST REAL FACTUAL CLARITY. WHEN THE RED BARN OPENED AND THEN WE WERE SHUT DOWN BECAUSE WE HADN'T MET SOME INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODES, WE RUN INTO THE CITY. TWO ATTORNEYS, CITY ATTORNEYS, TWO EMPLOYEES OF THE CITY, AND A BUILDER AND AN ARCHITECT FROM OUR SITE WITH ONE QUESTION, WHAT HAVE WE GOT TO DO TO BE OPEN? IT WASN'T WHAT HAVE WE GOT TO DO TO HAVE A PERMIT THAT HAD BEEN GOING ON FOR TWO YEARS? WHAT HAVE WE GOT TO DO TO BE OPEN? SIX THINGS WERE LAID OUT. THERE WAS A COUPLE THAT HAD ALREADY BEEN DONE AND THEY ACKNOWLEDGED THAT. AND THEN AN ARCHITECTURAL STAMP WAS REQUIRED. THAT WAS COMMON BECAUSE THE GENTLEMAN IN CHARGE HAD SINCE RETIRED, DIDN'T HAVE THE CONFIDENCE TO MAKE A DECISION, AND HE LIKED TO RELY ON THE STAMPS OF AN ENGINEER OR ARCHITECT OR SOMETHING. 
          NEVERTHELESS, THEY REQUIRED AN ARCHITECTURAL STAMP. SO I HAD BEEN ASKED TO QUIT ATTENDING MEETINGS WITH THE CITY AND ASKED IF I WOULD PLEASE SEND SOMEONE ELSE A GOOD IDEA. THIS HAS A LOT OF MY PASSION IN IT. IT'S NOT MY BUSINESS. AND. SO MIKE BILLINGS AND ISAIAH COME AND MET WITH ME IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE MEETING AND SAID, WE GOT TO DO THESE SIX THINGS AND GET AN ARCHITECT. AND I SAID, WHAT DO WE GOT TO DO? WE MADE A PLAN, WENT AFTER IT AGGRESSIVELY. WE'RE SHUT DOWN RIGHT AFTER A SEASON THAT STARTED. WE'RE ONLY OPEN SIX WEEKS, NOT 52 WEEKS. AND SO WE'RE SHUT DOWN. WE'RE NOT HURRYING. WHAT HAVE WE GOT TO DO? WE'RE WILLING TO DO ANYTHING. WE DID THEM. NOW THERE'S A LOT OF PEOPLE, THIS COUNCIL, I'M NOT HERE TO PICK. 
          YOU'VE BEEN SUPPORTIVE. THANK YOU. THE CITY ATTORNEY HAS BEEN HELPFUL ON CLARITY. SO WE WENT TO THEM AND WENT TO BOTH THE CITY AND THE ATTORNEYS AND SAID, HAVE WE DONE THE SIX THINGS? AND THEY SAID, WELL, THERE'S ONE THING I'M GOING TO RUN INTO. THE ATTORNEY SAID, I'M GOING TO RUN IN AND MAKE SURE BECAUSE WE REALIZE THIS IS IMPORTANT. SO HE RAN ANYWAY, AND HE CAME BACK AND HE SAID, BETWEEN OUR GUY AND YOUR ARCHITECT, THERE'S TWO NUMBERS. WE'RE NOT SURE WHAT YOU WANT TO USE, BUT OTHER THAN THAT, YOU'RE THERE. SO WE HAD THE ARCHITECT COME IN AND HIM 
          [01:30:03]
AND CODY DECIDED WHICH NUMBER TO USE. THEY AGREED AND HE SAID, OKAY, GO BACK, CHANGE YOUR PLAN, COME BACK WITH AN ARCHITECTURAL STAMP, WHICH WE DID SAME DAY, DONE ON THE CONDITION PROMISE THAT WE COULD OPEN, BUT WE NEEDED TO BE OPEN NOW. THERE'S BEEN SOME REAL MISUNDERSTANDING AND IT'S BEEN SAID SOCIALLY. IT'S BEEN IN THE PAPERS. IT'S BEEN MANY PLACES WE OPENED WITHOUT A PERMIT. THAT'S TRUE. WE HAVEN'T HAD A PERMIT FOR YEARS, BUT WE OPENED WITH THE PROMISE THAT ON THESE CONDITIONS WE COULD OPEN AND WE DID. NOW THE DIRECTOR FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CALLED ME FIVE HOURS AFTER WE HAD SAID WE COULD OPEN. AND HE SAID, WELL, WE CAN'T SEND INSPECTORS, SO WE CAN'T COME. IT'S TOO LATE IN THE WEEKEND. WE'RE GOING, WHAT ARE WEEKENDS ARE BIG TIME AND IT'S FRIDAY AFTERNOON AND YOU'RE NOT GOING TO SEND THEM. WELL, I GO, WELL WE'VE ALREADY GOT ALL OUR PRE INSPECTIONS. WELL REALLY YOU CAN'T GET AN INSPECTION UNTIL YOU GET A PERMIT AND YOU DON'T HAVE A PERMIT. I'M LIKE WHOA WHOA WHOA. THAT WASN'T THE DEAL. 
          WE MET THE CONDITIONS. EVERYBODY AGREES. ALL OF THEM AGREE. WE'RE OPENING. WELL, IT WAS TREATED LIKE AN ACT OF DEFIANCE. IT WASN'T DEFIANCE. IT WOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN THE CONDITIONS WHEN WE MET THEM, WHEN WE OPENED. AND EVERYBODY AGREED. AND THEN THE DIRECTOR SAID, WELL, THERE'S A COUPLE MORE THINGS YOU GOT TO DO. WHAT ARE THEY? WELL, WE WE'VE ALREADY AGREED TO THE CONDITIONS. WE'VE ALREADY MET THEM. BUT WHAT ARE THEY WILL DO BY MONDAY WE HAD THOSE DONE TO NEVER GOT A PERMIT. THEN THE NEW ONE WAS THE SITE PLAN. WELL I CAN CAN I HAND OUT A HANDOUT TO YOU OF THE SITE PLAN INFORMATION? IF IT'S NOT NEW INFORMATION IF IT'S NOT NEW, IF IT WAS SOMETHING PRESENTED TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, YOU CAN OKAY. WELL IT'S THE SITE PLAN OKAY. AND OF COURSE YOU GOT THE OLD ONE. OKAY. I'M GOING TO SHOW YOU THIS BECAUSE IT'S VERY INTERESTING. I THINK IT MAKES MY POINT WITH LESS WORDS. I WANT YOU TO LOOK AT THE FIRST PAGE OF THE SITE. THIS WAS IN 2020. IF YOU LOOK AT THIS CLOSELY, SORRY, I WAS GOING TO HAVE A GREAT BIG ONE WAITING FOR YOU SO YOU CAN SEE IT BETTER. YOUR EYES ARE PROBABLY BETTER THAN MINE. IF YOU LOOK CLOSELY AT THIS SITE PLAN WHERE? WHAT THE. THIS WAS APPROVED IN 2020. YOU'LL SEE THE APPROVAL. SO I'M GOING TO INTERRUPT. THIS IS NOT THE SITE PLAN THAT WAS APPROVED. THIS IS NOT THE SITE PLAN. THIS IS NOT THE SITE PLAN THAT WAS PRESENTED AT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING. NO, THIS IS THE ONE THAT LEADS TO THE ONE BEHIND IT. THIS IS NOT THE APPROVED SITE PLAN THAT'S ON THE PROPERTY, MR. WALKER. NO IT ISN'T. THIS IS JUST THE APPROVED SITE PLAN THAT WAS APPROVED IN IN 2020. IS IT IN THE PACKET? SOMEBODY SAID THEY THOUGHT IT WAS IN THE PACKET THERE. MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE ONLY APPROVED SITE PLAN ON THIS PROPERTY WAS APPROVED IN 2021. THIS APPEARS TO BE AN EARLIER DRAFT OF THAT SITE PLAN. OKAY. IT WAS IT'S NOT THE CURRENT SITE PLAN THAT'S ON THE PROPERTY. THAT'S TRUE. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. OKAY. IF YOU LOOK HERE, THERE'S THREE BUILDINGS, ONLY TWO BUILDINGS ON THE SITE OF THE RED BARN ARE ON FOUNDATIONS. THE REST ARE ALL PORTABLE. THOSE TWO BUILDINGS ARE HERE ON THIS MAP. THOSE ARE THE ONLY TWO THAT ARE ON FOUNDATIONS. EVERYTHING ELSE. LET ME MAKE THIS POINT. IF YOU WENT OVER TOMORROW AND YOU WENT TO THE RED BARN, EVERYTHING ELSE IS GONE EXCEPT WHAT'S ON THIS. 
          SO GO TO THE NEXT PAGE IF YOU WANT. THIS IS THE LAST SITE PLAN PRESENTED TO THE CITY THAT WE WAS TOLD WAS APPROVED. IF YOU LOOK AT THIS, I'M JUST I. THERE IS SO MUCH REQUIRED. I'VE SPENT $10,000 DOING AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN THE SITE PLAN. IF YOU LOOK AT THE SITE PLAN THAT'S BEEN INSISTED AND WE HAVE BEEN WITHHELD FROM PERMITS, AND EVENTUALLY NOW OUR LICENSE IS REVOKED. NONE OF IT'S THERE EXCEPT THE FIRST PAGE, BECAUSE EVERY YEAR WE'RE OPEN SIX WEEKS, THE OTHER 42 WEEKS, THERE'S NO LIGHTS, THERE'S NO PARKING, THERE'S NO NOISE, THERE'S NO BUILDINGS, THERE'S NO PEOPLE. THERE'S NOTHING GOING ON. BUT THIS SITE PLAN THAT HAS HELD US UP FOR THREE YEARS IS WHAT'S BEEN INSISTED THAT WE PROVIDE. FOR WHAT REASON? I DON'T KNOW, 
          [01:35:01]
BECAUSE ALL OF IT IS REMOVED AFTER THE BARN SHUTS DOWN AFTER SIX WEEKS. YES. IT TAKES US ABOUT SIX WEEKS TO MOVE ALL THE PORTABLE BUILDINGS AND ALL OF THE EVENTS AND ALL THE ATTRACTIONS OVER TO THE BIG RED BARN. THE LAST DAY OF THE MONTH IN OCTOBER, WE BEGIN TAKING IT ALL AWAY. AND IF YOU GO OVER THERE, YOU'LL SEE IT'S ALL AWAY. BUT THIS SITE PLAN. IS GOD'S BIBLE. NOW, WE'VE THOUGHT SEVERAL TIMES, IN FACT, 15 DIFFERENT ITERATIONS AT A GREAT EXPENSE TO US THAT WE'VE DONE EVERYTHING THAT ASKED US TO DO. NO, THERE'S MORE. SO WE'D DO THAT AND WE'D SAY, NO, WAIT, YEAH. THERE'S MORE. THE FRUSTRATION IS ENDLESS BECAUSE WHEN WE DO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS, THEY REVIEW IT AND SAY, WE WOULD LIKE YOU TO DO MORE. I WANT TO I'LL END THIS WITH DIATRIBE, WITH THIS LAST COMMENT, THE LAST TIME WHEN THE DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SAID, LOOK, I'M GOING TO TAKE OVER, I'LL HELP YOU GET THERE. BUT I HAVE A COUPLE MORE THINGS THAT I'D LIKE TO HAVE IN SEEING YOUR SITE PLAN. WELL, THE ATTORNEY AND OUR GUY JUST SAID, LOOK, JUST HAVE YOUR ENGINEERS AND THE CITY TALK SO THAT THERE'S NO MISUNDERSTANDING ON WHAT YOU WANT ON A SITE PLAN. SO WE SAID, OKAY, WE'RE SO CLOSE, HOW ABOUT A COUPLE MORE? WE CAN DO IT. 17 MORE. WE STILL DID THEM. SO WE'RE SO WE'RE THERE. OKAY, WELL, WE CAN'T HAVE INSPECTIONS WITHOUT A PERMIT. WE CAN'T HAVE A PERMIT WITHOUT A SITE PLAN. WE CAN'T GET A SITE PLAN BECAUSE WE CAN'T GET OVER HOW MANY TIMES THEY'RE GOING TO ASK FOR CHANGES. AND THIS IS FACTUAL. HOWEVER, THERE'S NOT ONE THING WE'VE EVER BEEN ASKED TO DO THAT WE HAVEN'T DONE UNTIL THE VERY END, WHEN FINALLY WE'RE THERE. WE'VE RUN. WE'VE BEEN OPEN BECAUSE WE YOU HEARD THAT STORY AND THEY SAID, WELL, WE WANT YOU TO DEAL WITH THE PROPERTY AND EASEMENTS. YES. I SAID NO BECAUSE THE CITY LET ME TELL YOU THE STORY. 20 YEARS AGO, ROLAND, THAT WAS A BIG PROBLEM, A HUGE PROBLEM, BECAUSE IT HAD ALL THESE CARS AND TRAFFIC ON IT, INCLUDING ALL THE INDUSTRIAL TRAFFIC, CONCRETE TRUCKS, SEMIS, DUMP TRUCKS, HEAVY DUTY EQUIPMENT, EXCAVATION EQUIPMENT, ALL OF IT GOING DOWN, ROLLING DOWN. YOU KNOW THAT IT WAS A BIG PROBLEM. WE WENT INTO THIS TO THE CITY AND SAID, WE PROPOSE A NEW ROAD THROUGH THESE FIELDS. 
          NOW IT'S CALLED MCNEIL DRIVE. AND THEY WERE ELATED. CHAD STEWART JUMPED OUT OF HIS CHAIR. 
          HE GOES, OH, THAT WOULD BRING SUCH A RELIEF TO THIS CITY. SO AT OUR EXPENSE, THERE'S WELL OVER $1 MILLION BECAUSE WE'RE DEVELOPING THAT AREA. WE PUT IN THAT BEAUTIFUL SUPER WIDE ROAD. 
          NOW, IF YOU NOTICE SEMIS PARKED ON THE WEEKENDS, THE HEAVY DUTY TRAFFIC GOES UP AND DOWN IT. THE CONCRETE TRUCKS, VERY FEW OF THEM, THE DUMP TRUCKS, THE EXCAVATION EQUIPMENT, VERY FEW ON IT. THERE ARE SOME. THEY GO DOWN MCNEIL DRIVE. I'M JUST SAYING WE'VE MADE CONTRIBUTIONS NOW. SO WHEN THE CITY SAYS WE WANT YOU TO GIVE UP MORE ON ROLAND DEBT, I'M GOING. YOU CAN DO THIS. 20 YEARS AGO, I'M NOT SURE THAT EVERYBODY IN THIS ROOM WILL STILL BE HERE. AND THEY'LL STILL WON'T HAVE MADE THE IMPROVEMENT TO ROLAND DEBT. OKAY, SO I WENT TO ONE OF THE COUNCIL MEMBERS, AND I SAID TO HIM, WHAT'S THE PLAN WITH ROLAND THAT YOU YOU ACTUALLY ARE IN POSSESSION OF 70% OF IT, AND YOU'RE IMPOSING THIS NEW CONDITION ON A PUMPKIN PATCH AS IF WE HAD A FORTUNE. LISTEN, I DON'T CARE HOW MANY PEOPLE COME TO THE PUMPKIN PATCH WHEN YOU'RE OPEN. SIX WEEKS OUT OF 42. THAT'S A LONG WAYS TO STRETCH IT. ALL RIGHT. I SAID TO THE CITY COUNCIL. WHY JUST DON'T YOU WIDEN, ROLAND, THAT AND I WILL DO WHATEVER YOU ASK ME TO DO, I WILL CONTRIBUTE. WHAT ARE WE LACKING? TEN FEET. ACCORDING TO THE DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR, OF COURSE. WE'LL GIVE YOU THE TEN FEET. WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO DO YOUR PART? WHY DON'T YOU DO YOUR PART? AS THE CITY? I WAS TOLD SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE WE CANNOT AFFORD IT. I SAID WHOA, WHOA, WHOA. THE CITY IS NOT GOING TO WIDE ROLL OF DEBT, WHICH IS SUCH A WHICH IS HOLDING UP MY PERMIT, MY CONDITIONS SHUTTING ME DOWN, BECAUSE THE VERY LAST THING IS YOU WANT ME TO CONTRIBUTE MY LAND TO ROLAND DEBT, AND YOU'RE NOT GOING TO WIDEN IT BECAUSE YOU CAN'T AFFORD IT. BUT WE CAN 
          [01:40:02]
AS A PUMPKIN PATCH. ALL RIGHT, NOW, LISTEN, I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY PEOPLE HERE SPEND AS MUCH TIME ON EASEMENTS, BUT I HAVE IN A DEVELOPMENT I DID DOWN IN SOUTHERN UTAH, 10,000 HOMES AND 40,000 PEOPLE WILL LIVE THERE, BUILT AN ENTIRE DESIGN, AN ENTIRE CITY. I BECOME VERY FAMILIAR WITH EASEMENTS. EASEMENTS ARE VITALLY IMPORTANT. IF YOU HAVE WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO PUT IN THEM IN EXCHANGE FOR THE EASEMENT, THE OWNERS GIVE YOU EASEMENTS BECAUSE YOU ASK FOR THEM. THERE'S NO VALUE. I WANT POWER, I NEED TO GIVE AN EASEMENT. I DON'T EVEN GET AN EASEMENT IN CASE SOMEDAY SOMEBODY WANTS POWER. SO I ASKED THE CITY, WHY DO YOU WANT EASEMENTS ON BOTH SIDES, BOTH NORTH AND SOUTH OF OUR PROPERTY, WHICH THEY'RE ALREADY EASEMENTS FOR CANALS. BUT WHY DO YOU WANT MORE EASEMENTS? WELL, IN CASE WE WANT TO PUT IN UTILITIES WHERE WE HAVE OUR UTILITIES, WE HAVE SEWER WATER AND IT'S ALL NEW AND GAS. WE HAVE A MALL AND WE HAD THEM ENGINEERED AND WE HAVE THEM DESIGNED AND WE HAD THEM APPROVED. AND WHY DO YOU NEED THEM? WELL, WE JUST WANT THEM AS A CONDITION FOR YOUR PERMIT. OKAY. NOT DO IT. I HAVE AN ATTORNEY DOWN IN SOUTHERN UTAH. THAT'S ALL HE DOES IS SPELL OUT THE LANGUAGE OF AN EASEMENT. SO THERE'S CLARITY. AND THEY WHEN THEY'RE NEEDED, THEY'RE GIVEN. WHEN THEY'RE NOT, THEY'RE NOT. 
          OKAY. SO LET ME SO THAT'S THE SITE PLAN. SO HERE WE ARE. THE BIG THE BIG ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM IS AND WE WROTE IT IN THE NEWSPAPER. WE WERE IN FRONT OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. THEY REQUIRED NINE THINGS. HE SAID THE YUP'IK DID THEM ALL FOR TWO. THEY DON'T HAVE A PERMIT. THEY DON'T HAVE A SITE PLAN. WELL, HOW IS THAT? IF WE MET EVERYTHING REQUIRED. BUT I CAN'T ISSUE MYSELF A PERMIT. I CAN'T ISSUE MYSELF A SITE PLAN. BUT WE'VE DONE EVERYTHING. I'M CONFUSED ON HOW YOU JUST DENY ME A PERMIT. AND ONCE THEY SAY, OKAY, YOU'VE MET ALL THE REQUIREMENTS FOR A PERMIT, BUT YOU DON'T HAVE A SITE PLAN. AND ENDLESS THIS REVOKING OF ALL OUR RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES HAPPENED AFTER WE STAYED OPEN. NOW, WHEN PEOPLE SAY ABOUT ROLLING WALKER, I THINK I LIVE. I THINK I'M ABOVE THE LAW. THAT'S JUST WRONG AND THAT I TAKE THAT PERSONALLY, BUT I WON'T TAKE IT EMOTIONALLY. YOU KNOW, I GOT TO TELL YOU, THANK YOU FOR THE TIME. I GOT TO TELL YOU A STORY 25 YEARS AGO WHERE THE TAYLOR CROSSING IS, THERE WERE THREE JUNKYARDS WHERE THE GREENBELT IS. THAT FEEL IS LAND FEEL CARS, CONCRETE, METALS, GARBAGE. AND WHAT THEY DID IS THE PEOPLE THAT HAD THE LAND SAID, IF YOU LET US, IF YOU LET US PUT OUR GARBAGE IN THERE, WE'LL PUT A GREENBELT ON TOP OF IT. OKAY, GREAT. I LOVE THE GREENBELT, BUT BETWEEN THE GREENBELT AND THE RIVER, IT WAS WELL, WE DID AT OUR OWN MONEY. EVEN THOUGH IT'S THE CITY PROPERTY TOOK OVER 100 LOADS. SEMI LOADS OF CONCRETE AND REBAR AND CARS AND METAL AND GARBAGE. 
          AND WE RECOVERED, AS YOU CAN SEE NOW, ALL ALONG FROM THE HOTELS TO PANCARI, WE RECOVERED ALL THAT THAT WAS NOT APPROACHABLE. THAT DIRT WENT ALL THE WAY DOWN TO THE RIVER'S EDGE AND THE RIVER WAS ERODING TWO PLACES WAS CONTAMINATED NATION SERIOUS CONTAMINATION, ONE INTO THE RIVER AND THE OTHER INTO THE CANAL, INTO OUR IRRIGATION WATER. WE STOPPED THAT. THEN FROM OUR ROCKS OUT OF THE FOUNDATION OF ALL THE LAVAS. YOU KNOW, WE ALL SIT UP OVER THERE. 
          WE LINED THE RIVER AND STOPPED ALL THE EROSION. WE GOT THE PERMITS FROM THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS. THE CITY WAS SO RESISTANT TO WHAT WE WANTED TO DO AT TAYLOR CROSSING. GETTING TO MY POINT, I MET WITH ONE OF THE MOST INFLUENTIAL MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL AT THE TIME. 
          NOW FORGIVE ME, DON'T TAKE OFFENSE TO WHAT I'M GOING TO SAY, BUT I'M JUST GOING TO QUOTE. I WENT IN TO HIM AND I SAID, WHY ARE YOU MAKING IT SO DIFFICULT FOR PEOPLE TO BRING BUSINESSES AND ENTERPRISES? AND WHAT WE HAD DONE IS ON A WALL ABOUT AS BIG AS THAT WALL. WE HAD LIFE SIZE, READ LIKE RENDERINGS OF WHAT WE WERE GOING TO DO AT TAYLOR CROSSING. YEAH, IT WAS JUNKYARDS. YEAH, IT WAS GARBAGE. IT HAD ELECTRICAL ISSUES THAT LOOKED LIKE GARBAGE. 
          AND WE PRESENTED THEM AND WE GOT MOCKED. OH, THEY'RE DREAMERS. THAT WILL NEVER HAPPEN. WHAT ARE YOU TRYING TO DO? DO YOU REALLY THINK YOU CAN BUILD THAT? WELL, WE DID, AND I SAID TO HIM, BUT 
          [01:45:05]
BUT IN THE BEGINNING OF THIS, WHEN, YOU KNOW, I GUESS IT'S TYPICAL, I HAD MARRIOTT TELL ME ONCE BECAUSE WE WANTED TO BUILD A NEW DESIGN HOTEL AND NEVER BEEN BUILT. HE SAID, REALLY, EVERYBODY IS EMPOWERED TO SAY NO. EVERYBODY HAS THE AUTHORITY TO SAY NO. YOU GOT TO FIND THE PEOPLE WITH VISION THAT CAN SAY YES, AND THAT'S WHY YOU GOT THIS HOTEL, BECAUSE YOU HAD THE VISION AND YOU FOUND THE GUY THAT COULD SAY, YES, WELL, YOU SAW THE PAPERS, IF YOU REMEMBER ME. I WAS IN THEM EVERY WEEK. THIS HOTEL WAS AN ATROCITY. WHO? WHO COULD IMAGINE SUCH A THING? AND MY MOTHER, WHO'S PASSED AWAY A LONG TIME SINCE WHEN I WAS TAKEN. THE HORRENDOUS. WHAT I FELT LIKE WAS UNFAIR BECAUSE SHE WAS ALWAYS. THERE'S A WAY TO GET EVEN, AND THERE'S ONLY ONE WAY TO GET EVEN SUCCEED. IT WILL SPEAK FOR ITSELF. WELL, I'M PRETTY PROUD OF TAYLOR CROSSING ON THE RIVER. IF YOU REMEMBER THE GARBAGE THAT'S GOING TO FALL ON YOUR ROOFS AND YOU REMEMBER THAT JUNKYARDS, YOU CAN SEE THE DIFFERENCE. IF YOU DON'T, WELL, ENJOY WHAT'S THERE. OKAY, THERE'S ANOTHER PROBLEM. UTAH WENT RIGHT OVER TO THE BRIDGE AND IT WAS ILLEGAL INTERSECTION. 
          AND IT WAS WAS DEEMED TO HAVE TO BE SHUT DOWN. WE DONATED THE PROPERTY TO REROUTE UTAH. AND BY THE WAY, WHEN YOU GO BY THE EAGLES, WHICH WE PUT IN TO CHANGE KIND OF THE REPUTATION OF THE AREA AT THE TIME WITH THE JUNKYARDS AND EVERYTHING, WE PUT IN THE FIRST CHECKER RECORDS, FIRST ROUNDABOUT IN THE STATE OF IDAHO IS THAT ONE? WELL, CHAD STANGER, THE VISIONARY FOR THE CITY WHO LOVED US PUTTING IN AN APPEAL DRIVE, WHICH IS THE WEST END OF THE RED GUARD. WE HEARD HE DIDN'T LIKE ROUNDABOUTS, BUT WE THOUGHT, MAN, WE CANNOT LOSE THE CONFIDENCE OF CHAD SINGER. 
          AND SO WE CHANGED IT TO A FOUR WAY STOP. WE WENT IN TO SEE HIM GO. THERE IT IS. HE GOES, WHAT HAPPENED TO THE ROUNDABOUT. WE GO, WELL WE HEARD YOU DIDN'T LIKE IT. HE GOES, I WANT IT. I STUDIED HIM, I WANT IT. SO ANYWAY, THIS ROUNDABOUT. OKAY, BACK TO 25 YEARS AGO AND WE'RE FIGHTING THE VISION THAT WE GOT MOCKED FOR. AND I WENT TO THE MOST INFLUENTIAL CITY COUNCILMAN BECAUSE I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO HAVE FRIENDS. AND PEOPLE THAT MADE DECISIONS. I SAID, WHY DON'T YOU MAKE IT EASIER? WHY DON'T YOU INVITE, WHY DO PEOPLE COME HERE AND THEY GET REJECTED WHEN WE NEED THIS TOWN NEEDS TO GROW. BACK THEN THEY NEEDED A LOT OF GROWTH ACROSS THE STREET WITH JUST ONE BIG GRAVEL PIT. SHE SAID. AND FORGIVE ME, I WON'T TELL YOU WHO IT WAS. WHAT ARE THEY GOING TO DO? GO TO HAMMOND? WELL, WHAT ARE THEY GOING TO DO? GO TO HAMMOND? I SAID. WHOA, WHOA. GLOSTER METEOR, WE'VE ALL DROVE DOWN THE END OF 17TH, AS I MENTIONED, AND WE SAW. WE KNOW THE CORRALS. I'M A FARM BOY. AND THE DAIRIES AND THE FARMLAND AND AGRICULTURE. 
          THAT WAS ALL ON THAT SIDE. WELL, THEY DID, THEY WENT TO HAMMOND. LISTEN, I KNOW YOU HAVE TO BE VISIONARIES. I KNOW YOU HAVE TO DIG DEEP. I KNOW IT'S IMPORTANT THAT YOU CAN FIND THE POWER TO SAY YES. JUST MAKE SURE THAT YOU DO IT RIGHT. BUT WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT TAYLOR CRUSH IN THE RIVER. WE'RE NOT TALKING. I ONLY BRING THIS UP. EVEN THOUGH, BY THE WAY, ALL THE JUNK WE PULLED OUT AND ALL THE TRASH WE TOOK AWAY. AND THEN YOU HAD A TREMENDOUS PARKS AND REC GUY. HE SAW THE VISION. SO AFTER WE RETRACTED ALL OF THAT AND. AND YOU PUT IN THE IRRIGATION AND THE FLOWERS AND WE PUT IN ALL THE ROCK AND WE WORKED TOGETHER. IT WON TWO AWARDS, BEST PARKS IN IDAHO TWICE. WELL, LISTEN, IT'S A LITTLE BIT COMICAL FOR ME WHEN WE WERE TRYING TO GET THAT DONE AND WE GET NOTHING BUT RESISTANCE. BUT THEN THE CITY GOT THE VISION. WE PAID FOR THE FIRST HALF OF THAT. SO. SO THE CITY GETS THE VISION. THEN THE CITY STEPPED UP AND SAID, HEY, HEY, HEY, WE'LL JOIN YOU, WE'LL REIMBURSE YOU, WE'LL DO THE REST, WE'LL HELP YOU. IT WAS INTERESTING TO ME THAT WHEN THE CITY WON THE AWARD FOR THAT PARK, THE PEOPLE THAT FOUGHT US THE MOST WERE THE FRONT AND CENTER. LOOK WHAT WE DID, ALL RIGHT. BUT WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT ALL THAT. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A PUMPKIN PATCH. 210 YEAR OLD BOYS. THERE ARE BOYS. I GREW 
          [01:50:07]
UP ON A FARM. I GREW UP ALL MY LIFE. WHEN I WAS YOUNG, MILKING A COW UNDER A YARD LIGHT. 
          WHETHER IT WAS SNOWING OR RAIN, IT WASN'T A BARN. I'M OUT THE COW AND I PUT IT IN THE TEN GALLON CANS. THAT WAS MY PAY. I WAS PROBABLY THE ONLY ONE IN SEVENTH GRADE THAT HAD A CHECKBOOK. MY DAD TAUGHT ME TO WORK AND THERE WAS NO OPTION. NOBODY ELSE TO MILK THE COW. SO I WANT THESE BOYS TO LEARN TO WORK. WELL, I KNOW, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU REMEMBER JOE MCGREGOR. 
          THANK YOU FOR BEARING ME OUT HERE. BUT JOE WAS 93 YEARS OLD, AND HE HAD THAT PLACE WHERE THE BIG RED BARN IS, AND THE BARN WAS LEANING OVER. NOT LIKE THIS, BUT LIKE THIS. IT LITERALLY LOOKED LIKE ONE MORE WINDSTORM. IT WAS GOING TO COLLAPSE. ONE MORNING AND JOE WOULDN'T SELL HIS PROPERTY. I WANTED THE BOYS TO HAVE A PLACE TO WORK BECAUSE I LIVE IN TOWN. ONE DAY I WENT INTO JOE'S HOUSE AND I SAID, JOE, IF THAT DAMN BARN TIPS OVER WITH A WINDSTORM, I'M NOT ASKING YOU TO BUY YOUR PLACE. HE SAID, WAIT, YOU WANT TO SAVE THE BARN? I SAID, YEAH, I WANT TO SAVE THE BARN. BLOWS OVER. HE GOES, LET'S CLOSE TOMORROW. AND WE DID. HE GOES, WHERE DO I LIVE? I SAID, LIVE RIGHT HERE, RIGHT IN YOUR HOUSE. YOU DON'T HAVE TO LEAVE. WELL, THE FUN STORY IS THIS TOWN IS LOADED WITH VERY INTELLIGENT ENGINEERS. NONE OF THEM COULD STRAIGHTEN THE BARN. I WENT TO ALL OF THEM. YEAH, THERE'S SOME SMART PEOPLE KNOW IT WAS BUILT IN THE 30S. IT'S BENT SO FAR OVER. THE NAILS HAVE LEFT THE HOLES. THEY'RE RUSTED. YOU CAN'T STRAIGHTEN THAT BARN. TEAR IT DOWN. BUILD A NEW ONE ON THE CHURCH. THERE'S AN OLD GUY. CHURCH. GERALD WIESNER. WHAT ARE YOU DOING, ROY? I SAID I FINALLY GOT THE PATCH, BUT I GOT THIS BARN BOB FOR JOE. HE GOES. I SAID, BUT NOBODY CAN STRAIGHTEN HIM. AND I PROMISED JOE I WAS GOING TO FIX THE BARN. HE GOES, I CAN STRAIGHTEN IT. HE WENT OVER THERE AND HE MADE THREE RAILROAD TIES. HE RAN CABLES UP TO THE OTHER SIDE OF THE ROOFS. HE HAD TURNBUCKLES. HE HAD MOVED THEM ABOUT ONE INCH AT A TIME, AND HE'D WAIT FOR THE WIND TO BLOW. THIS TOOK A WHILE, BUT HE STRAIGHTENED THAT BARN AND THOSE NAILS IN THERE, OUT OF LEAST RESISTANCE, FOUND THEMSELVES BACK IN THE HOLES. AND THAT BARN IS STRAIGHT, STRAIGHT AND TRUE. THEN HE PUT SHEAR WALLS IN THE END. WELL, OKAY, WE HAD A PLACE. 
          THE BOYS ARE GOING TO RAISE PUMPKINS NOW, IF YOU REMEMBER, IF YOU GO BACK FAR ENOUGH JUST 20 YEARS AGO, THEY JUST HAD IT. WE BUILT THEM UP. WE BUILT THEM A MAILBOX THAT LOOKED LIKE A RED BARN. AND YOU'D COME TO THE PATCH AND YOU WOULD, ON YOUR OWN, PICK YOUR PUMPKINS AND LIN. 
          YOUR HONOR. PUT YOUR MONEY IN THE BOX. ONE DAY WE HAD A COUPLE COME TO THE RED BARN FROM NADA. 
          THEY WERE OUT OF TOWN. WE HAD TO COME. WHY? WE WERE ON A CRUISE SHIP. AND ALL OF A SUDDEN THERE'S THIS BIG ARTICLE AND IT'S TWO BOYS IN IDAHO FALLS. MAYBE THE LAST TWO IN THE UNITED STATES SAID TRUSTED PEOPLE. AND THEY WERE IMPRESSED WITH THAT. WELL, ANYWAY, THEY RUN FOR LIFE FOR A WHILE. BUT BUT, GERALD, SAID, WE WANT TO THE BOYS, YOU KNOW, THEY MADE 50 BUCKS AND IT WAS A LOT OF MONEY FOR A TEN YEAR OLD. AND THEN IT GOT BIGGER AND BIGGER. AND SO GERALD SAID, HEY, YOU GOT TO HAVE A TRAIN. WELL, HIS FAMILY OUT OF FORD HAD A TRAIN AND IT HELD 12 LITTLE KIDS. IT WAS ON A RAIL. WE BOUGHT THE TRAIN, PUT IT ON THE RAIL, PUT IT ON TIRES, MADE THE FIRST TRACKLESS TRAIN AND WE GIVE RIDES. THE PROBLEM IS ADULTS WANT TO RIDE THE TRAIN AND THEN BREAK THE TRAIN DOWN BECAUSE THERE'S TWO BIG ADULTS AND TWO LITTLE TRAIN. SO WE WENT IN OUR SHOP OUT BY OUR PRODUCE, AND WE BUILT THE TRAIN THAT YOU SEE TODAY. IT LOOKS EXACTLY LIKE THE LITTLE TRAIN, BUT ALL 70 ADULTS. WE BUILT IT FOR ADULTS. ADULTS LIKE TO WRITE TRAINS TO. 
          ALL RIGHT. HERE'S HERE'S MY POINT. IT'S A PUMPKIN PATCH. IT TAUGHT THE BOYS TO WORK. IT TAUGHT HOW TO EARN MONEY. BUT YOU KNOW WHAT'S BETTER? THEY TAUGHT IT HOW TO BUILD A PUBLIC. 
          BECAUSE LITTLE BY LITTLE, THEY THEY OPENED THE BARN AND THEY HAD THINGS THAT WE COULD SELL, AND THEY HAD TO INTERACT WITH THE PEOPLE. THAT IS REALLY GOOD FOR KIDS. AND THEY LEARNED TO NEGOTIATE, AND THEY LEARNED TO PAY TAXES, AND THEY LEARNED TO HIRE KIDS TO HELP THEM. AND IT WAS TREMENDOUS. AND THEN THEY MADE ANOTHER IMPROVEMENT EVERY YEAR. LISTEN, YOU YOU ASK YOURSELF, DO YOU KNOW ANYBODY THAT 20 YEARS AGO STARTED SOMETHING LIKE THESE 210 YEAR OLD BOYS THAT 20 YEARS LATER, 20,000 PEOPLE CAME LAST YEAR? AND THEY'RE HAPPY? IT'S MY PASSION. IF YOU HAVEN'T BEEN TO THE BIG RED BARN, YOU NEED TO GO. YOU NEED TO GO AND JUST 
          [01:55:09]
WATCH FAMILIES. IT IT DEFINES HAPPY. IT DEFINES JOY. IT'S SMALL FAMILIES. MOST OF THEM. 
          THERE'S ONE SMILE, THERE'S AN OLDER KID, BUT IT'S MOSTLY MOTHERS AND FATHERS AND SMALL FAMILIES AND GRANDMAS AND GRANDPAS. AND SO EVERY YEAR WE MADE AN IMPROVEMENT AND WE DID SOMETHING THAT WOULD IMPROVE THE ATTRACTION. NOW, THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR PUT IN A PAPER THAT ALL OF A SUDDEN IT BECOMES SOMETHING. NO, IT DIDN'T. IT BECOMES SOMETHING EVERY SINGLE YEAR FOR 20 YEARS UNTIL WE GOT A COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR THAT SAID, I'M GOING TO FIX YOU. AND EVER SINCE THEN, WE HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO GET A PERMIT FOR A SLIDE. WHEN WE WANTED TO PUT I BOUGHT A SLIDE. THERE'S 500 PLACES IN THE UNITED STATES THAT HAVE THIS SLIDE. I BOUGHT THIS SLIDE BECAUSE I THOUGHT IT WOULD BE NO ISSUE. I WENT AND WHAT HAPPENED IS OUR GUYS WENT IN TO FIND OUT WHAT THEY NEEDED TO DO TO GET A PERMIT, AND THEY'D COME BACK AND SAID, YOU'RE NEVER GOING TO GET A PERMIT. I GO, WHAT, MR. WALKER, I'M GOING TO JUST INTERRUPT FOR ONE MOMENT AND REMIND YOU THAT THE STORIES THAT YOU'RE TELLING HAVE TO GET TO HOW THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ERRED. AND NOT JUST I'M REALLY CLOSE TO THAT, BECAUSE YOU HAVE THIS PROWESS FOR STORYTELLING AND IT'S FUN, BUT WE GOT TO MAKE SURE THAT IT LINKS TO WHAT OUR PURPOSE IS. WELL, SOMETIMES PEOPLE DON'T KNOW THE PURPOSE OF THAT STORY, BUT YOU'RE RIGHT. 
          OKAY. SO ANYWAY, WE WENT IN TO GET THE PERMIT FOR THE SLIDE. WE WERE REJECTED AT THE COUNTER IN THE CITY OFFICE, AND THEY'VE COME BACK AND THEY NOT ONLY SAID, YOU'RE NEVER GOING TO GET A PERMIT. THIS WAS THREE YEARS AGO, BUT WE CAN'T RESERVE TIME FOR YOU. WE GOT TO GET OTHER WORK. I THOUGHT, NO, NO, I'LL GO IN. I'LL GET A PERMIT NOW. THEY WERE RIGHT AS WE SPEAK. WE HAVEN'T GOT A PERMIT. BUT WHAT HAPPENED IS THE CITY COUNCIL, SOME MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL CAME TO ME AND SAID, IN FACT, THREE OF THEM, THREE OF THE SIX ARE CALLED ME UP AND GO. ROLLIE JUST CHANGED THE ZONE AND I WAS GOING TO ADDRESS THAT. WE DIDN'T GET THE ZONE WE'RE IN. IT WAS IT WAS GIVEN TO US WHEN WE WERE FORCED TO ANNEX IT. WELL, THE ISSUE WAS WE COULDN'T GET THE SLIDE PERMIT BECAUSE WE WERE IN THE WRONG ZONE. SO I WAS GIVEN THE ADVICE AND, YOU KNOW, IF YOU CALLED ME OR NOT, THAT IF I WOULD CHANGE, IF I WOULD GO THROUGH THE PROCESS OF CHANGING THE ZONE, I COULD GET EVERYTHING WE NEEDED IN THE AGRITOURISM SYSTEM. SO WE DID. IT TOOK SEVERAL MONTHS. WE NO SOONER GOT THE ZONE CHANGE. WE WERE INFORMED. OH, BY THE WAY, YOU HAVE TO GO IN FRONT OF A BOA TO GET A PERMIT. THEY'LL TELL YOU WHAT YOU CAN AND CAN'T DO. WE HAD NO IDEA THAT WAS THE CASE. I THOUGHT WE WERE OFF AND RUNNING. WELL, THE BOA SYSTEM AND THE MAYOR. I'M GETTING TO YOUR POINT. ALL OF A SUDDEN WE'RE IN FRONT OF THE BOA. THEY COULDN'T DECIDE, SO THEY PUT IT OFF. WE HAD ANOTHER MEETING. WHAT LED TO US GOING ANOTHER YEAR WITHOUT A SLIDE? SO HERE WE ARE, THREE YEARS. I CAN'T TELL YOU THE LOSS OF REVENUE. I CAN'T TELL YOU THE DAMAGE FROM US NOT HAVING THE RIGHT TO USE THE SLIDE, THAT ALL OF A SUDDEN WE COULD NOT BRING MORE ATTRACTIONS. NOW YOU'VE BEEN THERE. IF YOU HAVEN'T BEEN THERE, WE HAVE SIGNATURE FOOD. 
          WHY DO WE HAVE SIGNATURE FOOD? WHY DO WE HAVE THE BEST PIZZA IN THE COUNTRY? AND ON AND ON AND ON. I TOLD PEOPLE, I SAID, THIS IS THE BEST TALK YOU EVER READ, AND IT'S FREE. IT'S ON ME. EVER. 
          SAID, WELL, THAT IS THE BEST TACO. WHY DO WE DO IT? BECAUSE WE HAD FAMILIES COMING GROUPS, AND THEY WOULD HEAR HIM SAY, HEY, GET ALL THE KIDS, LET'S GO GET SOMETHING TO EAT. SO WE GO, WELL, LET'S KEEP THEM HERE. LET'S PROVIDE THEM FOOD. THE FOOD IS REALLY, REALLY GOOD. ALL OF A SUDDEN WE GOT FOOD TRUCKS. WELL, I QUIT USING FOOD TRUCKS BECAUSE I SAID, LET'S JUST GET OUR OWN FOOD TRUCKS. AND THE PORTABLE KITCHEN. THE BIG, THE BIG, THE BIG GORILLA IN THE ROOM. THE BIG ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM, THE KITCHEN, THE KITCHEN THAT'S ATTACHED TO THE OTHER BUILDINGS. THEREFORE, IT'S A COMMERCIAL KITCHEN. NO IT'S NOT NOW, I'M NOT GETTING ANY ARGUMENT HERE. I'LL TAKE IT TO A DIFFERENT PLACE. THE HELP THE BOARD OF HEALTH AND WELFARE COME AND SAID, ROLY, YOU'RE NO LONGER JUST SEPARATE BUILDINGS. THEY'RE ONE. SO YOU CAN'T DO FOODS IN THE BARN ANYMORE THAT ARE CONSIDERED. WHAT DO THEY CALL IT? COTTAGE FOODS? I SAID, NO, WE ARE SEPARATE BUILDINGS. THE DIRECTOR SAID, NO, YOU'RE NOT. YOU'RE ONE. YOU'RE LIKE, THE DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR SAYS YOU'RE CONNECTED. SO HE SAYS, THIS IS WHAT I WANT YOU TO DO. HE'S FROM 
          [02:00:02]
BOISE BECAUSE HE'D GONE DEEP ENOUGH THAT THE BIG DOG COME OVER. HE SAID, THIS IS WHAT I WANT YOU TO DO. I SAID, OKAY, I'LL DO IT. THREE WEEKS LATER, HE COMES BACK AND HE SAYS, I COME ALL THE WAY FROM BOISE FOR ONE REASON. YOU DID WHAT I SAID, AND I'M GRATEFUL YOU DID. BUT I WAS WRONG. YOU WERE RIGHT. THEY'RE NOT CONNECTED. ALL RIGHT. SO THE BOTTOM LINE IS, OVER A PERIOD, OVER A SITE PLAN, DO YOU KNOW, IN 20 YEARS, WE HAVEN'T HAD A VIOLATION, EXCEPT THIS ONE. WE HAVE NOT HAD ANY COMPLAINTS. THERE AREN'T THE SAME COMPLAINTS YOU GET FROM BOO AT THE ZOO. TOO MUCH PARKING, TOO MUCH NOISE. KIDS WALKING IN THE DARK, WHATEVER IT MIGHT BE. 
          EXCEPT WE WENT THERE FOR A WHILE. AMBASSADORS DO. WE'VE DONE IT. AND BY THE WAY, WE HAVE A GREAT RELATIONSHIP WITH THE ZOO. AND THANK YOU, BY THE WAY, FOR HELPING US WITH PARKING, BECAUSE IT REALLY DOES HELP US AND WE HELP THEM. AND THEY'RE A GREAT PEOPLE. BUT IF YOU REALLY BUNCH THIS UP AND PACKAGE IT FOR REALITY, WE HAVEN'T HAD A SINGLE COMPLAINT THAT THEY DON'T WANT TO GO TO THE ZOO. AND YET EVERYTHING THAT THEY ASK US TO DO NOW, WHAT DID THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS SAY FOR US TO GET OUR CUP? HERE'S THE NINE THINGS YOU NEED TO DO. AND THEN WE SAID IN THE PAPER THEY DID EVERYTHING BUT TWO THEY DON'T HAVE A PERMIT IN THE SITE PLAN. WELL NOW YOU KNOW WHY. WHAT ARE WE TO DO? YOU KNOW, I WAS WATCHING TV AND OUR PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES WAS IN LOS ANGELES PALISADES AND BURNT DOWN. AND HE WAS OVER THERE SCOLDING THE MAYOR, SAYING, YOU GOT TO LET THESE GUYS BUILD. THEY SAID, NO, IT'S GOING TO TAKE 18 MONTHS TO GET A PERMIT SO THEY CAN START BUILDING THE. AND PRESIDENT TRUMP SAID, NO, THEY NEED TO START RIGHT NOW. I WATCHED THAT ON TV 18 MONTHS. I WELCOME 18 MONTHS. I CAN'T I'VE BEEN 36 MONTHS TRYING TO GET A PERMIT FOR A SLIDE. AND NOT ONLY DID I NOT GET MY PERMIT FOR THE SLIDE, I GOT MY ALL MY RIGHTS REVOKED, ALL MY PRIVILEGES, AND AS IF ONE DAY SOMEBODY SHOWS UP AND IN ONE YEAR THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR, DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR FOR THE COMMUNITY. NOW, IF WE DON'T DO SOMETHING GOOD FOR THE COMMUNITY, YOU. I'M WASTING MY TIME. WE HAVE DONE A LOT IN MY MIND. THESE BOYS HAVE FOR THIS COMMUNITY. AND PEOPLE LOVE IT. AND WE'RE NOT SERIOUS OFFENDERS OR VIOLATORS OR WE DEFY IT. OR DOES ROLY WALKER THINK HE BELIEVES HE LIVES ABOVE THE LOT? WE CAN'T GET THERE. AND FINALLY, FOR THE SHOW OF POWER, WE GET OUR LICENSE REVOKED. LISTEN, WE COME TO YOU AND SAID, CAN WE MEDIATE IT BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE PROBLEM IS? REMEMBER? GO AHEAD, LET'S SEE WHAT THE BOE DOES. AFTER 20 YEARS, YOU ON THAT FIELD HAVE ALL YOUR RIGHTS, YOUR VOTES THROWN DOWN, THROWN AWAY. IS IT? YOU'RE THE VIOLATORS. WELL, I ONLY TELL YOU THIS TO OBTAIN A CROSSING BECAUSE WE LIKE TO CONTRIBUTE. WE LIKE TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE. WE REMEMBER WHAT WAS THERE. BUT THESE TWO BOYS, THEY'RE A DIFFERENT STORY. THEY'RE TEN YEARS OLD AND THEY LEARNED TO WORK, AND I DON'T I DON'T KNOW OF ANY FATHER OR GRANDFATHER THAT WOULDN'T LIKE TO LEARN, TEACHES BOYS TO WORK. AND THEY DID. AND LOOK WHAT A STREET TO PLEASE. THE PEOPLE THAT ARE EMPLOYED AND PAID BY OUR TAXES HAVE BEEN DETERMINED TO SHUT US DOWN BECAUSE THEY KNOW BETTER AND IN SPITE OF IT, WHICH I DON'T AGREE WITH THEIR TACTICS AND THEIR DISINGENUOUS NATURES AND THEIR DENIALS. WE'VE DONE EVERYTHING THEY ASK, BUT TWO THINGS. WE CAN'T GET YOURSELF A PERMIT, AND WE CAN'T GET THEM TO ACCEPT THE SITE PLAN. NOW, WHEN WE WENT TO THE BOARD WHERE YOU GUYS MEET WITH EVERYBODY AND PUBLIC CAN'T TALK, BUT THEY CAN ATTEND, THE ATTORNEY WALKED UP TO ME AND GOES, WHY ARE WE DOING THIS? YOUR SITE PLAN HAS BEEN APPROVED. I'M GOING, WELL, WHY ARE WE DOING IT? WHY DO YOU THREATEN TO REVOKE IT? AND THEN THE NEXT DAY THE BOA WHICH SAID NO, YOUR SITE PLANS ISN'T APPROVED. WHAT HAVE WE GOT TO DO TO GET A PERMIT? WELL, HAVE YOU DONE ANYTHING BUT YOU HAVE ANOTHER SITE PLAN? WELL. HE SAYS, WELL, YOU YOU YOU HAVEN'T MET THE FIRE DEPARTMENT'S REQUIREMENTS. WE ALL HAVE. I HAVE SCOTT COME OUT. HE WALKED THE ROADS. HE LOOKED AT THE IMPACT. HE LOOKED THE WIDTHS. HE 
          [02:05:02]
LOOKED AT THE GATE WIDTHS. HE LOOKED AT ALL OF IT. HE WENT THROUGH THE BARNS HE WENT THROUGH. AND HE GOES, WELL, YOU'RE GOOD ROLLING. AS SOON AS YOU GET YOUR PERMIT, I'LL SIGN OFF. BUT THE DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SAYS HAS HAS THE AUDACITY TO SAY WE HAVE NOT MET THAT REQUIREMENT. WE HAVE BEEN ABLE TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS BECAUSE WE CAN'T GET A PERMIT FOR THE FIRE DEPARTMENT TO SIGN OFF THAT THEY'VE ALREADY SAID THEY WOULD, AS HAS THE ELECTRICAL, AS HAS THE PLUMBING. HOW HAS THE GAS ALL SAID THEY WOULD? AND LISTEN TO THE GENTLEMAN LADIES. I'M NOT AWARE, EVEN THOUGH I THINK THERE'S BEEN UNREASONABLENESS REQUIRED. I'M NOT AWARE OF ONE THING WE HAVEN'T DONE. WE'VE ASKED AND I'M PUNISHED FOR IT. WE ARE PUNISHED. THE BOYS ARE PUNISHED. THE RED BARN IS PUNISHED. THE RIGHTS HAVE ALL BEEN REVOKED AND REMOVED. I'M HERE TONIGHT TO SAY TO YOU WITH ALL MY HEART IT ISN'T MY POCKETBOOK. TRUST ME. 
          I'VE TOLD PEOPLE SEVERAL TIMES I HAVEN'T BOUGHT A PAIR OF SHOELACES FOR THESE SHOES FROM THAT RED BARN. MY FAULT. WE PUT IT ALL BACK IN. WE HAVE FUN THINGS, AND WE DO IT EVERY YEAR. 
          UNTIL SOMEBODY CAME ALONG AND SAID, YOU CAN'T DO IT ANYMORE UNTIL WE SEE IT ON PAPER. AND THE ONLY REASON I SHOW YOU THE TWO PIECES OF PAPER IS BECAUSE YOU CAN KIND OF SIZE UP THE UNREASONABLENESS. THE NONSENSICAL OF US BEING DENIED JUST BECAUSE IT ISN'T ON PAPER. 
          OKAY, WE DID IT. DON'T GET IT, GET IT ONE DAY. MY LAST COMMENT ON COMMON SENSE. ONE DAY I'M OVER THERE WITH THE DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR. MY CAR. THE ISSUE, REMEMBER, IS TREES. TREES AROUND THE PUMPKIN PATCH. THIS ORDINANCE THAT SOMEBODY PASSED FOR. WHO KNOWS WHY THAT I'VE GOT TO HAVE 30FT OF TREES AND SHRUBS AND EVERYTHING ELSE AROUND THE PUMPKIN PATCH. AND I'M SITTING IN MY CAR WITH THE DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR, AND I LOOK OVER THE TREES ON THE NORTH END, AND YOU CAN'T EVEN SEE THROUGH THEM. AND ON THE OTHER SIDE IS A HORSE, ONE IN THE PASTURE, AND THEY SOMETIMES PUT TWO, BUT WHATEVER. AND I'M GOING, WHY HAVE I GOT TO PUT MORE TREES? WHERE'S THE COMMON SENSE? SAYS TO ME, WHAT DO YOU MEAN COMMON SENSE? I SAYS, THE COMMON SENSE. WHY, WHEN I HEAR TRUMP SAY PRESIDENT TRUMP SAY, FINALLY, WE'VE GOT COMMON SENSE. IT RESONATES WITH ME. I GO, HOW IS IT COMMON SENSE THAT I GOT TO PUT MORE TREES BETWEEN ME AND THOSE HORSES, AND ME AND THE ZOO AND ME AND THE PUMPKIN PATCH? WHERE'S THE COMMON SENSE? I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU MEAN BY COMMON SENSE. WELL, I GIVE UP, I SAID, I'LL SHOW YOU COMMON SENSE. WE DROVE OVER TO THE HOTEL ON SPRING HILL. IF YOU NOTICE THE APARTMENTS THAT ARE THIS FAR AWAY FROM THE HOTEL TO LOOK RIGHT INTO OUR HOTEL WINDOWS. HAVE YOU NOTICED THE ONES ON SUNNYSIDE WHERE WALLACE DAIRY WAS THAT? NOW LOOK DOWN IN THE BACKYARDS AND BETRAYED THE PRIVACY OF EVERY RESIDENT AND BROUGHT DOWN THE PRICE OF THEIR HOMES? WELL, THAT'S COMMON SENSE. LET'S THINK ABOUT THAT. 
          RATHER THAN YOU'RE GOING TO TAKE AWAY MY PERMIT, YOU'RE GOING TO SHUT ME DOWN. YOU'RE GOING TO KEEP ME FROM PROGRESSING. YOU KEEP ME FROM EVERYTHING I WANT TO DO WITH THE RED BARN, BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE MORE TREES NOW. THANK YOU. BECAUSE YOU YOU HELP ME APPEAL MOST OF THAT. I STILL HAVE PUT MORE TREES UP, BY THE WAY, AND SHRUBS, OR I CAN'T GET MY PERMIT. THEY'LL REVOKE IT AGAIN. AND WHY? I'M NOT GUILTY OF LIVING ABOVE THE LAW. I'M NOT GUILTY OF NOT CONTRIBUTING TO THIS CITY. I'M NOT GUILTY OF NOT MAKING A DIFFERENCE. AND I STAND HERE. NOT FOR ME. TAYLOR. 
          CROSSING ON THE RIVER ISN'T CALLED A WALKERVILLE. IT'S NAMED AFTER THE FOUNDER WHO FIRST CROSSED THE RIVER. ONE OF THOSE WHO WAS THE FIRST GOVERNOR'S. OKAY. NO, I'M HERE BECAUSE TWO BOYS DESERVE TO NOT HAVE THEIR LEGACY OF 20 YEARS BE REVOKED AND TAKEN AWAY BECAUSE SOMEBODY SAYS THEY KNOW BETTER. PLEASE, I'M ASKING YOU, PLEASE GIVE BACK OUR RIGHTS. APPROVE OUR PERMITS. 
          LET ME PUT UP THE SLIDE. LET US KEEP IMPROVING. AND IF AT ANY TIME ANY OF YOU THINK I'M ABUSING THE PRIVILEGE, COME SEE ME. YOU CALL ME, I'LL ANSWER, BECAUSE, WELL, THAT'S NOT OUR INTENTION. AND I CAN'T TELL YOU THE FEAR I HAVE OF WHAT? THE OBSTACLES I'M IN FRONT OF. 
          BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO BUILD ANOTHER HOTEL. AND WHAT AM I GOING TO RUN INTO? WELL, THAT'S IN YOUR HANDS. YOU'RE THE ONLY ONES THAT CAN CORRECT WHAT NEEDS TO BE CORRECTED. YOU DON'T MEAN 
          [02:10:05]
TO TELL ME YOU DON'T NEED ME TO TELL YOU WHAT TO DO? AND WHO'S DOING IT? WHO NEEDS TO BE CHANGED IN THE DECISION MAKING WORLD? BUT IF YOU DON'T KNOW, THAT'S NOT A GOOD THING. THIS CITY IS A FANTASTIC CITY, BUT ONE OF THE FEW CITIES IN THE WHOLE WORLD THAT HAVE A RIVER RUNNING THROUGH IT. BEAUTIFUL GREEN BELTS. AND WE HAVE JUNKYARDS THAT ARE GONE NOW. AND BY THE WAY, THERE'S A NICE DEVELOPMENT THERE. THOSE ARE THE LARGEST COMMISSION BRONZE EAGLES IN THE WORLD, AND YOU DON'T GET CREDIT FOR THEM. YOU DO BECAUSE EVERYBODY THINKS YOU PUT THEM UP AND YOU DID THEM. AND THAT'S FINE WITH ME. I JUST WANT US TO BE A CITY THAT CAN WELCOME GROWTH WITH GOOD PEOPLE AND MAKE IT EASY, THE RIGHT WAY, THE RIGHT WAY. AND QUIT PICKING ON YOU A PUMPKIN PATCH, PLEASE. THAT'S ENOUGH OF ME. THANK YOU. MAYOR, I CAN'T TALK WITHOUT STORIES, BUT THE ONLY WAY I CAN MAKE MY POINT IS WITH ONE. WE DID LOSE MCNEIL. HE WAS DRIVING HIS TRACTOR FROM OUR BIG FARMS IN HAMMER DOWN TO HIS LITTLE PUMPKIN PATCH, AND A SEMI RAN OVER AND TEXTED HIM. SO WE LOST HIM. IT DOES GOT ME A LITTLE BIT WHEN THE DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR GETS IN FRONT OF THE BOW AND GLOATS THAT ONE OF THE THINGS YOU'LL BE ABLE TO DO, IT'S ON. 
          IT'S ON YOUR VIDEO. YOU CAN WATCH IT, WATCH IT. YOU THINK I'M EXAGGERATING? ONE OF THE THINGS WE'LL BE ABLE TO DO, WE'LL BE ABLE TO STOP THEM FROM HAVING THEIR FIREWORKS FOR THEIR SON AT THE PUMPKIN PATCH. THAT'S NOT RIGHT. SOMETHING IS WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE. AND BY THE WAY, WE DON'T HAVE THE FIREWORKS AT PUMPKIN PATCH. IT'S ACROSS THE STREET AND KURT BURNS FIELD AND GETS A SEPARATE PERMIT. BUT WE'RE THREATENED THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE DENIED THAT. DO YOU KNOW, IT'S JUST NOT FOR MCNEIL. IT'S FOR ANYONE THAT'S EVER LOST A CHILD. ON OCTOBER 1ST. AND WE WELCOME EVERYBODY THAT'S EVER LOST A CHILD. SIMILAR TO THE FIRST DAY OF THE PUMPKIN PATCH IS FREE FOR ALL SPECIAL NEEDS. YOU WANT TO HAVE A TENDER MOMENT COME THAT DAY AND SEE THESE SPECIAL KIDS. AND HOW THEY FEEL LIKE THEY'RE KINGS AND QUEENS OF THE WORLD BECAUSE THEY LOVE THE RED BARN. AND WE SEE PEOPLE THAT ARE FOLLOWING THEM AROUND LIKE THEY ARE KINGS AND QUEENS. THE GRANDMAS AND GRANDPAS AND BROTHERS AND SISTERS WHO WATCH THESE KIDS HAVE SUCH A FUN TIME. 
          WE'VE BEEN DOING IT FOR YEARS. 2000 PEOPLE PROBABLY COME, OH MY GOSH, AND WE'RE A BAD THING. WE ARE NOT A BAD THING. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. WALKER. THE THIRD PARTY TO SPEAK FOR THE APPELLANT IS MR. GARY COOPER. NO, I'LL DO THE REBUTTAL. REBUTTAL? OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. BEN. THE ORDER OF THINGS THEN WOULD TURN TO THE CITY. AND FOR A STAFF REPORT OF WHAT THE CITY'S CONCERNS HAVE BEEN. THANK YOU, MAYOR AND COUNCIL. AND THANK YOU, MR. WALKER AND MR. STERLING FOR YOUR WORDS. I DO HAVE A PRESENTATION PREPARED, AND I KNOW YOU SHOULD NEVER START A PUBLIC SPEECH WITH AN APOLOGY, BUT I DO APOLOGIZE. IT'S THERE'S QUITE A LOT OF DATA INTO IT. AND SO I'LL JUST JUMP RIGHT INTO IT. COULD YOU CLICK ON THE POWERPOINT. SO THANK YOU. SO AS WAS STATED BY OUR CITY ATTORNEY WE'RE HERE TO ADDRESS THE U-PICK FARM CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REVOCATION APPEAL. THE MAJOR QUESTIONS THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT TODAY IS DID THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT IN THEIR DECISION. AND THAT FALLS UNDER TWO KEY POINTS. ONE WAS THE DECISION BY THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS MEANING DID IT VIOLATE THE ZONING CODE OR WAS IT NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD? AND THE SECOND WAS, WAS THE APPLICANT AFFORDED DUE PROCESS, MEANING WAS THERE AMPLE AND CLEAR NOTICE GIVEN TO THE APPLICANT FOR THE CHARGES BROUGHT AGAINST HIM BY THE GOVERNMENT? AND DID THE APPLICANT HAVE THE ABILITY, IN A TIMELY MANNER, TO MAKE HIS CASE TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT? THE APPLICANT'S APPEAL IS ATTACHED TO YOUR STAFF REPORT AND THE CITY COUNCIL, SO YOU CAN SEE ALL THE DATA THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SAW STAFF THERE. WITH THE APPEAL. THERE WERE, I BELIEVE, SIX ITEMS, AND STAFF WILL GO THROUGH EACH OF THOSE ITEMS TO ADDRESS ALL THE ITEMS THAT I HAVE. I'M GOING TO SKIP THIS NEXT SLIDE BECAUSE THE ATTORNEY ALREADY READ THROUGH 
          [02:15:02]
THE CODE SECTION. ALL THESE SLIDES WERE SHOWN TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. I'VE MOVED THEM OUT OF ORDER A LITTLE BIT, AND I ALSO QUOTE FROM THE ACTUAL RECORD OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT HEARING IN PARTS OF MY PRESENTATION. JUST SO YOU'RE AWARE, JUST TO GIVE YOU A TIMELINE, STAFF MET WITH THE APPLICANT ON DECEMBER 5TH OF 2023. THIS IS WHERE WE SAT DOWN AND WE TALKED TO HIM ABOUT THE REZONE OF THE PROPERTY. I JUST WANT TO ADDRESS ONE THING. THE APPLICANT STATED THAT THE ZONING WAS FORCED UPON HIM DURING THIS MEETING. I, I WAS THERE IN THE MEETING. THE REASON FOR THE PROPOSAL FOR THE REZONE WAS, AS THE APPLICANT STATED, WE HAD AN EXPANSION OF USE. INITIALLY, THIS WAS A PUMPKIN PATCH THAT WAS UNDERGONE BY THE NEPHEW OF THE APPLICANT AS WELL AS HIS SON, AND THAT PUMPKIN PATCH WAS JUST SIMILAR TO A FARM OPERATION. THE OPERATION HAD EXPANDED TO AN AMUSEMENT USE. HE MENTIONED THAT I DID GO OUT TO THE SITE MANY TIMES WITH HIM. ONE TIME WHEN I WAS OUT WITH THE SITE WITH THE APPLICANT, HE DESCRIBED IT AS A PAY TO PLAY. YOU GET A WRISTBAND FOR THE ACTIVITY THAT YOU PARTICIPATE ON THE SITE. HE ALSO HAD PROPOSED TO DO A SLIDE UP TO EXPAND THE AMUSEMENT ELEMENT OF THE PROPERTY, SO STAFF SAW THIS AS WE'RE SEEING AN EXPANSION OF THE USE AND WE NEED TO ADDRESS THAT BECAUSE WE HAD GOTTEN COMPLAINTS FROM NEIGHBORS IN REGARDS TO TRAFFIC, NOISE, SMELLS, THOSE TYPE OF THINGS. AND WE HAD SUBSTANTIAL COMPLAINT ABOUT THE PROPERTY. SO THE SOLUTION THAT I PROPOSED AT THE TIME WAS THAT HE GET A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. AND THE REASON FOR THAT IS IT GAVE HIM THE ABILITY TO REQUEST VARIANCES ON THE PROPERTY. THE VARIANCES WOULD THEN ALLOW HIM TO CONTINUE TO EXPAND, OR AT LEAST CONTAIN SOME OF THE ELEMENTS THAT WERE EXPANDING ON THE PROPERTY. THE REZONE WAS APPROVED ON APRIL 11TH OF 2024 BY THE CITY COUNCIL. THAT REZONE, JUST SO YOU KNOW, WE DO NOT THIS WAS NOT A FORCED REZONE. THIS WAS A REZONE REQUESTED BY THE APPLICANT. IT WAS A FORCED REZONE. IT WOULD BE SOMETHING DIFFERENT. IT'S A CITY INITIATED REZONE AND THE PROCESS IS VERY DIFFERENT. THIS WAS A DEVELOPER OR PROPERTY OWNER INITIATED REZONING. THE REZONE WAS APPROVED. AND THEN IT GOES TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BECAUSE THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ATTACHED TO THE ZONING ON THE PROPERTY, WHICH WAS REZONED TO LMN, REQUIRES THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT WITH THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IN WHICH THEY SET CONDITIONS. THE FIRST TIME IT WENT TO THE PUBLIC HEARING, THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT DID NOT FEEL THAT THEY HAD ENOUGH INFORMATION, SO THEY REQUESTED THAT BE TABLED AND BROUGHT BACK AT THEIR NEXT MEETING, WHICH WAS DONE ON THE 27TH OF JUNE OF 2024. DURING THE COURSE OF THAT HEARING, THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS STILL FELT LIKE THEY DIDN'T HAVE SUFFICIENT INFORMATION. HOWEVER, WHAT THEY WANTED WAS THE APPLICANT TO BE ABLE TO OPEN FOR THE SEASON. HE HAS A SEASONAL BUSINESS, AS HE STATED SIX WEEKS OUT OF THE YEAR, AND SO THEY IMPOSED NINE CONDITIONS AND GRANTED HIM TWO VARIANCES. MR. THE APPLICANT ON AUGUST 8TH APPEALED THAT DECISION, PRIMARILY DEALING WITH THE LANDSCAPE BUFFERING THAT WAS REQUIRED. IF YOU REMEMBER, THAT WENT BACK TO YOU FOLKS AND THE REQUEST AT THE TIME FROM THE CITY COUNCIL, THAT DIRECTION WAS THAT WE HAD THE CITY FORESTER COME AND MAKE A DETERMINATION ON THE LANDSCAPE BUFFER. THAT DETERMINATION WAS MADE AND HIS LETTER WAS SENT ON AUGUST 27TH OF 2024. ON SEPTEMBER 13TH, THE APPLICANT OPENED TO THE PUBLIC FOR A SPECIAL EVENT AND TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC ON SEPTEMBER 14TH OF 2024. ON ON DECEMBER 17TH. AND I'LL TAKE YOU THROUGH ALL THIS TIMELINE A LITTLE BIT MORE IN DETAIL ON DECEMBER 17TH, THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REVOKED THAT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND THE VARIANCE GRANTED TO THE PROPERTY BECAUSE THEY FOUND THAT HE WAS IN VIOLATION OF HIS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. THE VOA CONDITIONS THAT, AS THE APPLICANT STATED, THERE WERE NINE CONDITIONS IMPOSED ON THE PROPERTY. PRIMARILY, WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT THAT THEY FOUND WERE THESE TWO CONDITIONS, AND I WILL READ THEM. HE WAS TO OBTAIN A SITE PLAN APPROVAL SHOWING AN ACCURATE DEPICTION OF THE SITE PRIOR TO OPENING TO THE PUBLIC, AND OBTAIN ALL REQUIRED BUILDING PERMITS, INSPECTIONS AND FINAL SIGN OFFS FOR ALL STRUCTURES REQUIRING A PERMIT PRIOR TO OPENING TO THE PUBLIC AND THE OTHER CONDITIONS THAT THEY IMPOSE WERE PRIMARILY TO ADDRESS 
          [02:20:06]
ISSUES OF TRAFFIC NOISE. SO HE MENTIONED ABOUT THE FIREWORKS DISPLAY. THAT FIREWORKS DISPLAY WAS CONDITIONED BECAUSE OF COMPLAINTS THAT IT COULD ONLY HAVE HAPPENED ONE TIME DURING HIS HIS SIX WEEKS TO ELIMINATE NOISE CONCERNS. SO I DID NOT GLOAT ABOUT HAVING THAT REVOKED. 
          THAT WAS JUST ONE OF THE CONDITIONS THAT WAS ON THERE AND THAT WAS REVOKED. SO THESE ARE THE TWO THAT WE'RE PRIMARILY LOOKING AT. THE VARIANCES THAT WERE GRANTED ON THE PROPERTY WERE DEALING WITH LANDSCAPING, IF YOU DON'T MIND, I'LL GO THROUGH THIS A LITTLE QUICKLY. 
          THE TWO VARIANCES THAT WERE GRANTED WERE DEALING WITH PARKING AND THAT WE HAD A SUFFICIENT AMOUNT OF PARKING GOING ON ALONG ROLAND DEBT ON THE EAST SIDE. THIS IS THE PROPERTY RIGHT HERE ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY. THEY ALLOWED THE FOR BECAUSE HE HAS DIFFICULTY PARKING THE PROPERTY. THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ALLOWED HIM TO USE WHAT WE CALL THE ELK PASTURE TO THE EAST AND PROPERTY ALONG MCNEILL TO BE USED FOR THEIR PARKING NUMBERS. SO THAT WAS AN EFFORT TO PRIMARILY PUSH THE PARKING TO THE WEST ON MCNEILL, BECAUSE MCNEILL HAS CURVED THE OTHER SIDEWALK. THE OTHER VARIANCE THAT WAS GRANTED WAS THAT. THERE WE GO WAS FOR THE LANDSCAPE BUFFERING ALONG THE NORTH SIDE, BECAUSE THERE WERE EXISTING TREES, THEY ALSO VARIED THE LANDSCAPING ALONG THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY TO THE NORTHEAST. THE REASON BEING IS THAT IT'S ACTUALLY MR. MR. WALKER DOES NOT ACTUALLY OWN THE PROPERTY. IT'S HIS SON. PRESTON WALKER ACTUALLY OWNS BOTH PROPERTIES, BUT IT'S BECAUSE THEY'RE UNDER THE SAME OWNERSHIP. THEY ALSO BECAUSE OF THE FORESTER, THEY ALLOWED THIS LANDSCAPING ALONG ROLAND DEBT TO COUNT TOWARDS HIS OVERALL STREET TREE REQUIREMENT. AND THE BOA REVOKED THE REASON STATEMENT FOR THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REVOCATION IS PRESENTED HERE. YOU HAVE A COPY OF THIS IN YOUR PACKET. SO I AM NOT GOING TO READ IT IN ITS ENTIRETY. BUT IN ESSENCE, WHAT THEY FOUND IS I JUST WANT TO READ TWO POINTS AND THIS POINT, THIS POINT AND THE BOTTOM ONE SAYS THE APPLICANT DID NOT OBTAIN A SITE PLAN APPROVAL SHOWING AN ACCURATE DEPICTION OF THE SITE PRIOR TO OPENING TO THE PUBLIC, AND THE APPLICANT DID NOT OBTAIN ALL REQUIRED BUILDING PERMITS, INSPECTIONS AND FINAL SIGN OFFS FOR ALL STRUCTURES REQUIRING A PERMIT PRIOR TO OPENING TO THE PUBLIC. FURTHER ON THE LAST POINT, THE APPLICANT, THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, FOUND THAT THE APPLICANT OPENED THE U-PICK BARN AGRICULTURAL AMUSEMENT BUSINESS TO ON SEPTEMBER 13TH FOR A SPECIAL EVENT AND TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC ON SEPTEMBER 14TH, 2024, IN DIRECT VIOLATION OF THEIR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. I WILL GO THROUGH THESE APPEAL. I'LL TRY TO GO THROUGH THESE AS IS IN MUCH DETAIL, AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AS I'M GOING ALONG. THIS THE FIRST APPEAL THAT THE APPLICANT PRESENTED AND I WILL READ THIS VERBATIM. SO FORGIVE ME. I KNOW THIS IS IN YOUR PACKET AND I DON'T WANT TO KILL YOU DEATH BY POWERPOINT, BUT I JUST FEEL IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE GO THROUGH EACH OF THESE. FIRST, THE APPEAL ITEM NUMBER ONE, THE NOTICE OF HEARING WAS DEFECTIVE IN THAT IT ADVISED ROWLEY WALKER, DOING BUSINESS AS U-PICK FARM, THAT THE REASONS THE REVOCATION WAS BEING PURSUED WAS ONE HOURS OF OPERATION, TWO ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS AND THREE LANDSCAPING. THESE REASONS WERE NOT THE REASONS PURSUED AT THE HEARING. 
          WADE SANNER MYSELF SPOKE FOR NEARLY AN HOUR USING A SOPHISTICATED AND COMPREHENSIVE POWERPOINT, WHICH MUST HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED OVER WEEKS TO CONVINCE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT THAT ROWLEY WALKER, DOING BUSINESS AS U-PICK BARN, HAD OPENED IN 2024 WITHOUT AN APPROVAL SITE. THE SITE PLAN, BUILDING PERMIT AND OTHER NECESSARY PERMITS BY ADVISING ROWLEY WALKER, DOING BUSINESS AS U-PICK BARN OF REASONS DIFFERENT THAN THE REAL REASONS FOR SEEKING REVOCATION OF THE CUP. ROWLEY WALKER, DOING BUSINESS AS U-PICK BARN, WAS DEPRIVED OF THE OPPORTUNITY TO EFFECTIVELY AND COMPLETELY REBUT THE EXTENSIVE CASE PRESENTED BY THE CITY. THIS IS A QUASI JUDICIAL PROCESS REQUIRING DUE PROCESS, INCLUDING ADEQUATE NOTICE OF THE REASONS SUPPORTING THE REVOCATION OF THE CUP. THIS ITEM SPECIFICALLY DIRECTS THE ARGUMENT IN REGARDS TO DUE PROCESS. DID HE HAVE THE PROPER TIME TO CREATE A REBUTTAL? WAS HE AWARE OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT HEARING? SO I WOULD LIKE TO GO THROUGH OUR NOTICING REQUIREMENTS AND WHAT WE DID SPECIFICALLY FOR THIS CASE. NOTICING FOR THE NOTICING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE CDS DEPARTMENT IS ACTUALLY DICTATED TO US BY STATE STATUTE. THIS IS WHY THIS IS WHAT WE HAVE TO FOLLOW TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS FOR NOTICING. I'LL JUST POINT OUT I'LL TRY TO GO THROUGH THESE A LITTLE QUICKLY, BUT I THINK IT'S GOOD FOR THE PUBLIC TO HEAR 
          [02:25:02]
BECAUSE SOMETIMES ALSO ON CDS WE OFTEN HEAR, WHY DO YOU HAVE TO FOLLOW THIS? IT'S STRICTLY BECAUSE OF TITLE 67, 65, 12. SO FIRST WE HAVE TO AT LEAST 15 DAYS PRIOR TO THE HEARING, NOTICE OF THE TIME AND PLACE AND SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSAL SHALL BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL NEWSPAPER. EACH LOCAL GOVERNMENT IS ENCOURAGED TO POST EACH NOTICE ON ITS OFFICIAL WEBSITE. 
          NOTICE MAY ALSO NOTICE. MAY NOTICE MAY ALSO BE MADE AVAILABLE TO OTHER NEWSPAPERS, RADIO AND TELEVISION STATIONS SERVING THE JURISDICTION FOR USE AS A PUBLIC SERVICE. 
          ANNOUNCEMENT NOTICE SHALL BE POSTED ON THE PREMISES NOT LESS THAN ONE WEEK PRIOR TO THE HEARING. NOTICES SHALL BE PROVIDED TO PROPERTY OWNERS OR PURCHASERS OF RECORD WITHIN THE LAND BEING CONSIDERED, AND WITHIN 300FT OF THE EXTERNAL BOUNDARIES OF THE LAND BEING CONSIDERED. ANY PROPERTY OWNER ENTITLED TO SPECIFIC NOTICE PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SUBSECTION SHALL HAVE A RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE IN PUBLIC HEARINGS BEFORE A PLANNING COMMISSION, PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION, OR GOVERNING BOARD. JUST NOTICE WHAT WE SHALL DO AND WHAT WE MAY DO. I WILL FIRST START. THIS IS THE FIRST EMAIL THAT I SENT TO THE APPLICANT. 
          THIS WAS DONE ON OCTOBER 29TH OF 2024 AND I HAVE IT THERE SO YOU CAN SEE IT. BUT I ALSO BULLET POINT THE SUMMARY OF WHAT I WHAT I SAID IN THIS EMAIL. I SENT IT TO THE APPLICANT AND HIS ASSISTANT, WHO BOTH SPOKE THIS EVENING. I SENT THEM STATING THAT THEY WERE IN VIOLATION OF THEIR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. THE REASON I SENT THIS IS BECAUSE THEIR LAST DAY WAS WAS OCTOBER 31ST OR AT THE END OF OCTOBER, AND IT DESCRIBES ON IT THAT WE ARE STILL DO NOT HAVE A SITE PLAN HOW TO SUBMIT THAT SITE PLAN. AND IT ALSO I DISCUSSED THE PROCESS IN WHICH YOU REQUEST AN INSPECTION FOR THE PROPERTY. BUT WE HAVE HAD A PROBLEM WAS HE WAS REQUESTING INSPECTIONS WITHOUT PERMITS. AND SO I JUST RESTATED THAT YOU HAVE TO HAVE A PERMIT BEFORE YOU SUBMIT FOR INSPECTION. THIS WAS SENT 33 DAYS PRIOR TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING. SO AT THIS TIME, HE KNEW HE WAS IN VIOLATION. SECOND, I HAVE THIS JUST BECAUSE THIS WAS THE EMAIL, AND I ATTACHED A LETTER TO THIS EMAIL. I'M GOING TO MOVE THROUGH THIS KIND OF QUICKLY BECAUSE THIS EMAIL WAS SENT TO THE APPLICANT. IT LAYS OUT WHAT HE IS IN VIOLATION OF. FURTHER, I SENT TO HIM A LETTER FROM THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR MYSELF. THIS WAS DONE ABOVE NOTICING REQUIREMENTS. THIS WAS DONE AS A COURTESY AND TO PROVIDE GOOD CUSTOMER SERVICE TO THE APPLICANT. I DID LIST THE CONDITIONS. I WOULD LIKE TO READ IT. I WILL KIND OF SKIM SOME OF IT. IT SAYS, DEAR MR. WALKER, THIS LETTER IS TO INFORM YOU THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FOR THE CITY OF IDAHO FALLS WILL HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING FOR REVOCATION OF YOUR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE U-PICK BARN AT THE REGULAR MEETING HELD ON DECEMBER 17TH, 2024 AT 5:30 P.M. 
          IN THE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT 680 PARK AVENUE IN IDAHO FALLS, IDAHO. THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OPPOSED THE FOLLOWING VARIANCES AND CONDITIONS AT THEIR MEETINGS. I LIST THAT THOSE ARE THE BULLET POINTS THERE. THEN STAFF HAS DETERMINED THAT THE STAFF HAS DETERMINED THAT THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS WERE NOT MET PRIOR TO OPENING TO THE U-PICK BARN TO THE PUBLIC ON SEPTEMBER 13TH, 2024. AND I LIST THOSE. OBTAIN A SITE PLAN APPROVAL SHOWING AN ACCURATE DEPICTION OF THE SITE PRIOR TO OPENING TO THE PUBLIC. OBTAIN ALL REQUIRED BUILDING PERMITS, INSPECTIONS, AND FINAL SIGN OFFS FOR ALL STRUCTURES REQUIRING A PERMIT PRIOR TO OPENING TO THE PUBLIC. AFTER OPENING TO THE PUBLIC, YOU CONTINUE TO OPERATE THE PIZZA KITCHEN WITH THE POSTED DO NOT OCCUPY NOTICE. I WILL GO THROUGH THIS IN JUST A MINUTE AND DIRECT VIOLATION OF THE INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE. AND BUILDING CODE. REVOCATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IS A SERIOUS MATTER AND IF APPROVED, WOULD REVERT THE PROPERTY TO THE LIGHT MANUFACTURING AND HEAVY COMMERCIAL ZONED DISTRICT. NOTICE THAT I DO NOT SAY THAT IT WOULD SHUT HIM DOWN WITHOUT A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. THE AGRICULTURAL TOURISM USE WOULD NOT BE PERMITTED ON THE PROPERTY. FURTHER, ANY CONDITIONS AND VARIANCES GRANTED BY THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FOR LANDSCAPE BUFFERING, PARKING, FIREWORKS DISPLAY, HOURS OF OPERATION. AGRICULTURAL. 
          HORTICULTURAL, WHICH IS THE GROWING OF AGRICULTURE, ETC. COULD BE IGNORED, LIMITING THE CURRENT OPERATIONS OF THE U-PICK FARM. I DID NOT SAY IT WOULD SHUT DOWN, IT WOULD LIMIT THEM. 
          AT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING ON DECEMBER 17TH, 2024, YOU WILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT VIOLATION ACCUSATIONS AND IF ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE CALL ME AND HAVE MY NUMBER ON THERE. SO THAT WAS THE LETTER THAT I SENT TO THE APPLICANT. AND THIS WAS ABOVE AND BEYOND OUR NOTICING REQUIREMENTS. AND THAT WAS SENT 21 DAYS PRIOR JUST TO SHOW YOU THE NEWSPAPER POSTING AND THE POSTING TO THE PROPERTY. WE TAKE PICTURES AS PROOF. THESE WERE POSTED TO THE PROPERTY, THE NEWSPAPER. SORRY, I SHOULD DO. I SHOULD DO THIS IN ORDER. THE 
          [02:30:04]
NEWSPAPER NEWSPAPER POSTING WAS PUBLISHED IN THE NEWSPAPER ON NOVEMBER 30TH, 2024. SO WHAT WE HAVE IS THE ACTUAL POSTING AND AS OUR RECORDS, WE SHOW THAT WE PAID IT JUST TO SHOW THAT IT ACTUALLY WAS WAS PAID FOR. IN THAT NEWSPAPER POSTING, IT SAYS, QUOTE, THE REVOCATION OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AGRICULTURAL TOURISM AND LIGHT MANUFACTURING ZONE IN THE ZONE, AND THAT WAS POSTED TO THE NEWSPAPER ON THE 17 DAYS PRIOR. OUR STATE STATUTE REQUIRES US TO DO IT 15 DAYS PRIOR. SO WE WERE AHEAD OF THE CURVE. THE SIGN POSTING TO THE PROPERTY WAS DONE ON NOVEMBER 27TH, 2024. IT WAS A MORNING BEFORE THE THANKSGIVING HOLIDAY. IT WAS POSTED 20 DAYS PRIOR. REMEMBER THAT STATE STATUTE WE NEED SEVEN DAYS PRIOR, SO WE DID IT FAR IN ADVANCE. THIS IS WHAT WAS BROUGHT UP BY THE APPEAL. THIS WAS THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER LETTER. THIS NOTICE WAS SENT TO OWNERS WITHIN 300FT. IT LISTS STAFF'S CONTACT INFORMATION, A DEADLINE FOR WRITTEN COMMENTS, WHERE AND WHEN TO LOCATE THE STAFF REPORT. SO IF YOU NEED MORE INFORMATION, YOU CAN GET IT THERE. IT GIVES THE PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SUMMARY AS QUOTE, A REVOCATION OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ISSUED ON JUNE 27TH, 2024, DUE TO FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH CONDITIONS OF PERMIT FOR AN AGRICULTURAL TOURISM USE IN THE LM, LIGHT MANUFACTURING AND HEAVY COMMERCIAL ZONE. IT LISTS THE CODE SECTION IN QUESTION FOR REFERENCE. IF SOMEBODY WANTS TO GO AND READ UP ON THE ACTUAL CODE SECTION, IT STATES QUOTE CONDITIONS TO MINIMIZE ANY ADVERSE IMPACTS, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, HOURS OF OPERATION, ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS, AND LANDSCAPING. THIS WAS SENT 21 DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. THE APPLICANT IS STATING THAT THE VERBIAGE THAT I HIGHLIGHT RIGHT HERE, AND WHICH IS UP HERE IN THE NOTICE THAT THAT THAT THAT DID THE STATE THAT THE VERBIAGE DID NOT GIVE ADEQUATE INFORMATION OF WHY THE CUP WAS BEING REVOKED. HOWEVER, I WOULD JUST REMIND YOU THAT IT SAYS INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO. SO IT'S GIVING BASICALLY SAYING WE'RE GOING TO WE'RE BRINGING THIS BEFORE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO REVOKE THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. IT COULD INCLUDE AREAS OF HOURS OF OPERATION, ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS, AND LANDSCAPING DURING THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT HEARING. JUST SO YOU'RE AWARE, WE DID DISCUSS LANDSCAPING. WE TALKED ABOUT THE LANDSCAPING VARIANCE AND THEY DID REVOKE THAT VARIANCE AS WELL. SO LANDSCAPING WAS ACTUALLY DISCUSSED. BUT THIS JUST LAYS OUT GENERAL TERMS. LET'S SEE. THIS. THIS CLEARLY SHOWS. SO ALL THESE ELEMENTS COMBINED. OH AND THEN I HAVE THIS IS THE SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS. SO WHAT WE DO IS WE IN OUR GIS SYSTEM WE PIN THE PROPERTY AND THEN WE CREATE A 300 FOOT BUFFER AND WE PULL. THIS IS ALL FROM COUNTY DATA. WE PULLED THE ADDRESS INFORMATION AND PROPERTY INFORMATION FOR ALL THE PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 300FT. YOU WILL NOTICE THAT RIGHT HERE, BECAUSE MR. ROLLY WALKER IS NOT THE OWNER. PRESTON WALKER IS THE OWNER. IT WAS SENT TO PRESTON WALKER. IT WAS ALSO SENT TO PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 300FT. THIS IS A DOCUMENT YOU DON'T TYPICALLY SEE IN A PUBLIC HEARING. THIS IS ACTUALLY THE AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING WHAT WE DO TO ENSURE THAT OUR NOTICING REQUIREMENTS. MY ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT ANN PETERSON, SHE ACTUALLY GOES DOWN AND HAS IT NOTARIZED WHEN SHE TURNS EVERYTHING IN TO GET IT SENT OUT TO EITHER THE NEWSPAPER OR WHATEVER, SHOWING THAT THIS REQUIREMENT WAS MET. THIS IS AN INTERNAL DOCUMENT. WE JUST USE IT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE DOTTING OUR I'S AND CROSSING OUR T'S TO MAKE SURE WE'RE MEETING THAT NOTICE REQUIREMENT. FURTHER, ON THE IDAHO FALLS WEBSITE, WHICH WAS POSTED ON DECEMBER 13TH, 2024, WE POSTED THE AGENDA AND ALL RELATED DOCUMENTS. ANYTHING YOU WANTED TO KNOW ABOUT THE RED BARN? I'LL POINT OUT RIGHT DOWN HERE. YOU JUST CLICK ON THIS LINK AND YOU GET ALL THESE DOCUMENTS RIGHT HERE. YOU CAN GET THE RECENT STATEMENT. YOU CAN EVERYTHING THAT YOU HAVE IN YOUR PACKET IS CLIPPED RIGHT IN THAT LINK. YOU JUST HAVE TO CLICK IT, CLICK IT, AND YOU CAN READ ANY INFORMATION YOU WANT ABOUT THE CASE. I HAVE AN UNDERGRAD IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION. I'M ALL ABOUT OPEN, TRANSPARENT GOVERNMENT. 
          YOU HAVE TO BE ABLE TO SEE WHAT YOU'RE WHAT THE GOVERNMENT IS DOING. SO THIS IS THIS. THE REASON I LUMPED THESE TWO TOGETHER IS BECAUSE THEY'RE KIND OF THE SAME ARGUMENT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT STAFF PROVIDED INCOMPLETE INFORMATION REGARDING THE NECESSARY NOTICE, SUGGESTING THAT IT WAS ONLY NECESSARY TO GIVE A TIMELY NOTICE OF HEARING AND PUBLICIZE IT PROPERLY, WHILE TOTALLY IGNORING THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE NOTICE OUT ON THE RESPONDING PARTY. ROLLY WALKER 
          [02:35:02]
DOING BUSINESS AS U-PICK FARM ON FAIR NOTICE OF THE REASONS FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION. THIS AVOIDED THAT REAL DUE PROCESS AND FAIR NOTICE ISSUES THAT WAS AT STAKE AND MISINFORMED THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE NECESSARY REQUIREMENTS. AGAIN, THIS IS. THIS IS IN REGARD TO A DUE PROCESS CLAIM. SO DID THE APPLICANT KNOW ABOUT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT HEARING? AND DID HE KNOW WHY HE WAS GOING TO BE THERE AND WHEN AND WHERE IT WAS GOING TO BE? AND COULD HE SPEAK AT THAT HEARING. SO WE HAVE THIS. SO THIS IS WHAT THEY WERE BRINGING UP RIGHT HERE. THE CONDITIONS TO MINIMIZE INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO. BUT REMEMBER, THE NOTICE DID SAY A REVOCATION OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ISSUED ON JUNE 27TH. FURTHER, MY LETTER ALSO ELABORATED EVEN FURTHER THAT MORE IN DEPTH ABOUT WHAT THE VARIANCES WERE THAT WERE UP FOR REVOCATION AND WHAT CONDITIONS POTENTIALLY COULD BE REVOKED, WHY WE WERE BRINGING THEM UP TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FOR REVOCATION. SO IN SUMMARY, THE FIRST TWO ITEMS OF THE APPEAL, THE NOTICING REQUIREMENTS WERE MET BY IDAHO STATE STATUTE. IN ADDITION, ABOVE AND BEYOND, WE SENT A PERSONAL EMAIL, AN OFFICIAL LETTER TO THE APPLICANT ON NOVEMBER 21ST, 21 DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING INFORMING HIM OF WHAT WAS GOING ON AND WHAT HE HAD THE RIGHTS TO DO, THE OFFICIAL LETTER STATES. IN THE REASONING, THE LETTER PROVIDES THE REASON FOR SEEKING REVOCATION OF THE CONDITIONAL USE AND SENT WITH AMPLE TIME FOR THE APPLICANT TO EFFECTIVELY AND COMPLETELY PREPARE A REBUTTAL OF THE CASE PRESENTED BY THE CITY. WE'LL GO TO THE NOTICE OF APPEAL, ITEM NUMBER THREE. I'M GONNA GRAB A DRINK OVER. TRYING TO MAKE THIS A LITTLE QUICK. 
          NOTICE OF APPEAL. NUMBER THREE, ROLLY WALKER, DOING BUSINESS AS U-PICK BARN, WAS ASSURED THAT IF HE MET CERTAIN CONDITIONS THAT WERE AGREED TO IN A MEETING, THAT HE WOULD BE ABLE TO OPEN THE U-PICK BARN IN 2024. AFTER COMPLETING THOSE CONDITIONS, THE CITY RENEGED ON ITS AGREEMENT AND IMPOSED ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS, NAMELY THE REQUIREMENT OF EASEMENT AND DEDICATIONS. HOWEVER, THE WRITTEN EASEMENTS AND DEDICATIONS WERE NOT PROVIDED AT THE TIME TO ROLLY WALKER DOING BUSINESS AS U-PICK BARN, SO IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE TO ANALYZE SUCH DOCUMENTS. WILLY WALKER, DOING BUSINESS AS U-PICK BARN, COULD NOT ISSUE THE NECESSARY PERMITS, AN PROBLEM, A HUGE PROBLEM, BECAUSE IT HAD ALL THESE CARS AND TRAFFIC ON IT, INCLUDING ALL THE INDUSTRIAL TRAFFIC, CONCRETE TRUCKS, SEMIS, DUMP TRUCKS, HEAVY DUTY EQUIPMENT, EXCAVATION EQUIPMENT, ALL OF IT GOING DOWN, ROLLING DOWN. YOU KNOW THAT IT WAS A BIG PROBLEM. WE WENT INTO THIS TO THE CITY AND SAID, WE PROPOSE A NEW ROAD THROUGH THESE FIELDS. 
          NOW IT'S CALLED MCNEIL DRIVE. AND THEY WERE ELATED. CHAD STEWART JUMPED OUT OF HIS CHAIR. 
          HE GOES, OH, THAT WOULD BRING SUCH A RELIEF TO THIS CITY. SO AT OUR EXPENSE, THERE'S WELL OVER $1 MILLION BECAUSE WE'RE DEVELOPING THAT AREA. WE PUT IN THAT BEAUTIFUL SUPER WIDE ROAD. 
          NOW, IF YOU NOTICE SEMIS PARKED ON THE WEEKENDS, THE HEAVY DUTY TRAFFIC GOES UP AND DOWN IT. THE CONCRETE TRUCKS, VERY FEW OF THEM, THE DUMP TRUCKS, THE EXCAVATION EQUIPMENT, VERY FEW ON IT. THERE ARE SOME. THEY GO DOWN MCNEIL DRIVE. I'M JUST SAYING WE'VE MADE CONTRIBUTIONS NOW. SO WHEN THE CITY SAYS WE WANT YOU TO GIVE UP MORE ON ROLAND DEBT, I'M GOING. YOU CAN DO THIS. 20 YEARS AGO, I'M NOT SURE THAT EVERYBODY IN THIS ROOM WILL STILL BE HERE. AND THEY'LL STILL WON'T HAVE MADE THE IMPROVEMENT TO ROLAND DEBT. OKAY, SO I WENT TO ONE OF THE COUNCIL MEMBERS, AND I SAID TO HIM, WHAT'S THE PLAN WITH ROLAND THAT YOU YOU ACTUALLY ARE IN POSSESSION OF 70% OF IT, AND YOU'RE IMPOSING THIS NEW CONDITION ON A PUMPKIN PATCH AS IF WE HAD A FORTUNE. LISTEN, I DON'T CARE HOW MANY PEOPLE COME TO THE PUMPKIN PATCH WHEN YOU'RE OPEN. SIX WEEKS OUT OF 42. THAT'S A LONG WAYS TO STRETCH IT. ALL RIGHT. I SAID TO THE CITY COUNCIL. WHY JUST DON'T YOU WIDEN, ROLAND, THAT AND I WILL DO WHATEVER YOU ASK ME TO DO, I WILL CONTRIBUTE. WHAT ARE WE LACKING? TEN FEET. ACCORDING TO THE DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR, OF COURSE. WE'LL GIVE YOU THE TEN FEET. WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO DO YOUR PART? WHY DON'T YOU DO YOUR PART? AS THE CITY? I WAS TOLD SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE WE CANNOT AFFORD IT. I SAID WHOA, WHOA, WHOA. THE CITY IS NOT GOING TO WIDE ROLL OF DEBT, WHICH IS SUCH A WHICH IS HOLDING UP MY PERMIT, MY CONDITIONS SHUTTING ME DOWN, BECAUSE THE VERY LAST THING IS YOU WANT ME TO CONTRIBUTE MY LAND TO ROLAND DEBT, AND YOU'RE NOT GOING TO WIDEN IT BECAUSE YOU CAN'T AFFORD IT. BUT WE CAN 
          [02:40:02]
AS A PUMPKIN PATCH. ALL RIGHT, NOW, LISTEN, I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY PEOPLE HERE SPEND AS MUCH TIME ON EASEMENTS, BUT I HAVE IN A DEVELOPMENT I DID DOWN IN SOUTHERN UTAH, 10,000 HOMES AND 40,000 PEOPLE WILL LIVE THERE, BUILT AN ENTIRE DESIGN, AN ENTIRE CITY. I BECOME VERY FAMILIAR WITH EASEMENTS. EASEMENTS ARE VITALLY IMPORTANT. IF YOU HAVE WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO PUT IN THEM IN EXCHANGE FOR THE EASEMENT, THE OWNERS GIVE YOU EASEMENTS BECAUSE YOU ASK FOR THEM. THERE'S NO VALUE. I WANT POWER, I NEED TO GIVE AN EASEMENT. I DON'T EVEN GET AN EASEMENT IN CASE SOMEDAY SOMEBODY WANTS POWER. SO I ASKED THE CITY, WHY DO YOU WANT EASEMENTS ON BOTH SIDES, BOTH NORTH AND SOUTH OF OUR PROPERTY, WHICH THEY'RE ALREADY EASEMENTS FOR CANALS. BUT WHY DO YOU WANT MORE EASEMENTS? WELL, IN CASE WE WANT TO PUT IN UTILITIES WHERE WE HAVE OUR UTILITIES, WE HAVE SEWER WATER AND IT'S ALL NEW AND GAS. WE HAVE A MALL AND WE HAD THEM ENGINEERED AND WE HAVE THEM DESIGNED AND WE HAD THEM APPROVED. AND WHY DO YOU NEED THEM? WELL, WE JUST WANT THEM AS A CONDITION FOR YOUR PERMIT. OKAY. NOT DO IT. I HAVE AN ATTORNEY DOWN IN SOUTHERN UTAH. THAT'S ALL HE DOES IS SPELL OUT THE LANGUAGE OF AN EASEMENT. SO THERE'S CLARITY. AND THEY WHEN THEY'RE NEEDED, THEY'RE GIVEN. WHEN THEY'RE NOT, THEY'RE NOT. 
          OKAY. SO LET ME SO THAT'S THE SITE PLAN. SO HERE WE ARE. THE BIG THE BIG ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM IS AND WE WROTE IT IN THE NEWSPAPER. WE WERE IN FRONT OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. THEY REQUIRED NINE THINGS. HE SAID THE YUP'IK DID THEM ALL FOR TWO. THEY DON'T HAVE A PERMIT. THEY DON'T HAVE A SITE PLAN. WELL, HOW IS THAT? IF WE MET EVERYTHING REQUIRED. BUT I CAN'T ISSUE MYSELF A PERMIT. I CAN'T ISSUE MYSELF A SITE PLAN. BUT WE'VE DONE EVERYTHING. I'M CONFUSED ON HOW YOU JUST DENY ME A PERMIT. AND ONCE THEY SAY, OKAY, YOU'VE MET ALL THE REQUIREMENTS FOR A PERMIT, BUT YOU DON'T HAVE A SITE PLAN. AND ENDLESS THIS REVOKING OF ALL OUR RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES HAPPENED AFTER WE STAYED OPEN. NOW, WHEN PEOPLE SAY ABOUT ROLLING WALKER, I THINK I LIVE. I THINK I'M ABOVE THE LAW. THAT'S JUST WRONG AND THAT I TAKE THAT PERSONALLY, BUT I WON'T TAKE IT EMOTIONALLY. YOU KNOW, I GOT TO TELL YOU, THANK YOU FOR THE TIME. I GOT TO TELL YOU A STORY 25 YEARS AGO WHERE THE TAYLOR CROSSING IS, THERE WERE THREE JUNKYARDS WHERE THE GREENBELT IS. THAT FEEL IS LAND FEEL CARS, CONCRETE, METALS, GARBAGE. AND WHAT THEY DID IS THE PEOPLE THAT HAD THE LAND SAID, IF YOU LET US, IF YOU LET US PUT OUR GARBAGE IN THERE, WE'LL PUT A GREENBELT ON TOP OF IT. OKAY, GREAT. I LOVE THE GREENBELT, BUT BETWEEN THE GREENBELT AND THE RIVER, IT WAS WELL, WE DID AT OUR OWN MONEY. EVEN THOUGH IT'S THE CITY PROPERTY TOOK OVER 100 LOADS. SEMI LOADS OF CONCRETE AND REBAR AND CARS AND METAL AND GARBAGE. 
          AND WE RECOVERED, AS YOU CAN SEE NOW, ALL ALONG FROM THE HOTELS TO PANCARI, WE RECOVERED ALL THAT THAT WAS NOT APPROACHABLE. THAT DIRT WENT ALL THE WAY DOWN TO THE RIVER'S EDGE AND THE RIVER WAS ERODING TWO PLACES WAS CONTAMINATED NATION SERIOUS CONTAMINATION, ONE INTO THE RIVER AND THE OTHER INTO THE CANAL, INTO OUR IRRIGATION WATER. WE STOPPED THAT. THEN FROM OUR ROCKS OUT OF THE FOUNDATION OF ALL THE LAVAS. YOU KNOW, WE ALL SIT UP OVER THERE. 
          WE LINED THE RIVER AND STOPPED ALL THE EROSION. WE GOT THE PERMITS FROM THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS. THE CITY WAS SO RESISTANT TO WHAT WE WANTED TO DO AT TAYLOR CROSSING. GETTING TO MY POINT, I MET WITH ONE OF THE MOST INFLUENTIAL MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL AT THE TIME. 
          NOW FORGIVE ME, DON'T TAKE OFFENSE TO WHAT I'M GOING TO SAY, BUT I'M JUST GOING TO QUOTE. I WENT IN TO HIM AND I SAID, WHY ARE YOU MAKING IT SO DIFFICULT FOR PEOPLE TO BRING BUSINESSES AND ENTERPRISES? AND WHAT WE HAD DONE IS ON A WALL ABOUT AS BIG AS THAT WALL. WE HAD LIFE SIZE, READ LIKE RENDERINGS OF WHAT WE WERE GOING TO DO AT TAYLOR CROSSING. YEAH, IT WAS JUNKYARDS. YEAH, IT WAS GARBAGE. IT HAD ELECTRICAL ISSUES THAT LOOKED LIKE GARBAGE. 
          AND WE PRESENTED THEM AND WE GOT MOCKED. OH, THEY'RE DREAMERS. THAT WILL NEVER HAPPEN. WHAT ARE YOU TRYING TO DO? DO YOU REALLY THINK YOU CAN BUILD THAT? WELL, WE DID, AND I SAID TO HIM, BUT 
          [02:45:05]
BUT IN THE BEGINNING OF THIS, WHEN, YOU KNOW, I GUESS IT'S TYPICAL, I HAD MARRIOTT TELL ME ONCE BECAUSE WE WANTED TO BUILD A NEW DESIGN HOTEL AND NEVER BEEN BUILT. HE SAID, REALLY, EVERYBODY IS EMPOWERED TO SAY NO. EVERYBODY HAS THE AUTHORITY TO SAY NO. YOU GOT TO FIND THE PEOPLE WITH VISION THAT CAN SAY YES, AND THAT'S WHY YOU GOT THIS HOTEL, BECAUSE YOU HAD THE VISION AND YOU FOUND THE GUY THAT COULD SAY, YES, WELL, YOU SAW THE PAPERS, IF YOU REMEMBER ME. I WAS IN THEM EVERY WEEK. THIS HOTEL WAS AN ATROCITY. WHO? WHO COULD IMAGINE SUCH A THING? AND MY MOTHER, WHO'S PASSED AWAY A LONG TIME SINCE WHEN I WAS TAKEN. THE HORRENDOUS. WHAT I FELT LIKE WAS UNFAIR BECAUSE SHE WAS ALWAYS. THERE'S A WAY TO GET EVEN, AND THERE'S ONLY ONE WAY TO GET EVEN SUCCEED. IT WILL SPEAK FOR ITSELF. WELL, I'M PRETTY PROUD OF TAYLOR CROSSING ON THE RIVER. IF YOU REMEMBER THE GARBAGE THAT'S GOING TO FALL ON YOUR ROOFS AND YOU REMEMBER THAT JUNKYARDS, YOU CAN SEE THE DIFFERENCE. IF YOU DON'T, WELL, ENJOY WHAT'S THERE. OKAY, THERE'S ANOTHER PROBLEM. UTAH WENT RIGHT OVER TO THE BRIDGE AND IT WAS ILLEGAL INTERSECTION. 
          AND IT WAS WAS DEEMED TO HAVE TO BE SHUT DOWN. WE DONATED THE PROPERTY TO REROUTE UTAH. AND BY THE WAY, WHEN YOU GO BY THE EAGLES, WHICH WE PUT IN TO CHANGE KIND OF THE REPUTATION OF THE AREA AT THE TIME WITH THE JUNKYARDS AND EVERYTHING, WE PUT IN THE FIRST CHECKER RECORDS, FIRST ROUNDABOUT IN THE STATE OF IDAHO IS THAT ONE? WELL, CHAD STANGER, THE VISIONARY FOR THE CITY WHO LOVED US PUTTING IN AN APPEAL DRIVE, WHICH IS THE WEST END OF THE RED GUARD. WE HEARD HE DIDN'T LIKE ROUNDABOUTS, BUT WE THOUGHT, MAN, WE CANNOT LOSE THE CONFIDENCE OF CHAD SINGER. 
          AND SO WE CHANGED IT TO A FOUR WAY STOP. WE WENT IN TO SEE HIM GO. THERE IT IS. HE GOES, WHAT HAPPENED TO THE ROUNDABOUT. WE GO, WELL WE HEARD YOU DIDN'T LIKE IT. HE GOES, I WANT IT. I STUDIED HIM, I WANT IT. SO ANYWAY, THIS ROUNDABOUT. OKAY, BACK TO 25 YEARS AGO AND WE'RE FIGHTING THE VISION THAT WE GOT MOCKED FOR. AND I WENT TO THE MOST INFLUENTIAL CITY COUNCILMAN BECAUSE I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO HAVE FRIENDS. AND PEOPLE THAT MADE DECISIONS. I SAID, WHY DON'T YOU MAKE IT EASIER? WHY DON'T YOU INVITE, WHY DO PEOPLE COME HERE AND THEY GET REJECTED WHEN WE NEED THIS TOWN NEEDS TO GROW. BACK THEN THEY NEEDED A LOT OF GROWTH ACROSS THE STREET WITH JUST ONE BIG GRAVEL PIT. SHE SAID. AND FORGIVE ME, I WON'T TELL YOU WHO IT WAS. WHAT ARE THEY GOING TO DO? GO TO HAMMOND? WELL, WHAT ARE THEY GOING TO DO? GO TO HAMMOND? I SAID. WHOA, WHOA. GLOSTER METEOR, WE'VE ALL DROVE DOWN THE END OF 17TH, AS I MENTIONED, AND WE SAW. WE KNOW THE CORRALS. I'M A FARM BOY. AND THE DAIRIES AND THE FARMLAND AND AGRICULTURE. 
          THAT WAS ALL ON THAT SIDE. WELL, THEY DID, THEY WENT TO HAMMOND. LISTEN, I KNOW YOU HAVE TO BE VISIONARIES. I KNOW YOU HAVE TO DIG DEEP. I KNOW IT'S IMPORTANT THAT YOU CAN FIND THE POWER TO SAY YES. JUST MAKE SURE THAT YOU DO IT RIGHT. BUT WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT TAYLOR CRUSH IN THE RIVER. WE'RE NOT TALKING. I ONLY BRING THIS UP. EVEN THOUGH, BY THE WAY, ALL THE JUNK WE PULLED OUT AND ALL THE TRASH WE TOOK AWAY. AND THEN YOU HAD A TREMENDOUS PARKS AND REC GUY. HE SAW THE VISION. SO AFTER WE RETRACTED ALL OF THAT AND. AND YOU PUT IN THE IRRIGATION AND THE FLOWERS AND WE PUT IN ALL THE ROCK AND WE WORKED TOGETHER. IT WON TWO AWARDS, BEST PARKS IN IDAHO TWICE. WELL, LISTEN, IT'S A LITTLE BIT COMICAL FOR ME WHEN WE WERE TRYING TO GET THAT DONE AND WE GET NOTHING BUT RESISTANCE. BUT THEN THE CITY GOT THE VISION. WE PAID FOR THE FIRST HALF OF THAT. SO. SO THE CITY GETS THE VISION. THEN THE CITY STEPPED UP AND SAID, HEY, HEY, HEY, WE'LL JOIN YOU, WE'LL REIMBURSE YOU, WE'LL DO THE REST, WE'LL HELP YOU. IT WAS INTERESTING TO ME THAT WHEN THE CITY WON THE AWARD FOR THAT PARK, THE PEOPLE THAT FOUGHT US THE MOST WERE THE FRONT AND CENTER. LOOK WHAT WE DID, ALL RIGHT. BUT WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT ALL THAT. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A PUMPKIN PATCH. 210 YEAR OLD BOYS. THERE ARE BOYS. I GREW 
          [02:50:07]
UP ON A FARM. I GREW UP ALL MY LIFE. WHEN I WAS YOUNG, MILKING A COW UNDER A YARD LIGHT. 
          WHETHER IT WAS SNOWING OR RAIN, IT WASN'T A BARN. I'M OUT THE COW AND I PUT IT IN THE TEN GALLON CANS. THAT WAS MY PAY. I WAS PROBABLY THE ONLY ONE IN SEVENTH GRADE THAT HAD A CHECKBOOK. MY DAD TAUGHT ME TO WORK AND THERE WAS NO OPTION. NOBODY ELSE TO MILK THE COW. SO I WANT THESE BOYS TO LEARN TO WORK. WELL, I KNOW, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU REMEMBER JOE MCGREGOR. 
          THANK YOU FOR BEARING ME OUT HERE. BUT JOE WAS 93 YEARS OLD, AND HE HAD THAT PLACE WHERE THE BIG RED BARN IS, AND THE BARN WAS LEANING OVER. NOT LIKE THIS, BUT LIKE THIS. IT LITERALLY LOOKED LIKE ONE MORE WINDSTORM. IT WAS GOING TO COLLAPSE. ONE MORNING AND JOE WOULDN'T SELL HIS PROPERTY. I WANTED THE BOYS TO HAVE A PLACE TO WORK BECAUSE I LIVE IN TOWN. ONE DAY I WENT INTO JOE'S HOUSE AND I SAID, JOE, IF THAT DAMN BARN TIPS OVER WITH A WINDSTORM, I'M NOT ASKING YOU TO BUY YOUR PLACE. HE SAID, WAIT, YOU WANT TO SAVE THE BARN? I SAID, YEAH, I WANT TO SAVE THE BARN. BLOWS OVER. HE GOES, LET'S CLOSE TOMORROW. AND WE DID. HE GOES, WHERE DO I LIVE? I SAID, LIVE RIGHT HERE, RIGHT IN YOUR HOUSE. YOU DON'T HAVE TO LEAVE. WELL, THE FUN STORY IS THIS TOWN IS LOADED WITH VERY INTELLIGENT ENGINEERS. NONE OF THEM COULD STRAIGHTEN THE BARN. I WENT TO ALL OF THEM. YEAH, THERE'S SOME SMART PEOPLE KNOW IT WAS BUILT IN THE 30S. IT'S BENT SO FAR OVER. THE NAILS HAVE LEFT THE HOLES. THEY'RE RUSTED. YOU CAN'T STRAIGHTEN THAT BARN. TEAR IT DOWN. BUILD A NEW ONE ON THE CHURCH. THERE'S AN OLD GUY. CHURCH. GERALD WIESNER. WHAT ARE YOU DOING, ROY? I SAID I FINALLY GOT THE PATCH, BUT I GOT THIS BARN BOB FOR JOE. HE GOES. I SAID, BUT NOBODY CAN STRAIGHTEN HIM. AND I PROMISED JOE I WAS GOING TO FIX THE BARN. HE GOES, I CAN STRAIGHTEN IT. HE WENT OVER THERE AND HE MADE THREE RAILROAD TIES. HE RAN CABLES UP TO THE OTHER SIDE OF THE ROOFS. HE HAD TURNBUCKLES. HE HAD MOVED THEM ABOUT ONE INCH AT A TIME, AND HE'D WAIT FOR THE WIND TO BLOW. THIS TOOK A WHILE, BUT HE STRAIGHTENED THAT BARN AND THOSE NAILS IN THERE, OUT OF LEAST RESISTANCE, FOUND THEMSELVES BACK IN THE HOLES. AND THAT BARN IS STRAIGHT, STRAIGHT AND TRUE. THEN HE PUT SHEAR WALLS IN THE END. WELL, OKAY, WE HAD A PLACE. 
          THE BOYS ARE GOING TO RAISE PUMPKINS NOW, IF YOU REMEMBER, IF YOU GO BACK FAR ENOUGH JUST 20 YEARS AGO, THEY JUST HAD IT. WE BUILT THEM UP. WE BUILT THEM A MAILBOX THAT LOOKED LIKE A RED BARN. AND YOU'D COME TO THE PATCH AND YOU WOULD, ON YOUR OWN, PICK YOUR PUMPKINS AND LIN. 
          YOUR HONOR. PUT YOUR MONEY IN THE BOX. ONE DAY WE HAD A COUPLE COME TO THE RED BARN FROM NADA. 
          THEY WERE OUT OF TOWN. WE HAD TO COME. WHY? WE WERE ON A CRUISE SHIP. AND ALL OF A SUDDEN THERE'S THIS BIG ARTICLE AND IT'S TWO BOYS IN IDAHO FALLS. MAYBE THE LAST TWO IN THE UNITED STATES SAID TRUSTED PEOPLE. AND THEY WERE IMPRESSED WITH THAT. WELL, ANYWAY, THEY RUN FOR LIFE FOR A WHILE. BUT BUT, GERALD, SAID, WE WANT TO THE BOYS, YOU KNOW, THEY MADE 50 BUCKS AND IT WAS A LOT OF MONEY FOR A TEN YEAR OLD. AND THEN IT GOT BIGGER AND BIGGER. AND SO GERALD SAID, HEY, YOU GOT TO HAVE A TRAIN. WELL, HIS FAMILY OUT OF FORD HAD A TRAIN AND IT HELD 12 LITTLE KIDS. IT WAS ON A RAIL. WE BOUGHT THE TRAIN, PUT IT ON THE RAIL, PUT IT ON TIRES, MADE THE FIRST TRACKLESS TRAIN AND WE GIVE RIDES. THE PROBLEM IS ADULTS WANT TO RIDE THE TRAIN AND THEN BREAK THE TRAIN DOWN BECAUSE THERE'S TWO BIG ADULTS AND TWO LITTLE TRAIN. SO WE WENT IN OUR SHOP OUT BY OUR PRODUCE, AND WE BUILT THE TRAIN THAT YOU SEE TODAY. IT LOOKS EXACTLY LIKE THE LITTLE TRAIN, BUT ALL 70 ADULTS. WE BUILT IT FOR ADULTS. ADULTS LIKE TO WRITE TRAINS TO. 
          ALL RIGHT. HERE'S HERE'S MY POINT. IT'S A PUMPKIN PATCH. IT TAUGHT THE BOYS TO WORK. IT TAUGHT HOW TO EARN MONEY. BUT YOU KNOW WHAT'S BETTER? THEY TAUGHT IT HOW TO BUILD A PUBLIC. 
          BECAUSE LITTLE BY LITTLE, THEY THEY OPENED THE BARN AND THEY HAD THINGS THAT WE COULD SELL, AND THEY HAD TO INTERACT WITH THE PEOPLE. THAT IS REALLY GOOD FOR KIDS. AND THEY LEARNED TO NEGOTIATE, AND THEY LEARNED TO PAY TAXES, AND THEY LEARNED TO HIRE KIDS TO HELP THEM. AND IT WAS TREMENDOUS. AND THEN THEY MADE ANOTHER IMPROVEMENT EVERY YEAR. LISTEN, YOU YOU ASK YOURSELF, DO YOU KNOW ANYBODY THAT 20 YEARS AGO STARTED SOMETHING LIKE THESE 210 YEAR OLD BOYS THAT 20 YEARS LATER, 20,000 PEOPLE CAME LAST YEAR? AND THEY'RE HAPPY? IT'S MY PASSION. IF YOU HAVEN'T BEEN TO THE BIG RED BARN, YOU NEED TO GO. YOU NEED TO GO AND JUST 
          [02:55:09]
WATCH FAMILIES. IT IT DEFINES HAPPY. IT DEFINES JOY. IT'S SMALL FAMILIES. MOST OF THEM. 
          THERE'S ONE SMILE, THERE'S AN OLDER KID, BUT IT'S MOSTLY MOTHERS AND FATHERS AND SMALL FAMILIES AND GRANDMAS AND GRANDPAS. AND SO EVERY YEAR WE MADE AN IMPROVEMENT AND WE DID SOMETHING THAT WOULD IMPROVE THE ATTRACTION. NOW, THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR PUT IN A PAPER THAT ALL OF A SUDDEN IT BECOMES SOMETHING. NO, IT DIDN'T. IT BECOMES SOMETHING EVERY SINGLE YEAR FOR 20 YEARS UNTIL WE GOT A COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR THAT SAID, I'M GOING TO FIX YOU. AND EVER SINCE THEN, WE HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO GET A PERMIT FOR A SLIDE. WHEN WE WANTED TO PUT I BOUGHT A SLIDE. THERE'S 500 PLACES IN THE UNITED STATES THAT HAVE THIS SLIDE. I BOUGHT THIS SLIDE BECAUSE I THOUGHT IT WOULD BE NO ISSUE. I WENT AND WHAT HAPPENED IS OUR GUYS WENT IN TO FIND OUT WHAT THEY NEEDED TO DO TO GET A PERMIT, AND THEY'D COME BACK AND SAID, YOU'RE NEVER GOING TO GET A PERMIT. I GO, WHAT, MR. WALKER, I'M GOING TO JUST INTERRUPT FOR ONE MOMENT AND REMIND YOU THAT THE STORIES THAT YOU'RE TELLING HAVE TO GET TO HOW THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ERRED. AND NOT JUST I'M REALLY CLOSE TO THAT, BECAUSE YOU HAVE THIS PROWESS FOR STORYTELLING AND IT'S FUN, BUT WE GOT TO MAKE SURE THAT IT LINKS TO WHAT OUR PURPOSE IS. WELL, SOMETIMES PEOPLE DON'T KNOW THE PURPOSE OF THAT STORY, BUT YOU'RE RIGHT. 
          OKAY. SO ANYWAY, WE WENT IN TO GET THE PERMIT FOR THE SLIDE. WE WERE REJECTED AT THE COUNTER IN THE CITY OFFICE, AND THEY'VE COME BACK AND THEY NOT ONLY SAID, YOU'RE NEVER GOING TO GET A PERMIT. THIS WAS THREE YEARS AGO, BUT WE CAN'T RESERVE TIME FOR YOU. WE GOT TO GET OTHER WORK. I THOUGHT, NO, NO, I'LL GO IN. I'LL GET A PERMIT NOW. THEY WERE RIGHT AS WE SPEAK. WE HAVEN'T GOT A PERMIT. BUT WHAT HAPPENED IS THE CITY COUNCIL, SOME MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL CAME TO ME AND SAID, IN FACT, THREE OF THEM, THREE OF THE SIX ARE CALLED ME UP AND GO. ROLLIE JUST CHANGED THE ZONE AND I WAS GOING TO ADDRESS THAT. WE DIDN'T GET THE ZONE WE'RE IN. IT WAS IT WAS GIVEN TO US WHEN WE WERE FORCED TO ANNEX IT. WELL, THE ISSUE WAS WE COULDN'T GET THE SLIDE PERMIT BECAUSE WE WERE IN THE WRONG ZONE. SO I WAS GIVEN THE ADVICE AND, YOU KNOW, IF YOU CALLED ME OR NOT, THAT IF I WOULD CHANGE, IF I WOULD GO THROUGH THE PROCESS OF CHANGING THE ZONE, I COULD GET EVERYTHING WE NEEDED IN THE AGRITOURISM SYSTEM. SO WE DID. IT TOOK SEVERAL MONTHS. WE NO SOONER GOT THE ZONE CHANGE. WE WERE INFORMED. OH, BY THE WAY, YOU HAVE TO GO IN FRONT OF A BOA TO GET A PERMIT. THEY'LL TELL YOU WHAT YOU CAN AND CAN'T DO. WE HAD NO IDEA THAT WAS THE CASE. I THOUGHT WE WERE OFF AND RUNNING. WELL, THE BOA SYSTEM AND THE MAYOR. I'M GETTING TO YOUR POINT. ALL OF A SUDDEN WE'RE IN FRONT OF THE BOA. THEY COULDN'T DECIDE, SO THEY PUT IT OFF. WE HAD ANOTHER MEETING. WHAT LED TO US GOING ANOTHER YEAR WITHOUT A SLIDE? SO HERE WE ARE, THREE YEARS. I CAN'T TELL YOU THE LOSS OF REVENUE. I CAN'T TELL YOU THE DAMAGE FROM US NOT HAVING THE RIGHT TO USE THE SLIDE, THAT ALL OF A SUDDEN WE COULD NOT BRING MORE ATTRACTIONS. NOW YOU'VE BEEN THERE. IF YOU HAVEN'T BEEN THERE, WE HAVE SIGNATURE FOOD. 
          WHY DO WE HAVE SIGNATURE FOOD? WHY DO WE HAVE THE BEST PIZZA IN THE COUNTRY? AND ON AND ON AND ON. I TOLD PEOPLE, I SAID, THIS IS THE BEST TALK YOU EVER READ, AND IT'S FREE. IT'S ON ME. EVER. 
          SAID, WELL, THAT IS THE BEST TACO. WHY DO WE DO IT? BECAUSE WE HAD FAMILIES COMING GROUPS, AND THEY WOULD HEAR HIM SAY, HEY, GET ALL THE KIDS, LET'S GO GET SOMETHING TO EAT. SO WE GO, WELL, LET'S KEEP THEM HERE. LET'S PROVIDE THEM FOOD. THE FOOD IS REALLY, REALLY GOOD. ALL OF A SUDDEN WE GOT FOOD TRUCKS. WELL, I QUIT USING FOOD TRUCKS BECAUSE I SAID, LET'S JUST GET OUR OWN FOOD TRUCKS. AND THE PORTABLE KITCHEN. THE BIG, THE BIG, THE BIG GORILLA IN THE ROOM. THE BIG ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM, THE KITCHEN, THE KITCHEN THAT'S ATTACHED TO THE OTHER BUILDINGS. THEREFORE, IT'S A COMMERCIAL KITCHEN. NO IT'S NOT NOW, I'M NOT GETTING ANY ARGUMENT HERE. I'LL TAKE IT TO A DIFFERENT PLACE. THE HELP THE BOARD OF HEALTH AND WELFARE COME AND SAID, ROLY, YOU'RE NO LONGER JUST SEPARATE BUILDINGS. THEY'RE ONE. SO YOU CAN'T DO FOODS IN THE BARN ANYMORE THAT ARE CONSIDERED. WHAT DO THEY CALL IT? COTTAGE FOODS? I SAID, NO, WE ARE SEPARATE BUILDINGS. THE DIRECTOR SAID, NO, YOU'RE NOT. YOU'RE ONE. YOU'RE LIKE, THE DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR SAYS YOU'RE CONNECTED. SO HE SAYS, THIS IS WHAT I WANT YOU TO DO. HE'S FROM 
          [03:00:02]
BOISE BECAUSE HE'D GONE DEEP ENOUGH THAT THE BIG DOG COME OVER. HE SAID, THIS IS WHAT I WANT YOU TO DO. I SAID, OKAY, I'LL DO IT. THREE WEEKS LATER, HE COMES BACK AND HE SAYS, I COME ALL THE WAY FROM BOISE FOR ONE REASON. YOU DID WHAT I SAID, AND I'M GRATEFUL YOU DID. BUT I WAS WRONG. YOU WERE RIGHT. THEY'RE NOT CONNECTED. ALL RIGHT. SO THE BOTTOM LINE IS, OVER A PERIOD, OVER A SITE PLAN, DO YOU KNOW, IN 20 YEARS, WE HAVEN'T HAD A VIOLATION, EXCEPT THIS ONE. WE HAVE NOT HAD ANY COMPLAINTS. THERE AREN'T THE SAME COMPLAINTS YOU GET FROM BOO AT THE ZOO. TOO MUCH PARKING, TOO MUCH NOISE. KIDS WALKING IN THE DARK, WHATEVER IT MIGHT BE. 
          EXCEPT WE WENT THERE FOR A WHILE. AMBASSADORS DO. WE'VE DONE IT. AND BY THE WAY, WE HAVE A GREAT RELATIONSHIP WITH THE ZOO. AND THANK YOU, BY THE WAY, FOR HELPING US WITH PARKING, BECAUSE IT REALLY DOES HELP US AND WE HELP THEM. AND THEY'RE A GREAT PEOPLE. BUT IF YOU REALLY BUNCH THIS UP AND PACKAGE IT FOR REALITY, WE HAVEN'T HAD A SINGLE COMPLAINT THAT THEY DON'T WANT TO GO TO THE ZOO. AND YET EVERYTHING THAT THEY ASK US TO DO NOW, WHAT DID THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS SAY FOR US TO GET OUR CUP? HERE'S THE NINE THINGS YOU NEED TO DO. AND THEN WE SAID IN THE PAPER THEY DID EVERYTHING BUT TWO THEY DON'T HAVE A PERMIT IN THE SITE PLAN. WELL NOW YOU KNOW WHY. WHAT ARE WE TO DO? YOU KNOW, I WAS WATCHING TV AND OUR PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES WAS IN LOS ANGELES PALISADES AND BURNT DOWN. AND HE WAS OVER THERE SCOLDING THE MAYOR, SAYING, YOU GOT TO LET THESE GUYS BUILD. THEY SAID, NO, IT'S GOING TO TAKE 18 MONTHS TO GET A PERMIT SO THEY CAN START BUILDING THE. AND PRESIDENT TRUMP SAID, NO, THEY NEED TO START RIGHT NOW. I WATCHED THAT ON TV 18 MONTHS. I WELCOME 18 MONTHS. I CAN'T I'VE BEEN 36 MONTHS TRYING TO GET A PERMIT FOR A SLIDE. AND NOT ONLY DID I NOT GET MY PERMIT FOR THE SLIDE, I GOT MY ALL MY RIGHTS REVOKED, ALL MY PRIVILEGES, AND AS IF ONE DAY SOMEBODY SHOWS UP AND IN ONE YEAR THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR, DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR FOR THE COMMUNITY. NOW, IF WE DON'T DO SOMETHING GOOD FOR THE COMMUNITY, YOU. I'M WASTING MY TIME. WE HAVE DONE A LOT IN MY MIND. THESE BOYS HAVE FOR THIS COMMUNITY. AND PEOPLE LOVE IT. AND WE'RE NOT SERIOUS OFFENDERS OR VIOLATORS OR WE DEFY IT. OR DOES ROLY WALKER THINK HE BELIEVES HE LIVES ABOVE THE LOT? WE CAN'T GET THERE. AND FINALLY, FOR THE SHOW OF POWER, WE GET OUR LICENSE REVOKED. LISTEN, WE COME TO YOU AND SAID, CAN WE MEDIATE IT BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE PROBLEM IS? REMEMBER? GO AHEAD, LET'S SEE WHAT THE BOE DOES. AFTER 20 YEARS, YOU ON THAT FIELD HAVE ALL YOUR RIGHTS, YOUR VOTES THROWN DOWN, THROWN AWAY. IS IT? YOU'RE THE VIOLATORS. WELL, I ONLY TELL YOU THIS TO OBTAIN A CROSSING BECAUSE WE LIKE TO CONTRIBUTE. WE LIKE TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE. WE REMEMBER WHAT WAS THERE. BUT THESE TWO BOYS, THEY'RE A DIFFERENT STORY. THEY'RE TEN YEARS OLD AND THEY LEARNED TO WORK, AND I DON'T I DON'T KNOW OF ANY FATHER OR GRANDFATHER THAT WOULDN'T LIKE TO LEARN, TEACHES BOYS TO WORK. AND THEY DID. AND LOOK WHAT A STREET TO PLEASE. THE PEOPLE THAT ARE EMPLOYED AND PAID BY OUR TAXES HAVE BEEN DETERMINED TO SHUT US DOWN BECAUSE THEY KNOW BETTER AND IN SPITE OF IT, WHICH I DON'T AGREE WITH THEIR TACTICS AND THEIR DISINGENUOUS NATURES AND THEIR DENIALS. WE'VE DONE EVERYTHING THEY ASK, BUT TWO THINGS. WE CAN'T GET YOURSELF A PERMIT, AND WE CAN'T GET THEM TO ACCEPT THE SITE PLAN. NOW, WHEN WE WENT TO THE BOARD WHERE YOU GUYS MEET WITH EVERYBODY AND PUBLIC CAN'T TALK, BUT THEY CAN ATTEND, THE ATTORNEY WALKED UP TO ME AND GOES, WHY ARE WE DOING THIS? YOUR SITE PLAN HAS BEEN APPROVED. I'M GOING, WELL, WHY ARE WE DOING IT? WHY DO YOU THREATEN TO REVOKE IT? AND THEN THE NEXT DAY THE BOA WHICH SAID NO, YOUR SITE PLANS ISN'T APPROVED. WHAT HAVE WE GOT TO DO TO GET A PERMIT? WELL, HAVE YOU DONE ANYTHING BUT YOU HAVE ANOTHER SITE PLAN? WELL. HE SAYS, WELL, YOU YOU YOU HAVEN'T MET THE FIRE DEPARTMENT'S REQUIREMENTS. WE ALL HAVE. I HAVE SCOTT COME OUT. HE WALKED THE ROADS. HE LOOKED AT THE IMPACT. HE LOOKED THE WIDTHS. HE 
          [03:05:02]
LOOKED AT THE GATE WIDTHS. HE LOOKED AT ALL OF IT. HE WENT THROUGH THE BARNS HE WENT THROUGH. AND HE GOES, WELL, YOU'RE GOOD ROLLING. AS SOON AS YOU GET YOUR PERMIT, I'LL SIGN OFF. BUT THE DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SAYS HAS HAS THE AUDACITY TO SAY WE HAVE NOT MET THAT REQUIREMENT. WE HAVE BEEN ABLE TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS BECAUSE WE CAN'T GET A PERMIT FOR THE FIRE DEPARTMENT TO SIGN OFF THAT THEY'VE ALREADY SAID THEY WOULD, AS HAS THE ELECTRICAL, AS HAS THE PLUMBING. HOW HAS THE GAS ALL SAID THEY WOULD? AND LISTEN TO THE GENTLEMAN LADIES. I'M NOT AWARE, EVEN THOUGH I THINK THERE'S BEEN UNREASONABLENESS REQUIRED. I'M NOT AWARE OF ONE THING WE HAVEN'T DONE. WE'VE ASKED AND I'M PUNISHED FOR IT. WE ARE PUNISHED. THE BOYS ARE PUNISHED. THE RED BARN IS PUNISHED. THE RIGHTS HAVE ALL BEEN REVOKED AND REMOVED. I'M HERE TONIGHT TO SAY TO YOU WITH ALL MY HEART IT ISN'T MY POCKETBOOK. TRUST ME. 
          I'VE TOLD PEOPLE SEVERAL TIMES I HAVEN'T BOUGHT A PAIR OF SHOELACES FOR THESE SHOES FROM THAT RED BARN. MY FAULT. WE PUT IT ALL BACK IN. WE HAVE FUN THINGS, AND WE DO IT EVERY YEAR. 
          UNTIL SOMEBODY CAME ALONG AND SAID, YOU CAN'T DO IT ANYMORE UNTIL WE SEE IT ON PAPER. AND THE ONLY REASON I SHOW YOU THE TWO PIECES OF PAPER IS BECAUSE YOU CAN KIND OF SIZE UP THE UNREASONABLENESS. THE NONSENSICAL OF US BEING DENIED JUST BECAUSE IT ISN'T ON PAPER. 
          OKAY, WE DID IT. DON'T GET IT, GET IT ONE DAY. MY LAST COMMENT ON COMMON SENSE. ONE DAY I'M OVER THERE WITH THE DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR. MY CAR. THE ISSUE, REMEMBER, IS TREES. TREES AROUND THE PUMPKIN PATCH. THIS ORDINANCE THAT SOMEBODY PASSED FOR. WHO KNOWS WHY THAT I'VE GOT TO HAVE 30FT OF TREES AND SHRUBS AND EVERYTHING ELSE AROUND THE PUMPKIN PATCH. AND I'M SITTING IN MY CAR WITH THE DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR, AND I LOOK OVER THE TREES ON THE NORTH END, AND YOU CAN'T EVEN SEE THROUGH THEM. AND ON THE OTHER SIDE IS A HORSE, ONE IN THE PASTURE, AND THEY SOMETIMES PUT TWO, BUT WHATEVER. AND I'M GOING, WHY HAVE I GOT TO PUT MORE TREES? WHERE'S THE COMMON SENSE? SAYS TO ME, WHAT DO YOU MEAN COMMON SENSE? I SAYS, THE COMMON SENSE. WHY, WHEN I HEAR TRUMP SAY PRESIDENT TRUMP SAY, FINALLY, WE'VE GOT COMMON SENSE. IT RESONATES WITH ME. I GO, HOW IS IT COMMON SENSE THAT I GOT TO PUT MORE TREES BETWEEN ME AND THOSE HORSES, AND ME AND THE ZOO AND ME AND THE PUMPKIN PATCH? WHERE'S THE COMMON SENSE? I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU MEAN BY COMMON SENSE. WELL, I GIVE UP, I SAID, I'LL SHOW YOU COMMON SENSE. WE DROVE OVER TO THE HOTEL ON SPRING HILL. IF YOU NOTICE THE APARTMENTS THAT ARE THIS FAR AWAY FROM THE HOTEL TO LOOK RIGHT INTO OUR HOTEL WINDOWS. HAVE YOU NOTICED THE ONES ON SUNNYSIDE WHERE WALLACE DAIRY WAS THAT? NOW LOOK DOWN IN THE BACKYARDS AND BETRAYED THE PRIVACY OF EVERY RESIDENT AND BROUGHT DOWN THE PRICE OF THEIR HOMES? WELL, THAT'S COMMON SENSE. LET'S THINK ABOUT THAT. 
          RATHER THAN YOU'RE GOING TO TAKE AWAY MY PERMIT, YOU'RE GOING TO SHUT ME DOWN. YOU'RE GOING TO KEEP ME FROM PROGRESSING. YOU KEEP ME FROM EVERYTHING I WANT TO DO WITH THE RED BARN, BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE MORE TREES NOW. THANK YOU. BECAUSE YOU YOU HELP ME APPEAL MOST OF THAT. I STILL HAVE PUT MORE TREES UP, BY THE WAY, AND SHRUBS, OR I CAN'T GET MY PERMIT. THEY'LL REVOKE IT AGAIN. AND WHY? I'M NOT GUILTY OF LIVING ABOVE THE LAW. I'M NOT GUILTY OF NOT CONTRIBUTING TO THIS CITY. I'M NOT GUILTY OF NOT MAKING A DIFFERENCE. AND I STAND HERE. NOT FOR ME. TAYLOR. 
          CROSSING ON THE RIVER ISN'T CALLED A WALKERVILLE. IT'S NAMED AFTER THE FOUNDER WHO FIRST CROSSED THE RIVER. ONE OF THOSE WHO WAS THE FIRST GOVERNOR'S. OKAY. NO, I'M HERE BECAUSE TWO BOYS DESERVE TO NOT HAVE THEIR LEGACY OF 20 YEARS BE REVOKED AND TAKEN AWAY BECAUSE SOMEBODY SAYS THEY KNOW BETTER. PLEASE, I'M ASKING YOU, PLEASE GIVE BACK OUR RIGHTS. APPROVE OUR PERMITS. 
          LET ME PUT UP THE SLIDE. LET US KEEP IMPROVING. AND IF AT ANY TIME ANY OF YOU THINK I'M ABUSING THE PRIVILEGE, COME SEE ME. YOU CALL ME, I'LL ANSWER, BECAUSE, WELL, THAT'S NOT OUR INTENTION. AND I CAN'T TELL YOU THE FEAR I HAVE OF WHAT? THE OBSTACLES I'M IN FRONT OF. 
          BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO BUILD ANOTHER HOTEL. AND WHAT AM I GOING TO RUN INTO? WELL, THAT'S IN YOUR HANDS. YOU'RE THE ONLY ONES THAT CAN CORRECT WHAT NEEDS TO BE CORRECTED. YOU DON'T MEAN 
          [03:10:05]
TO TELL ME YOU DON'T NEED ME TO TELL YOU WHAT TO DO? AND WHO'S DOING IT? WHO NEEDS TO BE CHANGED IN THE DECISION MAKING WORLD? BUT IF YOU DON'T KNOW, THAT'S NOT A GOOD THING. THIS CITY IS A FANTASTIC CITY, BUT ONE OF THE FEW CITIES IN THE WHOLE WORLD THAT HAVE A RIVER RUNNING THROUGH IT. BEAUTIFUL GREEN BELTS. AND WE HAVE JUNKYARDS THAT ARE GONE NOW. AND BY THE WAY, THERE'S A NICE DEVELOPMENT THERE. THOSE ARE THE LARGEST COMMISSION BRONZE EAGLES IN THE WORLD, AND YOU DON'T GET CREDIT FOR THEM. YOU DO BECAUSE EVERYBODY THINKS YOU PUT THEM UP AND YOU DID THEM. AND THAT'S FINE WITH ME. I JUST WANT US TO BE A CITY THAT CAN WELCOME GROWTH WITH GOOD PEOPLE AND MAKE IT EASY, THE RIGHT WAY, THE RIGHT WAY. AND QUIT PICKING ON YOU A PUMPKIN PATCH, PLEASE. THAT'S ENOUGH OF ME. THANK YOU. MAYOR, I CAN'T TALK WITHOUT STORIES, BUT THE ONLY WAY I CAN MAKE MY POINT IS WITH ONE. WE DID LOSE MCNEIL. HE WAS DRIVING HIS TRACTOR FROM OUR BIG FARMS IN HAMMER DOWN TO HIS LITTLE PUMPKIN PATCH, AND A SEMI RAN OVER AND TEXTED HIM. SO WE LOST HIM. IT DOES GOT ME A LITTLE BIT WHEN THE DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR GETS IN FRONT OF THE BOW AND GLOATS THAT ONE OF THE THINGS YOU'LL BE ABLE TO DO, IT'S ON. 
          IT'S ON YOUR VIDEO. YOU CAN WATCH IT, WATCH IT. YOU THINK I'M EXAGGERATING? ONE OF THE THINGS WE'LL BE ABLE TO DO, WE'LL BE ABLE TO STOP THEM FROM HAVING THEIR FIREWORKS FOR THEIR SON AT THE PUMPKIN PATCH. THAT'S NOT RIGHT. SOMETHING IS WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE. AND BY THE WAY, WE DON'T HAVE THE FIREWORKS AT PUMPKIN PATCH. IT'S ACROSS THE STREET AND KURT BURNS FIELD AND GETS A SEPARATE PERMIT. BUT WE'RE THREATENED THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE DENIED THAT. DO YOU KNOW, IT'S JUST NOT FOR MCNEIL. IT'S FOR ANYONE THAT'S EVER LOST A CHILD. ON OCTOBER 1ST. AND WE WELCOME EVERYBODY THAT'S EVER LOST A CHILD. SIMILAR TO THE FIRST DAY OF THE PUMPKIN PATCH IS FREE FOR ALL SPECIAL NEEDS. YOU WANT TO HAVE A TENDER MOMENT COME THAT DAY AND SEE THESE SPECIAL KIDS. AND HOW THEY FEEL LIKE THEY'RE KINGS AND QUEENS OF THE WORLD BECAUSE THEY LOVE THE RED BARN. AND WE SEE PEOPLE THAT ARE FOLLOWING THEM AROUND LIKE THEY ARE KINGS AND QUEENS. THE GRANDMAS AND GRANDPAS AND BROTHERS AND SISTERS WHO WATCH THESE KIDS HAVE SUCH A FUN TIME. 
          WE'VE BEEN DOING IT FOR YEARS. 2000 PEOPLE PROBABLY COME, OH MY GOSH, AND WE'RE A BAD THING. WE ARE NOT A BAD THING. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. WALKER. THE THIRD PARTY TO SPEAK FOR THE APPELLANT IS MR. GARY COOPER. NO, I'LL DO THE REBUTTAL. REBUTTAL? OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. BEN. THE ORDER OF THINGS THEN WOULD TURN TO THE CITY. AND FOR A STAFF REPORT OF WHAT THE CITY'S CONCERNS HAVE BEEN. THANK YOU, MAYOR AND COUNCIL. AND THANK YOU, MR. WALKER AND MR. STERLING FOR YOUR WORDS. I DO HAVE A PRESENTATION PREPARED, AND I KNOW YOU SHOULD NEVER START A PUBLIC SPEECH WITH AN APOLOGY, BUT I DO APOLOGIZE. IT'S THERE'S QUITE A LOT OF DATA INTO IT. AND SO I'LL JUST JUMP RIGHT INTO IT. COULD YOU CLICK ON THE POWERPOINT. SO THANK YOU. SO AS WAS STATED BY OUR CITY ATTORNEY WE'RE HERE TO ADDRESS THE U-PICK FARM CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REVOCATION APPEAL. THE MAJOR QUESTIONS THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT TODAY IS DID THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT IN THEIR DECISION. AND THAT FALLS UNDER TWO KEY POINTS. ONE WAS THE DECISION BY THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS MEANING DID IT VIOLATE THE ZONING CODE OR WAS IT NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD? AND THE SECOND WAS, WAS THE APPLICANT AFFORDED DUE PROCESS, MEANING WAS THERE AMPLE AND CLEAR NOTICE GIVEN TO THE APPLICANT FOR THE CHARGES BROUGHT AGAINST HIM BY THE GOVERNMENT? AND DID THE APPLICANT HAVE THE ABILITY, IN A TIMELY MANNER, TO MAKE HIS CASE TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT? THE APPLICANT'S APPEAL IS ATTACHED TO YOUR STAFF REPORT AND THE CITY COUNCIL, SO YOU CAN SEE ALL THE DATA THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SAW STAFF THERE. WITH THE APPEAL. THERE WERE, I BELIEVE, SIX ITEMS, AND STAFF WILL GO THROUGH EACH OF THOSE ITEMS TO ADDRESS ALL THE ITEMS THAT I HAVE. I'M GOING TO SKIP THIS NEXT SLIDE BECAUSE THE ATTORNEY ALREADY READ THROUGH 
          [03:15:02]
THE CODE SECTION. ALL THESE SLIDES WERE SHOWN TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. I'VE MOVED THEM OUT OF ORDER A LITTLE BIT, AND I ALSO QUOTE FROM THE ACTUAL RECORD OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT HEARING IN PARTS OF MY PRESENTATION. JUST SO YOU'RE AWARE, JUST TO GIVE YOU A TIMELINE, STAFF MET WITH THE APPLICANT ON DECEMBER 5TH OF 2023. THIS IS WHERE WE SAT DOWN AND WE TALKED TO HIM ABOUT THE REZONE OF THE PROPERTY. I JUST WANT TO ADDRESS ONE THING. THE APPLICANT STATED THAT THE ZONING WAS FORCED UPON HIM DURING THIS MEETING. I, I WAS THERE IN THE MEETING. THE REASON FOR THE PROPOSAL FOR THE REZONE WAS, AS THE APPLICANT STATED, WE HAD AN EXPANSION OF USE. INITIALLY, THIS WAS A PUMPKIN PATCH THAT WAS UNDERGONE BY THE NEPHEW OF THE APPLICANT AS WELL AS HIS SON, AND THAT PUMPKIN PATCH WAS JUST SIMILAR TO A FARM OPERATION. THE OPERATION HAD EXPANDED TO AN AMUSEMENT USE. HE MENTIONED THAT I DID GO OUT TO THE SITE MANY TIMES WITH HIM. ONE TIME WHEN I WAS OUT WITH THE SITE WITH THE APPLICANT, HE DESCRIBED IT AS A PAY TO PLAY. YOU GET A WRISTBAND FOR THE ACTIVITY THAT YOU PARTICIPATE ON THE SITE. HE ALSO HAD PROPOSED TO DO A SLIDE UP TO EXPAND THE AMUSEMENT ELEMENT OF THE PROPERTY, SO STAFF SAW THIS AS WE'RE SEEING AN EXPANSION OF THE USE AND WE NEED TO ADDRESS THAT BECAUSE WE HAD GOTTEN COMPLAINTS FROM NEIGHBORS IN REGARDS TO TRAFFIC, NOISE, SMELLS, THOSE TYPE OF THINGS. AND WE HAD SUBSTANTIAL COMPLAINT ABOUT THE PROPERTY. SO THE SOLUTION THAT I PROPOSED AT THE TIME WAS THAT HE GET A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. AND THE REASON FOR THAT IS IT GAVE HIM THE ABILITY TO REQUEST VARIANCES ON THE PROPERTY. THE VARIANCES WOULD THEN ALLOW HIM TO CONTINUE TO EXPAND, OR AT LEAST CONTAIN SOME OF THE ELEMENTS THAT WERE EXPANDING ON THE PROPERTY. THE REZONE WAS APPROVED ON APRIL 11TH OF 2024 BY THE CITY COUNCIL. THAT REZONE, JUST SO YOU KNOW, WE DO NOT THIS WAS NOT A FORCED REZONE. THIS WAS A REZONE REQUESTED BY THE APPLICANT. IT WAS A FORCED REZONE. IT WOULD BE SOMETHING DIFFERENT. IT'S A CITY INITIATED REZONE AND THE PROCESS IS VERY DIFFERENT. THIS WAS A DEVELOPER OR PROPERTY OWNER INITIATED REZONING. THE REZONE WAS APPROVED. AND THEN IT GOES TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BECAUSE THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ATTACHED TO THE ZONING ON THE PROPERTY, WHICH WAS REZONED TO LMN, REQUIRES THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT WITH THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IN WHICH THEY SET CONDITIONS. THE FIRST TIME IT WENT TO THE PUBLIC HEARING, THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT DID NOT FEEL THAT THEY HAD ENOUGH INFORMATION, SO THEY REQUESTED THAT BE TABLED AND BROUGHT BACK AT THEIR NEXT MEETING, WHICH WAS DONE ON THE 27TH OF JUNE OF 2024. DURING THE COURSE OF THAT HEARING, THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS STILL FELT LIKE THEY DIDN'T HAVE SUFFICIENT INFORMATION. HOWEVER, WHAT THEY WANTED WAS THE APPLICANT TO BE ABLE TO OPEN FOR THE SEASON. HE HAS A SEASONAL BUSINESS, AS HE STATED SIX WEEKS OUT OF THE YEAR, AND SO THEY IMPOSED NINE CONDITIONS AND GRANTED HIM TWO VARIANCES. MR. THE APPLICANT ON AUGUST 8TH APPEALED THAT DECISION, PRIMARILY DEALING WITH THE LANDSCAPE BUFFERING THAT WAS REQUIRED. IF YOU REMEMBER, THAT WENT BACK TO YOU FOLKS AND THE REQUEST AT THE TIME FROM THE CITY COUNCIL, THAT DIRECTION WAS THAT WE HAD THE CITY FORESTER COME AND MAKE A DETERMINATION ON THE LANDSCAPE BUFFER. THAT DETERMINATION WAS MADE AND HIS LETTER WAS SENT ON AUGUST 27TH OF 2024. ON SEPTEMBER 13TH, THE APPLICANT OPENED TO THE PUBLIC FOR A SPECIAL EVENT AND TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC ON SEPTEMBER 14TH OF 2024. ON ON DECEMBER 17TH. AND I'LL TAKE YOU THROUGH ALL THIS TIMELINE A LITTLE BIT MORE IN DETAIL ON DECEMBER 17TH, THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REVOKED THAT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND THE VARIANCE GRANTED TO THE PROPERTY BECAUSE THEY FOUND THAT HE WAS IN VIOLATION OF HIS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. THE VOA CONDITIONS THAT, AS THE APPLICANT STATED, THERE WERE NINE CONDITIONS IMPOSED ON THE PROPERTY. PRIMARILY, WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT THAT THEY FOUND WERE THESE TWO CONDITIONS, AND I WILL READ THEM. HE WAS TO OBTAIN A SITE PLAN APPROVAL SHOWING AN ACCURATE DEPICTION OF THE SITE PRIOR TO OPENING TO THE PUBLIC, AND OBTAIN ALL REQUIRED BUILDING PERMITS, INSPECTIONS AND FINAL SIGN OFFS FOR ALL STRUCTURES REQUIRING A PERMIT PRIOR TO OPENING TO THE PUBLIC AND THE OTHER CONDITIONS THAT THEY IMPOSE WERE PRIMARILY TO ADDRESS 
          [03:20:06]
ISSUES OF TRAFFIC NOISE. SO HE MENTIONED ABOUT THE FIREWORKS DISPLAY. THAT FIREWORKS DISPLAY WAS CONDITIONED BECAUSE OF COMPLAINTS THAT IT COULD ONLY HAVE HAPPENED ONE TIME DURING HIS HIS SIX WEEKS TO ELIMINATE NOISE CONCERNS. SO I DID NOT GLOAT ABOUT HAVING THAT REVOKED. 
          THAT WAS JUST ONE OF THE CONDITIONS THAT WAS ON THERE AND THAT WAS REVOKED. SO THESE ARE THE TWO THAT WE'RE PRIMARILY LOOKING AT. THE VARIANCES THAT WERE GRANTED ON THE PROPERTY WERE DEALING WITH LANDSCAPING, IF YOU DON'T MIND, I'LL GO THROUGH THIS A LITTLE QUICKLY. 
          THE TWO VARIANCES THAT WERE GRANTED WERE DEALING WITH PARKING AND THAT WE HAD A SUFFICIENT AMOUNT OF PARKING GOING ON ALONG ROLAND DEBT ON THE EAST SIDE. THIS IS THE PROPERTY RIGHT HERE ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY. THEY ALLOWED THE FOR BECAUSE HE HAS DIFFICULTY PARKING THE PROPERTY. THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ALLOWED HIM TO USE WHAT WE CALL THE ELK PASTURE TO THE EAST AND PROPERTY ALONG MCNEILL TO BE USED FOR THEIR PARKING NUMBERS. SO THAT WAS AN EFFORT TO PRIMARILY PUSH THE PARKING TO THE WEST ON MCNEILL, BECAUSE MCNEILL HAS CURVED THE OTHER SIDEWALK. THE OTHER VARIANCE THAT WAS GRANTED WAS THAT. THERE WE GO WAS FOR THE LANDSCAPE BUFFERING ALONG THE NORTH SIDE, BECAUSE THERE WERE EXISTING TREES, THEY ALSO VARIED THE LANDSCAPING ALONG THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY TO THE NORTHEAST. THE REASON BEING IS THAT IT'S ACTUALLY MR. MR. WALKER DOES NOT ACTUALLY OWN THE PROPERTY. IT'S HIS SON. PRESTON WALKER ACTUALLY OWNS BOTH PROPERTIES, BUT IT'S BECAUSE THEY'RE UNDER THE SAME OWNERSHIP. THEY ALSO BECAUSE OF THE FORESTER, THEY ALLOWED THIS LANDSCAPING ALONG ROLAND DEBT TO COUNT TOWARDS HIS OVERALL STREET TREE REQUIREMENT. AND THE BOA REVOKED THE REASON STATEMENT FOR THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REVOCATION IS PRESENTED HERE. YOU HAVE A COPY OF THIS IN YOUR PACKET. SO I AM NOT GOING TO READ IT IN ITS ENTIRETY. BUT IN ESSENCE, WHAT THEY FOUND IS I JUST WANT TO READ TWO POINTS AND THIS POINT, THIS POINT AND THE BOTTOM ONE SAYS THE APPLICANT DID NOT OBTAIN A SITE PLAN APPROVAL SHOWING AN ACCURATE DEPICTION OF THE SITE PRIOR TO OPENING TO THE PUBLIC, AND THE APPLICANT DID NOT OBTAIN ALL REQUIRED BUILDING PERMITS, INSPECTIONS AND FINAL SIGN OFFS FOR ALL STRUCTURES REQUIRING A PERMIT PRIOR TO OPENING TO THE PUBLIC. FURTHER ON THE LAST POINT, THE APPLICANT, THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, FOUND THAT THE APPLICANT OPENED THE U-PICK BARN AGRICULTURAL AMUSEMENT BUSINESS TO ON SEPTEMBER 13TH FOR A SPECIAL EVENT AND TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC ON SEPTEMBER 14TH, 2024, IN DIRECT VIOLATION OF THEIR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. I WILL GO THROUGH THESE APPEAL. I'LL TRY TO GO THROUGH THESE AS IS IN MUCH DETAIL, AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AS I'M GOING ALONG. THIS THE FIRST APPEAL THAT THE APPLICANT PRESENTED AND I WILL READ THIS VERBATIM. SO FORGIVE ME. I KNOW THIS IS IN YOUR PACKET AND I DON'T WANT TO KILL YOU DEATH BY POWERPOINT, BUT I JUST FEEL IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE GO THROUGH EACH OF THESE. FIRST, THE APPEAL ITEM NUMBER ONE, THE NOTICE OF HEARING WAS DEFECTIVE IN THAT IT ADVISED ROWLEY WALKER, DOING BUSINESS AS U-PICK FARM, THAT THE REASONS THE REVOCATION WAS BEING PURSUED WAS ONE HOURS OF OPERATION, TWO ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS AND THREE LANDSCAPING. THESE REASONS WERE NOT THE REASONS PURSUED AT THE HEARING. 
          WADE SANNER MYSELF SPOKE FOR NEARLY AN HOUR USING A SOPHISTICATED AND COMPREHENSIVE POWERPOINT, WHICH MUST HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED OVER WEEKS TO CONVINCE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT THAT ROWLEY WALKER, DOING BUSINESS AS U-PICK BARN, HAD OPENED IN 2024 WITHOUT AN APPROVAL SITE. THE SITE PLAN, BUILDING PERMIT AND OTHER NECESSARY PERMITS BY ADVISING ROWLEY WALKER, DOING BUSINESS AS U-PICK BARN OF REASONS DIFFERENT THAN THE REAL REASONS FOR SEEKING REVOCATION OF THE CUP. ROWLEY WALKER, DOING BUSINESS AS U-PICK BARN, WAS DEPRIVED OF THE OPPORTUNITY TO EFFECTIVELY AND COMPLETELY REBUT THE EXTENSIVE CASE PRESENTED BY THE CITY. THIS IS A QUASI JUDICIAL PROCESS REQUIRING DUE PROCESS, INCLUDING ADEQUATE NOTICE OF THE REASONS SUPPORTING THE REVOCATION OF THE CUP. THIS ITEM SPECIFICALLY DIRECTS THE ARGUMENT IN REGARDS TO DUE PROCESS. DID HE HAVE THE PROPER TIME TO CREATE A REBUTTAL? WAS HE AWARE OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT HEARING? SO I WOULD LIKE TO GO THROUGH OUR NOTICING REQUIREMENTS AND WHAT WE DID SPECIFICALLY FOR THIS CASE. NOTICING FOR THE NOTICING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE CDS DEPARTMENT IS ACTUALLY DICTATED TO US BY STATE STATUTE. THIS IS WHY THIS IS WHAT WE HAVE TO FOLLOW TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS FOR NOTICING. I'LL JUST POINT OUT I'LL TRY TO GO THROUGH THESE A LITTLE QUICKLY, BUT I THINK IT'S GOOD FOR THE PUBLIC TO HEAR 
          [03:25:02]
BECAUSE SOMETIMES ALSO ON CDS WE OFTEN HEAR, WHY DO YOU HAVE TO FOLLOW THIS? IT'S STRICTLY BECAUSE OF TITLE 67, 65, 12. SO FIRST WE HAVE TO AT LEAST 15 DAYS PRIOR TO THE HEARING, NOTICE OF THE TIME AND PLACE AND SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSAL SHALL BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL NEWSPAPER. EACH LOCAL GOVERNMENT IS ENCOURAGED TO POST EACH NOTICE ON ITS OFFICIAL WEBSITE. 
          NOTICE MAY ALSO NOTICE. MAY NOTICE MAY ALSO BE MADE AVAILABLE TO OTHER NEWSPAPERS, RADIO AND TELEVISION STATIONS SERVING THE JURISDICTION FOR USE AS A PUBLIC SERVICE. 
          ANNOUNCEMENT NOTICE SHALL BE POSTED ON THE PREMISES NOT LESS THAN ONE WEEK PRIOR TO THE HEARING. NOTICES SHALL BE PROVIDED TO PROPERTY OWNERS OR PURCHASERS OF RECORD WITHIN THE LAND BEING CONSIDERED, AND WITHIN 300FT OF THE EXTERNAL BOUNDARIES OF THE LAND BEING CONSIDERED. ANY PROPERTY OWNER ENTITLED TO SPECIFIC NOTICE PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SUBSECTION SHALL HAVE A RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE IN PUBLIC HEARINGS BEFORE A PLANNING COMMISSION, PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION, OR GOVERNING BOARD. JUST NOTICE WHAT WE SHALL DO AND WHAT WE MAY DO. I WILL FIRST START. THIS IS THE FIRST EMAIL THAT I SENT TO THE APPLICANT. 
          THIS WAS DONE ON OCTOBER 29TH OF 2024 AND I HAVE IT THERE SO YOU CAN SEE IT. BUT I ALSO BULLET POINT THE SUMMARY OF WHAT I WHAT I SAID IN THIS EMAIL. I SENT IT TO THE APPLICANT AND HIS ASSISTANT, WHO BOTH SPOKE THIS EVENING. I SENT THEM STATING THAT THEY WERE IN VIOLATION OF THEIR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. THE REASON I SENT THIS IS BECAUSE THEIR LAST DAY WAS WAS OCTOBER 31ST OR AT THE END OF OCTOBER, AND IT DESCRIBES ON IT THAT WE ARE STILL DO NOT HAVE A SITE PLAN HOW TO SUBMIT THAT SITE PLAN. AND IT ALSO I DISCUSSED THE PROCESS IN WHICH YOU REQUEST AN INSPECTION FOR THE PROPERTY. BUT WE HAVE HAD A PROBLEM WAS HE WAS REQUESTING INSPECTIONS WITHOUT PERMITS. AND SO I JUST RESTATED THAT YOU HAVE TO HAVE A PERMIT BEFORE YOU SUBMIT FOR INSPECTION. THIS WAS SENT 33 DAYS PRIOR TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING. SO AT THIS TIME, HE KNEW HE WAS IN VIOLATION. SECOND, I HAVE THIS JUST BECAUSE THIS WAS THE EMAIL, AND I ATTACHED A LETTER TO THIS EMAIL. I'M GOING TO MOVE THROUGH THIS KIND OF QUICKLY BECAUSE THIS EMAIL WAS SENT TO THE APPLICANT. IT LAYS OUT WHAT HE IS IN VIOLATION OF. FURTHER, I SENT TO HIM A LETTER FROM THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR MYSELF. THIS WAS DONE ABOVE NOTICING REQUIREMENTS. THIS WAS DONE AS A COURTESY AND TO PROVIDE GOOD CUSTOMER SERVICE TO THE APPLICANT. I DID LIST THE CONDITIONS. I WOULD LIKE TO READ IT. I WILL KIND OF SKIM SOME OF IT. IT SAYS, DEAR MR. WALKER, THIS LETTER IS TO INFORM YOU THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FOR THE CITY OF IDAHO FALLS WILL HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING FOR REVOCATION OF YOUR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE U-PICK BARN AT THE REGULAR MEETING HELD ON DECEMBER 17TH, 2024 AT 5:30 P.M. 
          IN THE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT 680 PARK AVENUE IN IDAHO FALLS, IDAHO. THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OPPOSED THE FOLLOWING VARIANCES AND CONDITIONS AT THEIR MEETINGS. I LIST THAT THOSE ARE THE BULLET POINTS THERE. THEN STAFF HAS DETERMINED THAT THE STAFF HAS DETERMINED THAT THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS WERE NOT MET PRIOR TO OPENING TO THE U-PICK BARN TO THE PUBLIC ON SEPTEMBER 13TH, 2024. AND I LIST THOSE. OBTAIN A SITE PLAN APPROVAL SHOWING AN ACCURATE DEPICTION OF THE SITE PRIOR TO OPENING TO THE PUBLIC. OBTAIN ALL REQUIRED BUILDING PERMITS, INSPECTIONS, AND FINAL SIGN OFFS FOR ALL STRUCTURES REQUIRING A PERMIT PRIOR TO OPENING TO THE PUBLIC. AFTER OPENING TO THE PUBLIC, YOU CONTINUE TO OPERATE THE PIZZA KITCHEN WITH THE POSTED DO NOT OCCUPY NOTICE. I WILL GO THROUGH THIS IN JUST A MINUTE AND DIRECT VIOLATION OF THE INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE. AND BUILDING CODE. REVOCATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IS A SERIOUS MATTER AND IF APPROVED, WOULD REVERT THE PROPERTY TO THE LIGHT MANUFACTURING AND HEAVY COMMERCIAL ZONED DISTRICT. NOTICE THAT I DO NOT SAY THAT IT WOULD SHUT HIM DOWN WITHOUT A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. THE AGRICULTURAL TOURISM USE WOULD NOT BE PERMITTED ON THE PROPERTY. FURTHER, ANY CONDITIONS AND VARIANCES GRANTED BY THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FOR LANDSCAPE BUFFERING, PARKING, FIREWORKS DISPLAY, HOURS OF OPERATION. AGRICULTURAL. 
          HORTICULTURAL, WHICH IS THE GROWING OF AGRICULTURE, ETC. COULD BE IGNORED, LIMITING THE CURRENT OPERATIONS OF THE U-PICK FARM. I DID NOT SAY IT WOULD SHUT DOWN, IT WOULD LIMIT THEM. 
          AT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING ON DECEMBER 17TH, 2024, YOU WILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT VIOLATION ACCUSATIONS AND IF ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE CALL ME AND HAVE MY NUMBER ON THERE. SO THAT WAS THE LETTER THAT I SENT TO THE APPLICANT. AND THIS WAS ABOVE AND BEYOND OUR NOTICING REQUIREMENTS. AND THAT WAS SENT 21 DAYS PRIOR JUST TO SHOW YOU THE NEWSPAPER POSTING AND THE POSTING TO THE PROPERTY. WE TAKE PICTURES AS PROOF. THESE WERE POSTED TO THE PROPERTY, THE NEWSPAPER. SORRY, I SHOULD DO. I SHOULD DO THIS IN ORDER. THE 
          [03:30:04]
NEWSPAPER NEWSPAPER POSTING WAS PUBLISHED IN THE NEWSPAPER ON NOVEMBER 30TH, 2024. SO WHAT WE HAVE IS THE ACTUAL POSTING AND AS OUR RECORDS, WE SHOW THAT WE PAID IT JUST TO SHOW THAT IT ACTUALLY WAS WAS PAID FOR. IN THAT NEWSPAPER POSTING, IT SAYS, QUOTE, THE REVOCATION OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AGRICULTURAL TOURISM AND LIGHT MANUFACTURING ZONE IN THE ZONE, AND THAT WAS POSTED TO THE NEWSPAPER ON THE 17 DAYS PRIOR. OUR STATE STATUTE REQUIRES US TO DO IT 15 DAYS PRIOR. SO WE WERE AHEAD OF THE CURVE. THE SIGN POSTING TO THE PROPERTY WAS DONE ON NOVEMBER 27TH, 2024. IT WAS A MORNING BEFORE THE THANKSGIVING HOLIDAY. IT WAS POSTED 20 DAYS PRIOR. REMEMBER THAT STATE STATUTE WE NEED SEVEN DAYS PRIOR, SO WE DID IT FAR IN ADVANCE. THIS IS WHAT WAS BROUGHT UP BY THE APPEAL. THIS WAS THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER LETTER. THIS NOTICE WAS SENT TO OWNERS WITHIN 300FT. IT LISTS STAFF'S CONTACT INFORMATION, A DEADLINE FOR WRITTEN COMMENTS, WHERE AND WHEN TO LOCATE THE STAFF REPORT. SO IF YOU NEED MORE INFORMATION, YOU CAN GET IT THERE. IT GIVES THE PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SUMMARY AS QUOTE, A REVOCATION OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ISSUED ON JUNE 27TH, 2024, DUE TO FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH CONDITIONS OF PERMIT FOR AN AGRICULTURAL TOURISM USE IN THE LM, LIGHT MANUFACTURING AND HEAVY COMMERCIAL ZONE. IT LISTS THE CODE SECTION IN QUESTION FOR REFERENCE. IF SOMEBODY WANTS TO GO AND READ UP ON THE ACTUAL CODE SECTION, IT STATES QUOTE CONDITIONS TO MINIMIZE ANY ADVERSE IMPACTS, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, HOURS OF OPERATION, ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS, AND LANDSCAPING. THIS WAS SENT 21 DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. THE APPLICANT IS STATING THAT THE VERBIAGE THAT I HIGHLIGHT RIGHT HERE, AND WHICH IS UP HERE IN THE NOTICE THAT THAT THAT THAT DID THE STATE THAT THE VERBIAGE DID NOT GIVE ADEQUATE INFORMATION OF WHY THE CUP WAS BEING REVOKED. HOWEVER, I WOULD JUST REMIND YOU THAT IT SAYS INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO. SO IT'S GIVING BASICALLY SAYING WE'RE GOING TO WE'RE BRINGING THIS BEFORE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO REVOKE THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. IT COULD INCLUDE AREAS OF HOURS OF OPERATION, ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS, AND LANDSCAPING DURING THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT HEARING. JUST SO YOU'RE AWARE, WE DID DISCUSS LANDSCAPING. WE TALKED ABOUT THE LANDSCAPING VARIANCE AND THEY DID REVOKE THAT VARIANCE AS WELL. SO LANDSCAPING WAS ACTUALLY DISCUSSED. BUT THIS JUST LAYS OUT GENERAL TERMS. LET'S SEE. THIS. THIS CLEARLY SHOWS. SO ALL THESE ELEMENTS COMBINED. OH AND THEN I HAVE THIS IS THE SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS. SO WHAT WE DO IS WE IN OUR GIS SYSTEM WE PIN THE PROPERTY AND THEN WE CREATE A 300 FOOT BUFFER AND WE PULL. THIS IS ALL FROM COUNTY DATA. WE PULLED THE ADDRESS INFORMATION AND PROPERTY INFORMATION FOR ALL THE PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 300FT. YOU WILL NOTICE THAT RIGHT HERE, BECAUSE MR. ROLLY WALKER IS NOT THE OWNER. PRESTON WALKER IS THE OWNER. IT WAS SENT TO PRESTON WALKER. IT WAS ALSO SENT TO PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 300FT. THIS IS A DOCUMENT YOU DON'T TYPICALLY SEE IN A PUBLIC HEARING. THIS IS ACTUALLY THE AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING WHAT WE DO TO ENSURE THAT OUR NOTICING REQUIREMENTS. MY ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT ANN PETERSON, SHE ACTUALLY GOES DOWN AND HAS IT NOTARIZED WHEN SHE TURNS EVERYTHING IN TO GET IT SENT OUT TO EITHER THE NEWSPAPER OR WHATEVER, SHOWING THAT THIS REQUIREMENT WAS MET. THIS IS AN INTERNAL DOCUMENT. WE JUST USE IT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE DOTTING OUR I'S AND CROSSING OUR T'S TO MAKE SURE WE'RE MEETING THAT NOTICE REQUIREMENT. FURTHER, ON THE IDAHO FALLS WEBSITE, WHICH WAS POSTED ON DECEMBER 13TH, 2024, WE POSTED THE AGENDA AND ALL RELATED DOCUMENTS. ANYTHING YOU WANTED TO KNOW ABOUT THE RED BARN? I'LL POINT OUT RIGHT DOWN HERE. YOU JUST CLICK ON THIS LINK AND YOU GET ALL THESE DOCUMENTS RIGHT HERE. YOU CAN GET THE RECENT STATEMENT. YOU CAN EVERYTHING THAT YOU HAVE IN YOUR PACKET IS CLIPPED RIGHT IN THAT LINK. YOU JUST HAVE TO CLICK IT, CLICK IT, AND YOU CAN READ ANY INFORMATION YOU WANT ABOUT THE CASE. I HAVE AN UNDERGRAD IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION. I'M ALL ABOUT OPEN, TRANSPARENT GOVERNMENT. 
          YOU HAVE TO BE ABLE TO SEE WHAT YOU'RE WHAT THE GOVERNMENT IS DOING. SO THIS IS THIS. THE REASON I LUMPED THESE TWO TOGETHER IS BECAUSE THEY'RE KIND OF THE SAME ARGUMENT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT STAFF PROVIDED INCOMPLETE INFORMATION REGARDING THE NECESSARY NOTICE, SUGGESTING THAT IT WAS ONLY NECESSARY TO GIVE A TIMELY NOTICE OF HEARING AND PUBLICIZE IT PROPERLY, WHILE TOTALLY IGNORING THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE NOTICE OUT ON THE RESPONDING PARTY. ROLLY WALKER 
          [03:35:02]
DOING BUSINESS AS U-PICK FARM ON FAIR NOTICE OF THE REASONS FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION. THIS AVOIDED THAT REAL DUE PROCESS AND FAIR NOTICE ISSUES THAT WAS AT STAKE AND MISINFORMED THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE NECESSARY REQUIREMENTS. AGAIN, THIS IS. THIS IS IN REGARD TO A DUE PROCESS CLAIM. SO DID THE APPLICANT KNOW ABOUT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT HEARING? AND DID HE KNOW WHY HE WAS GOING TO BE THERE AND WHEN AND WHERE IT WAS GOING TO BE? AND COULD HE SPEAK AT THAT HEARING. SO WE HAVE THIS. SO THIS IS WHAT THEY WERE BRINGING UP RIGHT HERE. THE CONDITIONS TO MINIMIZE INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO. BUT REMEMBER, THE NOTICE DID SAY A REVOCATION OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ISSUED ON JUNE 27TH. FURTHER, MY LETTER ALSO ELABORATED EVEN FURTHER THAT MORE IN DEPTH ABOUT WHAT THE VARIANCES WERE THAT WERE UP FOR REVOCATION AND WHAT CONDITIONS POTENTIALLY COULD BE REVOKED, WHY WE WERE BRINGING THEM UP TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FOR REVOCATION. SO IN SUMMARY, THE FIRST TWO ITEMS OF THE APPEAL, THE NOTICING REQUIREMENTS WERE MET BY IDAHO STATE STATUTE. IN ADDITION, ABOVE AND BEYOND, WE SENT A PERSONAL EMAIL, AN OFFICIAL LETTER TO THE APPLICANT ON NOVEMBER 21ST, 21 DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING INFORMING HIM OF WHAT WAS GOING ON AND WHAT HE HAD THE RIGHTS TO DO, THE OFFICIAL LETTER STATES. IN THE REASONING, THE LETTER PROVIDES THE REASON FOR SEEKING REVOCATION OF THE CONDITIONAL USE AND SENT WITH AMPLE TIME FOR THE APPLICANT TO EFFECTIVELY AND COMPLETELY PREPARE A REBUTTAL OF THE CASE PRESENTED BY THE CITY. WE'LL GO TO THE NOTICE OF APPEAL, ITEM NUMBER THREE. I'M GONNA GRAB A DRINK OVER. TRYING TO MAKE THIS A LITTLE QUICK. 
          NOTICE OF APPEAL. NUMBER THREE, ROLLY WALKER, DOING BUSINESS AS U-PICK BARN, WAS ASSURED THAT IF HE MET CERTAIN CONDITIONS THAT WERE AGREED TO IN A MEETING, THAT HE WOULD BE ABLE TO OPEN THE U-PICK BARN IN 2024. AFTER COMPLETING THOSE CONDITIONS, THE CITY RENEGED ON ITS AGREEMENT AND IMPOSED ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS, NAMELY THE REQUIREMENT OF EASEMENT AND DEDICATIONS. HOWEVER, THE WRITTEN EASEMENTS AND DEDICATIONS WERE NOT PROVIDED AT THE TIME TO ROLLY WALKER DOING BUSINESS AS U-PICK BARN, SO IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE TO ANALYZE SUCH DOCUMENTS. WILLY WALKER, DOING BUSINESS AS U-PICK BARN, COULD NOT ISSUE THE NECESSARY PERMITS, AND THE CITY UNREASONABLY REFUSED TO ISSUE THE PERMITS, WHICH PLACED U-PICK BARN IN A POSITION THAT THE CITY NOW SEEKS TO SEEKS TO USE TO REVOKE THE CEP. SO IN ESSENCE, THIS ARGUMENT IS WHAT THEY CALL AN ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS CLAIM. WAS THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS DECISION BASED ON FACT OR DUE TO SOME ARBITRARY STANDARD? WAS THERE SOME ARBITRARY STANDARD THAT STAFF USED TO NOT GRANT HIM A PERMIT? SO AGAIN, I POINT YOU TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CONDITIONS. THESE ARE THE CONDITIONS IMPOSED ON JUNE 27TH, 2024. VOA PUBLIC HEARING STAFF WOULD NOW LIKE TO GO THROUGH THE CODE SECTIONS AND DESCRIBE THE STANDARDS FOR REQUIRING A BUILDING PERMIT. THESE THESE CONDITIONS WERE KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, AND HE STATED THAT HE KNEW THEM EVEN THIS EVENING. FIRST IS THE BUILDING PERMIT PER SECTION IDAHO FALLS COMPREHENSIVE CODE 11 1-4. AND I'LL JUST HIT THE HIGHLIGHTS, IF YOU DON'T MIND. I DON'T WANT TO READ THE ENTIRE CODE SECTION. IT PUTS ME ASLEEP ENOUGH AS IT IS. SO IT SAYS NO PERSON OR PUBLIC AGENCY SHALL CONSTRUCT, ALTER, REMOVE OR CHANGE THE USE OF STRUCTURE OR UNDERTAKE ANY DEVELOPMENT UNLESS THE PROPOSED USE, STRUCTURE OR DIVISION OF PROPERTY COMPLIES WITH THE ZONING CODE. SO YOU MUST MEET THE ZONING CODE. ANY REQUIRED APPROVAL IS FIRST OBTAINED AS PROVIDED BY THE ZONING CODE AND ANY APPLICABLE CONDITIONS OF SUCH APPROVAL ARE MET. SO YOU HAVE TO MEET THE ZONING CODE AND THE APPROVALS, MEANING THE CONDITIONS THAT MAY BE IMPOSED BY THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. NOTHING IN THIS ZONING CODE SHALL ELIMINATE THE NEED FOR OBTAINING ANY OTHER PERMITS REQUIRED BY THIS CODE. IN ESSENCE, YOU HAVE TO OBTAIN A PERMIT FOR ALL CONSTRUCTION WHETHER YOU CONSTRUCT, ALTER, MOVE, OR CHANGE THE USE OF ANY STRUCTURE WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS. SITE PLAN REQUIREMENTS. SITE PLAN REQUIREMENTS ARE FOUND IN THE INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE AND THEY'RE ADOPTED BY THE STATE OF IDAHO. THIS IS ACTUALLY SOMETHING THAT'S IMPOSED BY US, ON US, BY THE STATE SITE. PLAN REQUIREMENTS ARE FOUND IN SECTION 107 .2.6 OF THE INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE, AS WELL AS THE BUILDING PERMITS, MEANING THAT WHAT IT DOES IS IT TIES. I WENT BACK AND READ THIS SECTION. THE INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE TIES YOUR BUILDING PERMIT AND YOUR SITE PLAN TOGETHER, AND IT SAYS THAT YOU HAVE TO HAVE BOTH OF THOSE BEFORE YOU CAN MOVE FORWARD ON THE PROPERTY AND GET A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. FURTHER, ANY CITIZEN CAN CALL THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. AS YOU SAW IN MY LETTER, I PUT MY PHONE NUMBER ON COUNTLESS THINGS. YOU'RE MORE THAN WELCOME TO CALL ME. YOU'RE MORE THAN WELCOME TO CALL ANY OF MY STAFF AND WE'LL WALK YOU 
          [03:40:04]
THROUGH THE PROCESS. WE'LL HELP YOU THE BEST WE CAN AND HELP YOU GET MOVING FORWARD ON YOUR PROJECT. FURTHER ON OUR WEBSITE, JUST WE HAVE A CHECKLIST THAT SUMMARIZES A LOT OF THESE ELEMENTS IN REGARDS TO THE SITE PLAN AND PERMIT REVIEW PROCESS. SO I WILL SHOW YOU THAT THIS IS THE SITE PLAN CHECKLIST. I JUST CIRCLED ONE SECTION HERE RIGHT THERE. AND IT STATES SITE PLAN REQUIREMENTS ARE SUMMARIZED. AND NOTICE THAT IT CALLS OUT THAT AN ARCHITECTURAL STAMP IS REQUIRED FOR THE BUILDING PERMIT. SO I JUST STATE THAT ALL THESE OTHER THINGS YOU JUST GO THROUGH THE CHECKLIST, MAKE SURE IT'S ON, IT'S ON YOUR SITE PLAN. IT'S VERY STRAIGHTFORWARD, VERY STRAIGHTFORWARD. IF YOU'RE IF YOU'RE DOING IMPROVEMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH PERMITS IMPROVEMENT DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE REQUIRED FOR EACH APPLICATION AND ALL DRAWINGS MUST BE SUBMITTED PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION. AN INSPECTION IS COMMENCED AFTER CONSTRUCTION, AS IT STATES IN THE SECTION OF CODE, AND THE CITY MAY ORDER CONSTRUCTION TO CEASE IF CONSTRUCTION IS UNDERTAKEN WITHOUT A PERMIT. SO THAT'S OUR THAT'S PER SECTION 11 6-6. FURTHER SITE IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE REQUIRED AT THE OWNER'S EXPENSE, AND REQUIRED IMPROVEMENTS SHALL BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO THE OCCUPANCY OF THE PROPERTY OR PORTION OF THE PROPERTY. SO I JUST SUMMARIZED IT RIGHT HERE. THIS IS OUR PERMIT REVIEW PROCESS. I TRIED TO SIMPLIFY IT AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE. SOMEONE APPLIES ONLINE THROUGH A CITY WORKS PROGRAM. A PROJECT MANAGER IS ASSIGNED TO WHATEVER PROJECT THAT IS A SITE PLAN, A BUILDING PERMIT. THAT PLAN IS THEN REVIEWED. IF IT'S PASSED, IT MOVES ON TO APPROVAL. 
          IF IT DOES NOT PASS, IT'S FAILED AND IT'S REQUIRED TO BE RESUBMITTED. ONCE IT PASSES, PERMIT OR PASSES SITE PLAN APPROVAL, YOU STILL HAVE THE FEES ASSESSED. THOSE MUST BE PAID. THEN THE PERMIT IS ISSUED. THEN THE INSPECTION GETS SCHEDULED. ONCE THAT INSPECTION IS SCHEDULED AND CONDUCTED, YOU CAN PASS THE INSPECTION OR YOU CAN FAIL THE INSPECTION. IF YOU FAIL THE INSPECTION. WE REINSPECT ALL THIS IS GETTING TO THIS SWEET SPOT OF THE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY HERE AT THE END. THIS PROCESS TYPICALLY TAKES ABOUT TWO WEEKS. SO JUST SO YOU'RE AWARE OF THE TIME FRAME, TWO MINUTES I WANTED TO GO THROUGH THE YOU PICK PERMIT TIMELINE. THIS IS THE ONLY PERMIT I HAVE GONE THROUGH THIS ENTIRE PROPERTY RECORD. THIS IS THE ONLY PERMIT THAT HAS BEEN ISSUED TO THE PROPERTY. WHAT THE PERMIT IS FOR IS THE APPLICANT HAD FOUND A SILO SOMEWHERE, MAYBE UP NEAR RIGBY OR SOMETHING. AND THEY WERE MOVING IT TO THE PROPERTY AT THAT TIME, HE HAD CONTACTED STAFF AND STAFF SAID, YOU CAN'T JUST SET IT ON THE GROUND. YOU HAVE TO PUT IT ON A FOUNDATION. AND SO THAT'S WHAT THIS PERMIT IS FOR. IT'S FOR THE FOUNDATION OF THE SILO AND THE APPLICANT. THIS IS WHAT A BUILDING PERMIT LOOKS LIKE. 
          THE APPLICANT WAS ISSUED THAT BUILDING PERMIT. YOU'LL NOTE THAT THERE ARE SOME NOTES ON THIS. THE PREVIOUS BUILDING OFFICIAL BACK IN 2021, THAT'S WHEN THIS WAS ISSUED. HE QUOTED. 
          HE SAYS HE ADDED A NOTE TO IT, A CAVEAT TO THIS PERMIT FUTURE RENOVATIONS AND ADDITIONS TO THE EXISTING BARN AND SILO INTERIOR ARE TO BE UNDER A SEPARATE SUBMISSION FOR REVIEW. THIS WILL REQUIRE A COMPLETE SET OF BUILDING PLANS, REFLECTING THE NEW ADDITIONS AND INTERIOR RENOVATIONS OF THE EXISTING BARN AND SILO FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL. HE ALSO NOTES THE USE OF THE EXISTING BARN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. THE BARN IS FOR RETAIL SALE OF PUMPKINS AND ASSOCIATED PRODUCTS. NOTICE HOW HE DOES NOT POINT OUT THE SALE IN THE SILO. FURTHER, WHEN MR. WALKER STATED THAT THERE WERE NO OTHER VIOLATIONS ON THE PROPERTY, I WILL JUST POINT OUT THIS ONE BECAUSE HE WAS INHABITING THE SILO WITH A PIZZA KITCHEN BACK IN 2023. SO WHEN THIS WAS, THIS WAS IN SEPTEMBER 13TH OF 2023. AT THE TIME, THE FIRE DEPARTMENT HAD ISSUED A VIOLATION AND THEY THEY PROHIBITED OCCUPANCY IN THE SILO. THEY STATE IN IT THE BUILDING OR STRUCTURE SHALL NOT BE OCCUPIED PRIOR TO THE FIRE CODE OFFICIAL APPROVING THE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY AND CONDUCTING ASSOCIATED INSPECTIONS INDICATING THE PUBLIC PROVISIONS OF THE CODE HAVE BEEN MET. STORING OF COMBUSTIBLE MATERIALS AND NOT REQUIRED FOR CONSTRUCTION IS NOT ALLOWED WITHIN THE SILO, SO THEY HAD ALREADY RESTRICTED OCCUPANCY 
          [03:45:04]
OF THE SILO. THIS IS OUR BUILDING PERMIT TIMELINE I WENT THROUGH. AND THE BLUE YOU'LL SEE ON ALL OF THESE TIMELINES, THE BLUE ARE ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE CITY. THE ORANGE ARE ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE APPLICANT. SO FIRST THIS IS THE BUILDING PERMIT SPECIFIC. I'LL SHOW YOU THE SITE PLAN IN JUST A MINUTE. STAFF SAT DOWN IN JULY 12TH OF 2024. WE SAT DOWN WITH THE CONTRACTOR FOR THE APPLICANT. DURING THAT MEETING, WE LOOKED THROUGH THE PIZZA KITCHEN AND FOUND DEFICIENCIES IN WHAT WAS CURRENTLY BEING USED ON THE PROPERTY. THEY LISTED NINE ITEMS THAT NEEDED TO BE ADDRESSED. THERE WAS A LETTER THAT WAS SENT TO THE APPLICANT, WHICH I WILL SHOW YOU IN JUST A MINUTE THAT THAT WAS SENT TO THE APPLICANT'S CONTRACTOR. SUMMARIZING THE MEETING OF JULY 12TH. FURTHER, ON SEPTEMBER 4TH. SO REALIZE WE HAVE HAD NO ACTION WAS FOR BASICALLY TWO MONTHS. THE APPLICANT SUBMITTED HIS BUILDING PERMIT. IT'S BEEN 54 DAYS SINCE WE MET WITH HIM TILL HE SUBMITTED HIS BUILDING PERMIT. IT WAS RIGHT AT THE BEGINNING OF SEPTEMBER. HE TYPICALLY OPENS MID SEPTEMBER, SO STAFF IMMEDIATELY REVIEWED IT. CODY REVIEWED IT WITHIN ONE DAY, LOOKED AT IT AND SAID, BECAUSE I TOLD HIM, KEEP THIS ON THE RADAR. AND HE SAID, SURE. AND HE LOOKED AT IT AND ONE DAY AND HE SAID, THERE ARE ACTUALLY YOU'VE ADDRESSED TWO OF THE ITEMS OF THE NINE, BUT YOU HAVE NOT ADDRESSED SEVEN ITEMS THAT WE STILL NEED TO DISCUSS. THE EMAIL WAS STAFF. THE ARCHITECT DID TALK TO. HE REACHED OUT TO OUR STAFF, OUR BUILDING OFFICIAL, AND THEN ANOTHER. I'M TRYING TO GET MY TIMELINE FOR THAT. AN ADDITIONAL EMAIL TO THE CONTRACTOR REGARDING THE IMMINENT DEADLINE AND ITEMS NOT RESOLVED IN PERMIT SUBMITTAL. SO WHAT HAD HAPPENED THERE WAS WE KNEW HE WAS LOOKING TO OPEN AND I'LL SHOW YOU THAT TIMELINE WITH SOME OF HIS ONLINE POSTS. SO HE WE HAD REACHED OUT TO HIM, THE APPLICANT, AND I JUST PUT THIS RED LINE HERE, FULL STOP. HE OPENED TO THE PUBLIC. SO HE HAD ONE SUBMITTAL, AND WE HAD ALREADY TALKED BACK TO HIM AND SAID, YOU STILL HAVE SEVEN ITEMS THAT YOU NEED TO ADDRESS WHEN HE TALKS ABOUT THE PERMIT BEING APPROVED. THAT'S NOT ACCURATE, BECAUSE YOU CAN SEE AS WE GO PAST THE OPENING DATE, THEY ARE STILL RESUBMITTING. THE ARCHITECT CAME BACK BECAUSE THERE WERE REVISIONS THAT HE MADE, OR HE HAD TO MAKE IN ORDER TO CORRECT IT. BECAUSE OF THAT, BECAUSE OF HIM OPENING STAFF ISSUED A VIOLATION LETTER AND A DO NOT OCCUPY NOTICE WAS POSTED TO THE PROPERTY. WE GOT A COMPLAINT FROM A NEIGHBOR STATING THAT, HEY, JUST SO YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE A STOP. THE THEY SOME NEIGHBORS HAVE BEEN CALLING ME AND THEY SAID, JUST SO YOU'RE AWARE, IT WAS AFTER A WEEKEND. THEY SAID WE WERE OVER THERE AND THE PIZZA KITCHEN WAS OPEN. SO THEN I SENT MY STAFF OUT ON THE 25TH OF SEPTEMBER AND THEY TOOK PICTURES. NOTICE WE STILL ARE TRYING TO RESOLVE ISSUES TO 15TH OF OCTOBER, AND THEY ARE DEALING WITH THE ELECTRICAL ROAD WORK SHEETS AND ELECTRICAL COMPONENTS FOR IT. SO HE NEVER HAD A PERMIT BECAUSE HE DIDN'T HAVE HIS COMPLETE SUBMITTAL. SO THIS IS THE LETTER THAT WAS SENT TO THE CONTRACTOR LAYING OUT THE NINE ITEMS. JUST SO YOU KNOW, THERE ARE TEN BECAUSE HE COMMENTS ABOUT THERE IS ANOTHER PERMIT AND THOSE ARE THE CONNECTIONS TO THE SILO THAT WERE NEVER RESOLVED. AND SO THEY SAID, HEY, JUST SO YOU KNOW, THIS PERMIT WAS NEVER RESOLVED. YOU'VE GOT TO ADDRESS THOSE ITEMS. THIS WAS THE SUBMITTAL FROM THE ARCHITECT. YOU WILL NOTE IT IS NOT STAMPED AND IT IS NOT SIGNED. AND THESE ARE THE SEVEN ITEMS THAT WERE LAID OUT BY THE CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL WAS ACTUALLY THE COMMERCIAL PLANS THAT CODY WAS HOLDING TAKING THIS ONE LAST SUMMER. SO YOU'LL SEE IT WAS VERY INCOMPLETE AND WE STILL NEEDED ITEMS TO BE ADDRESSED. THIS WAS A CORRESPONDENCE WE HAD WITH THE ARCHITECT. I JUST WANT TO HIGHLIGHT THIS ELEMENT RIGHT HERE, THE ARCHITECT STATED. HE SAID, I UNDERSTAND THAT I AM DEFICIENT ON MY PERMIT. HOWEVER, I CANNOT GET TO IT TILL SEPTEMBER 27TH, POTENTIALLY SEPTEMBER 20TH. WE WROTE BACK AND SAID, UNFORTUNATELY, WE CAN'T ACCEPT THAT BECAUSE IT'S AN INCOMPLETE PERMIT. THUS YOU ARE IN VIOLATION OF YOUR PERMIT. THIS WAS THE RESPONSE FROM MR. WALKER. HE SAID, QUOTE, FINALLY YOU SEE THE LETTER CONFIRMING THE WORK TO BE DONE. ALSO THE RESPONSE FROM THE CITY REJECTING IT. I SEE THE RESPONSE IS UNREASONABLE AND LACKING COMMON SENSE. I AM OPENING TOMORROW BECAUSE I AM COMMITTED TO THE PUBLIC AND THOSE WHO LOVE THE RED BARN. COME AND JOIN US. HERE I AM ON THE DAY BEFORE WE OPEN, WITH HOURS AND HOURS OF WORK TO BE TO DO, BUT I'M TIED UP HANDLING THIS. IS IT UNREASONABLE FOR ME TO ASK YOUR SUPPORT AND SOLUTION WITHOUT THE THREAT AGAIN AND AGAIN? SIMILAR TO WHAT HE SPOKE ABOUT GETTING 
          [03:50:04]
SUPPORT FROM THIS EVENING, IT NEVER SEEMS TO BE ENOUGH. AFTER ALL WE HAVE DONE THIS YEAR TO COVER TO YEAR TO OVERCOME WHAT WE THOUGHT WAS THE REAL CHALLENGE LAST YEAR IS ZONING. 
          SO THEN HE HAD CALLED SOME OF MY INSPECTORS TO COME OUT AND LOOK AT IT. THE INSPECTOR CAME AND TALKED TO ME AND SAID, WHY, I CAN'T GO OUT AND INSPECT BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE A I DON'T HAVE A PERMIT. AND SO I SAID, NO, YOU WILL NOT INSPECT. MR. WALKER CALLED US. HE WAS VERY IRATE AT THAT TIME AND SAID, YOU SEND OUT YOUR INSPECTORS. AND I SAID, NO, WE DON'T HAVE A PERMIT. AND SO WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO INSPECT ON. REMEMBER OUR PERMIT PROCESS. YOU GO THROUGH THE PERMIT, YOU HAVE TO PAY YOUR FEE. THEN THE INSPECTION IS REQUESTED. AFTER I STATED YOU CANNOT OPEN YOU CANNOT OPEN THE PIZZA KITCHEN. HE ASKED ME WHAT IF I OPEN ANYWAY? AND IN THAT TIME I SAID, YOU WILL BE IN VIOLATION OF YOUR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. AND THERE WERE TWO OTHER PEOPLE IN THE ROOM. HE HAD IT ON SPEAKERPHONE WHEN I WAS MAKING THAT CALL. SO WHEN WE'RE TALKING, I'LL JUST SHOW YOU THE DO NOT OCCUPY NOTICE. SO THIS WAS POSTED TO THE PROPERTY SEPTEMBER 17TH. SO THIS IS SHOWING THE SILO DOOR. YOU CAN SEE THE SILO THERE AND THE BULLY BARN. BOTH WERE POSTED BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE A BUILDING PERMIT FOR THEM. THESE ARE THE PICTURES SHOWN FROM SEPTEMBER 26TH. VERY CONVENIENTLY OPEN FOR BUSINESS. I'LL GO THROUGH THE SITE PLAN TIMELINE REAL QUICK. AGAIN, THIS IS THE APPROVED SITE PLAN FOR THE PROPERTY. THE SITE PLAN THAT HE SHOWED YOU WAS FROM A PREVIOUS SUBMITTAL OF THIS. SO THIS IS THE APPROVED SITE PLAN. 
          THE REASON I CALL IT OUT, IT IS SIGNED BY ALICIA FOSTER, ONE OF OUR STAFF MEMBERS BACK IN 2022. 
          YOU'LL NOTICE ON THE SITE PLAN FIRST, THE PROPOSED SILO RIGHT THERE, PROPOSED BATHROOMS ADJACENT TO THE BARN. YOU ALSO SEE THE PROPOSED KITCHEN IS ADJACENT TO THE BARN. YOU ALSO WILL NOTICE THE FIRE LANE WILL BRING ALL THIS UP HERE IN JUST A SECOND. AS WE GO THROUGH THE SITE PLAN AND THE FIRE ACCESS ROAD COMES THROUGH THE MIDDLE, YOU ALSO WILL NOTICE THERE ARE TWO COMPONENTS TO THIS THE TEN FOOT RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION AND THE 15 FOOT UTILITY EASEMENT. 
          THE REASON I BRING THIS UP IS BECAUSE THE SITE PLAN HE SHOWED YOU DOES NOT SHOW THIS, BUT THAT WAS NOT THE APPROVED SITE PLAN. THAT WAS A SUBMITTAL. THIS IS THE APPROVED SITE PLAN SHOWING THE DEDICATION OF RIGHT OF WAY. SO IN ESSENCE, HE HAS AGREED ALREADY ON THE SITE PLAN TO DEDICATE TEN FEET OF RIGHT OF WAY AND 15FT FOR UTILITY EASEMENT FOR THIS APPROVED SITE PLAN TO TAKE YOU TO THE SITE PLAN PROCESS. THE FIRST SITE PLAN WAS SUBMITTED BACK IN AUGUST 23RD OF 2023. IT TOOK THEM 244 DAYS TO RESUBMIT FOR HIS SECOND SITE PLAN, AND I WILL SHOW YOU THE DRASTIC DIFFERENCE BETWEEN EACH SITE PLAN. THE REVIEW TIME WAS WAS 11 DAYS. WE WERE VERY, VERY QUICK ON OUR REVIEW OF THAT. HE HAS STATED ONLINE THAT WE WERE HOLDING UP AND JUST SLOWING AND DRAGGING IT DOWN. ALL OF THESE REVIEW TIMES ARE WELL WITHIN THE TWO WEEK NOTICE OR THE TWO WEEK TIME PERIOD. HE SUBMITTED HIS SITE PLAN ON AUGUST 27TH. HE GAVE US TWO WEEKS. HE OPENED ON THE 13TH. WE FINISHED THE SITE PLAN REVIEW ON THE 12TH. WE SENT IT BACK WITH COMMENTS STATING YOU NEED TO ADDRESS SOME THINGS. I'LL SHOW YOU THE TWO SITE PLANS. YOU'LL SEE HOW DRASTICALLY DIFFERENT THEY ARE AND WHY WE ASK FOR FURTHER CORRECTIONS. THAT, AND THEN I JUST WANT TO POINT OUT THAT THOUGH WE HAD RETURNED COMMENTS ON THE 12TH, HE OPENED TO THE PUBLIC ON THE 13TH AND I WILL SHOW YOU PROOF THAT HE DID OPEN ON THE 13TH. THIS IS THE FIRST SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL. YOU WILL NOTICE HE ALSO DEDICATES RIGHT OF WAY AND A 15 FOOT PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT. THESE ARE ALL THE COMMENTS. THESE ARE THESE ARE BLUEBEAM. THIS IS THESE ARE THE COMMENTS THAT YOU GET. I EVEN TALLIED THEM UP. AND IF YOU'D LIKE I CAN GO THROUGH THEM PIECE BY PIECE. I PULLED OUT EACH COMMENT FROM EACH DEPARTMENT SO THAT YOU CAN READ THAT THEY'RE NOT DUPLICATES, THEY'RE JUST ADDRESSING THE CONCERNS THAT ARE ON THE PROPERTY. AND I'LL JUST SHOW YOU, I JUST TALLIED THEM THERE ON THE RIGHT, THAT THERE WERE 30 COMMENTS TOTAL ON THE SITE PLAN. THIS IS THE SECOND SITE PLAN. 
          I'LL JUST JUMP THEM BACK AND FORTH. YOU CAN SEE THE DRASTIC DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE SITE PLAN, THE BUILDINGS AND USES DOWN ON THE SOUTH SIDE HAVE DRASTICALLY CHANGED THE CANNON HAS MOVED TO THE NORTH. YOU ALSO HAVE A FIRE ACCESS THAT INITIALLY WAS COMING THROUGH THE MIDDLE. IF YOU REMEMBER THAT FIRE ACCESS NOW CHANGED WITH THE SHARP TURN ONTO ROLAND DEBT. SO YOU CAN SEE THE SITE PLAN WAS VERY, VERY DIFFERENT. AND LO AND BEHOLD, THERE WERE ONLY 29 COMMENTS. I TALLIED THEM ALL UP, AND HE ALSO SHOWS THE TEN FOOT RIGHT OF WAY AND THE 15 FOOT PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT. WE WERE AT THIS POINT WHEN HE OPENED TO THE PUBLIC. THIS IS WHERE WE 
          [03:55:01]
WERE. I'LL SHOW YOU THE OTHER TWO SITE PLANS. SO YES, THEY DID RESUBMIT. THEY READ, I'LL SHOW YOU SOME OF THESE. BUT HE HAD ALREADY OPENED TO THE PUBLIC. AT THIS POINT, THE FEW CHANGES WERE PRIMARILY DOWN HERE AND SOME REGARDING THE LANDSCAPING OVER HERE AND ALSO WHAT THE UTILITY LINES WERE DOING WERE SOME QUESTIONS. THAT'S WHAT THESE GREEN ARE BECAUSE HE HAD CONNECTED INTO OUR SEWER LINE WITHOUT A PERMIT. SO WE WERE TRYING TO RECTIFY THAT. THE COMMENTS YOU'LL NOTICE WENT DOWN. THERE WERE 17 COMMENTS. REMEMBER THERE WERE 29 BEFORE. 
          SO YES, I WOULD I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH MR. WALKER. HE DID ADDRESS SOME THINGS. HE WAS JUST HE HAD ALREADY OPEN TO THE PUBLIC. SO THAT'S THAT ONE. AND THEN THIS IS THE FINAL SITE PLAN THAT WE HAVE. THEY WERE RETURNED ON DECEMBER 11TH OF 2024. THERE REALLY ARE I, I COMBINED THEM THERE REALLY WERE ONLY THREE COMMENTS. THE THERE WERE A COUPLE THAT WERE JUST SCRIBBLER ERRORS. YOU YOU HAVE TO REFERENCE THINGS WITH THE CODE. SO HE DIDN'T REFERENCE THEM. AND SO THAT'S WHAT SOME OF THESE COMMENTS ABOUT. YOU ALSO NOTICE THAT HE DEDICATES THE TEN FOOT RIGHT OF WAY. AND HE ALSO DOES THE 15 FOOT PUBLIC UTILITY MAINTENANCE. RIGHT. SO WHEN HE STATES HE DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT THE EASEMENT OR THE DEDICATION OF RIGHT OF WAY, HE HAS KNOWN THAT SINCE 2022. SO HE HAS KNOWN ABOUT IT THIS WHOLE TIME, AND HE HAS SUBMITTED EVERY TIME SHOWING THOSE ELEMENTS. SO AND I ALSO WANT TO POINT OUT IN THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT HEARING, THANK YOU MADAM. IN THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT HEARING, YOU HAVE THE DRAFT MINUTES. THOSE WERE APPROVED ON THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, MET AT 530 ON TUESDAY, AND THEY APPROVED THOSE DRAFT MINUTES JUST TO BE AWARE. THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT IN IT, ONE OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEMBERS, MR. LARSON, ASKED BECAUSE THEY WERE ASKING ABOUT IF YOU COULDN'T GET A PERMIT OR A SITE PLAN, WHY, WHAT WAS THE CITY DOING? AND HE POSED THIS QUESTION, HE SAYS, AND THESE ARE SUMMARIES. SO THEY'RE NOT JUST BE AWARE OF THAT. IF YOU WANT TO WATCH THE OFFICIAL RECORD, I ENCOURAGE ANYBODY TO WATCH THE OFFICIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT HEARING. THE LARSON ASKS IF THE GOALPOST WAS MOVING ON THE SITE PLAN BECAUSE OF GROWTH AND ACTIVITIES ON THE SITE, WALKER SAID. YES AND NO. YOU PICK KEEPS GROWING, BUT ALL STRUCTURES AND ACTIVITIES ARE MOBILE, NO PERMANENT STRUCTURES. HE WONDERED WHY YOU COULDN'T JUST GO TO THE CITY AND GET A LIST. 
          SO I MENTIONED TO YOU THE SITE PLAN. THERE IS A LIST. THERE IS ONE ONLINE. WALKER EXPLAINED THE BOARD ABOUT BRINGING IN PERMANENT WATER, SEWER AND POWER TO THE TEMPORARY STRUCTURES, WHICH THAT MAKES IT PERMANENT. WHEN WE START CONNECTING UTILITIES TO IT. HOW ARE YOU GOING TO MAKE THAT ANYWAYS? IT JUST CHANGES THE SITE YET AGAIN. I WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION. HE CLAIMS THIS EVENING THAT WE ARE TAKING HIS NAME. I LIKE TO EXPLAIN THAT PER OUR SECTION OF CODE TEN ONE FIVE I, THERE IS A ROADWAY CLASSIFICATION SHALL COMPLY WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THE CURRENT ACCESS MANAGEMENT PLAN PROVIDED BY THE BONNEVILLE METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION. I'LL TRY TO GO THROUGH THIS A LITTLE BIT. THE DEVELOPER SHALL DEDICATE THE RIGHT OF WAY REQUIRED TO SUPPORT THE STREET CLASSIFICATION DESIGNATED IN THE MPO ACCESS MANAGEMENT PLAN, ALONG RIGHTS OF WAY. EASEMENTS SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 15FT, AND THAT IS WHY WE ARE REQUIRING THAT THERE'S SOME SUPREME COURT CASES. I'LL JUST. NOLAN AND DOLAN, THEY SAY THAT YOU HAVE TO HAVE IF YOU'RE EVER REQUIRING AN EXACTION ON PROPERTY, YOU BASICALLY WHAT YOU HAVE TO HAVE IS YOU HAVE TO HAVE A LEGAL NEXUS. THAT'S WHAT THOSE TWO SUPREME COURT CASES. YOU HAVE TO KNOW THAT WHEN YOU'RE IN, WHEN YOU'RE A CERTIFIED PLANNER. SO YOU HAVE TO HAVE THAT LEGAL NEXUS. THAT'S WHY THE MPO MASTER PLAN OR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IS THE BASIS FOR ANY REGULATION OR ANY REQUIREMENT THAT YOU HAVE. SO THAT'S WHERE THAT COMES FROM. YOU ALSO, IF YOU CAN'T CONSTRUCT IT, YOU CAN DO A FINANCIAL GUARANTEE. 
          BASICALLY YOU CAN DO A SURETY BOND, A CASH DEPOSIT TO AN ACCOUNT. SO IF YOU CAN'T CONSTRUCT IT NOW, YOU BASICALLY SET THE MONEY ASIDE. SO YOU CAN YOU CAN DO THE CONSTRUCTION WHERE YOU PAY FOR IT LATER, AS IN ESSENCE WHAT HAPPENS. AND THAT'S FOR PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS. 
          SO I WANTED TO SHOW YOU THE MPO ACCESS MANAGEMENT PLAN. ROLLING DEBT IS CLASSIFIED AS A MAJOR ARTERIAL. SO THE FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION IS LISTED AS SUCH. IN ADDITION TO THAT, FURTHER THE TRAVEL CONTEXT CLASSIFICATION SHOWS ROMAN DENT AS A BIKE PED PRIORITY RIGHT HERE AND WITH THE RIGHT OF WAY PROFILE OF EDP WITH 40FT FROM THE CENTER LINE. SO THE REASON. 
          SO I'M JUST TELLING YOU THE REASON OF WHY THE DEDICATION IS THE NUMBER IN WHICH IT IS. IT IS TO MEET THIS CLASSIFICATION AND THE MPO ACCESS MANAGEMENT PLAN IS SOMETHING DONE BY OUR 
          [04:00:07]
REGIONAL PLANNING ORGANIZATION. IT'S ACTUALLY A COUNTYWIDE TRANSPORTATION PLANNING ORGANIZATION. YOU DO THOSE ON A COUNTY LEVEL BECAUSE THAT'S HOW THE FEDERAL FUNDING COMES IN. I JUST WANT TO POINT OUT AGAIN, THIS IS THIS THIS WAS THE SITE PLAN THAT WAS ISSUED. YOU'LL NOTICE IT'S RIGHT THERE, THE TEN FEET AND THE 15 FOOT UTILITIES. FURTHER, IF YOU WANTED TO LOOK AT THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, THE 15 FOOT UTILITY EASEMENT IS ALONG THE WESTERN SIDE OF THE PROPERTY. IT COMES UP THE EASTERN SIDE OF THE SOUTHERN PROPERTY AND WILL CONTINUE UP THROUGH THE PROPERTY INTO THE PROPERTIES TO THE NORTH. SO YOU CAN SEE ON THE WEST SIDE OF THIS PROPERTY THAT 15 FOOT UTILITY EASEMENT IS THERE. SO I TRIED TO MAKE IT COOL, BUT IT JUST KIND OF IMPORTANT. FURTHER, THE PROPERTY TO SO THIS IS THIS IS THE U-PICK BARN U-PICK BARN RIGHT HERE, THE PROPERTY TWO TO THE NORTH OR THREE TO THE THREE TO THE NORTH. THIS PROPERTY IS JUST WENT THROUGH SUBDIVISION. AND THE SUBDIVISION WAS DONE ON MAY 14TH OF 2024. IT WAS A FOUR LOT SUBDIVISION FOR INDUSTRIAL USE. THAT PROPERTY DESIGNATES THE TEN FOOT RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION AND THE 15 FOOT UTILITY EASEMENT AS WELL. SO IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT WE'RE ASKING JUST OF, MR. WALKER. IT'S THE PROPERTIES ALL ALONG RURAL. AND IT HAVE TO MEET THOSE SAME STANDARDS FROM THE MPO CLASSIFICATION. SO IN SUMMARY, ON ITEM NUMBER THREE, THE CITY CODE REQUIRES THE PERMIT AND SITE PLAN. AND IT ILLUSTRATES THE REVIEW PROCESS AND PATH TO PERMIT ACQUISITION. THE BOA LAID OUT THE NINE CONDITIONS, AND THE TWO OF THOSE CONDITIONS WERE PRIOR TO OPENING TO THE PUBLIC. THE APPLICANT OPENED ON SEPTEMBER 13TH. I'LL GO AND SHOW THAT IN JUST A SECOND. I REALIZE I HAVEN'T SHOWN YOU THAT HE WAS OPEN ON THE 13TH. HE DID NOT HAVE THE APPROVED SITE PLAN. HE KNEW OF THE CONDITIONS THAT WERE REQUIRED OF HIM, AND HE DID NOT MEET THE TWO. FURTHER, THE SITE PLAN COMMENTS WERE RETURNED AND THEY HAVE NOT BEEN RESOLVED. 
          WE'RE STILL WAITING ON THE SITE PLAN RESOLUTION. SO MR. WALKER IS NOW THE BALL IS IN HIS COURT RIGHT NOW, THE RIGHT OF WAY. JUST TO ADDRESS THIS AGAIN, AN EASEMENT DEDICATION ARE FOUND IN OUR CODE. THEY CAN BE REQUIRED AS LONG AS THEY'RE TIED TO A MPO TRANSPORTATION PLAN. I'M TRYING TO MOVE QUICKLY. I APPRECIATE YOUR PATIENCE ON THIS. AND FOR THE PUBLIC AS WELL. BY MISDIRECTING ROLLY WALKER DOING BUSINESS AS U-PICK BARN ABOUT THE BASIS FOR THE DECISION TO REVOKE THIS UP, ROLLY WALKER DOING BUSINESS AS U-PICK BARN, DID NOT HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO FULLY AND COMPLETELY REBUT ALLEGATIONS PRESENTED BY WADE SANDER, WHICH ALLOWED HIM TO FALSELY ALLEGE THAT ROLLY WALKER THOUGHT HE WAS ABOVE THE LAW AND INTENTIONALLY VIOLATED THE LAW BY OPENING AFTER THE CITY WRONGFULLY REFUSED TO ISSUE THE PERMITS IT SAID WOULD BE FORTHCOMING. WHEN ROLLY WALKER, DOING BUSINESS AS U-PICK BARN, COMPLETED THE CONDITIONS, IT COMPLETED. SO THE APPLICANT IS STATING THAT STAFF MISLED THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, LEADING TO AN ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS RULING BY THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, HOWEVER, IN THE REASONED STATEMENT, DID NOT STATE THAT MR. WALKER ACTED AS IF HE WAS ABOVE THE LAW. FURTHER, I I'LL SHOW YOU THE SUMMARY OF WHAT I SAID, BUT MY INTENT WAS NEVER TO OFFEND, AND IF I DID, I APOLOGIZE. THAT WAS NOT MY INTENT. I YOU'LL SEE THE SUMMARY OF WHAT I SAID, BUT REALLY, WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT WHETHER THE APPLICANT WAS OFFENDED. WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WAS DID IT INFLUENCE AND CREATE AN ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS RULE. SO THE BOA MINUTES. SO THIS IS WHAT WAS SUMMARIZED. IT SAYS SANDER REITERATED THAT THE APPLICANT STATED THEY WERE OPEN WITHOUT BUILDING PERMITS AND APPROVED SITE PLANS. THEY WERE NOT. SO H. DURING THAT HEARING, HE CLAIMED THAT THERE WERE 15 RENDITIONS OF THE SITE PLAN. I CORRECTED AND SAID THE FOUR WHICH I SHOWED YOU THIS EVENING, HE SAID IT'S CLEAR THAT THE FIRST SITE PLAN IS DRASTICALLY DIFFERENT FROM THE SECOND PLAN. SO THAT'S ME TALKING. IT'S WEIRD TO TALK IN THE THIRD PERSON, BUT DIFFERENT THAT THE SECOND SITE PLAN. 
          SANDER EXPLAINED TO THE BOARD THAT IT WASN'T THAT GOALPOST MOVE, IT WAS THAT THE PROPERTY IS CONTINUOUSLY GROWING AND THINGS ARE CHANGING BECAUSE THINGS CHANGE SO OFTEN ON THIS PROPERTY. THE CITY WANTED TO TAKE THE U-PICK THROUGH THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PROCESS AND DO AGRICULTURAL TOURISM TO HELP WITH THE EVER PRESENT CHANGES. THE APPLICANT HAS SHOWN A VERY BLATANT DISREGARD FOR THE RULES. IT IS VERY APPARENT THAT HE WAS OPEN, AND HE KNEW HE DIDN'T HAVE THE REQUIRED BUILDING PERMITS AND APPROVED SITE PLAN. SANDER BELIEVES THAT THE APPLICANT HAS TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR NONCOMPLIANCE. THE PROPERTY OWNER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR GETTING SITE PLANS AND BUILDING PERMITS. SANDER STATED THAT THE CHECKLIST IS BUILT INTO THE PERMITTING SOFTWARE AND IS ON THE BUILDING DIVISION WEBSITE. WALKER HAS BEEN VERY AWARE OF WHAT WAS REQUIRED OF HIM FROM THE BEGINNING. THERE HAVE BEEN SO 
          [04:05:05]
MANY THINGS THAT WERE SAID BY WALKER THAT WERE NOT TRUE. IN THIS STATEMENT, I WAS REBUTTING WHAT HE HAD SAID. IN MAY OF 2022, THERE WAS AN APPROVED SITE PLAN. SINCE THIS TIME, THE PROPERTY HAS DRASTICALLY CHANGED AS STAFF THAT IS NEEDED TO BRING HIM INTO COMPLIANCE. THE FACTS ARE HE WAS OPEN IN VIOLATION OF HIS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. I ALSO I'LL JUST SHOW YOU THIS TO SHOW WHAT HE HAD STATED BEFORE. I ALSO NOW GO INTO THE ONLINE POSTINGS JUST TO SHOW KIND OF THE CONGLOMERATION OF WHY THAT WAS SAID, THAT HE WAS IN BLATANT NONCOMPLIANCE. SO NOTHING LIKE MORE SPREADSHEETS. I'M SORRY I GET GEEKED OUT BY THEM BECAUSE IT JUST KEEPS THINGS VERY ORDERLY FOR ME. I ALREADY WENT THROUGH, SO I JUST TOOK WHAT I DID IS I SEPARATED THE SITE PLAN AND THE PERMIT WHICH YOU SAW BEFORE. SO I'M NOT GOING TO GO BACK INTO THIS UNLESS YOU WOULD LIKE ME TO. BUT I WANTED TO SHOW BECAUSE YOU CAN SEE THE ORANGE AND THE BLUE. THE REASON I POINT THIS OUT IS YOU CAN SEE AS WE'RE TRYING TO WORK THROUGH THINGS, THE APPLICANT IS POSTING ONLINE, AND I WILL SHOW YOU EACH OF THESE POSTINGS. WE'LL ALSO SHOW THAT HE OPENED TO THE PUBLIC ON THE 13TH, AND THAT HE CONTINUED TO DO ONLINE POSTS SHOWING HE WAS OPEN, SHOWING HE COMES JUST TO SHOW PROOF THAT HE WAS OPEN. SO THE FIRST IS THIS WAS POST WAS DONE ON AUGUST 12TH OF 2024. 
          REMEMBER, WE'RE STILL WORKING THROUGH SITE PLAN AND WE'RE STILL WORKING THROUGH PERMIT ISSUES. THE STATES ON HERE, THE COUNTDOWN IS ON 31 DAYS UNTIL WE OPEN, AND THE NEXT POSTING ON SEPTEMBER 11TH, TEN MORE DAYS UNTIL WE OPEN. AND THEN HERE WE HAVE THE POSTING OPENING DAY, SEPTEMBER 14TH. I'D LIKE TO SHOW YOU A NEWS CLIP. EMILY, IF YOU COULD HELP ME WITH THAT, PLEASE. 
          THIS WAS DONE. NOTICE THE TIMESTAMP ON THE NEWS ARTICLE THAT WAS ON THE 13TH SHOWING HE WAS OKAY. I MEAN. WE COULD ALSO IF WE CAN'T WATCH IT, IT'S OKAY IF YOU WOULD SCROLL DOWN AND SEE THAT THIS WAS PLAYED AT THE BOA. HEARING THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, THE COUNCIL'S HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO SEE THAT I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S NECESSARY TO PLAY IT. NEVER MIND, EMILY, YOU DON'T NEED TO SHOW IT. THANK YOU. WE. THEN GOING ON THESE ARE JUST OTHER POSTS. THIS IS IN REGARDS TO SEPTEMBER 21ST. MIND YOU THESE OPEN. WE DON'T HAVE A PERMIT. AND HE AND HE SAYS COME AND GET SOME PIZZA. BRICK OVEN PIZZA IS OPEN. HERE'S ANOTHER ONE. THE PIZZA KITCHEN IS OPEN ADVERTISING PIZZA. THIS IS ON SEPTEMBER 24TH. REMEMBER HE DID NOT. HE HAD ALREADY OPENED AT THIS POINT. AND HE HAD A STOP WORK NOTICE ON THE PROPERTY. AT THE SAME TIME HE'S SAYING, COME AND GET YOUR PIZZA. SAME WITH THIS POSTING. I'LL GO THROUGH A LITTLE QUICKER. THESE ARE TWO VIDEOS I WON'T SHOW, BUT IT JUST SHOWS THE PIZZA BEING PREPARED IN THE OVEN OR IN THE PIZZA KITCHEN. SO I'LL TRY TO GO THROUGH THESE. YEAH, HERE WE GO. 
          I'LL SKIP THOSE. FURTHER IN THE DOA MINUTES. SO JUST TO RESTATE WHAT THE APPLICANT HAD ALREADY STATED, HE STATED THE SAME TONIGHT WHEN THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT KENNEDY, WHO WAS A MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, ASKED THAT THE SITE PLAN WAS BROUGHT TO THE BOA, WAS APPROVED. WALKER SAID THAT IT WAS APPROVED, EXCEPT WE WON'T DO PROPERTY OR EASEMENT, KENNEDY SAID, AS THE SITE PLAN APPROVED YES OR NO, IN WHICH MR. WALKER SAID NO. SO JUST IN SUMMARY, THE BOA CONDITIONS WERE VERY CLEAR TO THE APPLICANT. HE DID NOT STATE IN THEIR FINDING THERE'S REASONS STATEMENT WHICH I SHOWED YOU BEFORE. THEY DIDN'T STATE THAT MR. WALKER WAS ABOVE THE LAW. SO I DON'T REMEMBER SAYING THAT, BUT I TAKE HIS WORD FOR IT AND I APOLOGIZE IF THAT WAS WHAT WAS SAID. SO. BUT THEY DIDN'T SAY THAT. MR. WALKER FEELS HE'S ABOVE THE LAW, AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE REVOKING THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. THE BOA SAW ALL THE EVIDENCE THAT YOU JUST SAW AND HEARD THE TESTIMONY, AND THAT HE DID NOT HAVE AN APPROVED SITE PLAN. UPON OPENING, THE BOA WAS CONVINCED THAT THE APPLICANT CLEARLY OPENED WITHOUT AN APPROVED SITE PLAN AND BUILDING PERMIT, WHICH THEY CITE IN THE REASONS STATED IN THE APPEAL. HERE IS DID THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAKE AN ERROR IN REVIEWING THE ABOVE EVIDENCE AND HEARING THE TESTIMONY FROM THE APPLICANT? THEY REASON THAT THE APPLICANT OPENED THE YUP'IK BAR AGRICULTURAL AMUSEMENT BUSINESS TO THE PUBLIC ON SEPTEMBER 13TH, 2024, FOR A SPECIAL DAY AND TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC ON SEPTEMBER 14TH, AND DIRECT VIOLATION OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. THE NEXT ITEM OF APPEAL, IS SIX ONE 
          [04:10:02]
WOULD BE MUCH FASTER, SO THE NOTICE OF APPEAL ITEM NUMBER FIVE. ONE MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ADMITTED THAT HE WAS UNABLE TO DETERMINE WHICH SIDE WAS TELLING THE TRUTH, BUT VOTED TO REVOKE THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AS THE APPLICANT. IN THIS SITUATION, THE CITY HAD THE BURDEN OF PERSUASION AND THE BOARD MEMBERS SHOULD HAVE BEEN INFORMED OF THIS WHEN HE QUESTIONED STAFF AND COUNSEL ABOUT HOW HE SHOULD RESOLVE THIS QUANDARY OF NOT KNOWING WHO WAS TELLING THE TRUTH. I WILL SHOW YOU THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT HERE, AND THIS IS A CLAIM IN REGARDS TO AN ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS RULING. THESE ARE THE MINUTES. SO MR. JOHNSON, IS THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEMBER IN QUESTION. HE ASKED THE CITY ATTORNEY HOW TO SIFT THROUGH ALL THE DIFFERING THINGS THEY HEARD THROUGH TESTIMONY. HOW DO YOU DECIDE WHAT IS FACT AND WHAT IS FICTION? HE'S POSING A THEORETICAL QUESTION. WE HAVE ALL THIS INFORMATION. HOW DO YOU KNOW WHAT'S FACT AND FICTION IS WHAT HE ASKS. SO KIRKHAM STATED, OUR OUR CITY ATTORNEY, KIRKHAM SAID FACT AND FICTION IS IN THE PURVIEW OF THE BOARD. TO DETERMINE THE BOARD CAN USE THEIR JUDGMENT IN WHAT YOU FIND PERSUASIVE TO BE THE TRUTH. KIRKHAM ONCE AGAIN PRESENTED THE BOARD WITH OPTIONS FOR THE DECISION. SO HE WENT OVER KIND OF THE DECISION LIKE YOU HAD. 
          JOHNSON ASKED IF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WAS REVOKED. HOW QUICKLY CAN THE YUP'IK REAPPLY? SO WE OPENED UP THE CODE AND HE SAID HE BELIEVES THAT THEY CAN REAPPLY IMMEDIATELY. YUP'IK WAS 14 DAYS TO APPEAL THE COURT OF SESSION. SO WE WOULD WE JUST WENT THROUGH THAT PROCESS. BUT WHAT KIRKHAM STATED TO HIM AT THAT TIME WAS AND STAFF, I SAY I SHOULD SAY STAFF, SO I DON'T SINGLE OUT BECAUSE I WOULD HAVE SAID THE SAME THING, THAT IT'S REALLY UP TO THE PURVIEW OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. IT'S THE SAME WITH EVERY CITY BOARD IN WHICH WE GO BEFORE I AM AN INFORMATION TELLER. I'M NOT A DECISION MAKER. THAT'S THE ELECTED OFFICIALS OR WHOEVER HAS LAND USE AUTHORITY IN THAT CASE. IN THIS CASE, IT WAS THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. SO THEY HAD THE AUTHORITY AND THE RIGHT TO FIND THE PURVIEW OF WHAT WAS FACT AND FICTION. FURTHER, JOHNSON, THIS SAME BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEMBER, HE WAS THE SECOND ON THE REVOCATION. SO WHATEVER WAS WHATEVER HE WAS THEORETICALLY ASKING, HE OBVIOUSLY HAD RESOLVED BY THE TIME THE MOTION WAS MADE. FURTHER, HE WAS THE ONE THAT APPROVED THE REZONING STATEMENT, AND THAT WAS THE REASONING FOR WHY THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT RULED AS IT DID. JUST MAKING SURE I GOT MY NOTES. 
          YEAH, HE SECONDED THE MOTION, AND HE ALSO AGREED WITH THE REASONS STATED. AND THIS IS THE REASON STATEMENT THAT HE AGREED TO. SO IF HE HAD ANY QUANDARIES OF WHAT WAS FACT AND FICTION, THIS WAS THE REASONING HE GAVE UPON RELOCATION. SO HE OBVIOUSLY FELT THAT THERE WAS SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT HE HAD OPENED. HE HAD OPENED THE U-PICK BARN IN VIOLATION OF THIS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. SO THE REASON STATEMENT ILLUSTRATES THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS REASONING FOR THE ACTION TAKEN. THE APPLICANT DID NOT OBTAIN SITE PLAN APPROVAL. AND THOSE ARE JUST JUST THOSE ARE ALREADY STATED IN THE REASONING STATEMENT. THE BOA MEMBER DID NOT SAY THAT THE CITY DID NOT CONVINCE HIM HE ALSO, THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT HAD SUFFICIENT INFORMATION BASED ON FACT. THE BOARD MISSION. THE BOARD MEMBERS SECONDED THE MOTION TO REVOKE, SO HE OBVIOUSLY FELT HE HAD ENOUGH FACTS TO BE ABLE TO MAKE A DECISION, AND HE AGREED WITH THE FACTS PRESENTED BY STAFF. THIS WAS JUST THE LAST ONE. IF YOU DON'T MIND, I'M JUST GOING TO GO THROUGH THIS BECAUSE IN THE APPEAL THAT WAS SUBMITTED, I, I WANTED TO HEAR WHAT MR. WALKER SAID. IT JUST SAID WILLY WALKER DOING BUSINESS. U-PICK BARN RESERVES THE RIGHT TO RAISE ADDITIONAL OBJECTIONS TO THE DECISION TO REVOKE THE CUP. SO THESE ARE THE CONDITIONS, THE TWO THAT WERE IN QUESTION BY THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. THEY THEY THROUGH THEIR RECENT STATEMENT THEY SPECIFIC I'LL JUST FOCUS ON THE THREE. THE APPLICANT DID NOT OBTAIN SITE PLAN APPROVAL SHOWING AN ACCURATE DEPICTION OF THE SITE PRIOR TO OPENING TO THE PUBLIC. THE APPLICANT DID NOT OBTAIN ALL REQUIRED BUILDING PERMITS, INSPECTIONS, AND FINAL SIGN OFFS FOR ALL STRUCTURES REQUIRING A PERMIT PRIOR TO OPENING TO THE PUBLIC. THEY ALSO FOUND THAT THEY WOULD REVOKE ALL VARIANCES GRANTED AS PART OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, AND THE APPLICANT OPENED THE BARN AGRICULTURAL AMUSEMENT BUSINESS TO THE PUBLIC ON SEPTEMBER 13TH, 2024, FOR A SPECIAL EVENT AND TO THE PUBLIC GENERAL PUBLIC ON SEPTEMBER 14TH, 2024, IN DIRECT VIOLATION OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. SO REMEMBER, WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT A JUST TO RECAP WHAT JUST WHAT I HAD STATED IN THE BEGINNING, THE MAJOR QUESTION BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL REALLY IS DID THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT IN THEIR DECISION? WAS THE DECISION BY THE BOARD ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS? DID IT VIOLATE THE ZONING CODE? WAS IT NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE? EVIDENCE WHEN THEY MADE THEIR DECISION? WAS THE APPLICANT AFFORDED DUE PROCESS? 
          [04:15:03]
DID HE HAVE A NOTICE? DID HE KNOW WHAT HE WAS BEING BROUGHT BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT FOR STAFF WOULD ARGUE THAT THE DECISION WAS NOT ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS. IT'S CLEAR THAT THE FACTS CLEARLY POINT THAT HE OPENED WITHOUT A SITE PLAN AND PERMIT, AND HE ALSO OPENED IN VIOLATION OF HIS DO NOT OCCUPY NOTICE ON THE PROPERTY, WHICH IS A DIRECT VIOLATION OF THE INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE AND AGAINST ALL HEALTH SAFETY REGULATIONS THAT ARE IMPOSED TO US BY THE STATE. THESE AREN'T CITY REGULATIONS. THESE ARE STATE REGULATIONS. FURTHER, WAS HE ALLOWED AFFORDED DUE PROCESS? YES HE WAS. HE KNEW ABOUT THE HE KNEW ABOUT WHAT HE WAS BEING BROUGHT BEFORE THAT THE CUP WAS GOING WAS BEING BROUGHT TO BE REVOKED. HE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE HIS CASE. HIS CASE WAS HEARD FOR THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. I WANT TO JUST ADDRESS. SOME STATEMENTS THAT HE MADE FIRST. THE FIRST STATEMENT WAS THAT WAS THE ANNEXATION ILLEGAL? THAT WAS MADE BY MR. SHING-A-LING. I JUST WANT TO POINT OUT THE ANNEXATIONS. THERE ARE TWO ANNEXATIONS FOR THE PROPERTY. THE FIRST IS ANNEXATION 110639. THIS, THE DEVELOPER INITIATED THAT ANNEXATION. IT WAS NOT THE FORCED ANNEXATION. THE PROPERTY TO THE EAST THAT WAS A CITY INITIATED ANNEXATION. I WENT BACK AND READ THE DOCUMENTS FOR THE ANNEXATION, AND I PUT THE REASONING RIGHT THERE. IT WAS TO PROVIDE AN ORDERLY DEVELOPMENT OF THE CITY. THE ZONING WAS NOT IMPOSED ON THE APPLICANT. THAT WAS HE WAS BROUGHT IN AT THE TIME OF ANNEXATION AND QUESTIONED, WHAT ZONING DO YOU WANT ON THE PROPERTY AT THE TIME, WHAT WAS HAPPENING WAS THE EAST SIDE WAS USED FOR COMMERCIAL USE. THE WEST SIDE, THE WESTERN PROPERTIES WERE USED FOR GROWING PUMPKINS. SO AT THAT TIME THE ZONING THAT CAME IN WAS INDUSTRIAL TO THE WEST, LLC TO THE EAST. THAT WAS WHY BECAUSE IT HAD A SPLIT ZONE. WHY WE WANTED TO TAKE HIM THROUGH A REZONE PROCESS THAT WE DID NOT IMPOSE ON HIM. HE CHOSE WE PROVIDED THE INFORMATION. HE IN THE END CHOSE IT. WE GAVE HIM THE AVENUE OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SO THAT WITH THE EXPANSION OF THE USE ON THE PROPERTY, THAT THAT WOULD BETTER REFLECT WHAT HE WAS DOING ON THE PROPERTY. IT WAS TO HELP HIM BE SUCCESSFUL. IT WAS TO BE BUSINESS FRIENDLY. AND WHEN HE SAYS THAT, WE TRIED TO SHUT HIM DOWN AND WE TRIED TO DO ALL THESE THINGS TO OBSTRUCT, THAT'S NOT HOW HE SAID IT. VERY WELL. WE ARE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT. 
          WE'RE BASED IN THE COMMUNITY. WE WANT THE CITY TO GROW. WE WANT IT TO FLOURISH. WE WANT PRIVATE BUSINESSES TO FLOURISH WITHIN OUR COMMUNITY. THAT'S A GOAL OF EVERYONE IN MY DEPARTMENT. THESE THINGS WERE NOT IMPOSED. HE CHOSE THEM. AND IN THE END, THE CONDITIONS WERE IMPOSED BY THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, WHO HAD LAND USE AUTHORITY. HE DID NOT COMPLY WITH THEM. IT'S VERY CLEAR HE OPENED IN VIOLATION TO HIS CONDITIONAL USE, AND THAT'S WHY IT WAS REVOKED. AND THAT'S WHY THEY ALSO SAW WITH THE VARIANCES, THEY REVOKED THOSE AS WELL. THEY STATED THAT THIS WOULD SHUT HIM DOWN. I ALREADY STATED IN THE LETTER IT LIMITS WHAT HE CAN DO BECAUSE HE DOES NOT HAVE THE CONDITIONS, THOSE CONDITIONS, IF HE WOULD HAVE COMPLIED WITH THE SITE PLAN AND PERMIT REQUIREMENTS FROM THE CONDITIONAL USE, WE WOULDN'T BE HAVING THIS CONVERSATION. HE CAN STILL OPERATE A PUMPKIN PATCH ON THE PROPERTY. HE JUST IS LIMITED. HE CAN'T HAVE THE AMUSEMENT. IT'S AN AMUSEMENT USE. THAT'S WHAT'S GOING ON ON THE PROPERTY. SO WITH THAT. JUST GO BACK ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE OR IF YOU WOULD LIKE, I'D SIT DOWN. IF YOU WANT TO HEAR THE REBUTTAL FIRST. SO WHAT I HAD ORIGINALLY, WHAT I HAD ORIGINALLY INTENDED WAS THAT THERE WOULD BE QUESTIONS AFTER EACH SPEAKER, BUT I DIDN'T STOP AND ASK THE COUNCIL IF YOU HAD QUESTIONS YOU DIDN'T ASK ME OR TELL ME IN THE SIGNAL THAT YOU DID. BUT BECAUSE WE DIDN'T STOP AFTER MISS SCHEDULING OR MR. WALKER, WE PROBABLY SHOULDN'T STOP HERE EITHER. WE'LL JUST DO THEM ALL AT ONCE BECAUSE OF THE WAY THAT IT ROLLED OUT. AND I DO APOLOGIZE BECAUSE NOW WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A BIG JUMBLE OF QUESTIONS, PERHAPS, BUT AND I, I'M PERFECTLY FINE WITH THAT. 
          AND I UNDERSTAND THAT'S FAIR. I JUST WANT TO BE AS EVENLY FAIR AS POSSIBLE. SO WITH THAT, I THINK WE ARE READY FOR THE REBUTTAL. MR. COOPER. MR. MAYOR, MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL, MR. KIRKHAM, MR. SANDER. IT'S PRETTY DAUNTING FOR ME TO GET UP HERE AT 11:00 AT NIGHT. I'M SURE THAT ALL OF YOU THINK THAT I'M GOING TO HAVE A BIG PRESENTATION. I AM NOT GOING TO SPEAK FOR AN HOUR. 
          [04:20:01]
I DON'T HAVE ANY SLIDES. IF YOU WILL GIVE ME YOUR ATTENTION FOR TEN MINUTES, I'M GOING TO SPEAK FOR TEN MINUTES. MAYOR, IF I AM STILL TALKING AT TEN AFTER 11, STOP ME, BECAUSE I'M GOING TO QUIT. WHETHER I'M DONE OR NOT. WE'RE HERE TO ASK YOU TO REVOKE THE REVOCATION OR REVERSE THE REVOCATION OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. AND THE VARIANCES THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT DID IN DECEMBER. WE WANT YOU TO REMAND THIS MATTER TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND ASK THEM TO REMAND IT TO THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR OR DIRECTOR TO WORK WITH THE RED BARN AND MR. WALKER TO FINALIZE THE SITE PLAN AND COMPLETE THE INSPECTION PROCESS OF THE IMPROVEMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE ON THIS PROPERTY. YOU HAVE THE POWER TO DO THAT UNDER THE CODE THAT WAS CITED TO YOU. NOW, WHY SHOULD YOU DO THAT? WHY IS THERE AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION HERE? THE THING THAT I MISSED ALMOST MISSED THAT HE SAID IT IN MR. SANDERS PRESENTATION WAS THAT THERE PRESENTLY, AND I'LL READ HIS WORDS FROM HIS TESTIMONY AT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS. THE REVIEW WAS COMPLETED OF THE SITE PLAN. AND JUST ON THE 11TH, THAT'S THE 11TH OF DECEMBER. WE PRETTY MUCH ARE THERE. WE DO HAVE A SITE PLAN AND A BUILDING PERMIT THAT WE'RE READY TO SIGN OFF ON. 
          THERE IS A SITE PLAN THAT HAS BEEN COMPLETED. THERE'S A BUILDING PERMIT READY TO BE SIGNED. YOU CAN'T HAVE A BUILDING PERMIT UNTIL YOU HAVE A SITE PLAN THAT'S APPROVED. WE'RE NOW IN THAT. POSITION. ONE OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PEOPLE SAID, I THINK WE'RE 90% THERE. 
          I'D SAY WE'RE 95% THERE, IF NOT 99% THERE. IT IS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION, IN MY OPINION, AND I'M ASKING YOU TO FIND IT'S AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION TO REVOKE THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WHEN YOU ARE THAT CLOSE. NOW, I'M SURE THAT MR. SANDER WOULD, WOULD SAY, AND YOU MIGHT HAVE THE SAME QUESTION. WELL, SO WHAT IN DECEMBER, IF IT'S COMPLETED IN DECEMBER? DIDN'T HE OPEN IN SEPTEMBER WITHOUT IT? WELL, THINK ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED HERE. THE CITY HAS THE ABSOLUTE POWER TO SHUT DOWN THE RED BARN, AND THEY COULD HAVE DONE THAT AT ANY TIME DURING THE SIX WEEKS THAT IT WAS OPEN IN SEPTEMBER, SEPTEMBER AND OCTOBER OF 2024. THE REASON IT DIDN'T IS BECAUSE THE RED BARN WAS WORKING WITH THE CITY TO COMPLETE THE SITE PLAN AND GET THE BUILDING PERMIT SO THAT THE INSPECTIONS COULD GO GO FORWARD. YOU'VE SEEN YOU WENT THROUGH THE SITE PLANS. I'M NOT GOING TO GO BACK THROUGH THOSE. THE FIRST ONE WAS REJECTED. IT HAD 30 PROBLEMS WITH IT. THEY WERE TOLD THAT THERE WERE ONLY FOUR THINGS THAT THEY HAD TO FIX AND THEY FIXED THOSE. BUT IT CAME BACK WITH THERE'S 30 PROBLEMS TO FIX. THEY FIXED THOSE, IT CAME BACK AGAIN. AND NOW THERE WERE MORE THINGS TO FINISH, MORE THINGS THAT HADN'T BEEN GIVEN BEFORE. IT KEPT ROLLING. THERE WERE DIFFERENT CONDITIONS IMPOSED EACH TIME WITH THOSE SITE PLANS. BUT THE RED BARN WAS WORKING WITH THE CITY. THAT'S WHY THEY DIDN'T SHUT THEM DOWN. THEY WERE WORKING WITH THE CONTRACTOR. THEY KNEW THAT ALL OF THE IMPROVEMENTS HAD BEEN DONE TO THE PIZZA KITCHEN, AND WERE NOT A PROBLEM BECAUSE THEY HAD MET AND DECIDED UPON THE 6 OR 8. 
          I'VE HEARD DIFFERENT NUMBERS, 6 OR 8 THINGS THAT THE CONTRACTOR HAD TO DO, AND HE DID, AND THEY WERE ON THE SITE PLAN. THE RED BARN. AND MR. WALKER DIDN'T ACT ABOVE THE LAW. THEY WERE WORKING WITH THE CITY. AND THAT'S THE REASON THE CITY DIDN'T DIDN'T SHUT THEM DOWN. THAT'S THE REASON THAT THIS WAS AN ONGOING CONDITION. AND JUST BEFORE WE WENT TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ON THE REVOCATION HEARING, THEY PROVED IT. NOW THEY SAY, WELL, WE ALSO WANT A RIGHT OF WAY AND AN EASEMENT. AND MR. SANDER SAYS, WELL, THEY KNEW ABOUT THAT BECAUSE IT WAS ON THE SITE PLAN. 
          THEY DIDN'T KNOW WHAT THE CONDITIONS WERE. THEY'D NEVER SEEN THE WRITTEN EASEMENTS AND DEDICATION UNTIL JUST BEFORE THAT BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT HEARING. NOW, HERE'S THE PROBLEM 
          [04:25:02]
WITH IT, THAT MR. WALKER JUST WALKED IN AND SIGNED THOSE THINGS AND GIVEN THEM TO THE CITY BEFORE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT HEARING. THERE WAS NO GUARANTEE THAT THEY WEREN'T GOING TO GO FORWARD WITH THE HEARING BEFORE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. AND WHAT IF HE HAD DONE THAT? AND THEN IT WAS REVOKED AND HE CAN'T EVEN OPERATE THE RED BARN YET. HE'S NOW GIVEN AWAY THE RIGHT OF WAY. AND THE EASEMENTS. WE HAVE TWO BULLS THAT ARE BUTTING HEADS HERE, AND IT'S UP TO YOU TO FIX THIS. IT'S AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION TO JERK IT OUT FROM UNDER THEM AND REVOKE IT WHEN IT'S THAT CLOSE. AND EVERYBODY'S WORKING TOGETHER, EVEN THOUGH THERE'S TENSIONS. I AGREE THAT THERE ARE A LOT OF TENSIONS BETWEEN THESE TWO SIDES, BUT THAT'S WHY WE NEED SOMEBODY TO PULL US BACK FROM THE EDGE HERE. WE'RE THAT CLOSE TO GETTING THIS FINISHED, AND THIS IS NOT A GRAVEL PIT THAT'S BEING OPERATED IN A IN A RESIDENTIAL AREA OR A FEEDLOT OR SOMETHING OF THAT NATURE. THIS IS SOMETHING THAT EVERYBODY ON THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AGREED WAS GOOD FOR THE CITY. I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOUR OPINIONS ARE, BUT MY BET IS YOU'D PROBABLY, IF YOU KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THE RED BARN, WOULD SAY, YEAH, IT'S GOOD FOR THE CITY. IF THERE WERE 20,000 PEOPLE, AS MR. WALKER SAID, THAT CAME THERE LAST YEAR, THAT'S GOT TO BE GOOD FOR THE CITY. BUT SEVEN MINUTES. THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ALL THOSE WHO HAVE GIVEN TESTIMONY AT THIS POINT, I THINK WE'RE GOING TO ASK THAT YOU BE. AVAILABLE TO ANSWER A QUESTION. IT'S GOING TO BE BECAUSE I DIDN'T STOP AFTER EACH SPEAKER. WE'RE GOING TO PROBABLY SEE PEOPLE GETTING UP, SITTING DOWN, GETTING UP, SITTING DOWN. I'M REALLY SORRY. 
          I JUST WAS IN THE FLOW OF THINGS. AND HERE WE GO. COUNCIL MEMBERS, I IMAGINE SOME OF YOU DO HAVE SOME QUESTIONS. IF YOU COULD IDENTIFY THE SPEAKER THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO HAVE, ANSWER YOUR QUESTION. AND IF YOU DON'T REMEMBER NAMES, THAT'S OKAY, I DO. SO I DO HAVE A QUESTION. 
          FRANCIS COOPER OKAY, MR. COOPER, AND YOU'RE WELCOME TO CHANGE SEATS IF YOU WANT, BUT WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO ASK YOU TO GO TO THE MIC BECAUSE OF THE RECORDING. I CAN DO THAT. THE STREAMING ASPECT OF THIS. THANK YOU SO MUCH. YES, SIR. WHAT I WANT TO CONFIRM IS BASICALLY WHAT YOU SAID IN THE REBUTTAL WOULD BE YOUR STEP SIX AND THE NOTICE OF APPEAL, WHERE IT SAYS YOU RESERVE THE RIGHT TO ADD ADDITIONAL OBJECTIONS, AND YOU'RE STATING BECAUSE IT WAS SO CLOSE TO A RESOLUTION IN DECEMBER, IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO GO FORWARD. AM I HEARING THAT RIGHT? YOU'RE READING IT CORRECTLY SO THAT I'M NOT WAIVING ANYTHING. BUT I'M GETTING TO THE POINT HERE. I'M JUST SAYING THIS IS WHAT YOU'RE ADDING TO THIS LIST OF SIX ITEMS. THE BASIS OF APPEAL IS THAT NEW POINT. YES, I THINK IT'S COVERED IN NUMBER THREE AS WELL. BUT NONETHELESS, YES, THAT'S EXACTLY RIGHT I. OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY. MR. COOPER, I ALSO HAVE A QUESTION. I THINK MAYBE YOU COULD. I DON'T KNOW WHETHER YOU'RE THE ONE TO ANSWER IT, BUT I, I THINK MAYBE SO, BECAUSE I'M NOT COMPLETELY SURE WHO YOU'RE REPRESENTING, BUT I ASSUME IT'S THE PROPERTY OWNER. I'M SORRY. I MEAN, I THINK. ARE YOU REPRESENTING MR. WALKER? I MEAN, MR. WALKER IN THE RED BARN? THAT'S SPECIFIC TO THE EASEMENT. YES. THE. WELL, THE DEDICATED EASEMENT. I'M REPRESENTING THE PROPERTY OWNERS WHO HAVE THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND THE VARIANCES. YES. AND MR. WALKER AND THE RED BARN. OKAY. AND COULD COULD DEDICATE THE EASEMENT. CORRECT. OKAY. SO, SO JUST HELP ME THROUGH THAT TIMELINE. AGAIN. THERE WAS A SITE PLAN THAT WAS APPROVED, CORRECT, ON DECEMBER. YEAH. AFTER SOMETHING LIKE YES. 
          WORKING THROUGH IT. SO THERE WAS A AN EASEMENT, THE SITE PLAN, EXCUSE ME WAS APPROVED, BUT WHAT HAPPENED? THE WRITTEN EASEMENT DID NOT APPEAR UNTIL LATER. LATER IN NOVEMBER. IN DECEMBER? EXCUSE ME. YES. SOMETIME BEFORE THAT, THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS HEARING. OKAY. JUST JUST BEFORE THAT. SO THERE WASN'T A COMPLETE CHANCE TO LOOK AT THAT CAREFULLY. AND HERE'S THE PROBLEM WITH IT. IT'S NOT CONDITIONED UPON IT. THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BEING IN PLACE AND BEING ABLE TO OPERATE THE RED BARN. OKAY. GO BACK AND SAY THAT AGAIN. ONE MORE. WHAT'S NOT IN THE SITE PLAN IS CONDITIONED UPON THE. THE SITE PLAN IS A CONDITION OF THE 
          [04:30:03]
CONDITION OF THE OPENING OF THE RED BARN. THE U-PICK. YES, BUT IT HASN'T BEEN APPROVED YET. 
          CORRECT. IT'S READY TO BE SIGNED. BUT NOW WE HAVE TWO SIDES THAT I WON'T SIGN IT UNTIL YOU SIGN THE DEED AND THE EASEMENTS. AND I WON'T SIGN THE DEED AND EASEMENTS UNTIL YOU SIGN THE SITE PLAN. THAT'S THE LOGGERHEADS THAT WE'RE AT. THAT'S WHY IT'S AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION TO HAVE REVOKED THAT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. AND THE VARIANCES WERE THAT CLOSE 99% THERE. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR MR. COOPER SO THAT MAYBE WE CAN KEEP IT FROM GOING UP AND DOWN AT THIS TIME? ANYWAY, I'M FINE COMING BACK. THANK YOU. THAT'S FINE. 
          MR. COOPER. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'RE THE RIGHT PERSON TO ANSWER THIS QUESTION, SO I APOLOGIZE IF YOU'RE NOT, BUT WHERE THE SITE PLAN IMPROVEMENTS THAT ARE, I GUESS I'D JUST SAY THE PROPERTY IMPROVEMENTS HAVE BEEN DONE. WERE THEY DONE BY A LICENSED CONTRACTORS OR BY THE PROPERTY OWNERS? OKAY. YES. THANK YOU. CONTRACTOR, ENGINEER. ARCHITECT. ALL RIGHT. AND THE CONTRACTOR IN FACT TESTIFIED AT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS HEARING. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. 
          FOR NOW, COUNCIL MEMBERS, COUNCILMEMBER FRANCIS, YOU WOULD LIKE TO CALL SOMEONE. YEAH. 
          DIRECTOR SANDER. I JUST WANT TO FOLLOW UP WITH WHAT MR. COOPER SAID. HOW HOW ACCURATE IS THE STATEMENT THAT ON THE 11TH, WE WERE VERY CLOSE TO A DECISION? THAT'S CORRECT. THE EASEMENT AND RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION ARE STILL NEEDING TO BE SIGNED. HOWEVER, I WOULD POINT OUT THAT THIS IS LOOKING AT THE CUP REVOCATION. AND EVEN THOUGH WE'RE VERY CLOSE IN DECEMBER, IN SEPTEMBER WE WERE NOT ANYWHERE CLOSE, RIGHT? RIGHT. NO, I'M JUST ASKING WHERE YOU WERE IN DECEMBER. YEAH. SO AND FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND, IT'S THE RIGHT OF WAY. DEDICATION OF THE EASEMENT. 
          NEVER EVER TO BE SIGNED BY THE APPLICANT. AND THEN THE SITE PLAN WILL BE APPROVED. OKAY, OKAY. OTHER QUESTIONS FOR MR. SANDER. COUNSELOR FREEMAN. I'M JUST CURIOUS. I'M CURIOUS ABOUT A REAPPLICATION FOR THE FOR THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. AND WHAT DOES THAT LOOK LIKE? THERE'S A VERY GOOD QUESTION. THE IF YOU WERE TO REAPPLY FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, IT'S HEARD BY THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. AND THEN. SO IT WOULD JUST BE LIKE A NORMAL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION. WE WOULD FILE WE WOULD SCHEDULE IT ON THE CLOSEST BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT HEARING. AND THAT'S HOW IT WOULD WORK THROUGH THE SYSTEM. YEAH. QUESTION. 
          WOULD THAT LOOK VERY DIFFERENT TIME WISE FROM REMANDING AND SEEKING A PROCESS THAT WAY? THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. I, I, I'M TRYING TO THINK BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW THE TIMELINE FOR REMANDING, THAT THAT'S WHERE I WOULD BE A LITTLE STUCK BECAUSE YOUR QUESTION WAS, WOULD IT BE THE SAME? AND I DON'T KNOW, ON THAT END OF THE BECAUSE YOU WOULD HAVE TO GO BACK TO THE BOARD AND THEN IT WOULD HAVE TO BE ON THEIR NEAREST HEARING, AND THEN THEY WOULD HAVE TO MAKE A DECISION. BUT I WOULD DEFER TO OUR LEGAL COUNSEL ON THAT, I DON'T KNOW. SO THE OUR ZONING CODE DOES NOT SET A CALENDAR DAYS THAT THE THEY HAVE TO HEAR THE REMAND. HOWEVER, BECAUSE IT IS A LOCAL LAND USE PLANNING DECISION, THEY WILL HAVE TO NOTICE IT IN THE SAME WAY THAT THIS MEETING AND THE PREVIOUS HEARING WAS NOTICED. SO THERE IT COULD NOT HAPPEN FOR AT LEAST 15 DAYS. IN REALITY, IT PROBABLY CAN HAPPEN FOR AT LEAST 20 BECAUSE WE NEED TO GET THE ADVERTISEMENT INTO THE NEWSPAPER. SO THERE ARE SOME PROCEDURAL TIMELINES THAT THAT A REMAND WOULD NEED TO OBSERVE. A REAPPLICATION WOULD HAVE TO FOLLOW THE SAME NOTICE REQUIREMENTS. SO BUT THE TIME WOULD BE ROUGHLY SIMILAR GIVEN THOSE REQUIREMENTS. BUT A REAPPLICATION I IMAGINE, WOULD CARRY A LOT OF PAPERWORK OR THE APPLICATION PROCESS, WHATEVER THAT IS, WOULD PROBABLY BE AN EXTRA BIT OF AN EXTRA EXERCISE THAT THE APPLICANT WOULD HAVE TO UNDERTAKE. RIGHT? RIGHT. YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. IN MY UNDERSTANDING THAT QUESTION CORRECTLY. YES. HE WOULD HAVE TO FILE WITH THE CONDITIONS THAT HE WOULD REQUEST AND ALL THOSE KINDS OF THINGS, JUST LIKE A NORMAL CONDITION. YES. OKAY. BUT AND THE ZONING HOWEVER IS HAS BEEN DISSOLVED OR WE STILL HAVE THE ZONE. SO THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. SO THE 
          [04:35:03]
PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY ZONED LM. AND THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT GIVES WHAT THE CONDITION WAS FOR WAS FOR THE AMUSEMENT ELEMENT. THE AGRICULTURAL TOURISM IS WHAT THAT WAS FOR. SO IT WOULD BE FOR THAT. AND THEN THAT'S UP TO THE PURVIEW OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. IF THEY WANT THAT TO COME BACK OKAY, OR NOT TO COME BACK. BUT IF THEY WANT TO, THE AMUSEMENT ELEMENT OF THAT CAN BE CONDITIONED ON THE PROPERTY. IF I COULD JUST ADD SOMETHING ZONES ESTABLISH PERMITTED USES THAT CAN OCCUR WITHIN THOSE ZONES. THERE ARE TWO KINDS OF PERMITTED USES IN OUR ZONING CODE. THERE'S USES BY RIGHT WHICH YOU DON'T NEED ANY PERMIT FOR, AND WHAT'S CALLED THE CONDITIONED USE. BUT YOU DO NEED A PERMIT FOR THAT'S WHAT I NEEDED. SO BUT BUT THE CONDITION ONCE THE REVOCATION HAPPENS IT'S THAT IS NO LONGER A CONCEPT UNTIL THERE IS A REAPPLICATION. SO IF THIS BOARD COUNCIL WERE TO UPHOLD THE REVOCATION AND THE APPLICANT WERE TO REAPPLY, THE TIME FRAME, WE THINK WOULD BE ROUGHLY SIMILAR IF WE WERE TO COMPARE IT TO IF THIS COUNCIL WERE TO REMAND, BUT THERE WOULD BE THE APPLICATION PAPERWORK INVOLVED. THERE'S ONE OTHER ELEMENT TO CONSIDER, WHICH IS THAT IF THE APPLICANT REAPPLIES, THEY ARE NOT GUARANTEED OR PROMISED TO GET THE SAME CONDITIONS THAT WERE PLACED ON THE PROPERTY AND INDEED COULD RECEIVE ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS AND MAY NOT GET THE SAME VARIANCES THAT THEY WERE GRANTED IN THE PREVIOUS HEARING. 
          SO THAT IS ANOTHER ELEMENT TO CONSIDER. HOWEVER, THAT'S A THEORETICAL RIGHT. AND SO I'LL JUST GO ONE STEP FURTHER INTO THEORETICAL LAND. THERE COULD BE PERHAPS A. A SAVVIER APPLICATION THAT ADDRESSED A LOT OF CONCERNS WITHOUT THE BACK AND FORTH OF TWO YEARS OR WHATEVER THE TIME FRAME IS, AND, AND IT MIGHT BE ABLE TO GO THROUGH WITH FEWER RESTRICTIONS IF, IF BASIC TENETS WERE MET, THE CONDITIONS THAT WERE IMPOSED ON THE APPLICATION WERE IN. THEY'RE BASICALLY COMPLAINTS FROM THE NEIGHBORS. THEY WERE TO MITIGATE LAND USE CONFLICT. SO I'M ASSUMING THAT CONFLICT WOULD STILL BE THERE. BUT SO THOSE THE OLD COMPLAINTS WOULD APPLY TO THE NEW APPLICATION? NO, IT WOULD BE A NEW APPLICATION. YEAH, IT WOULD BE A NEW APPLICATION. A NEW HEARING WOULD BE HELD. THERE MAY BE NEW COMMENTS THAT WERE BROUGHT FORWARD. THANK YOU FOR I JUST EXPLORING AND I APPRECIATE THE PATIENCE WITH MY THEORETICAL. NO THAT'S FINE. 
          THANK YOU SO MUCH. OTHER QUESTIONS FOR MR. SANDER. YEAH, I WANT TO CLARIFY FROM IN MY OWN HEAD THAT IF WE UPHOLD THE APPEAL, THE NOT THE APPEAL, BUT IF WE UPHOLD THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, IT AUTOMATICALLY CHANGES THE ZONING BACK TO THE OTHER CONDITION. NO, NO, IT'S THINK OF IT AS A BASE. IT'S NOT THE BASE ZONE IS LM IS WHAT IT IS CURRENTLY. AND THE CONDITION WAS KIND OF SOMETHING ADDED ON TOP OF THAT. SO THE APPLICANT COULD GO BACK TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, KEEPING THE SAME POSSIBILITY OF AGRICULTURAL TOURISM. THEY COULD REAPPLY. 
          THAT'S CORRECT. SO IT'S HELPFUL TO KNOW. AND YOU PROBABLY SEEN THIS AS YOU'VE GONE THROUGH THE ZONING CODE. THERE ARE USE WHAT THEY CALL USE TABLES THAT LIST OUT A WIDE VARIETY OF THINGS THAT YOU CAN DO, EITHER BY RIGHT OR. AND IN OUR CODE THEY HAVE THE LETTER A FOR ALLOWED. AND IF YOU'VE GOT THEM, MAYBE IT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO SHOW UP THE PRESENTATION FOR ME PLEASE. AND THEN THERE'S THE CONDITIONED USES. CONDITIONAL USES THAT ARE CONDITIONED TYPICALLY ARE THE KIND OF USES THAT AREN'T OUT OF CHARACTER TO BE WITHIN THE ZONE, BUT MAY POSE SOME UNUSUAL. 
          EFFECTS THAT MAY IMPACT THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS. AND THAT IS WHY OUR ZONING CODE REQUIRES A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT HEARING TO OCCUR, SO THAT A BOARD CAN HEAR FROM THE COMMUNITY ON HOW TO MAKE THAT CONDITION USE WORK, AND IN A WAY THAT WON'T INTERFERE WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD. SO AT THE ORIGINAL HEARING, MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY THAT WERE NEIGHBORS DID COME AND SPEAK TO A NUMBER OF THINGS THAT THEY WERE CONCERNED ABOUT. THAT IS WHY SOME OF THE CONDITIONS THAT ARE IN THE BOARD OF IN THE CUP WERE ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OR THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, COUNSELOR LARSON. I DON'T I'M NOT SURE WHO THIS GOES TO, BUT SO IF WE DECIDED TO NOT SUPPORT THE LOCATION AND REMANDED IT BACK TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND THE EXISTING CRITERIA WERE NOT MET. IN THE 
          [04:40:03]
NEXT MONTH, OR TWO OR 3 OR 4, WHAT HAPPENS? WHAT ARE OUR OPTIONS? WHAT ARE. REDMOND'S OPTIONS? WELL, THAT'S A GOOD THAT'S THAT IS A GOOD LEGAL QUESTION. I GUESS WE BETTER FIND A LAWYER TO ANSWER IT. THEIR OPTIONS. OUR OUR ZONING CODE SAYS THAT IF YOU'RE GOING TO REMAND IT BACK, THAT YOU'VE GOT TO FIND THAT THERE WAS INFORMATION THAT WAS NOT AVAILABLE TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT THAT WOULD MAKE SOME WOULD MAKE A MATERIAL DIFFERENCE TO THEIR DECISION, OR THAT IT WAS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST TO DO SO. AND I HAVE MY OWN KIND OF OPINIONS ON ON WHAT THAT MIGHT MEAN, BUT. ESSENTIALLY, IF YOU REMAND THIS BACK TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, YOU NEED TO TELL THEM WHAT IT IS THAT YOU WANT THEM TO CONSIDER. AND WE HAVE TO EFFECTIVELY CITE THEIR ERROR. YOU HAVE. YEAH, I THINK THAT YOU WANT TO AND YOU MIGHT SAY YOU DIDN'T YOU DIDN'T FULLY CONSIDER INFORMATION THAT I THINK WHAT MR. COOPER IS, AND HE CAN GET UP AND CORRECT ME IF I MISTAKE HIM. I THINK WHAT HE ASSERTED IS THAT AT THE HEARING, THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT HEARD THAT THEY WERE 90% THERE AND THAT IT WAS AN ABUSE OF THEIR DISCRETION TO REJECT THE CUP BECAUSE THEY WERE 90% THERE. AND WHAT THEY SHOULD HAVE DONE IS DENY THE REVOCATION AND OR AND I THINK WHAT MR. COOPER ACTUALLY SAID WAS, IS THAT THEY SHOULD HAVE REMANDED IT BACK TO THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, WHICH WOULD BE WADE SANNER TO SEE IF THAT COULD BE FINISHED. I SUPPOSE STAFF WOULD STILL HAVE THE OPTION, AS THEY DID HERE, TO BRING BACK ANOTHER REQUEST TO REVOKE THE CUP IF A SITE PLAN WASN'T DONE. HOWEVER, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO LOOK AT WHAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT DECIDED. THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT DECIDED THAT THEY WERE IN VIOLATION OF THEIR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WHEN THEY OPENED. SO I THINK THAT'S THE TRIGGER. AND I, AS I UNDERSTAND MR. COOPER'S ARGUMENT, IS THAT THE REASON WHY THE CITY DIDN'T GO IN AND SHUT THEM DOWN THAT DAY WAS BECAUSE THEY WERE WORKING THROUGH IT. SO YOU'LL HAVE TO LOOK AT ALL THE EVIDENCE THAT WAS PRESENTED HERE. I DO THINK THE CITY TOOK SOME ACTION AT THE DAY THEY OPENED IT. THEY DID ISSUE A STOP ORDER. SO YOU MIGHT WANT TO CONSIDER THAT TOO, IF IT'S IN YOUR PURVIEW TO SEE WHAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT KNEW OR DIDN'T KNOW. IF YOU THINK THEY DIDN'T KNOW SOMETHING IMPORTANT, YOU COULD GO BACK AND TELL THEM TO COLLECT MORE INFORMATION ON THE THING THAT YOU YOU DECIDE THEY DIDN'T KNOW WHICH MR. COOPER SUGGESTS, WHAT THEY DIDN'T KNOW OR FULLY UNDERSTAND WAS THAT HOW CLOSE THE SITE PLAN WAS ■TO BEING GRANTED? AND IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE MAJOR PROBLEM WITH THE BUILDING PERMIT IS THAT A SITE PLAN IS ONE OF THE NECESSARY CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS THAT MUST BE SUBMITTED WITH A BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION, WHICH, OF COURSE, YOU KNOW, THESE TWO THINGS RUN TIGHTLY IN TANDEM. SO A PERMIT CANNOT BE ISSUED. WHAT MR. COOPER SAID, AND I AGREE WITH HIM ON THIS POINT, THAT A BUILDING PERMIT CANNOT BE ISSUED UNTIL A SITE PLAN IS DEVELOPED AND APPROVED, AND IN THIS CASE, PART OF THE REASON WHY NO PERMIT WAS ISSUED IS BECAUSE NO SITE PLAN WAS APPROVED. GOOD QUESTION, MR. COUNSELOR. THIS IS A QUESTION TO TRY TO RESOLVE THIS, BUT I NEED MR. KIRKHAM AND MR. SANNER TO SPEAK TO IT. SO IS THERE A WAY THAT WE COULD WE UPHOLD THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TONIGHT? WE REJECT THE APPEAL AND THEN WE SAY WE'LL COME BACK. 
          IN A TIGHT DEADLINE IN TWO WEEKS. NEXT TIME WE MEET, AND WE WILL ACTUALLY, IF THEY SETTLE IT, REMAND IT BACK TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ON THE BASIS THAT NEW EVIDENCE IS IN PLACE. A SETTLEMENT WAS MADE. I'M TRYING TO KIND OF PICK UP ON MR. COOPER'S IDEA. THERE MUST BE A WAY OUT OF THIS. IT'S COMPLICATED, BUT I GO DOWN. WELL, I HAVE COMMENTS LATER. I WILL SAY THAT, BUT I'M JUST WONDERING IF THAT'S SOME OPTION OUT THERE THAT WE AS A COUNCIL KIND OF IMPOSE. YOU ALL GET TOGETHER AND FIGURE THIS OUT IN A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TIME, AND THEN WE'LL DECIDE WHETHER WE REMAND IT OR WE'LL RECONSIDER OUR VOTE TO REMAND. DOES THAT 
          [04:45:01]
QUESTION IT'S MIXED UP ENOUGH PROBABLY DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE AT ALL, BUT I'M TRYING. WELL, I APPRECIATE THAT. I DO NOT THINK THAT YOU CAN CONDITION YOUR DECISION ON SOMETHING ELSE HAPPENING AFTERWARDS. I THINK YOU NEED TO MAKE A DECISION. YOU HAVE A FEW OPTIONS. YOU CAN UPHOLD THE DECISION OF THE VOA AND AFFIRM IT. YOU CAN REVERSE THEIR DECISION OR YOU CAN REMAND IT BACK TO THEM TO MAKE FURTHER FINDINGS, TO RENDER A DECISION. IF YOU REMAND IT BACK TO THEM, YOU SHOULD GIVE THEM INSTRUCTIONS ON WHAT IT IS THAT YOU FEEL LIKE THEY WERE. THEY ERRED IN MAKING THEIR DECISION WHETHER THEY LACKED INFORMATION THAT IS AVAILABLE NOW, THAT WASN'T AVAILABLE THEN. IF IT'S IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST FOR THEM TO HOLD ADDITIONAL HEARING AND TESTIMONY, THEY WILL HOLD A NEW HEARING. THE PUBLIC WILL BE INVITED TO COME AND GIVE COMMENT AGAIN, AND SO THAT IT IS NOT A GUARANTEE THAT THE CITY AND THE APPLICANT WOULD GET TOGETHER AND WORK THINGS OUT. IF YOU DON'T HAVE ANY WAY TO SAY TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, GO WORK IT OUT. 
          NO, I CAN'T ASK THEM TO DO IT. YOU CAN ASK THEM TO CONTINUE TO DECIDE THINGS, BUT YOU CAN'T. 
          YOU CAN'T SAY MAKE, MAKE, MAKE AN HONEST ATTEMPT TO WORK THINGS OUT WITHIN 15 DAYS OR WE'RE GOING TO REVERSE IT. THAT'S NOT ONE OF YOUR OPTIONS. WELL, I JUST THOUGHT I'D ASK. YOU. OKAY, YES, I DO, I DO. I DO HAVE A QUESTION FOR MR. WALKER. SO IF YOU COULD. SO WHEN I'M WHAT I'M READING IS THAT IT'S A TRANSCRIPT AND SO I, I'M GOING TO QUESTION YOU ON THE TRANSCRIPT BECAUSE IT WAS TRANSCRIBED. I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S YOUR EXACT WORDS. SO WHEN I HEAR WHEN I HEAR MR. COOPER SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT WE'RE WE'RE READY. IT'S ALL IT'S ALL READY TO GO. WE JUST NEED TO GET A LITTLE BIT MORE TIME. I'M READING OFF OF THE TRANSCRIPT FROM THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. IT IS A DRAFT, SO IT HAS NOT MINE. IT HAS NOT BEEN APPROVED BY I BELIEVE WE WERE TOLD THAT THEY WERE ADOPTED. OKAY. SO I AT THE TIME, IN ALL OF THE INFORMATION, I HAD LOST THAT PART OF IT. OKAY. SO THIS IS WHAT WHAT YOU WERE BEING QUOTED AS SAYING. 
          THIS IS WALKER SAID IT COULD BE 20 YEARS BEFORE THEY WOULD ENROLL IN DEBT. HE WANTS TO KNOW WHY THE CITY DOESN'T WIDEN ROLAND AT THEMSELVES, WHICH WE HAD HEARD FROM. WALKER STATED THAT HE PUT IN CURBSIDE WALK GUTTER ALONG MCNEAL. HE SAID THE CITY NEVER PAID HIM BACK FOR THAT. NOW THE CITY WANTS YOU TO WIDE ENROLL IN DEBT. WALKER SAID THAT HE SHOULD ONLY HAVE TO PROVIDE THE RIGHT OF WAY AND EASEMENT ON HIS PROPERTY WHEN THE DAY COMES, WHEN THE CITY ACTUALLY WIDENS THE ROAD, AND NOT BEFORE THAT LAST SET. WALKER SAID HE SHOULD ONLY HAVE TO PROVIDE THE RIGHT OF WAY OF EASEMENT. THAT FEELS LIKE WE'RE STILL MILES APART, BUT THAT'S TRANSCRIBED FROM A DAY I'M. I'M JUST NOT SURE ABOUT WHETHER THAT IS. DID THEY ACCURATELY DOES THAT ACCURATELY REFLECT WHAT YOU SAID TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT? WHAT IS NOT ACCURATE IS THE EASEMENT LANGUAGE AND WHERE AND WHY AND WHAT CONDITIONS AND WHAT'S IN EXCHANGE FOR IT AS FAR AS THE FRONT OF ROLLING DEBT? OF THE BOARD OF THE DEBT, I SAID, I'LL COMPLY WHEN YOU DO. AS FAR AS THE OTHER EASEMENTS, I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT THEY'RE THINKING. THE NATURE OF FOSTER SPOKE UP IN THE BOA AND SAID, WELL, WITHOUT EASEMENT WE CAN'T HAVE THE TREES. BUT WHAT EASEMENT LANGUAGE SAYS YOU CAN'T PUT TREES IN LINCOLN EASEMENTS? SO I'M CONFUSED ON EVEN WHAT IT'S ABOUT. SO WHY SHOULD I SIGN OFF IF I'M GOING TO GO? WHY DO YOU WANT THE EASEMENTS? WHAT ARE THE CONDITIONS? WHAT'S THE UNDERSTANDING FOR THOSE? I SHOULD HAVE THAT RIGHT, NOT IMPOSED ON ME AS A CONDITION SO THEY CAN SHUT ME DOWN. OKAY, OKAY. THANK YOU. THAT WAS. I JUST WANT TO MAKE ONE TINY CLARIFICATION AND THAT IS THAT THE MINUTES THE STATE LAW DOES NOT PRESCRIBE WITH ANY CERTAINTY HOW MINUTES ARE TO BE KEPT. AND A TRANSCRIPT SUGGESTS IT IS A WORD FOR WORD RENDITION OF WHAT WAS SAID. I'M SORRY YOU ARE. YOU ARE ACCURATE, MAYOR. THAT WAS. 
          YEAH. THESE ARE THE TRANSCRIPTS. THIS IS A SUMMARY OF THE CONVERSATION. CORRECT. AND SO THAT'S WHY THERE WAS THERE WAS JUST SOME CONFLICT IN MY MIND ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THIS WAS REALLY CAPTURING IT, BECAUSE IF I THINK YOU YOU'RE NOT THAT FAR APART. I WAS JUST WANTING TO 
          [04:50:01]
JUST CLARIFY THAT ONE TIME THING. ALL RIGHT. SO I SEE THAT MR. COOPER IS VOLUNTARILY STOOD WITHOUT HAVING HAD A QUESTION ASKED. SORRY. OH, NO, THAT'S. NO, THAT'S FINE. BUT I GUESS I WANT TO KNOW, IS THERE ANYBODY WHO HAS A QUESTION FOR MR. COOPER? BECAUSE I THINK THAT UNDER OUR LITTLE RULES HERE, YOU HAVE TO BE ASKED. AND SO GO AHEAD, JIM, YOU CAN DO IT. DO YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO ADD? I DO. YEAH. AND I THINK THAT IT'S AN APPROPRIATE TIME TO ASK FOR IT. 
          AND MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE RULES IS THAT ANY TIME DURING THE APPEAL PROCESS, WE CAN ASK FOR MEDIATION. AND I'M FORMALLY ASKING THAT THERE BE A MEDIATION BETWEEN THE OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY, THE OPERATORS OF THE RED BARN AND THE CITY ZONING PEOPLE, AND SEE IF WE CAN'T RESOLVE THIS AND YOU CAN PUT A TIME LIMIT ON IT IF YOU WANT. THERE'S PLENTY GOOD MEDIATORS THAT I THINK COULD HELP US RESOLVE THIS. SO I'M GOING TO THANK YOU FOR THE REQUEST. AND IT'S DULY NOTED. AND IT'S PROBABLY RECORDED, BUT I'M GOING TO ASK OUR CITY ATTORNEY TO JUST CLARIFY THE MEDIATION LANGUAGE, BECAUSE I KNOW I PERSONALLY DID NOT STUDY IT IN DETAIL BEFORE THIS HEARING. SO UNDER OUR ZONING CODE, A, AN APPLICANT OR AN AFFECTED PERSON CAN REQUEST MEDIATION. AND MEDIATION CAN OCCUR AT ANY POINT DURING THE DECISION MAKING PROCESS OR AFTER A FINAL DECISION IS MADE. I GUESS WE'RE IN THE MIDDLE OF A DECISION MAKING PROCESS. WE IT ALL THE TIME. LIMITATIONS THAT ARE IMPOSED DURING ZONING DECISIONS ARE TOLD DURING MEDIATION, SO THAT WOULD TOLL THIS HEARING. HOWEVER, IF NO MEDIATION OCCURS WITHIN 28 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THE REQUEST, THEN THEN, THEN THE MEDIATION IS BASICALLY OFF. I THINK THAT WE COULD COORDINATE A MEDIATION WITHIN THAT TIME PERIOD. SO IF THE MEDIATION DIDN'T HAPPEN IN THAT TIME PERIOD, DOES THAT PUT US BACK TO WHERE WE ARE RIGHT NOW? SO IT SAYS THAT DURING MEDIATION AT ANY I GUESS I MISSTATED IT DURING MEDIATION, ANY TIME LIMITATION RELEVANT TO THE APPLICATION SHALL BE TOLD THAT MEANS STOPPED. SUCH TOLLING SHALL CEASE WHEN THE APPLICANT OR OTHER AFFECTED PERSON, AFTER PARTICIPATING IN AT LEAST ONE MEDIATION SESSION, STATES IN WRITING THAT NO FURTHER PARTICIPATION IS DESIRED AND NOTIFIES THE OTHER PARTIES, OR UPON THE NOTICE OF A REQUEST TO MEDIATE OR IN NO MEDIATION SESSION IS SCHEDULED FOR 28 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF SUCH REQUEST. SO I ACTUALLY CHANGED MY MIND. I DID READ IT RIGHT THE FIRST TIME. IF WE IF WE'VE GOTTEN A REQUEST TODAY FOR MEDIATION, IF NO MEDIATION SESSION IS SCHEDULED FOR 28 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THE REQUEST, THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT IT HAS TO OCCUR IN 28 DAYS. IT JUST MEANS THAT WE'VE GOT TO SCHEDULE A DATE IN WHICH MEDIATION WILL OCCUR WITHIN 28 DAYS, WHICH I THINK IS POSSIBLE. THEN. THEN IF THERE'S NO MEDIATION THAT HAPPENS, IT DOESN'T STOP THE PROCESS. SO THAT'S AN OPTION. UNDER OUR ZONING CODE, THE APPLICANT'S MADE THE REQUEST. IT'S NOW UP TO THE COUNCIL TO MAKE THAT DECISION. YOU'LL RECOLLECT THAT THE COUNCIL, IT SAYS AFTER RECEIVING A WRITTEN REQUEST, WHICH I GUESS WE'VE GOTTEN A VERBAL ONE, BUT I COULD BE PUT TO WRITING. THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES SHALL PRESENT THE MEDIATION REQUEST TO COUNCIL, BUT WE'RE ALL HERE, SO THAT WORKS. I THINK COUNCIL SHALL EVALUATE THE REQUEST AT A PUBLIC MEETING AND MAY ORDER MEDIATION. IF THE COUNCIL BELIEVES THE MEDIATION MAY RESOLVE THE DISPUTE. YOU MIGHT RECALL THAT WE GOT A REQUEST TO MEDIATE BEFORE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MADE A DECISION. AND AT THAT POINT, COUNCIL DID NOT BELIEVE THE MEDIATION WOULD RESOLVE THE DISPUTE BECAUSE IT WASN'T CERTAIN WHAT THE DISPUTE WAS, BECAUSE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT HAD NOT RENDERED A DECISION. SO AT THAT TIME, THE COUNCIL DENIED THE REQUEST FOR MEDIATION. NOW THAT THE TERMS AND SCOPE OF THE DISPUTE ARE KIND OF CRYSTALLIZED AND BEFORE THE COUNCIL, THAT MIGHT CHANGE YOUR OPINION ON WHETHER OR NOT YOU BELIEVE THAT MEDIATION COULD RESOLVE THE DISPUTE. OKAY, I HAVE A QUESTION, BUT I THINK I'M GOING TO DEFER TO COUNSELOR. DINGMAN FIRST. MR. KIRKHAM, IS THERE AN ISSUE THAT WE HAVE NOT PUBLICLY NOTICED IN MEDIATION DISCUSSION? I THINK THAT YOU COULD HAVE IF YOU NEEDED TO AMEND THE AGENDA. YOU HAVE A GOOD FAITH REASON OF WHY IT COULDN'T HAVE BEEN PUBLISHED IN THE AGENDA PRIOR TO TODAY'S MEETING, BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T RECEIVE IT UNTIL NOW, BUT WE DIDN'T RECEIVE A WRITTEN REQUEST EITHER. SO THAT'S TRUE. I THINK THAT COULD BE REMEDIED WITH A PEN AND PIECE OF PAPER AND A PENCIL. YEAH. I MEAN, IF COUNCIL WANTS TO SET A PRECEDENT THAT INDIVIDUALS CAN COME AND REQUEST A MEDIATION DURING APPEALS. YEAH, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT 
          [04:55:03]
COULD CERTAINLY BE CONSIDERED. THAT'S SOMETHING YOU CAN CONSIDER. I'M NOT I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'D WANT TO DO THERE. AND I DO THINK THAT'S IN COUNCIL'S COURT. BUT. SO DID YOU. DID YOU SAY TO US THAT IT STATES THAT IF COUNCIL DOESN'T FEEL LIKE MEDIATION WOULD BE. YES. SO COUNCIL SHALL EVALUATE THE REQUEST AT A PUBLIC MEETING AND MAY ORDER MEDIATION. IF THE COUNCIL BELIEVES THAT MEDIATION MAY RESOLVE THE DISPUTE. THAT'S RIGHT OUT OF OUR ZONING CODE. 
          MAYOR, I HAVE ANOTHER COUNCILOR, FRANCIS. SO, MR. KIRKHAM, TO UNDERSTAND THIS, WOULD WE VOTE WHETHER OR NOT TO UPHOLD THE APPEAL AND THEN MAKE A MOTION FOR MEDIATION? THESE ARE OR YOU CAN TABLE. YEAH. IF MEDIATION OCCURS AFTER A FINAL DECISION, ANY RESOLUTION OF THE DIFFERENCES THROUGH MEDIATION SHALL BE THE SUBJECT OF ANOTHER PUBLIC MEETING BEFORE THE DECISION MAKING BODY. SO POTENTIALLY YOU COULD MAKE A FINAL DECISION TONIGHT. AND THEN THERE COULD BE A MEDIATION AND YOU'D COME BACK AND YOU'D HAVE ANOTHER HEARING. SO THAT'S ONE OPTION YOU'D HAVE THAT'S PERMITTED UNDER THE CODE. SO WE WOULDN'T HAVE TO TABLE IT TONIGHT. YOU DON'T HAVE TO TABLE IT TONIGHT. THEN AFTER THE MEDIATION OR UPHOLD THE REQUEST FOR A MEDIATION. YEAH. SO IF MEDIATION WERE SUCCESSFUL, THEN YOU WOULD COME BACK HERE AND HAVE ANOTHER HEARING. THAT WOULD BE THE END. THE RESOLUTION, ANY RESOLUTION OF DIFFERENCES THROUGH MEDIATION SHALL BE THE SUBJECT OF ANOTHER PUBLIC MEETING BEFORE THE DECISION MAKING BODY. SO WE DON'T HAVE TO RESTART THE PROCESS. WE'RE TALKING EARLIER ABOUT RESTARTING THAT. IF THERE'S IF THERE'S A RESOLUTION THAT'S MET IN MEDIATION, YOU WOULD COME BACK AND YOU WOULD HAVE THAT BE ANOTHER HEARING. THANK YOU. I WILL NOTE, JUST FOR EVERYONE'S BENEFIT, THAT IF THERE'S A MEDIATION, THERE IS NO BINDING DECISION UNTIL IT'S BACK BEFORE THIS BODY AND THE BODY ACCEPTS IT. THE ONLY FOLKS WHO CAN BIND THE CITY OF IDAHO FALLS ARE THE PEOPLE THAT ARE SITTING ON THE STAND RIGHT NOW. THEY'RE THE ONLY ONES WHO CAN MAKE AN AGREEMENT, THE ONLY ONES WHO CAN MAKE A CONTRACT. THEY'RE THE ONLY ONES THAT CAN MAKE A PROMISE THAT CAN BE HELD. NO OTHER PERSON HAS THE GOVERNMENTAL AUTHORITY OF THE PEOPLE INVESTED IN THEM, BECAUSE THERE'S NOBODY ELSE WHO'S AN ELECTED OFFICIAL. THESE ARE THE ONLY ELECTED OFFICIALS FOR THE CITY OF IDAHO FALLS. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU FOR THE ANSWERS. ANY MORE QUESTIONS, COUNCIL MEMBERS? BECAUSE WE ARE STILL IN THE IN THE PROCESS. WE HAVEN'T CLOSED OUR OUR HEARING. AND SO AND WE CAN'T DELIBERATE YET. CAN WE DELIBERATE ON THE IDEA OF MEDIATION. IS THAT IT NOW THAT'S OKAY. WELL I GUESS I CAN PUT A PAUSE ON THE HEARING FOR A MOMENT AND ASK IF THE COUNCIL WOULD LIKE TO CONSIDER THE MEDIATION REQUEST. BUT TYPICALLY YOU DON'T CONSIDER THINGS INSIDE OF A HEARING. I ALMOST FEEL LIKE IT'S DISRESPECTFUL TO THE HEARING TO PAUSE IT, BECAUSE I'VE NEVER I'VE NEVER I DON'T HAVE ENOUGH EXPERIENCE TO KNOW, CAN YOU PAUSE A HEARING? YOU CAN YOU CAN TAKE UP HEARINGS OVER A SERIES OF DAYS. I DON'T AS YOU KNOW, I DON'T RECOMMEND THAT YOU DO THAT BECAUSE. WE HAVE A LOT OF PEOPLE HERE THAT CAME OUT TO SEE, TO SEE WHAT THE GOVERNMENT WAS DOING AND BREAKING IT OVER A PERIOD OF DAYS. ALTHOUGH IT'S ALLOWED AND PERMITTED UNDER THE LAW, IS DISRUPTIVE FOR PEOPLE TO KNOW WHAT'S HAPPENING. SO I THINK IT'S A BETTER PRACTICE WHERE IT'S POSSIBLE AND IT'S NOT ALWAYS POSSIBLE. I KNOW THAT WE'RE COMING IN ON MIDNIGHT, WHERE IT'S POSSIBLE, I THINK IS THE BEST PRACTICE FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO MAKE A DECISION THE SAME DAY THAT THEY HOLD THE HEARING. WHAT I MEAN. OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. I, I ACTUALLY AGREE WITH YOU THERE. I WOULD LIKE TO GET SOMETHING RESOLVED BEFORE WE GO HOME TONIGHT. MY QUESTION WAS NOT ARTFULLY ASKED. WHAT I WANT TO KNOW IS CAN YOU JUST TEMPORARILY SUSPEND FOR THE NEXT 15 MINUTES OR 10 MINUTES THE HEARING TO GO INTO A MODE OF CONSIDERING THE WRITTEN REQUEST? I THINK THAT YOU CAN. OKAY, OKAY. DID YOU READ THAT RIGHT? WELL, WELL, YOU'LL NEED TO RECESS BECAUSE THEN WE'LL HAVE AN ILLEGAL MEETING. YOU NEED TO DELIBERATE IN PUBLIC, EVEN IF YOU ABOUT THAT I'M TALKING ABOUT HE'S TALKING ABOUT TAKING A BREAK, SUSPENDING THE HEARING. WELL, YOU MAY WANT TO TAKE A BREAK. WE'VE BEEN TALKING FOR A WHILE, SO. ALL RIGHT, SO I GUESS THE CHAIR FOR A MOMENT WILL STOP THE HEARING. THE APPEALS HEARING TO ASK THE COUNCIL IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A BIO BREAK. OKAY. AND WITH THAT, WE'RE GOING TO MAKE IT SPEEDY. WE'LL COME BACK AT 1145. AND AT THAT POINT, I WOULD LIKE FOR THE COUNCIL TO HAVE A SENSE OF WHERE IT WOULD JUST THINK TO YOURSELF AND COME BACK HAVING A SENSE OF WHETHER OR NOT YOU WANT TO CONSIDER THE WRITTEN REQUEST OR PLUNGE FORWARD WITH THE HEARING AND DO 
          [05:00:02]
THE REQUEST LATER. SO THINK ABOUT THAT AND WE'LL COME BACK AND WE' THERE WE GO. SO WHEN WE SEE THE CAMERA CATCH US BEING BACK ONLINE, THERE WE GO. WE ARE LIVE ONCE AGAIN. COUNCIL MEMBERS, I WILL REMIND YOU THAT WE'VE JUST COME BACK FROM A SHORT BREAK AND WE ARE GETTING READY TO NOT BE IN RECESS ANYMORE. BEFORE WE GO BACK INTO SESSION, I JUST WANT TO REMIND YOU OF TWO THINGS. ONE, THE HEARING HAS NOT BEEN RESUMED JUST YET, AND WE DO HAVE A WRITTEN REQUEST FOR MEDIATION FROM THE ATTORNEY REPRESENTING YUP'IK AND ITS OWNERS. AND APPLICANTS. SO BEFORE SO NOW WE ARE BACK IN SESSION AND THE CHAIR WILL ENTERTAIN ANY MOTIONS OR REQUESTS FROM THE MEMBERS. OKAY. CAN I REQUEST JUST A CLARIFICATION? SO IF COUNCIL CHOSE TO SUPPORT THE REVOCATION BUT MOVE FORWARD WITH MEDIATION, THAT'S AN OPTION. I THINK UNDER OUR CODE IT IS. IT SAYS MEDIATION MAY OCCUR AT ANY POINT DURING THE DECISION MAKING PROCESS OR AFTER A FINAL DECISION IS MADE. IF MEDIATION OCCURS AFTER A FINAL DECISION, ANY RESOLUTION OF DIFFERENCES THROUGH THE MEDIATION SHALL BE THE SUBJECT OF ANOTHER PUBLIC MEETING BEFORE THIS DECISION MAKING BODY. SO IF THE IF THE COUNCIL VOTED TONIGHT TO AFFIRM THE DECISION OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, THE MEDIATION WOULD STILL BE SCHEDULED FOR WITHIN 28 DAYS. THE PARTIES WOULD STILL MEDIATE IF AT THAT MEDIATION, THE PARTIES WERE ABLE TO RESOLVE DIFFERENCES AT MEDIATION, WE WOULD COME BACK AND HAVE ANOTHER PUBLIC MEETING IN WHICH WE WOULD PRESENT TO THE BOARD OR NOT BOARD THE COUNCIL. THE. THE RESOLUTION OF DIFFERENCES THAT WERE REACHED AT MEDIATION AND THEN THE CITY COUNCIL COULD DETERMINE TO ADOPT THOSE OR NOT. 
          BUT IF COUNCIL ADOPTED THOSE AT THAT POINT, THEN I WOULD AMEND, ESSENTIALLY AMEND THE FINAL DECISION DECISION. AND I MEAN THE WELL, I THINK I THINK THE GOAL WOULD BE TO RESOLVE ALL DISPUTES AND TO BE AND TO REACH A PLACE WHERE THE CITY AND, AND THE LANDOWNER WERE SATISFIED AND WERE ABLE TO MOVE FORWARD. OKAY. THANK YOU. JUST HEARD THEM THAT THAT IS THE WAY TO MAKE A DECISION AND THEN CHANGE IT IN UNDER OUR ZONING CODE. THAT WOULD THAT WOULD BE PERMITTED. 
          OKAY. WITH THAT, THE CHAIR WILL ENTERTAIN ANY. REQUESTS FROM THE COUNCIL. I GUESS THE CHAIR IS IN DOUBT AS TO WHETHER I SHOULD PROCEED WITH THE APPLICANT, THE REQUEST, OR IF WE SHOULD RESUME THE HEARING. I THINK WITHOUT HEARING ANYTHING FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS, I'M GOING TO RESUME THE HEARING IS WHAT I'M GOING TO DO. I'M NOT IN DOUBT. I THINK THAT'S WHAT I'M GOING TO DO. AND ARE THERE ANY. WHEN IT WHEN IT COMMENTS I DO I DO HAVE A COMMENT ABOUT MEDIATION AND I, I FEEL LIKE I HAVE ASKED THIS QUESTION AND I FEEL LIKE I HAVE AN ANSWER. I WANT TO MAKE SURE CLARITY THAT MR. COOPER REPRESENTS THE PROPERTY OWNER, BECAUSE ULTIMATELY, I DON'T KNOW IF THE PROPERTY OWNER IS IN THE ROOM, BUT HE WILL BE THE ONE TO SIGN THE EASEMENT. AND SO IF EVERYBODY THINKS, YOU KNOW, LIKE, OH, IT'S ALL WE'RE TO AN EASEMENT. BUT COUNCIL PRESIDENT I HAVE THE EXACT SAME QUESTION. I'M, I'M, I'M VERY CONFUSED AS TO WHY WE HAVE NOT HEARD FROM THE PROPERTY OWNER. IT WOULD BE THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER WOULD GIVE UP THE EASEMENT. AND SO WE'RE THAT FAR APART OR CLOSE TOGETHER. SO MEDIATION MAY WORK. OR THAT'S THE THING IS THAT IT SEEMS AS THOUGH THAT WOULD BE THE LEGAL. WOULDN'T THAT BE THE LEGAL OWNER OF THE PROPERTY UNLESS THEY'VE YOU YOU COULD REMAND THIS BACK TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BECAUSE THEY DID NOT HEAR FROM THE PROPERTY OWNER, ONLY SOMEBODY WHO IS RUNNING A BUSINESS ON THE PROPERTY DOESN'T ACTUALLY OWN THE PROPERTY THEMSELVES. I'M MORE LIKELY TO DO MEDIATION AS LONG AS I CAN GET JUST THAT CLARIFICATION. I REPRESENT THE PROPERTY OWNER. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO THAT WAS NOT STATED IN THE MICROPHONE. BUT MR. COOPER, THE ATTORNEY WHO'S BEEN SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS TONIGHT, HAS JUST INDICATED THAT HE REPRESENTS THE PROPERTY OWNER AND THE PROPERTY OWNER OF RECORD. FIRST NAME IS PRESTON PRESTON. OKAY. QUESTION QUESTION HERE EARLIER. OKAY. SO 
          [05:05:13]
COUNCIL MEMBERS, WE'RE GOING TO PROCEED WITH THE HEARING. AND THEN IF THERE IS AN INTEREST IN THE LET ME KNOW WHEN YOU HAVE AN INTEREST IN TALKING ABOUT THIS. BUT IN THE MEANTIME WE WERE AT THE STAGE OF THE HEARING WHERE YOU WERE ASKING QUESTIONS OF THOSE WHO HAD OFFERED TESTIMONY, AND WE WERE GETTING NEAR THE END OF THAT TO THE POINT WHERE WE WERE ALMOST READY TO GO INTO DELIBERATE REPOSE, THE HEARING AND GOING TO DELIBERATION. AND SO ARE THERE ANY COUNCIL MEMBERS WHO HAVE QUESTIONS OF ANY OF THE INDIVIDUALS INVOLVED IN TESTIMONY? ALL RIGHT. WITH THAT, THEN I SEE THAT THERE ARE NO MORE QUESTIONS. EVERYBODY'S MIND IS SOMEWHAT CLEAR ON WHAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO DO. AND WE WILL NOW CLOSE THE HEARING AND MOVE TO THE PHASE THAT I CALL DELIBERATION, AND ASK COUNCIL MEMBERS TO, I GUESS, START TALKING AMONGST YOURSELVES AS TO WHAT COURSE YOU WOULD LIKE TO PURSUE. OF THE THREE PLUS ONE OPTIONS YOU HAVE, YOU HAVE THREE IN THE CODE THAT ARE VERY CLEAR. WHEN YOU HAVE AN APPEAL HEARING, UPHOLD, DENY OR WHATEVER OR REMAND, SUSTAIN, REVERSE, SUSTAIN. REVERSE. THANK YOU. REMAND. HOWEVER, WE IN OUR CODE ALSO OFFER THE OPTION FOR MEDIATION. AND THAT REQUEST HAS BEEN MADE AND WE CAN TAKE THAT UP AND MAKE A DETERMINATION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT YOU ARE HAPPY ADDRESSING IT IN THIS MEETING WITH A GOOD FAITH REASON. SO I'D LIKE TO KNOW HOW YOU WANT. ANYBODY WANTS JUST TIME TO TALK. 
          I'LL WEIGH IN. I WOULD I WOULD AFFIRM THE I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT WHAT I'M SAYING IS GOING TO IS ACCURATE IN MY MIND. IF WE AFFIRM THE DECISION, THIS IS WHAT I'M LEANING TOWARDS BASED ON WHAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT HEARD. I THINK THAT THERE WOULD BE REASON TO AFFIRM THE DECISION, BUT REMAND IT TO MEDIATION. THAT THE. IS THAT CORRECT? SO THAT'S WHAT WE DO THAT ISN'T REALLY REMANDING IT BECAUSE THAT MEDIATION OR WE WOULD WE WOULD SEND IT TO ME THAT WE WOULD GRANT, GRANT THE REQUEST OF MEDIATION. SO WHAT IT SAYS IS THAT THE COUNCIL SHALL EVALUATE THE REQUEST AND MAY ORDER MEDIATION. OKAY. SO THAT'S THE WORD I'D PROBABLY USE. SO AFFIRM THE DECISION. ORDERED MEDIATION. AND THEN IF MEDIATION IS SUCCESSFUL WE WILL HEAR IT BACK. IF NOT, THE DECISION OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT IS AFFIRMED. IF MEDIATION IS ULTIMATELY NOT SUCCESSFUL. YES. AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT, THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I WOULD DO. I WOULD SUSTAIN THE DECISION SUSTAINS THE LEGAL TERMINOLOGY THAT WE'RE USING. AND THEN ORDER THE MEDIATION. I, I FEEL THE SAME WAY. I DON'T SEE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MADE ANY MISTAKES. 
          AND I THINK THIS IS A VERY CLEAN, ORDERLY WAY TO DO IT, FAIRLY SIMPLY, WITHOUT A WHOLE LOT OF EXTRA MEETINGS. EVERYBODY KNOWS WHERE THEY'RE AT AND WHAT THEY NEED TO DO. COUNCILOR FREEMAN, I DISAGREE. I WOULD MOVE TO REMAND IT BACK TO THE BOARD, BECAUSE I THINK THAT THEY I THINK THE ISSUES THAT THAT CAUSED THEM TO REVOKE IT HAVE BEEN RESOLVED, EXCEPT FOR THE FACT THAT THEY OPENED WITHOUT. BUT I'M WILLING TO I THINK THAT WOULD BE YOU KNOW, IT WOULD BE WILLING TO REVISIT THAT TO FORGIVE THAT, I GUESS SEEING THAT NOW THAT THE CONDITIONS OF OPENING HAVE BEEN MET AT THIS TIME. AND SO I WOULD IT BE MY SUGGESTION TO REMAND IT BACK TO THE BOARD. WE CAN ALWAYS GO TO MEDIATION AFTER THE FACT. COUNCILMEMBER, I DON'T THINK THAT WE HAVE A SIGNED SITE PLAN. I DON'T THINK WE HAVE A SITE, AN APPROVED SITE PLAN. THE CITY HAS APPROVED IT, BUT WE DON'T HAVE A SIGNED SITE PLAN. I THOUGHT IT HAD BEEN APPROVED. I THOUGHT I THOUGHT THAT IT WAS SIGNED BY NOW. I THINK IT'S APPROVED, BUT BUT THEY HAVEN'T APPROVABLE A APPROVAL BUT NO AGREEMENT ON THE EASEMENTS. SO THAT'S KIND OF WHERE I FEEL LIKE THE MEDIATION WOULD BE. I MEAN, IT COULD LEAD ALL OVER THE PLACE. AND I'M STILL STRUGGLING WITH WITH THE GROUNDS BECAUSE YOU REMAND, BECAUSE THINGS HAVE CHANGED SINCE THEY MADE THEIR DECISION. 
          THAT'S NOT. OR ARE YOU SAYING THAT THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN AWARE THAT THEY WERE CLOSE OR. I GUESS WE NEED A WE NEED THE GROUNDS FOR THAT. YEAH. I'M JUST THINKING THAT THINGS HAVE CHANGED SINCE THE SINCE THEY MADE THEIR DECISION AND THEY WERE UNAWARE THAT THEY WERE CLOSE. THEY WERE TO BEING RESOLVED. AND I'M NOT SURE THINGS HAVE CHANGED IS LEGIT. 
          BUT I'M NOT SURE. BUT I'M NOT SURE. I'M JUST WE'RE TALKING. SO YEAH, I WILL. OKAY. I WONDER IF THINGS HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO CHANGE. AND BY SUPPORTING THE REVOCATION AND THEN ORDERING 
          [05:10:06]
MEDIATION, YOU ALLOW FOR THOSE POTENTIAL CHANGES TO SEE IF THEY HAPPEN. AND THEN IF THEY HAPPEN, THEN WE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO REVISIT IT. COUNCILOR FRANCIS SEEMS TO THINK OUT LOUD HERE A LITTLE BIT, BUT I THINK IF I GO DOWN THIS LIST OF THE REASONS FOR THE APPEAL, NONE OF THEM, I THINK ALL OF THEM SHOULD BE, I SHOULD SUSTAIN I WOULD SUSTAIN THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. THE OTHER THING IS, ULTIMATELY, JUST PERSONALLY, I'D LIKE TO SEE THIS THING RESOLVED BY NEXT SEPTEMBER SO THEY CAN OPEN. AND THE ONLY WAY I CAN SEE TO DO THAT IS A LITTLE BIT OF CLOUT. AND THAT IS THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MADE A DECISION. I CAN'T FIND ANYTHING THAT THEY ON WHICH THEY ERRED. 
          SO I WOULD DEFINITELY SUSTAIN THE DECISION OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, PARTLY AS PRESSURE. 
          LET'S GET THIS DONE. AND IT SOUNDS LIKE MEDIATION IS THE ONE POSSIBILITY. IF THEY'RE THAT CLOSE, THEN SIT DOWN AND SOLVE IT FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE CITY COUNCILOR. COUNCILOR DINGMAN YEAH, THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS IN THEIR RELEVANT CRITERIA STANDARDS MADE IT VERY CLEAR THE BASIS IN WHICH THEY MADE THEIR DECISION, AND IT'S THAT THEY DID NOT OBTAIN A SITE PLAN APPROVAL SHOWING AN ACCURATE DEPICTION OF THE SITE PRIOR TO OPENING THE PUBLIC. YOU CAN'T GO BACK ON THAT. RIGHT? SO I FEEL LIKE DIRECTOR SANAA HAS MADE IT VERY CLEAR THAT THEY STILL DON'T HAVE ONE, AND THAT THEY DO NOT HAVE THE REQUIRED BUILDING PERMITS. NONE OF THAT HAS CHANGED. I'M READY TO MAKE A MOTION, MAYOR. CHAIR WILL ENTERTAIN IT. OKAY. I WOULD MOVE THAT COUNCIL. SUSTAIN THE DECISION OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND ORDER MEDIATION. I'LL SECOND. CAN WE DO THAT? I'M NOT SURE IF WE CAN DO THAT IF WE HAVEN'T CONSIDERED THIS IN A PUBLIC MEETING YET, BUT I WOULD. 
          OH, SORRY. THE MEDIATION PART. YEAH, WELL, THAT WAS MY THAT WAS MY QUESTION. AND I WAS TOLD THAT. NO, THIS WAS THIS WAS GOOD ENOUGH. YEAH. WHAT I WOULD PROBABLY SUGGEST IS THAT SOMEONE MAKE A MOTION TO ADD THAT TO THE AGENDA, TO CONSIDER THE REQUEST FOR MEDIATION OR MEDIATION, AND THEN MAKE YOUR DECISION ON THE HEARING JUST SO THAT THE RECORD IS PERFECTLY CLEAR OF THE ACTIONS AND THE ORDER THAT THEY OCCURRED IN. BECAUSE I ABSOLUTELY AGREE. BECAUSE IF YOU CAN MAKE A REQUEST FOR MEDIATION AT ANY POINT UP TO THE FINAL DECISION, I MEAN, THE FINAL DECISION WILL BE WHATEVER YOU DECIDE AFTER THE APPEAL. SO IT'D BE CLEANER PROCEDURALLY TO GRANT THE ORDER AND THEN MAKE A FINAL DECISION. YES, YES. AND THAT'S A DOES EVERYBODY UNDERSTAND? WHAT WAS THAT. ALL RIGHT. I'M GOING TO I'M GOING TO THANK MR. KIRKHAM FOR THAT BIT OF ADVICE, BECAUSE THEN IT LEAVES IT UP TO THIS BODY TO DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT WE'RE GOING TO AMEND OUR AGENDA. ANYTIME SOMEONE COMES IN LOOKING FOR MEDIATION MID DECISION, IT REMAINS IT'S NOT NECESSARILY THE PRECEDENT THAT I AM. I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THAT. SO I REALLY APPRECIATE THAT. I AM ONE WHO IS WORRIED ALL THE TIME ABOUT PRECEDENTS. AND IN THIS CASE, I THINK THAT THE CIRCUMSTANCES ARE UNIQUE ENOUGH AND THE PUBLIC INTEREST IS BETTER SERVED BY FLEXIBILITY THAN BY WORRYING ABOUT FUTURE PRECEDENT. I DON'T KNOW IF WE'LL EVER BE IN THIS CRAZY SITUATION AGAIN, SO WHO KNOWS THOUGH, BUT I, I APPRECIATE THAT. OKAY, SO THE CHAIR IS OPEN TO MOTIONS. OR MORE CONVERSATION. I WOULD I WOULD MOVE THAT COUNCIL AMEND THE AGENDA FOR TONIGHT TO INCLUDE A REQUEST FOR MEDIATION, FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FOR MEDIATION FOR THE U-PICK RED BARN. AND THE GOOD FAITH REASON IS WE DID NOT KNOW THAT THE MEDIATION REQUEST WAS COMING. ALL RIGHT. DOES THE CITY CLERK HAVE THAT CAPTURED SOMEWHAT WITH CLARITY. OKAY. WE'RE GOOD. WAS IT SECONDED TODAY? NOT YET, NOT YET. SECOND, WE HAVE A MOTION. 
          WE HAVE A SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION BEFORE WE MOVE TO IT? I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR ABOUT. YEAH. SO WE'RE JUST THIS IS JUST TO SUGGEST MEDIATION. IT'S TO AMEND THE AGENDA TO ALLOW US TO CONSIDER THIS REQUEST. WE HAVEN'T WE HAVEN'T CONSIDERED IT YET. OKAY. OH, I SEE WE'RE BEING PROCEDURAL BEFORE WE'RE BEING SUBSTANTIVE I SEE. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. CITY CLERK, WILL YOU CONDUCT A VOTE? LARSEN. YES. FRANCIS A DINGMAN. YES. BURTENSHAW. YES. FREEMAN. YES. 
          MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU. IT WILL APPEAR ON THE AGENDA RIGHT NOW BECAUSE WE'RE WE'RE ESSENTIALLY AT THE END OF OUR AGENDA. AND SO WE'RE NOW TAKING UP CONSIDERATION OF THE REQUEST THAT SAYS GARY COOPER, REPRESENTING THE OWNER AND OPERATORS OF THE RED BARN REQUEST MEDIATION DATED JANUARY 30TH, 2025. HE MADE IT BEFORE BEFORE ONE MINUTE FROM NOW. AND 
          [05:15:04]
THEN HE HE SIGNED IT. OKAY. SO THIS HAS BEEN PUT BEFORE YOU COUNCIL. LET'S HAVE SOME DELIBERATION ON THIS REQUEST. SO WE'RE GOING TO VOTE ON THIS BEFORE WE COME BACK TO THE DECISION. WE'RE GOING TO DISCUSS IT. AND THEN WE'LL VOTE ON WHATEVER MOTION YOU MAKE. ANY OF YOU MAKE. MY HAND THIS TO THE CLERK. BUT IN THE MEANTIME, I'M IN CONVERSATION. I'M IN AN AGREEMENT WITH COUNCIL MEMBER FRANCIS THAT THAT I THINK THAT MEDIATION HAS A LIKELIHOOD OF RESOLVING THIS SITUATION AND THAT IT IS IT IS TO THE BENEFIT OF EVERYONE TO HAVE THAT CONVERSATION. I THINK IT'S THE ONLY TOOL WE HAVE RIGHT NOW TO GET THIS WORK THROUGH. NOW, BEFORE NEXT SEPTEMBER. I IS THE INTENT HERE TO HAVE TWO MOTIONS? THEN WE'LL HAVE A MOTION TO DO THE MEDIATION AND THEN A MOTION TO OKAY, THEN WE'LL CALL THE QUESTION, AS IT WERE. I WAS GOING TO MAKE IT AS ONE MOTION TO SUSTAIN THE DECISION. IN ORDER FOR MEDIATION, WE HAVE TO DO TWO SEPARATE THING. OKAY, OKAY. ALL RIGHT. AND SO WE'RE STILL TALKING. WHAT'S FIRST. 
          WELL YOU'RE STILL AT THIS POINT. YEAH. WE HAVE WE'RE IN THE POINT OF OUR AGENDA WHERE WE ARE CONSIDERING THE MEDIATION REQUEST. AND I'VE HEARD COMMENTS IN FAVOR OF THE MEDIATION BEING A VALUABLE TOOL AND THE MEDIATION BEING A GOOD PATH FORWARD. ARE THERE ANY OTHER THOUGHTS BEFORE OR IS THERE A MOTION ANY OF YOU WOULD LIKE TO MAKE REGARDING MEDIATION? IS THE MOTION TO ORDER? WE DON'T HAVE A MOTION AT THIS TIME, I KNOW, BUT WOULD IT BE WHAT THE ORDER OR WHAT THE MOTION WOULD BE TO ORDER MEDIATION? THANK YOU. I THINK THE ANSWER IS YES. WE WOULD ORDER IT AND THE WORD IS ORDER. OKAY. WE SET A TIMELINE ON WHEN THEY HAVE TO HAVE A DECISION ON THE MEDIATION. THEY HAVE TO START IN 28 DAYS. BUT YEAH, IT'S SCHEDULED. IT MUST BE SCHEDULED WITHIN THE NEXT 28 DAYS. BUT THE PROCESS CAN GO ON FOR AS LONG AS IT NEEDS TO, RIGHT? YEAH. SO THE FIRST SESSION IS MUST THE FIRST SESSION I SHOULD SAY IT WILL HAPPEN IF THERE'S ADDITIONAL MEDIATION SESSIONS THAT THE PARTIES FEEL LIKE WOULD BE PRODUCTIVE. THEY KEEP GOING UNTIL ONE PARTY EITHER REFUSES TO PARTICIPATE OR NOTIFIES THE OTHER PARTY THAT THEY NO LONGER WISH TO ENGAGE IN MEDIATION. MY HOPE WOULD BE THAT THE PARTIES WOULD NO LONGER WISH TO RE TO MEDIATE, BECAUSE THEY'VE REACHED SOME SORT OF AGREEMENT. I'M NOT MOCKING. OKAY, I WOULD, I WOULD MOVE THAT COUNCIL ORDERED MEDIATION. SECOND. OKAY. AND THAT MEDIATION WOULD OCCUR IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITY CODE. WE HAVE A MOTION. WE HAVE A SECOND CITY CLERK. WILL YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL ON THAT MOTION? FREEMAN. YES. 
          BURTENSHAW. YES. DINGMAN. YES. FRANCIS. HI. LARSON. YES. MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU. SO WE HAVE OUR OUR HEARING OR OUR HEARING CLOSED, BUT WE PAUSED OUR DELIBERATION ON YOUR DECISION ON THE OUTCOME OF THE HEARING OR ON THE OUTCOME OF THE HEARING IN ORDER TO CONSIDER THE REQUEST FOR MEDIATION, YOU HAVE NOW ORDERED MEDIATION. AND SO THE CHAIR WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION AS TO WHAT YOUR DECISION IS ON THE HEARING ITSELF. I WOULD MOVE THAT THIS COUNCIL SUSTAIN THE DECISION OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. SECOND, YOU HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND, ANY DELIBERATION ON THAT OR STATEMENT OR QUESTIONS. ANYTHING ANYBODY WANTS TO BRING UP. ALL RIGHT. WITH THAT CITY CLERK, WILL YOU CONDUCT THAT VOTE? LARSON. YES. FRANCIS I. DINGMAN. 
          YES. BURTENSHAW. YES. FREEMAN. NO. OKAY. AND SO WITH THAT, WE HAVE AN OUTCOME. HOPEFULLY WE HAVE A FUTURE THAT WILL BRING US SOME KIND OF POSITIVE RESULTS OR ONE THAT. YEAH, POSITIVE, BECAUSE WE WANT THE COMMUNITY TO CONTINUE TO HAVE THE BENEFITS OF. GOOD, WHOLESOME ENTERTAINMENT. BUT WE ALSO WANT THE COMMUNITY TO CONTINUE TO HAVE THE BENEFITS OF ORDERLY AND LAWFUL DEVELOPMENT. AND WE WOULD ENCOURAGE BOTH SIDES TO COME WITH A CLEAN SLATE AND WILLINGNESS TO, AS ONE OF OUR DIRECTORS FAMOUSLY SAYS, TO ROLL UP YOUR SLEEVES AND GET STUFF DONE. AND SO I HOPE THAT THIS HASN'T BEEN TOO ANNOYING. I HOPE THAT SOMEBODY TONIGHT SAID, OKAY, HERE'S ONE FOR PROCESS. DUE PROCESS IS AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF THE LAW. AND LIKE IT OR NOT, WE HAVE LAWS THAT ARE DESIGNED FOR THE SAFETY AND BETTERMENT OF OUR COMMUNITY. AND SO I DO FEEL LIKE EVEN THOUGH SOMETIMES IT FEELS LIKE A CLOWN SHOW, THERE ARE OTHER TIMES WHEN I'M 100% FEELING LIKE THIS GROUP DOES GOOD WORK, THEY TRY THEIR HARDEST, AND I DO BELIEVE THAT 
          [05:20:05]
MOST CITIZENS JUST WANT EVERYTHING TO TURN OUT. SO I THINK WE'RE ON A REALLY GOOD PATH TO GET THERE, AND I WOULD ENCOURAGE EVERYBODY TO TAKE A DEEP BREATH, SMILE AND GET IT DONE. AND WITH THAT, WE NORMALLY CLOSE OUR MEETING WITH A WHOLE LITANY OF THOUGHTS ABOUT WHAT 
          [6. Announcements.]
WHAT ELSE IS ON THE AGENDA AND OR EXCUSE ME ANNOUNCEMENTS. AND I'M GOING TO KIND OF CUT THAT REALLY SHORT TONIGHT AND SIMPLY SAY THAT WE'LL BE BACK HERE A COUPLE OF WEEKS FROM NOW FOR REGULAR COUNCIL MEETINGS IN TWO WEEKS ON MONDAY AND ON THURSDAY. BUT WE ALSO HAVE IN THE MEANTIME, NEXT THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 6TH, A WATER TOWER EXHIBIT. THERE ARE A COUPLE FLIERS ON THE BACK WINDOW, BUT OUR WATER TOWER WILL BE DISASSEMBLED, DISASSEMBLED THIS YEAR AND A NEW ONE COMING UP. AND SO THIS IS THE TIME TO COMMEMORATE THAT. AND SO DON'T DON'T MISS OUT ON SOME OF THESE COMMEMORATIVE EVENTS. THE FIRST 1ST FEBRUARY SIXTH AT THE MUSEUM OF IDAHO. AND WITH THAT COUNCIL MEMBERS, ANYTHING ELSE? I'D JUST LIKE TO THANK ALL OF YOU FOR BEING HERE TONIGHT. YOU KNOW, WE KEPT YOU HERE REALLY LATE. WE STAYED HERE REALLY LATE. BUT I THINK WE GOT SOMETHING DONE. AND GOOD FOR YOU FOR BEING ENGAGED IN YOUR COMMUNITY. THANK YOU. 
          WELL SAID. ANYBODY ELSE? COMMENTS? ANNOUNCEMENTS. JUST A POINT OF PERSONAL PRIVILEGE. 
          HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO MY HUSBAND WHO'S WATCHING AND SPENT A LOVELY EVENING AT HOME AND PARTICIPATING IN GOVERNMENT MINUTES AGO. OR 5 MINUTES OR 5 MINUTES, SIX MINUTES AGO WAS THE END. HAPPY BIRTHDAY, HAPPY BELATED BIRTHDAY, DANE. AND WITH THAT, WE
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.