Jun 22, 2026 City Council Work Session

THAT'S IT. YEAH. HE DOESN'T EVEN ASK. OKAY. WELCOME TO OUR CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION FOR

[Call to Order and Roll Call ]

[00:00:12]

[City Council, Mayor ]

I KNOW, I DON'T KNOW, I DON'T SEE HIM, BUT THERE'S SOME BUILDING GOING ON BOTH AT THE.

PERFORMANCE STAGE BY THE RIVER. IT'S NEXT TO THE BATHROOMS. THERE'S A NEW CEMENT SECTION.

WHAT IS THAT? I DON'T KNOW, OKAY. AND THEN IN THE PARKING LOT, IN THE PARKING LOT ADJACENT TO THAT, THERE'S ALSO A NEW PAD WITH PLUMBING. E, THAT'S E CHARGERS. CHARGERS.

THAT'S OKAY. THAT MAKES SENSE. YEAH. OKAY. THAT'S WHAT I WAS WONDERING. BUT YEAH, THAT PAD BY THE BATHROOM, I REALLY DON'T KNOW. I FORGOT TO ASK HIM. AND THEN WE HAVE A NEW CHARGER HERE, RIGHT WHERE YOU'RE PARKED. IS THAT A NEW. SORRY. OH, YEAH. I THINK THERE IS A NEW CHARGER THERE. BUT THESE ARE THESE ARE THE CHARGERS THAT WILL BE OVER AT JOHN'S HALL AND THE DOE GRANT. AND WHAT IS IT BLINK. IS THAT WHAT IT IS. AND THEN MARGARET DO YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE FARMERS MARKET AND THE COUNCIL. YEAH I'D BE HAPPY TO. THE I'VE BEEN WORKING WITH THE NEW MANAGER FOR THE FARMERS MARKET AS THEY'VE WORKED THROUGH THEIR TRANSITION, AND THEY WOULD BE HAPPY TO HAVE COUNCIL COME BACK TO THE TO THE MARKET AND SORT OF AN AD HOC BASIS. SO WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS SORT OF WORK OUT SOME SPACE THAT'S CLOSE TO THE FARMERS MARKETS. BOOTH ON, ON A AND AND MEMORIAL, BUT THAT WOULD MR. RADFORD HAS REQUESTED THAT IT BE SORT OF SEPARATE. SO MAYBE IT HAS ITS OWN TABLE. SO WE'RE JUST TRYING TO WORK THROUGH THE LOGISTICS OF THAT. BUT THAT OPPORTUNITY WOULD BE AVAILABLE FOR COUNCIL MEMBERS.

I WAS GOING TO SEND OUT AN EMAIL JUST SORT OF WITH SOME UPCOMING DATES AND SEE, YOU KNOW, WHICH MARKET YOU WOULD BE INTERESTED IN ATTENDING. THE MARKETS GENERALLY RUN FROM 9 TO 2, BUT YOU DON'T HAVE TO COMMIT FOR THAT WHOLE TIME. WITH US BEING ON THERE, SORT OF AN AD HOC BASIS, YOU COULD SIGN UP FOR A FEW HOURS. AND THEN I WOULD JUST RECOMMEND THAT WE KIND OF COORDINATE WITH WITH COUNCIL SO THAT WE'RE, YOU KNOW, SPREADING THAT AROUND BECAUSE I KNOW IT IS SORT OF SUMMER'S BUSY AND THERE'S, THERE'S LOTS OF THINGS GOING ON, BUT IT'S BEEN, I THINK IT'S A GREAT OPPORTUNITY TO GET OUT AND CONNECT WITH, WITH COMMUNITY MEMBERS. AND WE HAVE GATHERED UP, BESIDES JUST THE SORT OF INFORMATIONAL CARD ABOUT SIGNING UP FOR TEXT MESSAGES TO GET CITY INFORMATION, WE ALSO HAVE GATHERED UP SOME OF THE PADDLE GUIDES AND RIVER GUIDES THAT WE'D HAVE AVAILABLE. SO WE'RE WE'RE WORKING WITH DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTS TO TRY AND GET SOME, SOME, SOME ADDITIONAL HANDOUTS. SO WATCH FOR THAT, THAT EMAIL. AND THEN WE ARE, YOU SHOULD HAVE RECEIVED AN EMAIL FROM FROM CARLA, BUT WE ARE DOING THE CITY COUNCIL AND MAYOR DAY AT THE MARKET AT THE END OF JULY THAT LAST SATURDAY. SO THERE'LL BE MORE DETAILS COMING ON THAT AFTER THE 4TH OF JULY HOLIDAY.

BUT THAT'S ANOTHER KIND OF OUTREACH INITIATIVE WE'RE WORKING ON WITH THE WITH THE FARMERS MARKET. AND THE CONVERSATION WAS WE DID JIM AND I DID IT, AND THERE WAS A LITTLE FOLDING A FRAME, BUT NO ONE. IT DIDN'T HELP REALLY. BUT IF YOU HAVE A TABLE THAT LOOKS LIKE ALL THE OTHER TABLES THEN SEEMED LIKE, SEEMS LIKE THE PEOPLE THAT WERE THERE VOLUNTEERING FROM PARKS AND REC, THAT THEY HAD MORE PEOPLE WALK UP TO THEM THAN THEY THAN WE DID. SO IF WE JUST HAD A TABLE IN A TENT LIKE THIS, AND WE DON'T HAVE TO BE THERE ALL THE TIME, AND I THINK WE CAN JUST LEAVE THE MATERIALS WHEN WE'RE NOT THERE, BUT JUST AN OPPORTUNITY. JIM AND I HAVE TALKED ABOUT TRYING TO HAVE OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE PUBLIC TO HAVE ACCESS TO US. AND WHEN WE'RE NOT IN A FORMAL ENVIRONMENT WHERE WE CAN INTERACT. SO ONE OTHER THING WE'VE TALKED ABOUT IS TRYING TO GET TOGETHER ONCE A QUARTER,

[00:05:06]

YEAH. THAT'S GREAT. OKAY, SO MORE INFORMATION COMING IS WHAT I HEAR. YEAH, YEAH. OKAY. WE WANT TO MAKE THAT HAPPEN. BUT IT'S RELATED TO THIS CONCEPT OF THE FARMER'S MARKET. WE NEED A PLACE. I MEAN, THE BIGGEST CRITICISM OF US DURING THE LAST ELECTION WAS HAVING PLACES WHERE WE WERE ACCESSIBLE AND THAT WE WERE RESPONDING TO AND HEARING. AND WHEN WE HAVE THE, YOU KNOW, THREE MINUTES, IT'S NOT THAT'S NOT GOOD ENOUGH FOR US TO MEET THAT DESIRE THAT PUBLIC EMPLOYEES. BUSY TIME OF YEAR IN PUBLIC WORKS, SUMMERTIME, YOU KNOW, THERE'S WINTER AND CONSTRUCTION SEASON. ONE OF THE MORE INTERESTING ONES, THOUGH, IS THE POLICE STATION FIRING RANGE CONNECTS THAT THEY'RE PUTTING IN THAT PUTTING NOT REALLY A FOUNDATION.

BUT YEAH, WE SET THE FOUNDATIONS FOR THE CONNECTS BOXES. YEAH. SO SO THAT'S COMING ALONG. OTHER THAN THAT, NOTHING TO REALLY, I KNOW FIRES WORKING ON THE PROJECTS THAT WE'RE ALL KIND OF AWARE OF. AND THAT'S COMING FORWARD WITH THE DISTRICT AND ALL THAT STUFF. SO THAT'S ABOUT ALL I HAVE. MAYOR. THANK YOU. THANK COUNCILMEMBER. I JUST MET WITH A GROUP OF FRISBEE GOLF ENTHUSIASTS THAT ARE WANTING TO USE PARTS OF RYDER PARK TO SET UP A FRISBEE GOLF COURSE, AND THEY WOULD BE WILLING TO BUILD IT AND MAINTAIN IT, AND THERE WOULD BE NO COST TO THE CITY. ALL WE HAVE TO DO IS GIVE THEM THE OKAY TO USE THE LAND, AND WE HAD 20 OF THEM HELPING US CLEAN AND PUT DOWN SOD. YES. AND THEY ALSO ARE ADOPTING THAT PARK.

THEIR GROUP IS. SO ANYWAY, IT SEEMED LIKE A REALLY GOOD IDEA TO ME. I DIDN'T SEE ANY PROBLEMS WITH CONFLICTS. AFTER WALKING AROUND WITH THEM FOR A FEW HOLES, I WAS PRETTY IMPRESSED WITH IT. AND. AND WE SHOULD MENTION FREEMAN PARK IS THE 25TH MOST POPULAR COURSE IN THE COUNTRY AND HAS OVER 100 000 ROUNDS PLAYED ABOUT A YEAR. NOT A YEAR, I DON'T THINK A YEAR. BUT NO, THEY SAID 100,000. THEY SAID THEY KNOW HOW MANY THEY HAVE AND THEY KNOW THEY ONLY CAPTURE ONE FIFTH. I HEARD I HEARD 45 OF IT. OKAY. YEAH. AND THEN I WANTED TO JUST BRING UP THE FACT THAT WE DID HAVE A SUICIDE IN ONE OF THE CITY PARKS LESS THAN A WEEK AGO AND PUT IT IN PARK. AND I DIDN'T KNOW IF YOU GUYS WERE AWARE OF IT. KIVETON PARK, EXCUSE ME.

THEY SAID THEY HAD PART OF IT. YEAH. I'VE BEEN ON THAT SIDE OF TOWN FOR SOME REASON. CIVIC PARK DOWN ON RIVER PARK, RIVERSIDE DRIVE. SO YEAH, IT WAS, I DON'T KNOW, 4 OR 5 DAYS

[00:10:04]

SORRY. THANK YOU. WHICH IS WHICH IS GREAT NEWS. ONE THING WITH THE POLICE AND JUST I HAVEN'T HAD A CHANCE TO TELL YOU. I'VE HAD TWO PEOPLE COMMENT ON. AND THEN I EXPERIENCED THIS. I WENT TO THE ANIMAL SHELTER TO. I HAD LIKE 30 MINUTES TO SPARE, AND I WAS GOING TO LOOK THROUGH AND LOOK AT THE ANIMALS AND I COULDN'T THEY WOULDN'T LET ME KNOW. BUT NOT ONLY AN APPOINTMENT, I HAD TO FILL OUT EIGHT PAGES TO SEE. AND I JUST DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S HOW IT WASN'T CUSTOMER FRIENDLY. I WAS VERY PUT OFF AND SO WAS THE PERSON I WAS WITH. AND THE PERSON THAT TALKED TO ME WAS VERY PUT OFF AS WELL AND LIKE, TALK ME OUT OF IT ALIVE AFTER FIVE AND SAID, YOU KNOW, WE MIGHT HAVE GOT SOMETHING. BUT AND IT WAS SOMEONE WHO HAD ALL THE MEANS IN THE WORLD THAT COULD HAVE QUALIFIED. BUT ANYWAY, SO IF YOU WANT TO COME TO US AT SOME POINT AND TELL US WHY WE'RE DOING THAT, HELPFUL, IF I CAN RESPOND, SHORT ANSWER IS YOU DON'T HAVE TO STOP IT FOR TODAY. THEIR EXPERIENCE WILL SHOW FOCUSES MORE ON DOG KENNELS. SO THEY DO HAVE TO HAVE AN APPOINTMENT. AND ALL OF THAT EXPERIENCE. PEOPLE REALLY CAN AFFORD TO HAVE THEIR. THAT'S ALL I HAVE. OKAY, THIS THURSDAY, I JUST WANT TO GIVE ALL OF COUNCIL HEADS UP BECAUSE I WILL BE IN BOSTON ON THURSDAY AND WASHINGTON, DC. SO IT'S A TRAVEL DAY FOR ME. BUT I KNOW THAT THE BOONE PROPERTY HAS COME FORWARD TWICE NOW AND WE HAVE TABLED IT. SO I JUST WANTED TO GIVE YOU A LITTLE BIT OF HEADS UP ON THAT. IT IS LEGISLATIVE, SO IT'S NOT QUASI-JUDICIAL. IT WAS IT FIRST CAME TO THE CITY WHEN ONE OF THE BOONE BROTHERS APPROACHED ME AND SAID, HOW DO WE GET WATER? AND THEN WHEN WE'RE ELIGIBLE FOR ANNEXATION, WE'LL ANNEX IN. AND I LOOKED AT THE PROPERTY AND I SAID, YOU'RE ELIGIBLE NOW, SO MOVE FORWARD. THEY COULD HAVE JUST PULLED A PERMIT FROM THE COUNTY. THEY DIDN'T HAVE TO ANNEX INTO THE CITY, BUT THE COUNTY WAS GOING TO REQUIRE A FIRE. WELL, AND SO WHEN THEY BY THE TIME THEY HAD LOOKED AT THE FIRE WELL VERSUS THE. PULLING THE WATER LINE DOWN, THE CITY IS PARTICIPATING WITH THEM TO MOVE THE WATER BECAUSE WE ALSO HAVE SOME PLANS TO DO THE ROAD. SO I DON'T KNOW WHY THEY HAVE PULLED IT, BUT I HAVE LET COUNCIL MEMBER FRANCIS KNOW THAT THIS IS NOT THIS IS NOT A CITY INITIATED ANNEXATION. SO IF THEY COME AND SAY, YOU KNOW, THE CITY WAS HARD TO WORK WITH, IN EVERY CASE, I WILL TELL YOU EVERY CASE THE CITY HAS BENT OVER BACKWARDS. IF AS SOON AS THEY SAID, OH, IT'S TAKING US TOO LONG, CITY STEPPED IN AND MADE IT HAPPEN, WHICH IS MAYBE WHY THEY HAD TO TABLE IT THE FIRST TIME, BECAUSE MAYBE THEY WEREN'T QUITE READY. BUT I'M JUST SAYING, IF NO MATTER WHAT I KNOW, I KNOW THE FIRE, I KNOW PUBLIC WORKS, EVERYBODY HAS STEPPED IN IN EVERY CASE AND BENT OVER BACKWARDS FOR THIS PROPERTY. SO IF IT COMES FORWARD, I DON'T KNOW WHY THEY TABLED IT AGAIN, BUT THAT IS PERSONAL PROPERTY ON SAINT LEON. OKAY, THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT.

YEAH. SO SO I DON'T REALLY KNOW WHY THEY TABLED IT. AND WE TRIED TO REACH OUT TO THEM AND THEIR ENGINEER SAID, OH YEAH, THEY FOR SURE WANT TO STILL DO IT. BUT I'M JUST LETTING YOU KNOW EVERY DEPARTMENT, I GOT THEIR BACK ON THIS. I'VE WATCHED THEM BEND OVER BACKWARDS TO HELP THIS PROPERTY COME INTO THE CITY. SO THAT IS FOR THURSDAY. I THINK THAT'S EVERYTHING. THERE COULD BE OTHER OH, THERE IS THE CALENDAR EVENT. I'LL JUST THROW OUT REALLY QUICK WEDNESDAY AT THE EMPLOYEE PICNIC. COUPLES PARK. SO JUST KEEP THAT ON YOUR RADAR,

[Public Works ]

[00:15:05]

HE WILL BE THINKING THE SAME THING IF YOU TUNED IN RIGHT NOW. YOU'RE LIKE, WHAT ARE THEY DOING? THEY ALL TOOK A VOW OF SILENCE. ANYBODY LEARNED ANYTHING AT AIC THAT WE OUGHT TO KEEP IT IN MIND. I FOUND OUT THERE IS A NATIONAL STUDY OF DECORATED INTERSECTIONS THAT MAKE THEM SAFER. OH. DECORATING THEM? YEAH, LIKE PAINTING SOMETHING. AN INTERSECTION OR PAINTING THE CROSSWALKS WITH ART. OKAY. THAT IT ACTUALLY THEY HAVE EVIDENCE THAT IT IS REDUCED TRAFFIC. PEDESTRIAN INCIDENTS. I WAS I WILL PASS THAT ON TO DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT AND I WAS PAYING ATTENTION TO THAT THIS WEEKEND. AND IT SEEMS LIKE THE GREEN ONES WORK REALLY GOOD, BUT THEY'RE ATTACHED TO A BIKE LANE. AND LIKE ON SUNDAYS ON 17TH STREET WHERE WE DON'T HAVE A BIKE LANE ATTACHED TO IT, THEN IT DOESN'T SEEM APPROPRIATE, BUT SOME OTHER KIND OF DRAWING ATTENTION TO IT. YEAH, YEAH. I APOLOGIZE. YES. OKAY. OKAY. SO IT'S BASICALLY WHAT I WANT TO TALK TO YOU TODAY ABOUT IS JUST A TRAFFIC UPDATE TO INCLUDE TRAFFIC

[00:20:04]

TRAVEL TIME IS CORRIDORS AND STUDIES QUALITY OF LIFE. SO THERE'S A REFERENCE FOR COMMUTE AND CUT THROUGH TRAFFIC. SO IF YOU'RE QUEUING A LOT OF. FOLKS ON AN ARTERIAL ROAD, THERE'S A TENDENCY FOR PEOPLE TO CUT THROUGH NEIGHBORHOODS AND THINGS LIKE THAT. THAT'S THE RESIDUALS OF THOSE KINDS OF ISSUES. FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY, AS WELL AS PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ON THE SAFETY. I DID INCLUDE JUST LOOKING. SINCE 2015, WE'VE COMPLETED 27 SAFETY APPLICATIONS AND BEEN AWARDED 20 SAFETY PROJECTS AS 11 OF THOSE PROJECTS WERE COMPLETE.

WE FINISHED WITH THAT. SO FOR OUR PROGRAM TO BE. THE PURPOSE OF DEVELOPMENT OF THE LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN, I JUST INCLUDED THAT TO INCORPORATE, AGAIN, MULTIMODAL PROBLEMS AND NEEDS IN THE PLANNING AREA AND WHAT THEY'RE WHAT THEY COMPLEMENT IN OUR TRAFFIC MOBILITY ELEMENTS. MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION. SO WHAT WE HAVE HERE IS OUR CONNECTING OUR COMMUNITY PLAN THAT WE COMPLETED IN 2014. AND WE'VE SINCE UPDATED IT. AND THERE'S TRAFFIC CONTEXT DESIGN. SO WE INCORPORATE AS WELL FOR GETTING PRIMARILY SIDEWALKS, SHARED USE PATHS, BIKE LANES, WHERE THEY'RE APPROPRIATE WITH OUR TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES.

AND I CALL IT THE IMPROVEMENTS, GREATER IDAHO FALLS TRANSPORTATION TO ACCOMMODATE PUBLIC TRANSIT. SO MULTIMODAL KIND OF FALLS UNDER THOSE CATEGORIES. THEY'RE EVALUATED WITH EACH PROJECT APPLICATION, WITH THE MPO THAT WE SUBMIT ON. AND THEN WE CONSIDER THOSE IN ALL PROJECTS THAT WE DO WHERE WE CAN TO COMPLEMENT. BIKE LANES. SO WE'VE GOT OUR BIKE PATH APP THAT KIND OF SHOWS. AND THIS IS JUST A SNAPSHOT OF. THE BIKE FACILITIES THAT WE HAVE IN THE AREA, WHETHER THEY'RE SHARED USE PATHS OR ON STREET BIKE LANES IN THE GREEN OR SHARROWS AND THINGS LIKE THAT. AND THE IDEA IS TO GET CONNECTIVITY THROUGH TOWN. SO WHEN WE LOOK AT SOMETHING LIKE THIS, DOES IT HELP US PRIORITIZE WAYS TO MAKE THE SMALL LITTLE CONNECTIONS? LIKE I SEE BREAKS IN THE BLUE AND THEN LIKE, IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE IT'S VERY FAR. AND IF IT WAS CONNECTED, IT WOULD BE, DOES THAT MAKE. SO WE'LL LOOK AT THOSE WHERE WE CAN. THE CHALLENGE IS, IS USUALLY USUALLY THE CONSTRAINT IS RIGHT OF WAY SPACE OR FUNDING. OKAY. AND LIKE THE GREEN WOULD BE ON STREET BIKE LANES THAT WOULD CONNECT SOME OF THE BLUE GAPS, I'LL CALL IT. BUT THERE ARE SOME LEGITIMATE, YOU KNOW, THE LACK OF ABILITY TO PROVIDE FOR THOSE AT THIS TIME. WHAT'S THE RED? RED WOULD BE LET'S SEE.

THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. RIGHT? SO THOSE ARE I THINK THOSE ARE SHARROWS. BUT I'D HAVE TO GET BACK WITH YOU ON THAT. OKAY. SO THAT'S ANOTHER QUESTION. BUT YEAH, OUR APP AND OUR CONNECTING OUR COMMUNITY PLAN KIND OF DRIVES THE, THE CONSIDERATION FOR BIKE LANES WHERE WE CAN INSTALL. THE OTHER THING THAT I WILL POINT OUT IS THAT WHEN WE, WHEN THE MPO CAME OUT WITH OUR NEW ACCESS MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR OUR ARTERIAL ROADWAYS AND THINGS LIKE THAT, THE OLD ACCESS MANAGEMENT PLAN HAD WHAT THEY CALL TRAVEL CONTEXT DESIGN, WHICH INCLUDED ON STREET BIKE LANES AND A BIKE PED. PRIORITY ROUTES FOR ARTERIALS. THE COMMITTEE THAT, AS WE REEVALUATED THAT LAST YEAR, BASICALLY SAID, LOOK, LET'S, LET'S CREATE A SHARED USE PATH OFF TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD AND GET THE PEDESTRIANS AND

[00:25:06]

LIKE, IT DOESN'T HELP WITH SAFETY STANDARDS BECAUSE IT'S IF YOU GET ENOUGH PEOPLE GOING OVER AT A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE, IT'S JUST GOING TO GO UP. I SAID TO THE BOTTOM, BUT I MEAN, IT GOES UP. AND SO REALLY ROAD DIETS THAT THERE'S BETTER WAYS TO KIND OF CONSIDER HOW TO GET TO A SPEED LIMIT IN THE CITY NOW. BUT THAT IS A KIND OF AN OLD CONTEXT, BUT IT IS THE INDUSTRY STANDARD 85%. AND IS THERE ANYTHING THAT YOU'RE LEARNING THAT'S A BETTER WAY TO CALCULATE IT? BECAUSE I THINK THAT THE QUESTION WAS, YOU KNOW, WE WE CONTINUE TO HEAR THAT IT IS THE STANDARD OF HOW SPEED LIMITS ARE SET, BUT THAT THERE ARE OTHER CHARACTERS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND A PARTICULAR STREET OR PATTERNS THAT WE'RE GOING TO EXIST THAT DON'T FACTOR IN THOSE. I THINK THE NATURE OF THE ROAD WHERE YOU WANT TO MOVE TRAFFIC, THE CHALLENGE IS, IS MOVING TRAFFIC AND STILL ACCOMMODATING FOR CROSSINGS AND, YOU KNOW, SCHOOLS AND PARKS AND THINGS LIKE THAT WHERE WE WANT TO SLOW SPEEDS DOWN THE I THINK IT'S KIND OF A TWO STEP DEAL. THE, THE 85TH PERCENTILE IS STILL, I'LL CALL IT THE ENGINEERING INDUSTRY STANDARD. THAT EVALUATION. AND AGAIN, IT WHEN YOU LOOK AT HIGHWAYS AND ROADWAYS, IF YOU HAVE CONSISTENT SPEEDS, THEN THERE'S, THERE'S STUDIES OUT THERE THAT THERE ARE LESS ACCIDENTS. NOW, THAT BEING SAID, IF YOUR SPEED LIMIT SHOULD BE SET AT OR NOT.

AGAIN, THERE'S OTHER ELEMENTS OF CONTEXT TO CONSIDER. THOSE CONTEXTS ARE IT'S A BALANCE OF, YOU KNOW, MOVING TRAFFIC AND PRIORITIZING MOVEMENT. AND THEN BUT IF THERE ARE NEEDS OUTSIDE OF THAT, THEN THOSE SHOULD BE CONSIDERED. WHETHER IT'S LIKE I SAID, A SCHOOL OR A PARK OR, YOU KNOW, OTHER SAFETY ELEMENTS TO BE INCORPORATED. I'M REALLY EXCITED FOR THIS. SAFE STREETS FOR ALL STUDY THAT WE'RE ABOUT TO DO TO HELP US WITH THAT EVALUATION, TO GET KIND OF A REFERENCE CHECK, TO EXPLORE OPPORTUNITIES TO SEE WHAT CAN BE DONE. BUT I DO BELIEVE THAT IF WE HAVE A ROUTE WHERE WE HAVE AN 85TH PERCENTILE, THAT'S A HIGHER SPEED THAN WHETHER WE SET THE SPEED LIMITS TO MATCH IT OR NOT, THOSE SPEEDS ARE GOING TO BE THERE BECAUSE THOSE PEOPLE ARE COMFORTABLE DRIVING THOSE. AND SO THAT'S WHERE WE NEED TO LOOK AT. YOU KNOW, IF WE DO FEEL LIKE THE NATURE OF THAT ROAD NEEDS TO BE LESS, THEN WE NEED TO EVALUATE THAT AND, AND LOOK AT PROJECTS TO KIND OF CREATE A DISCOMFORT, IF YOU WILL, TO GET PEOPLE TO

[00:30:05]

THAT'S A SMALL INCREMENT, RIGHT. BUT I JUST WONDER IF YOU FIGHT THAT BATTLE TRYING TO LOWER THE SPEED, BUT YOU'RE NOT VERY SUCCESSFUL AT IT. AND THE CHALLENGE THAT COMMUNITY SAYING WHY ARE YOU LETTING THE, YOU KNOW, THE INMATES RUN THE PRISON KIND OF THING? SO REALLY MAKING THE RULES. WHAT ABOUT THE. CHERYL ROADS? ARE THEY SUPPOSED TO BE NO HIGHER THAN 25? I BELIEVE WITH THAT CHOSEN BOULEVARD? WE DO. AND WE HAVE NO, NOT ON BOULEVARD BECAUSE THERE'S A BIKE LANE EXCEPT FOR THE ROLAND THAT. IT'S 35 AND IT SEEMS FAST, AND PROBABLY THE 85 PERCENTILE SAYS EVERYONE'S GOING 35. BUT WHAT CHANGES TO 25 ALSO ON THAT ROAD. YEAH.

WHEN YOU GET DOWN NEAR THE BLUE AND THEN YOU GET INTO THAT AREA AND IT'S NARROWER THERE AND PARKING ON BOTH SIDES THAN 25. BUT THAT EVERYONE KIND OF NATURALLY DOES THAT. I THINK BECAUSE OF THE WAY THERE'S PARKING ON BOTH SIDES. AND BUT THE 35 ON A BICYCLE SEEMS LIKE PRETTY FAST FOR CARS. AND IT'S ONE OF THOSE THAT I'M SURE THE 85 PERCENTILE SAYS 35 IS RIGHT, BUT IT'S GOING TO BE A NARROW ROAD. MAYBE THERE'S ANOTHER CONSIDERATION WE LOOKED AT.

YEAH. AND THAT'S A GOOD ELEMENT. I WOULD SUGGEST THAT WE INCORPORATE THAT WITH OUR SAFE STREETS FOR ALL EVALUATION. OKAY. JUST AS A REFERENCE POINT TO CHECK OUR SPEEDS, MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE IN LINE WITH WHAT WE SHOULD BE DOING AND CONSIDER THE OTHER SOURCES OUT THERE.

AND I'VE HAD OTHER ENGINEERS COME AND SAY, CONSIDER CONTEXT. AND WHAT THAT MEANS IS, I THINK THAT IS WHAT SOME OF US ARE THINKING IS CONTEXT IS A MAJOR FACTOR, A MAJOR FACTOR, NOT JUST 85. YEAH, NO, THAT'S FAIR. BUT I DO THINK THERE'S A BALANCE IN THERE. I WILL SAY I'M AN ENGINEER. SO I LIKE I LIKE THE DATA. AND THE NATIONAL DATA DOES SAY THE 85TH PERCENTILE. IF YOU'RE IN IN ALIGNMENT WITH THAT, IT DOES SAY THAT YOU ARE IN A SAFER ROAD FOR MOTORISTS. OKAY. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? IT'S PROBABLY RIGHT 85% OF THE TIME. YEAH.

IT'S A B PLUS. OKAY. ANY OTHER BEFORE I MOVE ON TO THE NEXT. JUST ONE POINT I DID. I LOOKED UP THE GIS MAP AND IT IS THE RED PARTS OF THOSE LINES WERE THE CHERYL ROAD. OKAY. THANK YOU. SO RECENT SPEED STUDIES THAT WE'VE HAD, WE'VE DONE UTAH AVENUE NORTH OF BROADWAY THAT RESULTED IN. SO BASICALLY WE'VE GOT A GAP ON UTAH WHERE IT'S 35 COMING SOUTH OF BROADWAY, AND THEN YOU GET NORTH OF BROADWAY PAST APPLEBEE'S, AND IT'S 35 AGAIN, AND WE HAVE A GAP OF 25 MILE AN HOUR SPEED BLOCK AND A HALF. YEAH, IT'S REALLY WEIRD. AND THEN SO WE DID OUR SPEED STUDY, AND IT DID SHOW THAT THE RECOMMENDATION IS TO GO TO 35 BASED ON THE 85TH PERCENTILE OF THE NATURE OF THE ROAD. THIS PICTURE SHOWS A LITTLE BIT OF PARKING ON THERE, BUT THERE'S NOT MUCH USED THAT WAY. AND SO THAT OUR RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE TO INCREASE THAT IN IN THAT CASE, GENERALLY, IT WAS ANOTHER ONE THAT WE STUDIED BY SOME REQUESTS BETWEEN 25TH AND 17TH.

THAT SPEED STUDY YIELDED 30 MILE AN HOUR. NOW, JENNY LEE, I DON'T KNOW, WASATCH. APPLE IS NOT DONE DEVELOPING AND THINGS LIKE THAT. AND I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH ON STREET PARKING WE WOULD EXPERIENCE WHEN IT'S FULLY OCCUPIED. SO THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE COULD CONSIDER LOOKING AT AGAIN IN THE FUTURE, PER SE. AND THEN THE THING ABOUT JENNY LEE IS IT GOES BACK TO THE NATURE OF THE ROAD BECAUSE IT EVERY OTHER ROAD THAT'S LIKE A RESIDENTIAL ROAD, IT DOESN'T HAVE THAT TURN LANE. AND SO IT'S 25 MILES AN HOUR. BUT ON JENNY LEE, IT HAS THE TURN LANE

[00:35:06]

YOU DON'T FEEL LIKE YOU'RE QUITE RESIDENTIAL. SO THERE HAVE BEEN SEVERAL TIMES I'VE THOUGHT, I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT SPEED THIS IS, AND IT'S NOT POSTED. AND SO I JUST IT'S ALSO VERY WIDE. IT'S WIDE. IT'S GOT THE TURN LANE. IT JUST DOESN'T FEEL LIKE A REGULAR RESIDENTIAL ROAD. SO THAT GOES TO YOUR IT IS A COLLECTOR ROAD BY DESIGN TO COLLECT 25TH STREET OR COLLECT 25TH STREET TRAFFIC TO 17TH STREET AND THINGS LIKE THAT. BUT THAT'S A ROAD BASED ON CONTEXT I THINK MIGHT MAKE A DIFFERENCE, BECAUSE IT'S COMING INTO ONE OF THE ROADS THAT WE DELIBERATELY SAID, THIS IS GOING TO BE 25. THAT WAS A COUNCIL DECISION LONG BEFORE MY TIME. 25TH WILL ALWAYS BE 25TH STREET IN NO MATTER WHAT THE 85 PERCENTILE WAS. AND THEN THIS ONE IS COMING INTO 25TH, AND IT'S PARTLY THE DESIGN OF THE ROAD, IN MY VIEW. I MEAN, WHEN I START OUT ON IT, I'M THINKING THIS IS A 35 MILE AN HOUR ROAD. IT JUST LOOKS LIKE THAT. IT DOES. BUT IF IT HAD A BIKE LANE ON IT, A NARROWER DRIVE LANE, THEN IT WOULD LOOK MORE LIKE A 25 MILE AN HOUR ZONE. SO I THINK THINKING ABOUT THIS BROAD PICTURE THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, THIS IS WHY THERE'S SOME CONCERN ABOUT THAT SIMPLE 85 PERCENTILE, BECAUSE THINKING ABOUT WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THAT ROAD AND WHAT'S THE FUTURE, WHICH IS GOING TO HAVE A LOT OF RESIDENTIAL ON IT WHEN IT'S FINISHED OR FEEDING INTO IT, AND IT'S GOING TO A 25 MILE AN HOUR STREET. THE OTHER WAY, THOUGH, IT'S GOING TO 40. SO I'M SORRY. I MEAN, GENERALLY PEOPLE ARE GOING BOTH WAYS. AND SO SOME PEOPLE ARE GOING, THEY'RE GOING THE OTHER WAY TO.

YEAH, THAT'S CONSIDERATIONS BOTH WAYS. YOU COME TO A STOP CONDITION BEFORE YOU GET TO 25TH STREET. SO IN THE NATURE OF 25 OR 35, IT'S ONLY GOING TO BE ABOUT A 32ND DIFFERENCE, I MEAN, OKAY, SO YOU DRIVE 25 THE LENGTH OF THAT. AND THEN WE DID DO A SPEED STUDY ON PANCARI NEAR BELEN. THE RESULTS OF THE STUDY WAS A RECOMMENDATION OF NO CHANGE BASED ON THE 85TH PERCENTILE. THAT ONE IS KIND OF UNIQUE TO WHERE IT WAS. IT'S A WIDE ROADWAY DRIVING FACILITY.

WHEN WE COMPLETED THE PROJECT, WE DID MAKE SOME STRIPING ADJUSTMENTS TO TRY TO GET SPEEDS DOWN AND MAKE THEM FEEL A LITTLE BIT LESS COMFORTABLE. WE REDUCED THE THROUGH LANE WIDTHS AND PUT A FOG LINE IN THE ROAD KIND OF THING. BUT WE'VE GOT FLASHING SIGNS UP THERE TO REMIND PEOPLE WHAT THEIR WHAT THEIR HOW FAST THEY'RE GOING, AND USE QUITE A FEW TOOLS IN THE TOOLBOX TO TRY TO ADDRESS IT. SO, BUT AGAIN, I'M, I'M HOPEFUL THAT WHAT I PLAN TO DO IS TRY TO LEARN AS MUCH AS I CAN OUT OF THIS SS FOR ANY STUDY, THIS GRANT PROCESS TO TRY TO HELP US MAKE INTUITIVE GOOD DECISIONS TOWARDS BOTH MOVING TRAFFIC AND BEING SAFE AND CONSIDERING TRAVEL CONTEXT. SO HAS ANYBODY ELSE EVER HAD THE THOUGHT THAT SOMETIMES WHEN THEY PUT OUT THE THE RADAR SIGNS THAT THE, THE YOUNG PEOPLE WHO LIKE TO GO FAST USE THEM AS A COMPETITION TOOL TO SEE WHO CAN GET THE HIGHEST SPEED ON THE SIGN. I'VE HEARD THAT THAT WAS SUGGESTED BY SOME FOLKS. I DO KNOW WHEN WE. RIGHT NOW THEY'VE SWITCHED TO JUST FLASHING WHEN THEY'RE SPEEDING KIND OF THING. INSTEAD OF FLASHING WHAT THEIR SPEED IS, THEY JUST FLASH SECOND PERIOD. SO YOUR SPEED 68 I CAN DO 70. YEAH. THOSE ARE THE ONES OUT ON THE INTERSTATE. MAKE SURE YOUR SPEEDOMETERS. THANK YOU. I'M NOT THE ONLY ONE WHO THOUGHT OF THAT, AM I? APPARENTLY NOT. OKAY, SO SAFE STREETS FOR ALL APPLICATION THAT WE COMPLETED WHAT WE'RE DOING. THIS IS A GRANT TO BASICALLY DO A COMPREHENSIVE SAFETY PLAN. AND IT'S GEARED TOWARDS ZERO DEATHS. SO THEY'VE GOT, YOU KNOW, A SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH, I'LL CALL IT THE THE POST-CRASH. AND IT STARTS WITH LOOKING, LOOKING AT THE, THE SAFER PEOPLE, SAFER VEHICLES, SAFER SPEEDS, SAFER ROADS AND POST-CRASH CARE AND THINGS LIKE THAT. AND THEY TAKE INTO ACCOUNT A STUDY TO SEE. ALL RIGHT. AND IT'LL BE KIND OF A PSEUDO ENGINEERING AND CONTEXTUAL ANALYSIS TO SAY, WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO HAVE GOING ON IN YOUR CITY? WHERE ARE YOUR ACCIDENTS HAPPENING? WHAT CAN BE DONE WITH THOSE EXISTING ACCIDENTS TO GET US TOWARDS ZERO DEATH? AND ALSO, YOU KNOW, WHAT ARE OUR FUTURE PROGRAMS? AND, AND TO COMPLEMENT THOSE SO THEY IDENTIFY POTENTIAL PROJECTS TO APPLY FOR, FOR GRANTS AS WELL.

THEY INCLUDE A SPEED LIMIT EVALUATION THAT I'M LOOKING FORWARD TO. AND THE AGREEMENT

[00:40:04]

YEAH. IT FEELS LIKE WE'RE MOVING FORWARD WITH THAT IN DESIGN AND WHAT'S HAPPENING IN THE PARK. WELL, CHRIS, I'M CURIOUS ABOUT THE ON THE NUMBER TWO UNDER PROJECTS UNDER CONSTRUCTION AT THE VERY END CAN CARRY ON TO BROADWAY. JUST I CAN'T PICTURE THAT IN MY MIND.

DO THOSE STREETS MEET OR ARE WE TALKING CLEAR OUT BY THE SOCCER COMPLEX TODAY? SORRY ABOUT SEAL COATS. WELL, THOSE. IS THAT. YEAH, IT'S UNDER A SEAL COAT THAT'S UNDER SEAL COAT PROJECT.

SO ALL OF THOSE ARE SEAL COAT ROUTES. THAT'S OUR MAINTENANCE. THOSE ARE THE PROJECTS WE'VE IDENTIFIED THE PAN CARRY AND BROADWAY MEET THEIR PARALLEL CARRY AND VILLAIN UP AROUND TO BROADWAY. SO BASICALLY, OH, THERE'S A SECTION AND THEN IT WRAPS AROUND BROADWAY. AND I COMMUNICATED THAT BETTER. BUT IT'S BASICALLY ON THE CURVE. YEAH. SORRY. YEAH. BY THE SOCCER COMPLEX. YES. YEAH, EXACTLY. SO BASICALLY, AND THE GENERAL RULE OF THUMB IS PROJECTS THAT WE OVERLAY WITHIN A YEAR OR TWO. WE LIKE TO SEAL THEM. AND, AND THAT JUST EXTENDS YOUR PAVEMENT LIFE SO THAT YOU HAVE OVERLAYING AGAIN SOONER THAN LATER OR RECONSTRUCTED. CORRECT. CANFIELD. WHEN WE DO THAT FIFTH AND HOLMES IT, I DON'T HAVE ANY SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE, BUT IT SEEMS LIKE THERE'S LESS OF THAT LONG LINE OF TRAFFIC BUILDING UP ON HOLMES THAT MOVES BETTER ON HOLMES. DO WE HAVE A WAY TO DOCUMENT THE IMPROVEMENT OF THAT OR DO WE TRY? SO THAT'S THE MOBILITY ASPECT THAT WE TRIED TO DO. WE'VE IDENTIFIED CORRIDORS WHERE WE'RE TRYING TO WORK WITH SITUS GROUP AND OUR TRAFFIC TO ADJUST SIGNAL TIMING.

SOME OF THAT IS, YOU KNOW, INFLUENCED BY SCHOOL OR EVENTS. AT IDAHO FALLS HIGH SCHOOL. WE DID WE HAVE ADJUSTED THE TIMING A LITTLE BIT TO HOLD TRAFFIC BACK ON JOHN ADAMS. AND FIFTH, TO KEEP MORE GOES THROUGH ON HOME. BUT YOU HAVE A DEDICATED LEFT TURN SIGNAL OFF OF JOHN ADAMS ONTO HOLMES. YEAH. SO THAT YOU DON'T HAVE TO WAIT FOR ALL THE TRAFFIC TO COME THROUGH ON FIFTH STREET. THAT WAS A PROBLEM. YOU GET 12 CARS PILED UP ON FIFTH STREET, AND THEN ONLY ONE CAR WOULD BE ABLE TO TURN LEFT ON ONTO HOLMES. THERE WAS A TIME WHEN PEOPLE WERE COMPLAINING ABOUT HOW THE TRAFFIC LINED UP SO MUCH ON HOLMES, PARTICULARLY FRONT OF THE HIGH SCHOOL, BUT IT SEEMS LESS OF IT. BUT I MIGHT BE WRONG. IT SEEMS BETTER. I TOOK MY SON TO SCHOOL MULTIPLE TIMES IN THE PAST FOUR MONTHS, AND I WOULDN'T SAY THAT IT'S NOT

[00:45:05]

THAT'S WHAT IT'S LIKE 10:30 A.M. IT'S PROBABLY NOT TERRIBLE, BUT I WOULD SAY ANYWHERE BETWEEN 8 AND 9 AND IT'S THE SAME SITUATION AND 3 TO 5 ALMOST. AND THEN RUSH HOUR, QUOTE UNQUOTE HAPPENS. I DON'T KNOW, I HAVEN'T SEEN IT GET BETTER, BUT WE ARE WORKING WITH THIS GROUP TO TRY TO IDENTIFY CORRIDORS. WE'VE GOT THE COMPETING ONES LIKE 17TH STREET, SUNNYSIDE. IT. SO YOU GOT YOUR NORTHWEST NORTH SOUTH ROUTES, INCLUDING HOLMES AND WOODRUFF, AS WELL AS WEST FIRST BALANCE WITH THAT SIGNAL TIMING THAT WE'LL CONTINUE TO TRY TO IMPROVE IT WHERE WE CAN. AND WE'RE WE'RE STARTING THE ROUNDABOUT ON BOULEVARD AND AND ASH STREET OR BIRCH STREET RIGHT AFTER THE PARADE. YEAH, YEAH. THE CONTRACTOR SCHEDULED THE MOMENT ON THE SIXTH AND TRAFFIC WILL BE IMPACTED ON THE 13TH. OKAY. SO THAT INTERSECTION. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. THANK YOU. I DO WANT TO THANK DIRECTOR CANFIELD. THEY SAT DOWN AND ACTUALLY MAPPED OUT ALL OF THESE AND REALIZED THERE WAS GOING TO BE A WHOLE LOT OF THAT SHIPPING. I KNOW THEY'RE NOT SHIPPING. AND THEY ACTUALLY PUSHED PULLED BACK A COUPLE OF PROJECTS AND THEY HAD SO THAT THEY COULD BE DONE NEXT YEAR SO THAT THE WHOLE TOWN WASN'T COVERED IN CHIPSEAL. AND THEN ALSO THEY REALLY COORDINATED WHETHER SOME PROJECTS WERE GOING TO HAPPEN ON SUNDAYS WHERE THE TRAFFIC WAS THE LOWEST. SO I DO WANT TO THANK YOU FOR PUTTING ALL OF THAT INTO CONSIDERATION BEFORE YOU PUT OUT YOUR YOUR PROJECTS EVERY YEAR. SO THANK YOU, THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. DIRECTOR TURNER

[Airport ]

THE FIRST TWO ARE THE PASSENGER FACILITY CHARGE AND CUSTOMER FACILITY CHARGE FUNDS. THESE ACT AS BUCKETS TO COLLECT REVENUE THAT ARE SUBSTANTIALLY FOR CAPITAL PROJECTS. FROM THE PRESENTATION THAT'S IN YOUR PACKET TO THIS ONE, I NOTED AN ERROR ON OUR PERCENT CHANGE CALCULATIONS. AND SO WHERE IT SAYS 119. PERCENT IN THE PACKET, IT WAS ACTUALLY 19% GROWTH. SO THIS SLIDE I CORRECTED THEM ON EVERYTHING BUT THIS SLIDE. SO I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT. THE PASSENGER FACILITY CHARGES REPRESENT ABOUT A 14% INCREASE OVER WHAT WE WERE ACTUALLY COLLECTING THIS YEAR. FOR FISCAL YEAR 2526. BUDGET NUMBERS DID NOT INCLUDE PORTLAND SERVICE WITH ALASKA, NOR THE SECOND CHICAGO FLIGHT AND A COUPLE OTHER MINOR CHANGES. AND SO THAT'S WHERE WE LAND AT 19% INCREASE. WE HAVE 17.5% INCREASE LAST YEAR, AND I'M ANTICIPATING ABOUT ANOTHER 14% INCREASE, MAYBE 12% INCREASE FOR FISCAL YEAR 2627.

SO THAT'S WHERE WE LAND ON THE 19%. THE TRANSFERS ARE THE PORTION OF THE FEES THAT WILL BE TRANSFERRED FOR CAPITAL PROJECTS. AND THE FCS CASE, THAT IS FOR THE TERMINAL EXPANSION, AND THAT DOES EXCEED REVENUE IN A SINGLE YEAR. BUT THAT IS CURRENTLY HAS ABOUT ALMOST $5 MILLION IN BALANCE IN THE PFC. ON THE CFC SIDE, 102% INCREASE REFLECTS THE CUSTOMER FACILITY CHARGE RATE. THERE WE GO ON IN THE NEW AGREEMENTS THAT WERE ENTERED INTO IN FEBRUARY. THIS FIGURE FOR THIS CURRENT YEAR WAS FACTORED ON THE OLD RATES. AND SO THAT'S WHERE WE GET THE APPROXIMATELY DOUBLING IN THE REVENUE COMING INTO THE CFC. $1.6 MILLION TRANSFER FOR NEXT FISCAL YEAR IS ALSO GOING TOWARDS CAPITAL PROJECTS. ANY QUESTIONS ON THOSE TWO FUNDS? ALL RIGHT. LOOKING AT AIRPORT REVENUE, THE LARGEST CHANGE HERE IS IS WITH INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVENUE. THE $42 MILLION FIGURE. THERE IS A $12 MILLION ANTICIPATED TERMINAL APRON EXPANSION PROJECT, AND THEN $28 MILLION OF THE EXPECTED TERMINAL EXPANSION COST FOR FISCAL YEAR 2627. AND THEN THE DIFFERENCE THERE IS MADE UP OF SOME ONGOING PROJECTS THAT WILL LEAK INTO NEXT FISCAL YEAR BEFORE WE GET INTO CLOSED OUT, MAYBE SOME

[00:50:03]

AND THEN ONE OF THE OTHER CHANGES THAT YOU'LL SEE IN HERE IS, ALTHOUGH IT'S NOT NECESSARILY REFLECTED IN AN ACTUAL OPERATING EXPENSE, BUT AS PART OF THAT, ALMOST 11% OPERATING EXPENSES TO REMOVE THE POTATO CELLAR OFF OF BROADWAY ADJACENT TO GREENS DAIRY. YOU SAID THAT. THAT THE ONLY SIGNIFICANT CHANGE IS THE AIRPORT SECURITY, WHICH IS A GENERALLY A SMALLER ONE OF OUR DIVISIONS IS A FORMER EMPLOYEES BENEFITS WERE SIGNIFICANTLY LOWER THAN THE REPLACEMENT EMPLOYEE. OTHER THAN THAT, THERE ARE NO CHANGES TO THIS DIVISION. I WILL GO OVER THE AIRPORT IMPROVEMENTS ON THE LAST SLIDE AND I PASSED OUT A THE TABLE THAT'S ON THE LAST SLIDE, BECAUSE I FIGURED IT WOULD BE A LITTLE BIT SMALL ON THE SCREENS TO READ. SO THAT'S THE ONLY THING THAT I PASSED OUT. WE'LL GO OVER THAT IN A SECOND FOR AIRPORT FIRE PROTECTION. THE SUBSTANTIAL PORTION OF THE INCREASE FROM THE OPERATING EXPENSES IN THE CURRENT FISCAL YEAR TO THE PROPOSED 2627 BUDGET IS 100 AND ALMOST $165,000 IN THE MOU THAT IS BASED ON THE MOST COMMON STEP AND GRADE OF SIX FIREFIGHTERS FOR THE AIRPORT. AND SO THAT'S WHERE THAT COST ELEMENT CHANGES. AND THEN ON THE $795,000 CAPITAL OUTLAY, THERE ARE TWO PIECES OF THAT, ONE OF WHICH IS TO PURCHASE NEW FOAM AND THEN SET ABOUT $750,000 TO ACQUIRE A NEW, AT LEAST NEW TO US, IF NOT NEW, AIRCRAFT RESCUE, FIREFIGHTING RESERVE TRUCK. I'LL TALK ABOUT THAT ON. YOU MIGHT REMEMBER, FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO AREN'T AWARE THAT WE DID HAVE A BIT OF AN INCIDENT AT THE AIRPORT, WHICH WE DID NOT REPAIR ON OUR TRUCK. AND SO WE DO NEED A NEW RESERVE VEHICLE FOR THE FOR THE FIRE DEPARTMENT TO, TO USE AT THE AIRPORT. ON THE, THE LAND SIDE PORTION HERE. THE BIGGEST CHANGE HERE IS THAT THE NEW PARKING EQUIPMENT. WE HAD ANTICIPATED BEING ABLE TO BE A LITTLE BIT MORE AUTONOMOUS THAN IT ACTUALLY IS. AND WE ARE NOT PROVIDING A VERY GOOD LEVEL OF CUSTOMER SERVICE. AND WHAT'S HAPPENING IS THE CALL CENTER IS SUBSTANTIALLY CALLING OUR STAFF, AND WE ARE STILL HAVING TO GO OUT TO ADDRESS CUSTOMER ISSUES AT THE PARKING EXIT BOOTH. AND SO WE'RE GOING TO HIRE SOME ADDITIONAL PART TIME STAFF, SINCE WE NEED THAT HUMAN

[00:55:02]

THAT IS WHAT WE ARE PLANNING ON MOVING FORWARD WITH THE FAA. EVERYTHING IN THOSE OTHER FOUR COLUMNS ARE NICE FOR YOU TO BE AWARE OF, BUT CAN CHANGE AS SOON AS I HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH THE FAA AND AS AN EXAMPLE, THE AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL TOWER AND VOR RELOCATION ARE SUBJECT OF A MEETING ON WEDNESDAY WITH THE FAA, AND THAT COULD DRIVE SOME CHANGES TO FISCAL YEAR 27 AND 28. SO IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, CHANGES, CONCERNS, COMMENTS ABOUT OUR CAPITAL PROJECTS. I AM ALL EARS. BUT OTHER THAN THE FIRST COLUMN FOR 26 AND 27, IT'S A LITTLE BIT UP IN THE AIR, PARTICULARLY WHEN THE CONGRESS HAS BEEN APPROPRIATING FUNDS TO THE FAA OVER THE LAST TWO AND A HALF YEARS. SO. SO HOW HOW MUCH OF THAT 45 MILLION IS IS KNOWN TO BE GOOD THIS YEAR FOR THAT PERIOD, I MEAN. SO TOP LINE ON THE LEFT, PROBABLY NINE AND A HALF OF THAT I KNOW IS GOOD ON THE TERMINAL BUILDING EXPANSION. THE 28,400,000 IS GOOD.

EVERYTHING ELSE ON THAT LIST, EXCEPT FOR THE PETERSON PROPERTY ACQUISITION IS A KNOWN IS ACTUALLY A CURRENT GRANT PETERSON PROPERTY ACQUISITION IS ONE THAT WE NEED TO CONTINUE TO SHOW ON OUR CAPITAL PROJECT, OR WE WILL NOT BE ELIGIBLE FOR FAA FUNDING SHOULD THAT COME ALONG THE LINE FROM THE FAA. SO YEAH, IT'S A IT'S A LITTLE PROJECT SPECIFIC OR DEPENDENT.

JUST ONE BLAST PADS. AREA WOULD BE EASIER TO SHOW. SO SHORT OF THE RUNWAY THRESHOLDS, THE PIANO KEYS ON THE END OF THE RUNWAY. YEAH. THERE ARE SATELLITES WE CALL RUNWAY END IDENTIFIER LIGHTS. AND THEN THE APPROACH LIGHTS ARE BEHIND THOSE, AND THE BLAST PADS KEEP ROCKS AND OTHER DEBRIS FROM GETTING KICKED UP AND BREAKING THOSE LIGHTS. ESSENTIALLY. THAT IS IT. AND THERE'S MORE TO IT, BUT THAT IS THE SIMPLEST WAY I CAN DESCRIBE IT WITHOUT, I DON'T KNOW, MAYBE WALKING OUT THERE. THAT'S ALL I NEEDED. THANK YOU. I WILL, YOU KNOW, YOU DO BRING UP A GOOD A GOOD POINT. SO YOU'LL NOTE THAT 29 AND 30 IN THIS LIST HAS VERY LIMITED FUNDING COMPARED TO THE OTHER OTHER YEARS. SO WE ARE ANTICIPATING NEEDING TO

[01:00:01]

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. FOR THE INCONVENIENCE. THANK YOU, DIRECTOR TURNER. COUNCIL, AS WE MOVE FORWARD INTO JULY, WE'RE TRYING TO KIND OF GET SOME OF THESE THAT ARE ASSOCIATED WITH GENERAL FUND DEPARTMENTS OUT OF THE WAY, KIND OF FREE UP SOME OF THE TIME FOR OUR DEEP DISCUSSIONS INTO THE GENERAL FUND AND TAX REPORTING. SO I APPRECIATE DIRECTOR. ON THIS.

[Parks & Recreation, Legal ]

AND I WOULD TURN THE TIME OVER TO DIRECTOR HOLMES. THANK YOU. MAYOR. YEAH, WE'RE GOING TO TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT A LAND EXCHANGE OF THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE MOVE FORWARD OUT AT SAGE LAKES. I DO HAVE OUR MANAGER OF GOLF OPERATIONS, KEVIN CAMERON, HERE, AS WELL AS BRIAN CUNNINGHAM, WHO WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH. AND THEN WE'VE ALSO BEEN WORKING ON THIS WITH ZACH JONES AS WELL AS THE MUNICIPAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT ON THIS PROCESS. SO IT'S KIND OF A COLLABORATION, BUT WE ARE WE'LL GO AHEAD AND GET STARTED TODAY. SO. SO THE PURPOSE OF TODAY IS, IS THE PARKS AND REC DEPARTMENT WOULD LIKE TO BUILD A PUBLIC RESTROOM ON THE FRONT NINE OF SAGE LAKES GOLF COURSE. THIS WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS BUDGETED FROM COUNCIL IN THE GOLF FUND TO BUILD A RESTROOM. AND SO WE STARTED LOOKING AT A GENERAL. LOCATION OF WHERE WE WANTED TO, TO BE ABLE TO PUT THIS SO THAT IT WAS OPTIMAL FOR, FOR THE FACILITY. AND UNFORTUNATELY, UTILITIES AREN'T REALLY THEY'RE VERY LIMITED IN THE AREA THAT WE ARE LOOKING AT FOR THIS RESTROOM. AND SO AS WE STARTED LOOKING AT THAT, WE, WE, WE STARTED LOOKING AT SOME PROPERTY AND WHERE WE COULD PUT IT. AND THE CITY DOES OWN A SMALL PIECE OF PROPERTY. AND WE'LL KIND OF TOUCH ON ALL THIS A LITTLE BIT. BUT THE CITY DOES OWN A SMALL PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT WAS NEVER INCLUDED IN THE GOLF COURSE DESIGN. IT WAS IT WAS LOCATED ON THE FAR SIDE OF AN IRRIGATION DITCH AND KIND OF A YOU'LL SEE AS WE LOOK AT IT, IT'S KIND OF A LITTLE PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT DIDN'T GET. IT'S KIND OF A. WHERE IT LIES IS JUST KIND OF NOT CONDUCIVE FOR THE, FOR THE COURSE. THE PARKS AND REC DEPARTMENT IS SEEKING APPROVAL TO EXCHANGE THE UNUSED PROPERTY FOR A PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT'S MORE ADJACENT TO THE COURSE, WHERE THE DEVELOPER THAT OWNS THE PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH OF THIS COULD HELP RUN SOME UTILITIES ONTO THE GOLF COURSE SO THAT WE CAN GET THAT RESTROOM BUILT. SO WE DID AN APPRAISAL THAT WAS COMPLETED FOR BOTH PROPERTIES, AND WE ARE SEEKING SEEKING A DECLARATION OF INTENT FROM COUNCIL TODAY TO EXCHANGE THESE PROPERTIES. DIRECTOR. YES, SIR. CHANGING SLIDES. IS THAT JUST A STOCK PHOTO OF RESTROOM OR ARE WE STILL PLANNING TO FORM. FOR BY STALL? SO THAT IS JUST A THAT IS JUST A STOCK PHOTO THAT I FOUND. WE PROBABLY WON'T DO A FOUR BAY. WE. IT. WE DON'T SEE THAT MUCH NEED FOR FOR IT. WHAT WE WILL BUILD IS PROBABLY TWO BAYS, BUT THEY WILL BE UNISEX, SINGLE USE. GO IN AND LOCK THE DOOR BEHIND YOU. KIND OF LIKE WHAT WE'VE BEEN BUILDING AROUND AROUND THE COMMUNITY. SO NOT QUITE AS BIG AS THE ONE ON ROHNERT PARK. YES, SIR. YEP.

JUST TWO. IT'S IT'S MAINLY FOR GOLFERS. IT'S NOT IN A LOCATED IN A POSITION THAT MANY OF THE OF THE NEIGHBORS WILL BE UTILIZING IT. SO IT'S REALLY FOR GOLFERS. AND YOU'LL SEE AS WE LOOK AT IT'S KIND OF THE TRANSITION SPOT BETWEEN A FEW HOLES THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE A COUPLE FOLKS AT A TIME, BUT OR, YOU KNOW, FOURSOMES COMING AROUND THAT, THAT MIGHT A COUPLE OF THEM MIGHT NEED TO USE THE RESTROOM. THEY CAN UTILIZE THOSE, BUT I DON'T THINK A FOUR, I THINK WE'D HAVE A LOT OF UNUSED FACILITY THERE IF WE DID BUILD A FOR IT. OKAY.

[01:05:03]

IT WRAPS AROUND. YOU DON'T ACTUALLY END UP HAVING A RESTROOM AGAIN UNTIL. DOWN BETWEEN 14 AND 15. SO THIS IS THIS IS A LONG TIME AROUND. A GOLF CAN CAN TAKE FOUR HOURS TO PLAY. AND SO BY THE TIME YOU HIT THIS, YOU'RE PROBABLY THREE HOURS IN. AND SO WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT AND ALSO RIGHT HERE WHERE WE WHERE WE'RE LOOKING AT THIS IDEAL LOCATION, WE'VE ACTUALLY RENTED PORTA POTTIES THERE FOR YEARS AND YEARS AND YEARS. BUT BECAUSE OF THAT UTILITY SITUATION, IT'S NEVER REALLY BEEN FINANCIALLY OPTIMAL FOR US TO BE ABLE TO BUILD. SO I KNOW THAT WE HAVE A LOT OF, OF FOLKS THAT HAVE REACHED OUT TO US. GOLFERS. ONE OF THE, ONE OF THE PRESIDENTS OF THE WOMEN'S GOLF ASSOCIATION HAS SAID, HOW HAVE YOU GUYS NEVER PUT SOMETHING HERE? WE ABSOLUTELY NEED IT. IT'S DEFINITELY SOMETHING THAT THE COMMUNITY IS AFTER. SO AS YOU LOOK HERE NOW, THIS IS NORTH FACING NORTH TO THE TOP OF THE SCREEN. THIS IS THAT PROPERTY THAT WE'RE KIND OF LOOKING AT A LITTLE CLOSER VIEW OF IT HERE.

SO YOU CAN KIND OF SEE WHERE WE'RE WHERE WE WOULD LIKE TO PUT THE RESTROOM AND WHERE I HAVE THE BLUE MARK OVER HERE. WE HAVE SOME POWER UP HERE AT ONE OF OUR MAINTENANCE SHOPS.

OTHER THAN THAT, ACROSS THIS CANAL IS THE ONLY PLACE THAT WE HAVE UTILITIES. AND THERE'S ACTUALLY SOME POWER RIGHT AT THESE HOUSES AS WELL. SO THERE'S WATER, SEWER, SANITATION OR STORMWATER AND POWER ABOUT 250FT SOUTH OF THE OF THE THE CANAL THERE. SO THE CITY, THE UNUSED PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT WE WERE THAT I MENTIONED. EARLIER IS THIS FUNKY LITTLE TRIANGLE HERE THAT IS ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF A CANAL. NOW, THIS SIDE, WHEN OUR EMPLOYEES COME OVER HERE, YOU CAN GET INTO THIS. BUT NOW THAT THIS IS DEVELOPING, THIS IS THESE THESE LOTS HERE ARE LOOKING TO BE SOLD OUT PROBABLY AND BUILT IN THE NEXT YEAR OR SO. AND SO IT'S ESSENTIALLY GOING TO CLOSE US OFF FROM THE ABILITY TO UTILIZE THAT. ONE THING I DID WANT TO KIND OF POINT OUT WAS THIS ROAD THAT'S RIGHT HERE, THAT'S THAT COMES OUT TO THIS TRIANGULAR PIECE OF PROPERTY, THIS PROPERTY, FROM MY UNDERSTANDING, BECAUSE OF THE BRIDGE THAT'S. OVER TO TO FIFTH EAST, THERE ARE THESE CAN THESE FOLKS CANNOT DEVELOP UNTIL THAT BRIDGE WAS OPEN. AND SO THEY'VE KIND OF BEEN LANDLOCKED IN A WAY THAT THAT THEY HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO DEVELOP. SO IT HAS IT IT HAS SAT EMPTY. BUT THIS PROPERTY THAT COMES OUT IS ACTUALLY IT'S NOT A IT'S NOT A UTILITY EASEMENT. IT'S A. ROADWAY EASEMENT ACCESS. AND SO IN ORDER TO GO UNDER HERE, WE WOULD HAVE SOME, SOME ISSUES GOING UNDER SOME PROPERTY OF WHERE THEY'RE NOT DEVELOPED YET. RIGHT? SO WE KIND OF NEED TO GET OUR UTILITIES OVER TO THIS AREA TO BE ABLE TO GET THEM UP AND OVER TO WHERE WE, WE NEED TO BUILD. AND SO AS WE LOOKED AT THAT, WE DID. MEET, WE, WE'VE ACTUALLY TALKED TO THE DEVELOPER THAT HAD OWNED THIS PROPERTY AND WAS DEVELOPING THIS PROPERTY FOR YEARS. HE SOLD LAST YEAR TO A NEW COMPANY. THIS IS THE PROPERTY THAT THEY ARE CONSIDERING A TRADE FOR.

AND SO YOU CAN SEE OUR PROPERTY HERE IS QUITE A BIT LARGER THAN THE PROPERTY THAT WE WOULD NEED FROM THEM, BUT WE REALLY DON'T NEED A WHOLE LOT. WE NEED ENOUGH TO BE ABLE TO PUT A SERVICE LINE FOR WATER AND A SERVICE LINE FOR SEWER IN, WHICH HAS ABOUT A 5 TO 8 FOOT SEPARATION. AND SO WE DID NEED AT LEAST THAT MUCH ROOM. WE HAD ALSO TALKED ABOUT JUST DOING AN EASEMENT, BUT WE THOUGHT IT MIGHT BE BETTER TO HAVE OUR OWN HAVE THE PROPERTY SO THAT WE'RE NOT BURYING THIS STUFF UNDER SOMEBODY'S PROPERTY. THAT NEEDS TO BE UNBURIED OR DUG UP IF WE EVER HAD SOME ISSUES. AND SO WE TALKED ABOUT THIS PROPERTY. HERE'S THE THE UTILITIES THAT THAT THEY HAVE THAT, THAT WE COULD SUB UP NO MATTER WHAT THEY, THEY ARE GOING TO HAVE TO SUB TO THE END OF THIS ROAD. IT'S JUST A MATTER OF WHEN. AND SO IF, IF WE CAN GET THIS TOGETHER, THIS EXCHANGE TO HAPPEN, WE THINK THAT THEY WOULD BE MORE WILLING TO HELP US GET THIS OVER A LITTLE BIT QUICKER AND ACTUALLY HELP FUND SOME OF THIS. OR WE COULD UTILIZE THE DIFFERENCE IN SIZE. ANY, ANY, THE DIFFERENCE, I GUESS, IN, IN VALUE TO HELP PAY FOR SOME OF THAT, THOSE UTILITIES TO BE RUN OVER. BUT THAT IS KIND OF WHERE WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE THEM RUN OVER TO THE COURSE RIGHT HERE. SO PER IDAHO STATE CODE 50 AND 1402, WHENEVER A CITY COUNCIL PROPOSES TO CONVEY EXCHANGE. OR OFFER TO SELL, A REAL PROPERTY

[01:10:21]

THIS WAS DONE BY GIS AND KIND OF YOUR ROUGH ESTIMATES ON GIS, BUT WE WOULD GET A SURVEY DONE TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS IS 100% ACCURATE. THE PROPERTY THAT A HGFEW HOLDINGS LLC PROPERTY.

OWNS IS ONLY 0.05 ACRES, OR 2183FT■!S, AND IT APPRAISED AT 5500, MEANING THE DEVELOPER WOULD OWE THE CITY APPROXIMATELY $19,500. IN ADDITION TO THE LAND EXCHANGE.

WHAT DID THE APPRAISAL COST? $3,500? AND THEY ARE THEY. AS THE DEVELOPER AWARE OF THESE NUMBERS, THEY ARE. SO FOLLOWING THE DECLARATION OF INTENT TO EXCHANGE THE REAL PROPERTY, THE CLERK OF THE CITY SHALL PUBLISH IT. IN SUMMARY, THE ACTION TAKEN BY THE CITY COUNCIL AND AN OFFICIAL NEWSPAPER. SO COUNCIL DECLARES THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO EXCHANGE THE IDENTIFIED PROPERTIES USING THE APPRAISED VALUES. THE INTENT WOULD BE TO PUBLISH THIS AND BRING IT BACK AS A PUBLIC HEARING TO COUNCIL ON THURSDAY, JULY 30TH. EXACTLY. DOES THAT SOUND RIGHT TO YOU? THE PUBLIC HEARING ON JULY 3RD. WE ALL KNOW I FORGOT I NEGLECTED TO CATCH THIS EARLIER. IT SHOULD BE 1402 STILL. OH, YEAH. OKAY. SORRY. OKAY, PERFECT. 1402 ALL RIGHT. SO WHEN IT IS DETERMINED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL HAS BEST INTEREST TO EXCHANGE NECESSARY TO EXCHANGE PROPERTY OWNED BY THE CITY, THE REAL PROPERTY, EQUAL VALUE PURSUANT TO TERMS WHICH SHALL BE A MATTER OF PUBLIC RECORD. SO OUR STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS, AND I ACTUALLY UPDATED THIS JUST BEFORE I CAME HERE, AND I MUST HAVE PUT THE WRONG ONE IN, IN THE DRIVE, BUT I DID ALSO IN HERE SAY THAT. SO SO WE DID PAY $3,500 FOR THE FOR THE APPRAISAL. AND WE WOULD LIKE TO INCLUDE. THAT IN THE IN THE EXCHANGE, WE WOULD LIKE THEM TO SPLIT THAT COST WITH US.

AND SO IT'S ACTUALLY. AND THAT HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO THEM. CORRECT. RIGHT. AND THEY ARE THEY ARE OKAY WITH THAT. SO TODAY, WHAT WE WOULD BE ASKING IS FOR COUNCIL TO MAKE THE DECLARATION OF INTENT TO EXCHANGE THESE REAL PROPERTIES AT THE APPRAISED VALUE, MEANING THAT THEY WOULD PAY 19,500 IN IN ADDITION TO PLUS THE 1750 FOR THEIR HALF OF THE APPRAISAL.

SO COMES OUT TO 11 OR EXCUSE ME, $21,250 IS WHAT OUR VALUE WOULD BE THAT FOR THAT PROPERTY IN EXCESS OF THE OF THAT EXCHANGE. AND SO. WHEN THAT IS DONE, WE WOULD WORK WITH THE DEVELOPER TO RUN THE UTILITIES AND HOPE TO UTILIZE THAT, THAT DIFFERENCE IN COST TO PAY FOR ANY EXTENSION COSTS OR ANY, ANY RUNNING OF UTILITIES TO BE ABLE TO GET THAT THERE, THERE ANY IDEA WHAT THAT WOULD COST TO RUN THE SEWER OR THE WATER AND THE POWER? I HAVEN'T DONE ANY ROUGH NUMBERS YET. OKAY. THE THE DEVELOPER WILL HAVE TO CONSTRUCT THE WATER AND PUBLIC UTILITIES UP TO THE END OF THIS ROW. SO IT WOULD JUST BE THE TWO STUBS THAT WE WOULD NEED TO PAY FOR, BECAUSE HE'LL BE REQUIRED TO PAY THAT. WE THINK THE 19,000 WILL COVER THAT SHOULD. SO FOR TWO SERVICES TO BE PRETTY BUDGET NEUTRAL, THEN. OKAY. AND I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY ONE THING. I MENTIONED TO THE DEVELOPER THAT WE THAT WE WOULD SEEK HALF AND HALF ON THE APPRAISAL COSTS. HE DIDN'T SAY ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. I DON'T WANT HIM. I DON'T I MEAN, I DIDN'T MEAN TO IMPLY THAT HE SAID HE WAS GOOD WITH THAT, BUT HE DIDN'T SAY NO TO IT EITHER.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SUPPOSED TO DO A MOTION TODAY OR. ZACH, CAN YOU HELP? MAYBE ON POINTERS ON THAT. FRANCIS, YOU'RE PREPARED FOR A. YEAH, WE CAN DO IT. I HAVE A MOTION, BUT IS THAT.

[01:15:03]

RIGHT. AND YOU COULD EITHER DO THE DOLLAR VALUE THAT THE APPRAISAL HAS, OR YOU COULD DO LIKE AS THEY INDICATED, THE SURVEY HASN'T BEEN DONE YET. ANOTHER. ALTERNATIVE WOULD BE TO SAY. PRICE PER FOOT. AND THERE WILL BE AN EQUALIZING PAYMENT DEPENDENT ON THE RESULTS OF THE SURVEY. SO YOU COULD ACTUALLY USE EITHER WAY IS FINE. SO YOU COULD EITHER SAY, YOU KNOW, WE'RE GOING TO USE THE APPRAISAL NUMBERS OF THE NUMBERS THAT PJ PRESENTED TODAY. OR YOU COULD SAY WE'RE GOING TO USE THE PER PER SQUARE FOOT PRICE. AND THEN ONCE THE SURVEY IS ACTUALLY DONE, THEN IT WILL BE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO PIECES OF PROPERTY, RIGHT AT THAT, AT THAT VALUATION. AND THEN PLUS. HALF OF THE APPRAISAL COSTS OF.

APPRAISAL. RIGHT. SO THOSE I THINK THOSE ARE THE TERMS. SO IT'S GOING TO BE A SWAP OF THOSE PROPERTIES. AND EQUALIZING PAYMENT. ONE OF THOSE TWO METHODS WE DISCUSSED.

AND THEN PLUS HALF OF THE APPRAISAL COST. THAT'S WHAT I BELIEVE PJ'S PROPOSING. COUNCIL IS FREE TO SET WHATEVER TERMS IT FEELS LIKE IT NEEDS TO. THIS IS IT'S KIND OF UNIQUE. THIS IS DIFFERENT THAN YOUR NORMAL PROPERTY SALE OF PROPERTIES HERE. IT'S A PROPERTY EXCHANGE WHICH ALLOWS YOU TO SET THE TERMS OF THE EXCHANGE. AND AND HERE YOU HAVE, YOU KNOW, FAIRLY CLOSE IN PROXIMITY TO EACH OTHER, BUT YOU CAN DECIDE WHAT WHAT COUNCIL'S. OFFER WILL BE BASICALLY FOR THE EXCHANGE. I LIKE THE EQUALIZING PAYMENT OF PER SQUARE FOOT, BECAUSE THEN WE'RE NOT STUCK WITH THOSE NUMBERS. THAT CONSERVATIVE COMES BACK. OKAY. AND DO WE HAVE TO SPECIFY WHETHER THE PROPERTY IS IN MOTION? SO IT'S FOR A VERY SPECIFIC LOCATION.

WELL, LET ME JUST GIVE IT A SHOT. OKAY. IT'S GOING TO BE A LONG MOTION. OKAY. WE MOVE THAT COUNCIL DECLARE ITS INTENT TO EXCHANGE REAL PROPERTY CONSISTING OF 0.229 ACRES OF CITY OWNED PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE NORTH END OF INGLEWOOD DRIVE, IN EXCHANGE FOR 0.050 ACRES OF DEVELOPER OWNED PROPERTY NORTHEAST OF THE NORTH END OF EAGLEWOOD DRIVE AND ADJACENT TO SAGE LAKES GOLF COURSE. THE DEVELOPER WILL PAY THE CITY IN CASH. THE DIFFERENCE IN APPRAISED VALUE, AS PRESENTED ON WITH. VALUES PER SQUARE FOOT. THE AND DEPENDENT ON THE SURVEY RESULTS. ONE HALF OF THE APPRAISAL COSTS WILL ALSO FALL TO THE DEVELOPER, AND THE DIFFERENCE IN THE APPRAISAL VALUE OF THE PROPERTIES WILL BE PAID TO THE CITY. I GUESS THAT COVERS EVERYTHING. I WOULD ADD A SPECIFIC PER SQUARE FOOTAGE VALUATION. OKAY, THAT WAY WE HAVE A FIXED NUMBER TO WORK FROM BECAUSE I THINK IT WAS TWO, TWO AND A HALF DOLLARS PER SQUARE FOOT, TWO AND A HALF DOLLARS PER SQUARE FOOT. I WOULD JUST PUT THAT IN THE ACTUAL MOTION THAT WAY, BECAUSE THIS IS GOING TO BE WHAT'S PUBLISHED IN THE NEWSPAPER. SO THAT PEOPLE CAN ATTEND THE PUBLIC HEARING. AND IF THEY, YOU KNOW, THEY CAN COMMENT, BUT DEPENDENT ON THE VALUE MADE PER SQUARE FOOT THAT SO. BECAUSE IF YOU SPECIFY A SQUARE FOOT, THEN THOSE SPECIFY A PRICE PER SQUARE FOOT. 2250 $2 AND $52.50 IS WHAT WAS APPRAISED AS THE SQUARE FOOT VALUE. RIGHT? SO THAT'S KIND OF BASED ON YOUR OFFER, BASED ON THE ON THE $2.50 PER SQUARE FOOT VALUE. YEAH. OKAY. OKAY. GOOD JOB.

SECOND. STRAIGHTEN IT ALL OUT. AND THEN I THINK IT WOULD BE GOOD ALSO TO PUT THE, THE DOLLAR VALUE OF WHAT WE'RE REQUIRING FOR THE COST OF APPRAISAL. IT'S A 1750. YEAH.

OKAY. COUNCILMAN FREEMAN TO TO SAY THAT IS THAT WHAT YOU WERE SAYING? YEAH. IF YOU WOULD HAVE THAT. OH I'M SORRY. SORRY. IF YOU COULD JUST ADD THE THE SPECIFIC DOLLAR AMOUNT BECAUSE WE KNOW THE DOLLAR AMOUNT OF THE APPRAISAL DO. 1750 WELL, NO, BECAUSE ISN'T THAT BECAUSE.

BASED ON THE SURVEY, THEN THE. OH, NEVER MIND, NEVER MIND. SO YEAH, YOU KIND OF TWO PARTS OF THE PRICE. THE, THE, THE APPRAISED VALUE WAS THE DIFFERENCE WAS WHAT WAS 19.5.

WELL, BUT WE DON'T KNOW THAT BECAUSE OF THE, THE APPRAISAL, THE APPRAISAL VALUE WAS $3,500.

AND WE'RE SAYING THE APPRAISAL, THE COST OF THE APPRAISAL, WHICH IS $1,750. SO YOU NEED THAT SPECIFICALLY. I THINK IT WOULD BE GOOD TO PUT IT IN THERE. OKAY. I WOULD LIKE TO AMEND MY MOTION TO ADD THE, THAT THE, THE YOU HAVE THE DEVELOPER WILL PAY HALF OF THE $3,500 FOR THE APPRAISAL. YEP. HOW'S THAT? OKAY. ROPAR COUNCILOR FRANCIS, I. COUNCILOR

[01:20:06]

THANK YOU. THE GOLF COURSE JUST GOT SMALLER. AN IMPORTANT THING. PRETTY GOOD GOLFERS. IT WON'T MATTER. OKAY. OUR NEXT ITEM IS ACTUALLY DO YOU WANT TO LET'S TAKE A LET'S JUST TAKE A OKAY. E BACK TO OUR COUNCIL MEETING. WE DO HAVE OUR NEXT UP IS ACTUALLY COUNCIL. WE HAVE SPENT MANY

[Legal, Police, City Clerk, CDS, Fire ]

ALSO LOOK AT UPDATING SOME OF THE ENFORCEMENT AND APPEALS PROCESS, AND THEN ALSO CLOSE LOOPHOLES AND ENSURE CONSISTENCY ACROSS THOSE THOSE ORDINANCES. SO, AS MAYOR INDICATED, SINCE WE FIRST BROUGHT THIS TO YOU AT THE BEGINNING OF THE MONTH, WE HAVE BEEN WORKING ON A LOT OF COMMUNITY OUTREACH. IDAHO FALLS POLICE DEPARTMENT, ALONG WITH COUNCILMAN. FRANCIS, HAS MET WITH THE DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, AS WELL AS THE DOWNTOWN MERCHANTS ASSOCIATION. WE'VE ALSO HAD A MEETING WITH THE CITY'S MAJOR NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS, AND THEN LOTS OF ONE ON ONE CONVERSATIONS WITH CITY STAFF AND OR, AND, OR COUNCIL. SO WHAT WE'RE BRINGING YOU TODAY IS A REVIEW OF SOME OF THE INPUT THAT WE'VE RECEIVED. AND AS PART OF THAT, THERE WILL BE, I THINK, A LOT OF CONVERSATIONS ON HOW WE MAY WANT TO MAKE TWEAKS OR CHANGES TO THIS DRAFT. ORDINANCE BEFORE AS WE AS WE MOVE IT FORWARD, AND THEN ALSO MAYBE HAVE SOME DISCUSSIONS ABOUT SOME OF THESE THESE TOPICS. THIS PRESENTATION IS FAIRLY SHORT. IT'S JUST 3 OR 4 SLIDES. SO WHAT I WOULD SUGGEST IS THAT I CAN RUN THROUGH EACH OF THOSE SLIDES, AND THEN WE CAN COME BACK AND ADDRESS SOME OF THE SPECIFIC ISSUES. AND I KNOW THAT COUNCILMAN FRANCIS HAS SOME SPECIFIC THINGS HE WANTS TO HIGHLIGHT. AND THEN WE ALSO HAVE CHIEF JOHNSON, CHIEF OLSON, FIRE MARSHAL GRIMMETT CODY FROM OUR BUILDING DEPARTMENT, AND ALSO ZACH JONES, THE CITY ATTORNEY WHO WILL BE AVAILABLE TO TAKE PART IN THAT CONVERSATION AND ALSO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND INFORMATION. SO ONE OF THE AREAS THAT WE HAVE RECEIVED A LOT. OF FEEDBACK ON IS THE

[01:25:10]

IT AS IT IS FOR YEAR ONE AND TWO. SO NO CHANGES IN YEAR ONE AND TWO. DO 52 PERMITS IN YEAR THREE. AND THEN THAT PHASE OUT FOR FOUR, FOUR, AND FIVE. THE RATIONALE THERE IS THAT THAT WOULD GIVE OUR ESTABLISHMENTS ADDITIONAL TIME TO RAISE THE MONEY THAT MIGHT BE NECESSARY TO PUT IN UPGRADES LIKE FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEMS, OR ADJUST OTHER BUILDING UPGRADES THAT MIGHT BE NEEDED. THE OTHER INPUT WE RECEIVED FROM. NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS REGARDING THE CATERING PERMITS AND LIMITS ON CATERING PERMITS WAS TO EXEMPT NON-PROFITS FOR THOSE PERMITS. NOW, A NUMBER OF NON-PROFITS, FOR EXAMPLE, THE MUSEUM WILL. THE MUSEUM OF IDAHO WILL LEASE THEIR SPACE TO OUTSIDE ENTITIES, SAY THE INL STONE, A CHRISTMAS PARTY OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. THEY WOULD DO A CATERING PERMIT TO PROVIDE BEER AND WINE. THE NON-PROFITS ARE ASKING THAT THEY WOULD BE EXEMPTED FROM THE LIMITS, SAYING THAT THEY HAVE. AS PART OF BEING A NONPROFIT, THEY ARE LIMITED IN HOW MUCH MONEY THEY CAN RAISE FROM THOSE RENTALS.

AND IN ORDER TO KEEP THEIR NON PROFIT STATUS, THERE'S ALSO A NUMBER OF STANDARDS THAT THEY NEED TO. MEET. SO THEY THE INPUT WE'VE RECEIVED IS THAT THEY ALREADY HAVE SOME CHECKS AND BALANCES WITH WITHIN THEIR NONPROFIT STATUS THAT THEY'D LIKE US TO CONSIDER. ANOTHER THING TO KIND OF KEEP IN MIND WITH THOSE CATERING PERMITS IS THAT THE FIRE DEPARTMENT HAS DRAFTED THE, AN ALCOHOL CATERING PERMIT OCCUPANCY THRESHOLD REQUIREMENTS. IT WOULD BE A POLICY. AND I'D GIVEN YOU EACH A COPY OF THAT, WHICH WOULD BREAK DOWN THE.

STANDARDS THAT BUILDINGS WOULD NEED TO MEET. AND A LOT OF THAT JUST HAS TO DO WITH THE WITH THE BUILDING LOAD. SO YOU CAN KIND OF REVIEW THAT. YOU ALSO HAVE A COPY OF THAT, BUT THAT IS SOMETHING TO KIND OF KEEP IN MIND. AND THIS IS TO ADDRESS, YOU KNOW, SAFETY CONCERNS. AND AGAIN, FIRE MARSHAL GRIMMETT IS AVAILABLE TO KIND OF REVIEW THAT IN MORE DETAIL THEN ON THE SERVER TRAINING PIECE OF. THE ORDINANCE. SINCE WHEN WE INITIALLY BROUGHT UP THE IDEA OF REQUIRED SERVER TRAINING, WE DID GET QUITE A LOT OF INPUT ON THAT IDEA. AND AS PART OF THIS ORDINANCE, WE DID MAKE STEPS TO TRY AND ADDRESS THOSE CONCERNS, WHICH WOULD INCLUDE KIND OF CLARIFYING WHAT STAFF NEEDED TO TAKE THAT SERVER TRAINING. ALSO EXTENDING THE TIME THAT BUSINESSES HAVE TO RESPOND TO A REQUEST TO PRODUCE THEIR SERVER TRAINING CERTIFICATES. I THINK IN THE ORIGINAL DRAFT, THEY NEEDED TO PROVIDE THEM IMMEDIATELY. NOW WE'RE PROVIDING BUSINESSES FOUR DAYS IN ORDER TO RESPOND TO THAT. AND THEN WE'VE ALSO CHANGED THE PENALTY ESCALATION. I BELIEVE IN THE INITIAL DRAFT, IT WAS A MISDEMEANOR. IF THERE WERE.

INFRACTIONS, IF THERE WAS A NOT AN INFRACTION, SORRY, IF THERE WAS A MISDEMEANOR, IF SOMEBODY HAD VIOLATED THE ORDINANCE NOW, IT WOULD BE AN INFRACTION AND THEN A MISDEMEANOR FOR INDIVIDUALS OR INFRACTIONS AND SUSPENSION FOR REVOCATION. SO WE'VE TRIED TO KIND OF STAIR STEP THAT PROCESS. SO THAT IS THE MAJOR FEEDBACK THAT WE HAVE RECEIVED IN THE DIFFERENT AREAS OF THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE. AND WITH THAT, I WOULD MAYBE TURN IT BACK OVER TO COUNCILMAN FRANCIS. I THINK THERE'S SOME SPECIFIC THINGS. HE WOULD LIKE TO HIGHLIGHT, AND THEN WOULD BE OPEN FOR DISCUSSION. AND AGAIN, WE DO HAVE STAFF ON HAND. YOU CAN ADDRESS SPECIFIC CONCERNS OR QUESTIONS. MAYBE YOU COULD GO BACK TO THE FIRST SLIDE. I'M SORRY. YEAH. THIS. NO. YEAH.

THIS ONE RIGHT. THE IMPLEMENTATION OF CATERING PERMITS. THERE'S A COUPLE THINGS TO CONSIDER THAT WE'VE DISCOVERED. WE WANT TO TALK ABOUT WHAT WE WANT TO DO. WE COULD USE THESE NUMBERS THE FIRST TWO YEARS. NO CHANGE. WE COULD BE STRICTER AND SAY THE FIRST YEAR NO CHANGE. THE SECOND YEAR 104, THEN 52. THE REASON THAT WE ABANDONED THE

[01:30:03]

BUT WE DISCOVERED IN OUR CONVERSATIONS, BOTH WITH NON-PROFITS AND WITH PROFIT MAKING ENTITIES, THAT THEY DO A LOT MORE THAN 52 BECAUSE THEY MIGHT HAVE THREE EVENTS IN ONE WEEK, ONE NIGHT, EVEN WITH DIFFERENT CATERERS. SO THERE'S A WHOLE BUSINESS OPPORTUNITY OR PRACTICE WE DIDN'T KNOW BEFORE. SO THE ORIGINAL 52 DID NOT MAKE. SENSE IN TERMS OF WHAT WE WERE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH, BECAUSE IT WAS ACTUALLY A REAL RESTRICTIVE NUMBER THAT WE DIDN'T EXPECT IT TO BE. SO THAT'S WHY THE THOUGHT IS, BUT THIS IS COUNCIL'S DECISION TO GO WITH NO CHANGE FOR AT LEAST THE FIRST YEAR. AND THEN IF WE WANTED TO BE STRICTER AND START TO PHASE IT DOWN, WE COULD GO TO 104, THEN 52. THE MAIN THING IS BY THE FIFTH YEAR TO BREAK THE PRACTICE, WHERE COMMERCIAL LOCATIONS THAT DO NOT MEET THE FULL FIRE STANDARDS OF SPRINKLED. ET CETERA. AND THEN IT BECOME A TWO BUILDINGS WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO BECOME NIGHTCLUBS, IF THAT MAKES SENSE. MAKES SENSE. THAT WAS NOT THE INTENT OF WHAT WE DID ORIGINALLY A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? YEAH, YEAH. SO THAT'S WHERE WE WANT TO BE IN FIVE YEARS IS YOU CAN DO THIS, BUT IT'S PRETTY LIMITED OPPORTUNITY 1212 TIMES, BUT IT'S NOT YOUR BUSINESS PRACTICE. IF YOU WANT TO BECOME A NIGHTCLUB OR IF SOMEBODY WANTS TO BECOME A NIGHTCLUB, THEY HAVE TO UPDATE THEIR BUILDING AND CHANGE USE. DID WE HAVE PEOPLE THAT WERE DOING MORE THAN 52? YEAH. WELL, I MEAN, JUST. TRYING TO BECOME A NIGHTCLUB THAT SEEMS ESSENTIALLY WE ACTUALLY SORT OF DID IN WHAT, LIKE IS THAT ONE PERSON? WAS THAT ONE GROUP? ARE WE ARE WE SOLVING A PROBLEM BY CREATING A BUSINESS PROBLEM? LIKE THAT'S MY QUESTION. I THINK WE'RE I'M SPEAKING FOR MYSELF HERE AND NOT TRYING TO PRETEND WE HAVE A SAFETY ISSUE THAT WE HAVE TO CONSIDER. AND I THINK IN TALKING TO THE FIRE MARSHAL, IT'S VERY CLEAR. AND THE FIRE CODE MAKES THIS CLEAR. DEPENDING ON HOW YOU'RE USING THE BUILDING, IF IT BECOMES A PLACE OF ALCOHOL, IF. YOUR STANDARDS THE STANDARDS INCREASE BECAUSE AND THE THEORY IS IT'S A THE JUDGMENT OF PEOPLE TRYING TO LEAVE THE BUILDING IS NOT AS SOUND AS IT IS. THAT'S THE THEORY BEHIND IT. I JUST WONDER, BECAUSE I HAD TO DOWNTOWN BUSINESSES COME TO ME LAST WEEK, THERE WAS A CHANGE OF VENUE FOR A NONPROFIT THAT HAD A YEAR LONG GALA, AND THERE WAS AN EVENT CENTER THAT COULDN'T GET THERE, WHERE THEY PLANNED ON HAVING IT. THE EVENT CENTER COULDN'T GET THERE. CODE PASSED, AND SO THEY SHIFTED TO ANOTHER PLACE DOWNTOWN. AND THEN THAT WAS FINE, IT SOUNDS LIKE, BECAUSE THEY HAD CATERING PERMITS AND THEN TALKING TO ANOTHER BUSINESS THERE, THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT THE ODDITY OF WHAT'S BEING ALLOWED AND WHAT'S NOT BEING ALLOWED. AND SO THAT'S WHAT I'M WONDERING.

LIKE THIS PLACE DOWNTOWN, THEY'RE LIKE. A, THEY PROBABLY ONLY HAVE LIKE 12 THINGS A YEAR WHERE THEY MIGHT HAVE ALCOHOL. THEY DO LIKE SOCIAL MEDIA, FILM MEDIA, LIKE THEY'RE JUST KIND OF SPACE THAT DOES DIFFERENT THINGS. AND SO WHEN I HEAR THAT THERE'S SOMEONE DOING 300 PERMITS A YEAR TO HAVE A NIGHTCLUB, YOU KNOW, TO BE OPEN EVERY NIGHT, I JUST DON'T KNOW.

I DON'T KNOW ANYBODY OPEN THAT OFTEN. I DID GET DIRECTLY FROM SOME PEOPLE THAT THEY ARE OPEN MORE THAN THURSDAY, FRIDAY, SATURDAY AND A WEEK ON ONE PERMIT THAT THEY WERE LIKE TUESDAY, WEDNESDAY, THURSDAY, FRIDAY. AND THEY MIGHT HAVE DIFFERENT. CATERERS. THE ONE THAT COMES TO MIND IS THE HEART. IT'S ONE THAT COMES TO MIND THAT I SEE. THEY HAVE ALL KINDS OF EVENTS, MAYBE THREE TIMES A WEEK OR SOMETHING, AND I DON'T KNOW IF THAT BUILDING IS IS IT

[01:35:01]

YOU NEED TO GO SEE THE BUILDING OFFICIAL. AND GO THROUGH THE PROCESS TO CHANGE YOUR USE. BUT THE ALCOHOL CATERING PERMIT BRINGS IN THIS TEMPORARY USE OF THE SPACE TO SERVE ALCOHOL. AND SO IF THAT'S AN ACCESSORY TO TO THE USE OF THE BUILDING, I THINK THAT'S WHAT THOSE PERMITS ARE INTENDED FOR. THEY'RE NOT INTENDED TO BE THE TRUE 100%, 300 PLUS DAYS A YEAR, 200 OR EVEN 150 DAYS A YEAR. RIGHT? BECAUSE, BECAUSE THEY'RE GETTING AROUND THAT CHANGE OF USE MEETING WITH THE BUILDING OFFICIAL. BUT WE HAVE PROPOSED, YOU KNOW, THE FIRE CODE AND BUILDING, BUT THEY'RE ALL DESIGNED FOR PEOPLE TO GET OUT. SO THAT DOES BRING UP A QUESTION BECAUSE THE PEOPLE I TALKED TO USE TERMS ABOUT ZONING, I'VE NEVER HEARD TERMED.

AND THEN I FIGURED IT MUST BE FROM THE BUILDING CODE BECAUSE THEY SAID THEY WERE MERCANTILE CODED. AND SO TELL ME ABOUT THAT, BECAUSE THAT WAS ONE OF THE CODES WE'RE USING FOR LAND USE. YEAH. SO OUT ON LINCOLN ROAD THERE'S A BUILDING. IT'S NOW THE FUNCTION JUNCTION EVENT CENTER. SO WE GOT THE FIRST REQUEST FOR AN ALCOHOL PERMIT AND SAID NO. SO I WENT OUT TO VISIT THEM AND IT WAS THE THRIFT STORE. AND THEY DIDN'T DO THEIR, THEY, THEY DID LOOK ONLINE. SO SHE TOLD ME, BUT THEY CONVERTED THIS WHOLE SHOPPING STORE INTO AN EVENT CENTER. SO WE HAD HER NOT WE WEREN'T GOING TO ISSUE THE PERMIT FOR THE CATERING EVENT UNTIL SHE MET WITH THE BUILDING CODE OFFICIAL AND FIGURED OUT A PLAN OF WHAT TO DO, WHETHER THAT WAS COST EFFECTIVE OR NOT, UP TO THAT UP TO THEN. YEAH. BUT THEN I HEARD THE SAME THING FROM THE PLACE DOWNTOWN, WHICH BY THE THE PIZZA PLACE AND IT'S THE PAGE INSURANCE BUILDING.

AND THEY SAID SOMETHING ABOUT MERCANTILE TOO. AND I SAID, WE DON'T TALK ABOUT. SO IS THAT PART OF THE BUILDING CODE? WHEN THEY SAY THAT THEY'RE, THEY'RE ZONED MERCANTILE. IT'S NOT A ZONING. IT'S THE OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION. SO YEAH, THIS WAS THINGS THAT I HAD BEEN TEN YEARS ON. COUNCIL SOUNDED ODD TO ME BECAUSE WE'RE COMPILING THE CODE. SO I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY THAT WHAT I SAID WAS CORRECT. THE HEART CAN HAVE 150 PEOPLE IN IT IF THERE'S REALLY SOFT DRINKS OR WHATEVER. AS SOON AS THEY GO TO ALCOHOL, THAT NUMBER DROPPED TO 99 FOR NOW UNTIL UNDER THE CURRENT CODE. AND UNDER THIS FOR ALCOHOL CATERING PRINTS WERE BASICALLY DOING IT IN REVERSE. SO TYPICALLY SOMEONE BRINGS A 10,000 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING.

ASKS CODY, I WANT TO BE A MERCANTILE OR I WANT TO BE A SKATING RINK, OR I WANT TO BE WHATEVER. AND HE SAYS, YOUR BUILDING NEEDS THESE SYSTEMS IN PLACE AND THESE MANY DOORS. SO WHAT AM I PROPOSING? IS ONE OF MY CAPTAINS GO OUT TO DO AN ALCOHOL CATERING PERMIT. WE LOOK AT IT IN REVERSE, AND THE BUILDING CALLS OUT VERY SPECIFIC THINGS FOR ALL THE BUILDINGS THAT ARE BUILT. IF YOU HAVE ONE DOOR, YOU CAN HAVE 49 PEOPLE IN THAT BUILDING, DEPENDING ON THE SQUARE FOOTAGE. IF YOU HAVE TWO DOORS AND THEY BOTH OPEN OUT, YOU CAN HAVE UP TO 99 PEOPLE. BUT ONCE YOU HIT THE 100 THRESHOLD, THEN THAT'S WHERE SPRINKLERS COME IN FOR DRINKING. SO I'M JUST TRYING TO APPLY IT TO REVERSE. SO I HAVE A VERY BASIC POLICY IN GETTING PEOPLE OUT BASED ON THE DOORS AE SPRINKLERS. SO A GOOD EXAMPLE WOULD BE SIMPSON BUILDING, FULLY SPRINKLER BUILDING, STATE OF THE ART. THEY WANT TO HAVE BANQUET UP IN THEIR HALL THAT HAS 350 PEOPLE. HERE'S YOUR ALCOHOL CATERING PERMIT, AND THEY MAYBE DO A COUPLE A YEAR, AND THEY WOULDN'T BE LIMITED BY THIS EVER BECAUSE THEY HAVE THE SAFETY THINGS THEY DO. RIGHT.

WHAT THEY BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT I WORRY ABOUT IS IF WE'RE REDUCING THE AMOUNT OF EVENTS FOR PEOPLE THAT THE WAY IT'S DRAFTED CURRENTLY IS IF THEY ARE IN A TWO ASSEMBLY GROUP, THIS DOESN'T CORRECT. IT'S UNLIMITED. THAT'S RIGHT. BUT IF YOU'RE AN OFFICE BUILDING, THEN AT THIS POINT YOU WOULD GO DOWN TO 12 PER YEAR. EVENTUALLY IF YOU DON'T FIX IT. THE ALLIANCE TITLE HAD A GRAND OPENING, MOVING TO PEER PEER VIEW, RIGHT? A FULLY SPRINKLER BUILDING.

WE'RE ABLE TO SUPPORT THOSE OCCASIONAL EVENTS THROUGH THROUGH THIS POLICY THAT SAYS

[01:40:03]

SO HOW MANY ARE THERE? THAT'S THE QUESTION THAT I HAVE HERE FOR THE BUILDING OFFICIAL, IS THAT WE HAVE THE ORDINANCE. BUT THEN, YOU KNOW, SO WE HAVE THIS YEAR ONE, YEAR TWO, NO CHANGE.

BUT WE STILL HAVE THIS POLICY THAT IS ALSO KIND OF THE FIRE CODE SAFETY POLICY. SO IF YOU HAVE ONE DOOR, EVEN IF IT'S LIKE NO CHANGE, THERE'S STILL A LIMIT TO THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE ALLOWED. AND THESE, THESE ARE OUR NUMBERS. THEY'RE BUILDING CODE SPECIFICALLY AND THEN REITERATED IN THE FIRE CODE. SO THEY'RE IN BOTH CODES. OKAY. AND THOSE CODES ARE BASED ON STATE CODE. INTERNATIONAL INTERNATIONAL THE ADOPTED INTERNATIONAL BUILDING. OKAY.

YES. OKAY. SO SO WHAT'S THE CURRENT. NO. SO OKAY, SO I'M UNDERSTANDING IT, RIGHT? IVC IS ACTUALLY CREATING THESE CLASSIFICATIONS OF OCCUPANCY GROUPS. AND IT'S ALL BASED UPON THE PRIMARY PURPOSE OF THE BUILDING. CORRECT. AND HOW MANY ARE THERE? IT LOOKS LIKE THERE'S RESIDENTIAL ZONES, COMMERCIAL ZONES, INDUSTRIAL ZONES, AND EACH ONE OF THOSE HAS OCCUPANCY GROUPS. LOOKS LIKE THERE'S 3 OR 4 EACH ONE OF THOSE. YEAH. THE CLASSIFICATIONS BREAK DOWN INTO MERCANTILE MERCANTILE COMMERCIAL ZONE ASSEMBLY SPACES.

YEAH. IT'S A MERCANTILE. IS THAT SO LIKE IS THAT FUNCTION JUNCTION. IT WAS CERTAINLY A COMMERCIAL ZONE, BUT IT'S CHANGING FROM MERCANTILE TO A TO A A TWO. THAT'S WHAT THEY WANTED TO DO. BUT WE'RE NOT WE'RE NOT TALKING ANYTHING ABOUT ZONING. YEAH. SO I THINK WHAT'S CONFUSING IS THAT YEAH, THAT THAT THEY THE IVC USES THE WORD ZONES, BUT IT'S MORE OF IT'S GOT NOTHING TO DO WITH ZONING LAND USE. YEAH. IT'S MORE OF IT SHOULD BE OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION RATHER THAN RATHER THAN. AND THESE PEOPLE THAT I WAS TALKING TO WERE CLEARLY CONFUSED. THEY KNEW THEY KNEW OR THEY WERE CONFUSED. YEAH, IT WAS CONFUSING, BUT I THINK, BUT I THINK THAT THE CHALLENGE THAT WE'RE HAVING HERE IS THAT NO MATTER WHICH WAY WE LOOK AT IT, INCLUDING THE WAY THE IVC DETERMINES CLASSIFICATIONS, LITERALLY STEP ONE IS INTENDED USE OF THE BUILDING. SO THE MOMENT THAT PEOPLE START GETTING AWAY FROM THAT, FOR EXAMPLE, IF YOU ARE A CLOTHING STORE, BUT YOU ALSO WANT TO SELL ALCOHOL NOW, RIGHT? THOSE USES ARE JUST DIFFERENT. SO THE CHALLENGE BECOMES WHEN YOUR INSURANCE COMPANY WHO NOW WANTS TO HOST PARTIES, RIGHT? AND IT DOES GET AWAY FROM THAT. I JUST FEEL LIKE THAT'S WHAT WE'RE SEEING HERE. SO WHAT'S CURRENTLY TRUE, LIKE, BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT'S, I THINK HARD FOR THESE EVENTS. WE HAVE 100 OF THEM. IT SOUNDS LIKE WHAT'S CURRENTLY TRUE IS THAT ALL OF THESE DIFFERENT BUSINESSES ALREADY HAVE OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATIONS THAT ALREADY HAVE ALCOHOL RELATED RESTRICTIONS, CORRECT? RIGHT. BUT THEY HAVE NOT BEEN PRESENTED IN THIS MANNER. WOULD THAT BE A FAIR THEY'VE ALWAYS BEEN TREATED SEPARATELY BECAUSE THE CLASSIFICATION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH. YEAH. IT'S IT'S ALL ON THEIR BLUEPRINT. SO WHENEVER THEY BRING THEIR PLAN TO BUILD, IT'S, IT'S STAMPED RIGHT ON THERE. WHAT CLASSIFICATION. AND SOME OF THEM ARE MIXED USE, RIGHT. THEY MAY HAVE AN A TWO AND PART OF THE PART OF THE MIXED USE BUILDING AND THEN THE OTHER PARTS OF THE BOWLING ALLEY. RIGHT. SO THERE'S SOME THAT ARE MIXED AND THAT GETS PRETTY COMPLICATED. AND HIS SPECIALTY. BUT, BUT YEAH, THEY'RE ALL DECLARED WHEN THE BUILDING IS BUILT IN 1890 OR WHATEVER YEAR. THIS IS HOW IT WAS DESIGNED TO BUILD, DESIGN AND BUILD AT THE TIME. SO WHAT I'M HEARING IS A PLACE LIKE THE FUNCTION JUNCTION. IF THEY PUT IN OUTWARD SWINGING DOORS AND PUT IN ANOTHER DOOR IN THE BACK, THEY COULD GET TO A HUNDRED, BUT THEY'D HAVE TO PUT IN SPRINKLERS TO GET ABOVE A HUNDRED, EVEN THOUGH TO DO INCREMENTS. SO OUTSIDE OF CATERING PERMITS, WE WOULD JUST

[01:45:06]

THEY WERE DESIGNED TO HELP THE NONPROFITS, BECAUSE WE KNEW THE MUSEUM OF IDAHO WAS NOT REALLY BECOMING A CHANGE OF USE RIGHT INTO IF, IN FACT, AN EVENT MIGHT ARGUE THAT THE UTILIZATION OF THE CATERING PERMIT IS ACTUALLY A PART OF THE USE, BECAUSE A NONPROFIT, YOU'RE GOING TO BE FUNDRAISING, YOU'RE GOING TO BE HOLDING EVENTS, YOU'RE GOING TO BE MEETING WITH DONORS, WHATEVER, AND YOU HAVE THAT LIMIT PUT ON YOU BECAUSE YOU ARE A NONPROFIT.

SO ONLY A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF MONEY AND YOUR FUNDRAISING. SO IN AN ATTEMPT TO HELP TO DO THAT WITH NONPROFITS, WE'VE OPENED UP ANOTHER CLASSIFICATION OF PEOPLE USING THE ALCOHOL PERMIT TO BECOME A CHANGE OF USE. YEAH. AND I WOULD JUST ADD, LIKE, I JUST SEE THIS COMING TO US EVERY OTHER WEEK. LIKE WE, WE HAD A GOOD MEETING IN THE DISCUSSION ABOUT IT. AND THEN I'M SUPPOSED TO GO TALK TO THE FUNCTION JUNCTION PEOPLE, THE FOLKS AND EXPLAIN, HEY, YOU'RE NOT AN EVENT CENTER. AND SO I WOULD HOPE THAT THROUGH THE ORDINANCE PROCESS, AT SOME POINT, SEVEN YEARS FROM NOW, SOMEONE DOESN'T COME TO ME WITH FUNCTION JUNCTION, AND THEN WE START THIS FIVE YEAR PROCESS WITH THEM TO SWITCH OVER. YEAH. ARE WE REALLY JUST GOING TO GET TO A POINT WHERE, HEY, YOU'RE ALLOWED 12 A YEAR AND 20 AND 30 WHATEVER YEAR THAT IS, AND THEN ANY OTHER VIOLATION WE SEE, WE CAN JUST DEAL WITH IT AND SAY, GO, GO TO HIM. YOU CAN ONLY DO 12 A YEAR. WE CAN SUPPORT YOU WITH THAT. AND THAT'S IT. BUT THESE THESE REQUIREMENTS AND THE THRESHOLD, I THINK, GIVE ME CONFIDENCE THAT THAT THERE'S ROOM AND TIME TO TO GIVE THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY TIME TO MAKE THESE DECISIONS AND CHOICES.

BUT I THINK ANOTHER WAY TO MAYBE CLARIFY THAT SLIDE IS THAT THERE WOULD BE NO CHANGE IN THE NUMBER OF PERMITS THEY COULD GET DURING THAT YEAR ONE AND YEAR TWO, BUT THEY WOULD STILL NEED TO COMPLY WITH THE OCCUPANCY THRESHOLD REQUIREMENT. SO THAT MAY CHANGE THE NATURE OF THE EVENT THAT'S HAPPENING. I THINK THOSE TWO PIECES NEED TO BE MARRIED REALLY CLOSELY TOGETHER, BUT IT'S NOT ABOUT THE NUMBER OF PERMITS, BUT IT IS THE OCCUPANCY THAT'S GOING TO DRIVE THIS. AND IT'S BASED ON EXITS SPRING AND SPRING, THE, THE, THE, THE HEART OF IT CENTERS ARE PRETTY CLOSE OCCUPANCY, THOUGH THE 150 TO 99. NOW, THAT MAY BE A DEAL BREAKER FOR HIM, BUT THE MUSEUM IS OVER 1200 PEOPLE. AND THEN I WOULD HAVE TO SAY, NO, YOU CAN DO THE ALCOHOL FROM THE SERVER, BUT WE CAN ONLY GIVE YOU 99 PER. THEY HAVE THREE BUILDINGS THERE, RIGHT? SO 297 IS YOUR MAX. BUT. BUT WITHOUT ALCOHOL, THAT'S THE THAT'S THE DRASTIC DIFFERENCE ON SOME OF THESE. I MEAN, THAT'S AN EXTREME CASE. JUST LIKE THE HEART'S A NARROW ONE.

TELL ME, HOW DOES THIS MELD WITH THE COMMERCIALIZATION PIECE OF THE ORDINANCE. BECAUSE THAT'S THE OTHER THING THAT I THINK WE HAVE A PROBLEM WITH. CAN YOU CLARIFY WHAT YOU MEAN BY THAT? THE COMMERCIALIZATION OF LANDLORD CAN BECOME A CRIMINAL NOW, LIKE THE LIKE IF YOU IF YOU THIS IS A MISDEMEANOR CHARGE. IF SOMEONE KNOWINGLY SAYS KNOWINGLY ALLOWS ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION AND THAT MEANS THE LANDLORD NOW IS A CRIMINAL, IT COULD BECOME A CRIMINAL. IF IF WHAT HAPPENED IN MY YOUTH AND I LOOK TO YOU, JIM, I'M SURE YOU NEVER SNUCK ANY ALCOHOL INTO AN UNDERAGE DANCE, YOU KNOW, LIKE. AND NOT IN THIS COUNTY. YEAH. NO, WE JUST DID IT IN PARKING LOT. YEAH. SO, I MEAN, IT REALLY IS TOUGH FOR A LANDLORD TO HAVE A CRIMINAL CHARGE. AND WHEN I LOOK THROUGH THIS, IT LOOKS LIKE EVEN INSURANCE COMPANIES AREN'T VERY WILLING ON THIS BECAUSE OF THAT. I MEAN, THAT'S A ROUGH THAT'S A ROUGH CONSEQUENCE. DOES THAT IS THAT SOMETHING YOU WANT TO SPEAK TO? I DON'T KNOW THAT YOU GUYS.

DOESN'T MATTER. YEAH. SO THIS THE ONLY INTERACTION THAT I CAN THINK OF OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD.

THIS JUST WHAT WE'RE DEBATING RIGHT NOW IS WHETHER TO LIMIT AND HOW MUCH TO LIMIT ALCOHOL INCREMENTS THAT WOULD ALLOW THEM TO HAVE ALCOHOL AT A CERTAIN PLACES. THE THE RESTRICTION, THE PROPOSED RESTRICTION ON COMMERCIAL ESTABLISHMENTS, THE WAY THEY WOULD INTERPLAY WITH THIS IS BECAUSE IF YOU'RE IF YOU HAVE AN ALCOHOL CATERING PERMIT, THEN YOU'RE GOOD. YOU DON'T VIOLATE THE LAW. AND SO THAT'S HOW IT WOULD INTERPLAY IS IF YOU'RE A COMMERCIAL ESTABLISHMENT AND THERE'S NO LIMIT, THEN AS LONG AS THEY GET

[01:50:02]

BECAUSE TECHNICALLY, IN MY MIND, BE IT A REAL EVENT CENTER, YOU HAVE TO DO WHAT THE BUILDINGS HAVE DONE, WHERE THEY PUT THE SPRINKLER SYSTEM IN. THEY PUT THE A LOT OF MONEY INTO IT, AND THEY'RE A LEGITIMATE EVENT CENTER OPEN FOR PUBLIC. AND THEY FOLLOW THAT AND THEY COULD APPLY FOR A STATE LIQUOR LICENSE. I'M TALKING ABOUT THE, THE BAPTIST BASEMENT. THEY HAVE A WEDDING. SOMEONE SHOWS UP WITH A BOTTLE OF WINE AND THEY OPEN IT. AND THE PRIEST, PARISH PRIEST IS THERE. THE OWNER, THEY HAVE A MISDEMEANOR. WELL, FIRST ON THAT, I THINK WE SHOULD TRY TO SEPARATE WHAT A COMMERCIAL ESTABLISHMENT OPEN FOR BUSINESS FROM NONPROFITS.

BUT IF WE SEPARATE THAT WHICH THE STATE ALLOWED NOT ONLY ALLOWS, BUT BASICALLY REQUIRES US TO DO SO RIGHT HERE IN THAT FIRST STEP, WE'RE ONLY SPEAKING ABOUT COMMERCIAL ESTABLISHMENTS THAT ARE NOT EVENT CENTERED. AND CORRECT ME IF I'M SPEAKING WRONG, FROM WHAT I'VE HEARD TALKING TO YOU. THAT'S WHERE WE HAVE A PROBLEM BECAUSE THEY DON'T MEET THE CORE SAFETY ELEMENT OF FIRE SAFETY IN THEIR BUILDING, BUT THEY'RE HAVING FULL SCALE EVENTS THERE. SO WE'RE TRYING TO PHASE THAT OUT. I AGREE, I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT OPTION. WHAT I'M SAYING IS ADDING THE COMMERCIALIZATION AND HAVE IT BE A MISDEMEANOR PROBLEM. WE ARE CRIMINALIZING BEING A LANDLORD. I MEAN, WE'RE NOT CRIMINALIZING BEING A LANDLORD.

WE DO CRIMINALIZE IF YOU ARE HOLDING AN EVENT IN YOUR BUSINESS AND YOU HAVE NOT GOT A CATERER FOR IT, AND YOU HAVE MORE THAN 99 PEOPLE OR WHATEVER IT IS IN THAT SPACE, WHATEVER'S PERMITTED IN THAT SPACE, YOU HAVE A PROBLEM, BUT YOU ALSO HAVE A PROBLEM IF YOU OWN THE BOOKSTORE AND AND SOMEONE COMES IN AND DRINKS ALCOHOL OR STARTS GIVING IT TO OTHER PEOPLE, THAT IS IN THE ORDINANCE, WELL, COME BACK AROUND TO MY ATTEMPT TO SOLVE THAT PROBLEM IN A DIFFERENT SECTION HERE. THIS IS WHAT WE'RE DEALING WITH RIGHT HERE IS THIS BUSINESS PRACTICE WE DIDN'T INTEND TO CREATE, BUT WE HAVE I THINK WE'RE NOT SAFE. I THINK IN THIS SECTION THAT THERE IS MORE SECTION TO DISCUSS HOW TO DEAL WITH. IF YOU'RE A BUSINESS OWNER AND WANT TO HAVE. WELL, AND I DON'T EVEN THINK WANT TO HAVE, I'M WORRIED ABOUT THE PEOPLE THAT AREN'T KNOWINGLY DOING THIS. AND THEN IT'S SELECTIVE ENFORCEMENT. THEN YOU GOT A REAL CRIMINAL CIVIL CASE PROBLEMS. COUNCILOR RADFORD, ALL THE THINGS I DO NOT WANT IS SELECTIVE ENFORCEMENT. I KNOW YOU DON'T. YEAH. OKAY. YEAH. CONSISTENCY IS ONE OF THE THINGS WE WERE AFTER. SO AS FAR AS THIS SECTION, WHAT I'M HEARING, JUST SO WE CAN KIND OF CAPTURE. NEXT STEPS FOR FOR STAFF IS THAT WE ARE. YOU'RE OPEN TO SORT OF LOOKING AT THAT

[01:55:04]

RIGHT? I MEAN, YOU'RE PRETTY MUCH JUST HAVING SOMEBODY SHOW UP AND SAY, YEP, I GAVE THAT MONEY AWAY. RIGHT. I THINK THAT IT ONLY MAKES SENSE TO ENSURE THAT C3C5 THAT WE THAT WOULD BE A PROCESS. JUST TO KIND OF CLARIFY, THE MUSEUM, FOR EXAMPLE, DOES DO THEIR OWN EVENTS AND USES THE NONPROFIT PERMITS, BUT THEY ALSO LEASE THEIR SPACE FOR PARTIES. AND IN THAT CASE, THE INL WOULD BE HIRE A CATERER, THEY WOULD GET A CATERING PERMIT FOR THE MUSEUM. SO THE MUSEUM COULD ONLY HAVE 12 OF THOSE PARTIES A YEAR. THEY WOULD BE LIMITED TO THOSE. KINDS OF THINGS. OR IF THEY HAVE WEDDINGS, BECAUSE THOSE IF WE DON'T ACCEPT THEM, IF WE DON'T EXEMPT THEM BECAUSE IT'S CAPPED BY THE LOCATION OR IT'S TRACKED BY THE LOCATION.

SO IT'S JUST A, AGAIN, JUST A CONSIDERATION, BUT IT DOESN'T STATE STATUTE BECAUSE THEY'RE A NONPROFIT DOESN'T IF WE EXEMPT THEM, THEY ARE STILL LIMITED BY THE NUMBER THEY HAVE BECAUSE THEY CAN ONLY RAISE A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF KNOW IT. IF WE DIDN'T, IF WE EXEMPTED THEM AS LONG AS THEY HAD THE THE OCCUPANCY THRESHOLD REQUIREMENTS THAT WOULD STILL APPLY, THEY'D BE ABLE TO HAVE AS MANY AS THEY WANTED TO, AS LONG AS THEY MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE OCCUPANCY THRESHOLD. IN OUR MEETING, THEY TALKED ABOUT THEY HAVE A CAP INTERNALLY AS A. 503 C, THAT THEY COULD ONLY RAISE SO MUCH PERCENTAGE OF FUNDS. SO THAT WAS GOING TO BE A RESTRICTOR IN ITSELF. BUT THAT'S LIKE ONE THAT'S JUST ONE KNOB, RIGHT? WELL, IT'S NOT REALLY ACCURATE EITHER BECAUSE A 501 C THREE CAN HAVE SOCIAL ENTERPRISES WHERE LIKE IQ IS A NONPROFIT, BUT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TWO SEPARATE THINGS. ONE IS FUNDRAISER FOR THEMSELVES, AND ANOTHER IS WHERE THEY LET THEIR BUILDING BE USED. AND I THINK SOMEONE ELSE, TO WHICH THEY WOULD ARGUE IS A WAY FOR THEM TO RAISE MONEY AS WELL, BECAUSE THEY'RE MAKING A PAYMENT OFF OF THAT. RIGHT. BUT I DO THINK THAT IT'S A LITTLE BIT TRICKY THAT IF YOUR LIMIT IS 12 FOR THE ENTIRE YEAR, WHETHER OR NOT YOU'RE LEASING IT OUT OR YOU'RE HAVING YOUR OWN, THAT'S. SO IF IT'S FOR YOUR OWN AND THERE'S A DOLLAR. CAP THAT SOMEWHAT ACCOMPLISHES IT, IF IT'S NOT FOR YOU, THEN DOES THIS BECOME MORE RELEVANT? THERE'S NOT AT ALL. IT DOES. NO, THEY YEAH. WHEN WE HAD THE MEETING WITH THE NONPROFIT LEADERS, THEY VERY SPECIFICALLY SAID THEY HAD AN 8%. I BELIEVE IT COULD BE RAISED IN THIS MANNER OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

AND THEN THAT WOULD BE A LIMIT. AND YOU'RE SAYING THAT DOESN'T LIMIT THE NUMBER OF EVENTS? NEVER. I'VE NEVER RUN INTO IT. I'VE NEVER RUN INTO THAT EITHER. AND WE WE BOTH FUNDRAISE.

THAT'S WHAT WE DO UNDERSTAND. AND 501 C THREE DO GIVE YOU THE RIGHT TO A TO A SOCIAL ENTERPRISE. WE THERE'S A COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCY THAT OWNS A CAR LOT AND ALL THE PROFIT COMES BACK TO THE COMMUNITY ACTION. AS LONG AS YOU USE YOUR MONEY FOR THE MISSION, THEN YOU ARE RIGHT, YOU'RE FINE. YOU. COULD RUN A BAR AS FAR AS I KNOW, AND HAVE

[02:00:16]

THEY HAVE TO BE REGISTERED WITH THE STATE AS A CHARITABLE ORGANIZATION, A NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION. IT DOESN'T APPLY TO EVERY SINGLE 501 C THREE IN THE STATE. IN THE CITY. IT DOES APPLY TO THOSE WHO HAVE THAT STATUS. IF WE IF WE PUT THAT KIND OF LIMIT ON THEM, WE HAVE SEVERELY CHANGED THEIR. WELL, THEY'RE NOT THEY'RE NOT THE PROBLEM WE'RE TRYING TO FIX ANYWAY. NO, EXCEPT WE DIDN'T WANT THEM TO BECOME EVENTS. YEAH. I THINK IT'S INTERESTING.

I DON'T KNOW VERY MANY NONPROFITS LIKE MICHELLE'S WORK. SHE HAS ONE BIG FUNDRAISER. SO 12 PERMITS A YEAR WOULD BE FINE, RIGHT? THE MUSEUM DOES WEDDINGS. THAT'S WHERE IT GETS TRICKY.

THEY DO PARTIES, THEY DO ALL MANNER OF THINGS. AND I'VE SAID THAT THEY DO MORE THAN 52 A YEAR. SOME OF THOSE, AS I SAID, AS THEIR. GRAND OPENING. BUT THEY DO HAVE SPACES WHERE THEY CAN DO THE 300 THING AND THEN WOULDN'T EVEN APPLY. SO NO, THEY HAVE THREE FIRE AREAS. AND SO WE LOOK AT EACH ONE OF THOSE FIRES, FIRE AREAS ALLOWING 99. AND THEY DON'T HAVE SPRINKLERS IN ANY OF THOSE BUILDINGS. THEY HAVE ON THE OLD PART IN THE BASEMENT. THAT'S RANDOM, THE RANDOM. AND THEY REALLY DON'T USE THAT, THAT SIGN. ANOTHER THING THAT I WOULD THINK ABOUT TOO IS LIKE, SOME OF THESE LOCATIONS WILL JUST HAVE AN OUTDOOR EVENT, BUT THEY'RE NOT EVEN HAVING IT IN THE BUILDING. AND THAT THAT'S MY BIGGER CONCERN IS IN THE BUILDING, BUT THAT YOU MIGHT WANT TO CONSIDER IF IT'S OUT OF LOCATION, BUT IT'S AN OUTDOOR EVENT THAT THAT WOULDN'T COUNT AGAINST HER. WELL, I DON'T KNOW, JUST SOME THOUGHTS. SO. THE ARTS COUNCIL, FOR EXAMPLE, DOES THEY DON'T DO PERMITS. THEY HAVE AN ALCOHOL LICENSE. YEAH. SO IT'S A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT. BUT THEY USE THEIR SPACE A LOT. THEY, THEY RENTED OUT THE ART MUSEUM IS, IS SMALLER, THEIR SPACE IS SMALLER. BUT THEY WOULD ALSO BE IMPACTED BY THIS BECAUSE AGAIN, THEY DO LEASE OUT THEIR SPACE FOR EVENTS AND ENGAGEMENTS. SO TO TRY TO KEEP A FOCUS HERE, LET'S JUST TAKE THAT FIRST BULLET. AND POINT IS COUNCIL'S ESSENTIALLY COMFORTABLE WITH WRITING THE ORDINANCE WITH SCALED DOWN. THIS APPLIES TO COMMERCIAL ESTABLISHMENTS THAT ARE NOT NOT A2 OR NOT SPRINKLED, BUT. WE HAVE ALLOWED THEM TO HAVE CATERED ALCOHOL EVENTS WITH A MAXIMUM OF 99 PEOPLE, UNLESS THEY HAVE MORE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LIKE THE THRESHOLD REQUIREMENTS. I WOULD SAY THAT IT'S 49 WITH ONE EXIT OR UP TO 99 WITH TWO. IS THAT BASICALLY, CAN WE ASK THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT TO WRITE THAT INTO THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE? I STILL THINK THE PROBLEM THAT I'M STILL STRUGGLING WITH IS WHAT IS A PRIVATE ENTITY, PRIVATE BUSINESS, THAT CLOSES DOWN? IF IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING IS IF IT'S A PRIVATE BUSINESS THAT DOES NOT NORMALLY DO THIS, THEY COULD HAVE AN EVENT THERE IN THAT SPACE, CLOSE IT TO THEIR NORMAL USE AND OPEN IT TO A PARTY, BUT THEY'RE LIMITED BY THE STATE. IT HAS TO BE A CATERED EVENT. THEY CAN'T SERVE THE ALCOHOL. THEMSELVES OR ALLOW PEOPLE TO BRING THEIR OWN.

I THINK THIS IS WHERE WE GET INTO PROBLEMS, AND I JUST THINK WE WE'RE REGULATING PRIVATE EVENTS. AND THAT'S NOT WHAT THE ALCOHOL ORDINANCE FOR THE STATE IS. I GUESS IT'S THAT REVERSE THING THAT YOU LOOK AT IT EVERY TIME YOU'RE ON A VOTE AS A COUNCIL MEMBER, AND IT COMES RIGHT IN THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE, SAME SENTENCE, INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS, SAFETY AND HAPPINESS OF THE WHOLE COMMUNITY. WE HAVE TO FIND THAT BALANCE OVER AND OVER AGAIN.

AND IF THIS TRIUMPHS TO THE POINT THAT WE HAVE A FIRE AND PEOPLE ARE INJURED, WHICH WE KNOW HAPPENS, THEN WE ARE. RESPONSIBLE. IF WE HAVEN'T, IF WE HAVE KNOWINGLY ALLOWED IT.

SO THAT'S WHERE I'M COMING FROM. BUT YOU'RE ALSO THE OTHER PROBLEM IS YOU ALSO HAVE TO SAY, HEY, JIM'S GOT HIS BUDDIES TOGETHER AND HE OWNS THE GOLF COURSE, PRIVATE GOLF COURSE, JUST AS AN EXAMPLE. AND HE LETS PEOPLE START CRACKING OPEN BEERS. AND YOU'RE SAYING THEY CAN'T DO THAT WITHOUT A CARE IN THIS ORDINANCE? LET ME COME BACK TO THAT ONE. AND I DON'T I DON'T I'M JUST SAYING, IN GENERAL, COMMERCIALIZATION, THE STATE LAW DIDN'T DEAL WITH CONSUMING AND NOT SELLING. THEY DEAL WITH. THE SELLING FOR A REASON BECAUSE THEY DON'T WANT

[02:05:04]

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THESE WHAT IFS. I'M JUST. I'M JUST TELLING YOU THAT THIS IS THIS COMMERCIALIZATION PIECE IS UNUSUAL. IT'S NOT IN ANY GO. I MEAN, I HAVEN'T I'VE TALKED TO A NUMBER OF ATTORNEYS, INCLUDING FORMER CITY ATTORNEYS WHO REALLY WOULD NOT TOUCH THIS.

IS THIS A LOT DIFFERENT THAN OTHER CITIES HAVE? ARE WE ARE WE THIS DOES NOT EXIST IN ANY CITY. THIS PARTICULAR THIS IS BEING INNOVATIVE, TRYING TO FIGURE IT OUT. SO WE JUST INVENTED THIS. WELL, WHAT I CAN SEE BOISE DOES REQUIRE A PERMIT LIKE THIS FOR NON-PROFITS, BUT GOING DOWN IS WHAT I'M SAYING. THE PERMITTING IS NOT UNUSUAL, BUT THE GOING FROM ON 52 DOWN TO 12, I MEAN, THIS IS THIS IS SAYING BUSINESSES. COUNCILOR RADFORD THAT WOULDN'T EVEN BE THERE TWO YEARS AGO. YOU FLAT OUT COULD NOT DO IT RIGHT BECAUSE ONLY TO TRY TO ADAPT TO THE NEEDS OF THE NON-PROFITS THAT WE DID THREE DAY PERMITS AND ALLOWED THEM. THAT WAS THE ONLY REASON FOR IT. SO FOUR YEARS AGO YOU COULDN'T HAVE ANY OF THAT. SO THIS ACTUALLY HELPS PEOPLE. IT OPENS THE DOOR FOR THEM, BUT WE DID NOT INTEND TO ALLOW SOMEBODY WHO OWNS SOME KIND OF WAREHOUSE TO SUDDENLY BECOME A COMPETITION TO PEOPLE THAT HAVE BUILT THEIR BUILDINGS TO A2. YEAH, AND I AGREE. I DON'T THINK THAT'S SOMETHING WE WANT EITHER. I AGREE WITH THAT.

THIS IS OUR WAY OUT OF OUR. BUT THE COMMERCIALIZATION QUESTION I THINK IS TOO AGGRESSIVE AND ESPECIALLY WITH THE LIKE, THAT IS JUST CRIMINALIZING BEING A LANDLORD AT SOME LEVEL. NOW, IF I RAN OUT MY BUILDING FOR ANY PURPOSE, I'M AT RISK. IF SOMEONE SNEAKS IN AND THEY START DISPENSING ALCOHOL TO THEIR BUDDY. IF YOU'RE SAYING DISPENSING, THEN THAT COULD BE A MISDEMEANOR. MY, MY UNDERSTANDING OF REFER TO THE CITY ATTORNEY, BUT I THINK IT SAYS KNOWINGLY, YEAH, IT DOES, BUT THAT'S THAT'S ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS, KNOWINGLY. LIKE, WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO WITH THAT? LIKE, HOW ARE YOU GOING TO PROVE TO PROVE KNOWINGLY, YOU'D HAVE TO HAVE. THE OFFICER IF THEY'RE GOING TO CHARGE THAT, THEY'D HAVE TO HAVE FACTS SHOWING THAT THE OWNER, IN FACT, KNEW THAT ALCOHOL WAS BEING SERVED. AND SO IT JUST HAPPENS THAT SOMEBODY SNEAKS IN AND SERVING ALCOHOL, AND THE OWNER HAS NO IDEA, THERE'S NO FACTS SHOWING THAT IT WOULD BE A VIOLATION, WHICH IS WHICH IN MY EXPERIENCE, IS PRETTY COMMON STANDARD FOR MOST OF THE LAWS. WE THERE'S A FEW LAWS WE ENFORCE LIKE TRAFFIC. IT DOESN'T MATTER WHETHER YOU DID INTENTIONALLY OR KNOWINGLY, RIGHT? IF YOU RAN A RED LIGHT, WHETHER YOU INTENDED TO DO IT OR NOT, WHETHER YOU KNEW YOU DID IT OR NOT. AND RED LIGHT, MOST OTHER LAWS HAVE SOME SORT OF MENTAL CULPABILITY TO GO WITH THEM. SOMETIMES IT'S RECKLESS, KNOWINGLY IS A PRETTY HIGH STANDARD FOR US TO GET. SO IT'S MUCH HIGHER THAN A LOT OF THE OTHER LAWS THAT WOULD WORK. SO I DON'T THINK IT'S ARBITRARY. I DO THINK IT CREATES QUITE A HIGH STANDARD OF PROOF THAT THE LANDLORD KNOWINGLY WAS ALLOWED TO TAKE PLACE. YOU'D HAVE TO HAVE A PATTERN. YOU HAVE TO HAVE EVIDENCE THAT THAT YOU CAN'T JUST ASSUME, BECAUSE MOST OF THE PLACES. WE DON'T GET NOWHERE. LET'S GO TO THE SECOND ONE AND SEE WHERE THINGS STAND.

DO WE HAVE THE FIRST TALK ABOUT THE FIRST ONE? JUST FOR THE FIRST ONE, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I'VE GOT MY GUIDANCE CLEAR. SO THE PROPOSAL IS CURRENTLY IT'S 5252 FOR THE OR. IT'S 52 FOR THE FIRST THREE YEARS, AND THEN 26 FOR THE FOURTH YEAR AND 12 FOR THE FIFTH YEAR. DOES COUNCIL HAVE A DECISION AS FAR AS WHAT THEY HOW THEY WANT TO AMEND THE PROPOSED DRAFT? DOES DOES COUNCIL WANT TO AMEND THE PROPOSED DRAFT? YOU COULD ALWAYS KEEP IT AS A PROPOSED DRAFT IS. YOU CAN CHANGE ANY OF THOSE NUMBERS. YOU CAN MAKE IT TEN YEARS INSTEAD OF FIVE. YOU COULD MAKE IT TWO YEARS INSTEAD OF FIVE. THIS. WHAT IS. I JUST NEED SOME DIRECTION FROM

[02:10:02]

YEAH. RIGHT. SO YOU'RE TRYING TO RAISE. SO IN ONE YEAR, THAT'S A LOT FOR AN ENTITY TO TRY TO SAVE. THAT'S WHAT I NEEDED TO HEAR. YEAH, YEAH. OKAY. SO I UNDERSTAND THE SCALING HERE BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE FIVE YEARS, I. DON'T CARE WHO YOU ARE. IT SEEMS LIKE IT WOULD GIVE YOU ENOUGH TIME ADEQUATELY IF YOU WANT TO BECOME AN, A TWO BUILDING AND HAVE THIS AS PART OF YOUR REGULAR BUSINESS, YOU HAVE NOW A FIVE YEAR PATH TO GET THERE.

SO GIVE ME THE TIME SCALE. MAKES SENSE IF THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO ACHIEVE. AND I DID HEAR FROM A PERSON THAT RUNS THIS KIND OF OPERATION. YOU GIVE ME THIS, I'LL BE THERE IN FIVE YEARS. YEAH. OKAY. BUT THAT'S JUST ONE PERSON. I MEAN, THE ALTERNATIVE WOULD BE NO RESTRICTIONS, NO CHANGE. FIRST YEAR 104, THEN 52, 26 AND 12. AND I'M OKAY WITH THAT. I'M COMFORTABLE WITH THIS. I'M COMFORTABLE WITH THIS. OKAY. I MEAN, THE OTHER THING IT DOES TOO ON THE SCALE IS THAT IF YOU'RE IF YOU DECIDE YOU ALSO NOW HAVE A FIVE YEAR PERIOD IN WHICH, YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE TO CHANGE YOUR BUSINESS PRACTICE IF YOU'RE NOT GOING TO COMPLY.

RIGHT, RIGHT. THE, THE 52 THAT WE ROLLED UP TO 104 FOR YEAR TWO, ARE THOSE NUMBERS BASED ON ANY REAL EXPERIENCE THAT MIGHT NOT UNDERSTANDING WHAT WAS GOING ON OUT THERE? BECAUSE I THOUGHT IT WAS PEOPLE GETTING THREE DAY PERMITS LIKE THURSDAY, FRIDAY, SATURDAY. AND THAT WAS THE PATTERN ACROSS. NO, IT TURNS OUT THAT WAS NOT THE PATTERN. PATTERN WAS GETTING A LOT OF INDIVIDUAL PERMITS WAY MORE THAN 52 IN A YEAR. OKAY. SO EITHER WE ADJUSTED IT OR WE SAID WE MIGHT AS WELL HAVE GONE TO YOU'RE DONE FOR THE TIME. OKAY, SO THIS GIVES THEM THE PHASE OUT TO TRY TO RAISE THE CAPITAL, IF THAT'S THE DIRECTION THEY WANT TO GO. AND AGAIN, THAT WOULD BE THE NUMBER. AND THEN THE POLICY. WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, TANDEM WITH THAT AS FAR AS PUTTING THOSE SAFETY CHECKS IN SPACE IN PLACE FOR THE FOR THE SPACES, WHO'S GOING TO BE TRACKING THIS, RIGHT? WHO'S THE PERSON THAT CAN BE PERMITTED EVENTS? SO IT HAS TO COME THROUGH THE COURT. IT'S ALL TRACKED THROUGH THE CLERK, THROUGH YOU GO BACK TO YOU CANNOT DO THIS INDIVIDUALLY AND SAY, OH, I HAVE A PARTY, AND I'M GOING TO HAVE 500 PEOPLE IN THE BUILDING, AND I'M JUST CLOSING THE BUILDING. I, I DO WONDER IF YOU ARE LOOKING AT DOING THAT PHASE OUT AND SORT OF MAKING THOSE ADJUSTMENTS. IF YOU WANT TO ADDRESS FIRE MARSHAL GRIMMETT'S POINT OF AT SOME POINT, WE WANT TO. GRANDFATHERING IN IS PROBABLY NOT THE RIGHT WORD, BUT IF I'M GOING TO OPEN AN EVENT CENTER NEXT YEAR, I DON'T KNOW. I SHOULD KNOW WHAT THE STANDARDS ARE NOW AND NOT BE GIVEN FIVE MORE YEARS. OTHERWISE YOU'RE NEVER GOING TO GET CAUGHT UP. SO I THINK THERE'S PROBABLY SOME LANGUAGE IN THERE THAT WE WOULD NEED TO CROP THAT WOULD SORT OF SAY EFFECT AT THIS DATE. YOU KNOW, IF YOU'RE OPENING YOUR BUSINESS AFTER THIS DATE, THEN THIS PHASE OUT DOESN'T APPLY. YOUR FIRST YEAR COULD BE ONLY ONE MONTH. IF IT'S NEAR THE END, THEN THEN YOU ONLY GOT YOU GOT BECAUSE THE IDEA IS NOT TO KEEP OPENING THESE THINGS. THEY'RE NOT NECESSARILY SAFE. THAT'S WHY WE HAVE FIRE AND BUILDING CODES. YEAH, IT'S HARD ON THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY TOO. I MEAN, WHEN YOU GO VISIT, SOME OF THESE PEOPLE, PUT A LOT OF THEIR OWN MONEY TO REMODEL, YOU KNOW, AND THEN THEY REALIZE THEY'RE IN A BAD SPOT. THIS GIVES THEM ROOM TO MOVE THAT WAY. WHERE BEFORE, OUTSIDE OF CATERING FOR US, WE WOULD HAVE A STOP WORK ORDER. AND YOU GOT TO FIGURE SOMETHING OUT. EITHER GO BACK TO BEING A THRIFT STORE, RIGHT? IF WE DID HAVE A CALENDAR YEAR, THAT WOULD HAVE TO WRITE THAT INTO THE REVISED ORDINANCE. AND THEN IF SOMEBODY WANTS TO AMEND THE NUMBERS, THEY COULD, BUT IT WOULD COME BASED ON THIS CONVERSATION. YEAH. WHAT DO YOU WANT AS FAR AS SCALES DOWN THIS WAY? BUT IT'S VERY CLEAR THAT IF YOU OPEN A BUSINESS THE 10TH MONTH OF THE FIRST YEAR, YOU GOT TWO MONTHS UNDER THAT SYSTEM. AND THEN YOU'RE, I THINK THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN, THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN CURRENTLY IS IT CAPTURES THAT. IT'S NOT IT'S NOT PER BUSINESS. IT'S PER LOCATION. RIGHT? YEAH. RIGHT. AND NOT JUST SPECIFIC WITH SPECIFIC DATES OF YOUR LIMITED FROM THIS DATE. YEAH. YEAH. BUT HOW DOES THAT ADDRESS NEW LIKE IF I, IF I'M GOING TO OPEN AN EVENT CENTER JANUARY, DO I GET FIVE YEARS OR DO I NEED TO MEET THE NEW STANDARDS, THE MEDIA, THE WAY THE, THE DRAFT ORDINANCE IS, IS FROM THIS DATE TO THIS DATE, YOU CAN HAVE 52 PER LOCATION. SO EVEN IF IT CHANGES OWNERSHIP IN THE MIDDLE AND A NEW BUSINESS COMES IN, THEY'RE STILL LIMITED. IF THERE'S BEEN IF THERE'S BEEN 50.

[02:15:22]

BUT I THINK THE POINT THAT WE DON'T NECESSARILY WANT TO GIVE NEW CENTERS THAT ARE COMING ONLINE THAT LONG TO MEET THE STANDARDS THAT THEY WOULD BE REDUCED. RIGHT? BECAUSE AS I UNDERSTAND IT, IF IF FUNCTION JUNCTION CAME TO US IN 2030, THEY WOULD BE IN YEAR FOUR, WE WOULD GIVE THEM PERMITS 26 THAT YEAR AND THEN 12 THE NEXT. AND THAT'S WHERE THEY WOULD BE.

THEY WOULDN'T START AT 52. THAT'S CORRECT. YEAH, YEAH. EVERYBODY WOULD BE SUBJECT TO THE SAME LIMITS. SO IF IF SOMEBODY STARTING NOW, THEY'RE SUBJECT TO THE SAME LIMITS AS SOMEBODY WHO STARTED FIVE YEARS AGO, OKAY, ANOTHER ISSUE CAME UP WITH THIS. SO BUT DOES COUNCIL HAVE A CONSENSUS ABOUT AT LEAST SO ARE WE GOING WITH NO CHANGE? SO BASICALLY, I GUESS WE COULD PUT UNLIMITED FOR YEARS ONE AND TWO. AND THEN THE OTHER IS, IS THAT COUNCIL'S CONSENSUS TO WRITE IT THAT WAY. AND IF SOMEBODY WANTS TO AMEND IT, THEY CAN AMEND IT WHEN IT COMES UP, THAT WOULD BE AN OPTION. BUT RIGHT NOW, I THINK IF YOU WRITE IT THAT WAY, WHAT I'M HEARING IS, COULD WE TAKE A VOTE? OR IS HE WE HAVE A DIRECTION OR JUST GIVE ME SOME DIRECTION THAT WAY, THAT WAY, YOU KNOW, I JUST WANT TO AMEND IT THEN HAVE TO GO BACK AND CHANGE IT LATER. IF IT'S, YOU KNOW, WHAT, WHAT COUNCIL WANTS SOUNDS GOOD. THERE'S A NODS. OF THE HEAD. IF I READ IT RIGHT, IF NO OBJECTION, I'LL GO FORWARD WITH AMENDING IT SO THAT THERE'S NO LIMIT FOR THE FIRST TWO YEARS. THE OTHER THING THAT COMES UP WITH THIS SLIDE IS WE DISCOVERED IN THE MEETING WITH THE NONPROFITS THAT WE HAD IN THE OLD CODE. A REQUIREMENT YOU HAD TO BE SEPARATED BY SIX DAYS WHEN YOU GOT A PERMIT, IF I'M REMEMBERING THAT CORRECTLY, FOR FOR CHARITABLE EVENTS. AND THEY SAID, WELL, OBVIOUSLY THAT'S NOT BEEN ENFORCED. AND SO, AND IT. DOESN'T WORK WITH THEIR, WITH THEIR MODEL AND IT WOULDN'T WORK WITH THE COMMERCIAL PEOPLE TRYING TO WORK THEIR WAY THROUGH UNLIMITED. SO MY SUGGESTION IS WE DROP THE SIX DAYS SEPARATION JUST OUT OF THE ORDINANCE ENTIRELY. YOU HAVE TO HAVE CATERING PERMITS, BUT YOU CAN HAVE BACK TO BACK. AND I DON'T BELIEVE IT'S INCLUDED IN THE DRAFT ORDINANCE, IS IT? IT WAS IN WHAT WAS ON THE TABLE AT THE MONDAY MEETING WITH THE NONPROFIT, BECAUSE THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS THEY SAID. YEAH, THIS WAS NOT A CHANGE. SO CURRENTLY OUR LAW REQUIRES FOR CHARITABLE EVENTS, PERMITS.

THERE'S A SIX DAY WAITING PERIOD BETWEEN CHARITABLE EVENT PERMITS, NOT ALCOHOL CATERING, JUST CHARITABLE EVENT PERMITS. THAT IS A CURRENT ONE THAT'S CURRENT IN OUR CODE. YOU WANT TO HAVE ONE FOR FRIDAY. AND THEN WHEN I WHEN I MERGED THE ORDINANCES TOGETHER, I. JUST KEPT THAT REQUIREMENT BECAUSE THAT WASN'T SOMETHING THAT WE HAD THOUGHT ABOUT CHANGING. BUT NOW THE, THE NONPROFITS HAVE REQUESTED THAT SORT OF CHANGE. SO IT'S, IT'S TOTALLY UP FOR DEBATE. THE OTHER THING I WOULD SAY ON THE NONPROFIT IS THE 300FT FROM THE STAGE, THE RIVER.

SO THE MUSIC STAGE AT THE RIVER, THERE'S A 300 FOOT LIMIT. AND THEN IT ALSO SAYS THE GREENBELT PATH CAN NO ALCOHOL ON THE GREENBELT PATH, BUT IT'S WHAT IT'S ACTUALLY PRAGMATICALLY DOING IS ANYONE HAS TO GO. TO THE BATHROOM AT ALIVE AFTER FIVE, YOU'VE GOT TO DRINK YOUR TOTAL BEER OR HAND IT TO SOMEONE ELSE, OR YOU HAVE TO PUT IT ON A TABLE. THE SECURITY GUARDS DID THAT FOR A WHILE. THE WOMEN DIDN'T LIKE THAT IDEA AT ALL, OF COURSE. AND SO IT DOESN'T MAKE YOU CAN'T GET TO THE BATHROOM WITHOUT GOING ON. DO YOU HAVE A SOLUTION? HOLD ON, BECAUSE THAT IS A SEPARATE ORDINANCE. THAT'S THE PARK ORDINANCE, NOT THIS. SO WE'LL GET BACK TO THAT. YEAH, IT'S PROBABLY PROBABLY NEEDS SOME AMENDMENT. I DON'T KNOW THE PROBLEM WITH THAT. BUT THIS IS GOING TO BE HARD ENOUGH. SO THE SECOND ONE IS REMOVING THE SIX DAY FROM THE CURRENT. SO THE NEW DRAFT WOULD NOT HAVE THAT SIX DAY SEPARATION IN IT. IS THAT IT'S FINE. YES. OKAY. SO I'LL REMOVE THAT. OKAY. AND THEN ALSO THE HERE'S THE NEXT POINT IS THE NONPROFITS HAVE BEEN ASKED TO BE A NO LIMIT FOR. A ALCOHOL CATERING PERMITS FOR NONPROFIT ENTITIES THAT ARE CHARITABLE, REGISTERED AS CHARITABLE ORGANIZATIONS. THEY REGISTERED WITH THE STATE. THAT'S HOW WE WOULD DEFINE THEM. CORRECT. AND YOU HAD TOLD ME EARLIER TODAY YOU HAD A WAY TO WORD THAT THAT'S CORRECT. YOU TALKED ABOUT WE WOULD ADD TO THE EXEMPTION. SO THE PROPOSAL WOULD BE TO ADD TO THE. RIGHT. NOW, THERE'S AN EXCEPTION FOR A

[02:20:14]

OH, OKAY. OKAY. WITH THE CATERING, YOU WOULD NOT. BUT WITH THE NONPROFIT, THEN VANILLA, VANILLA, THANK YOU. CAUSES, THEN YOU DO HAVE TO DO THAT. LIKE IF YOU GO THROUGH IVC AND YOU GET A PERMIT, YOU DO HAVE TO FOLLOW UP AND SAY, HERE'S HOW IT GOES. OKAY. BUT IF I'M LIKE HIRING, THESE NEEDS TO COME OUT TO MY FACILITY FOR MY FUNDRAISER. THEY'RE GETTING THEIR PERMIT ON OUR BEHALF, BUT OUR FACILITY HAS TO MEET THE BUILDING OCCUPANCY REQUIREMENTS.

SO YEAH. RIGHT. OKAY. CAN WE TRY THE NEXT SLIDE? ALL RIGHT. SO WHAT WAS THE GUIDANCE? ARE WE EXEMPTING NONPROFITS? ARE WE OKAY WITH THAT? WE'RE GOOD ALLOWING UNLIMITED. YES. OKAY.

I THINK WITH THE CAVEAT OF 501 THE GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF IDAHO. YES. OKAY. RIGHT. AND I'LL TRY TO WORK. AND WHAT I'LL DO IS I'LL SEND OUT A DRAFT AND ESPECIALLY THOSE THAT WORK IN NONPROFITS, IF YOU HAVE ANY FEEDBACK ON THAT, IT WOULD BE VERY MUCH APPRECIATED. THE. 503 THOSE ARE JUST IRS CODES, AREN'T THEY? WELL, THEY'RE ISO, IRS CODES, BUT THEY'RE THEY'RE IMPLEMENTED BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE'S DEPARTMENT. AND THAT'S THE SIDES OF THE LAW ARE NOT LIKE ONE IMPORTANT ONE IS C3 VERSUS C4, BECAUSE A POLITICAL SPENDING. A LOT OF ORGANIZATIONS WILL HAVE TWO DIFFERENT BOARDS, ONE FOR A 501 C THREE AND ONE FOR A 501 C FOUR. OKAY. OKAY. THIS ONE WE'VE KIND OF BEEN THROUGH IT. KIND OF DISCUSSED THIS. WHAT'S THAT? HAVEN'T WE KIND OF WE PRETTY MUCH ALREADY BEEN DOWN THIS ROAD. SO I THINK THE MAXIMUM OCCUPANCY IS. WE'RE NOT BENDING IT. IF YOU ONLY HAVE ONE EXIT YOU'RE NOT MAKING ANY CHANGES. BUT WHAT THEY HAVE WILL DETERMINE THEIR NUMBER. RIGHT? YEAH. AND THAT NUMBER IS ON THE CATERING PERMIT THAT'S HANDED TO THE CATERER. CORRECT THAT THROUGH SERVER FROM YOU.

RIGHT. AND THIS IS STRICTLY A PUBLIC SAFETY ISSUE ISN'T IT? THIS IS STRAIGHT UP. YEAH, YEAH.

THE ONLY THING I. WONDER ABOUT IS WHETHER WE IMPLICITLY WANT TO SAVE IN THE ORDINANCE THAT THEY NEED TO MEET THESE OCCUPANCY THRESHOLD REQUIREMENTS. I THINK NOW IN THE LANGUAGE, IT'S JUST THAT THEY NEED TO MEET THE, YOU KNOW, FIRE AND BUILDING WILL INSPECT THE BUILDING AND IT NEEDS TO MEET. I THINK THAT'S A GOOD IDEA APPROPRIATE OR SOMETHING WE COULD PUT THE NUMBERS IN. BUT MY SUGGESTION FROM A VERY IMPORTANT PERSON WAS WE WRITE SOMETHING TO THE EFFECT CURRENT FIRE. CODE POLICY BASED ON ADOPTED FIRE CODE. EXACTLY. SO WE DON'T HAVE TO AMEND IT BECAUSE YOU SAID THAT NUMBER COULD CHANGE CHANGES. YEAH. AND THESE ARE YOUR YOUR BLACK AND WHITE NUMBERS. THESE ARE NUMBERS THAT ARE COMING RIGHT OUT OF OUR BOOKS. RIGHT? SO YOU CAN CONFIDENTLY SAY, WHEN ANYBODY ASKS YOU, WHY DO THEY HAVE AN OCCUPANCY LEVEL 49 BECAUSE OF THE BUILDING CODE. FIRE CODE ONE DOOR. YEAH, YEAH.

TWO. BUT THEY DON'T. SO. OKAY, DO WE NEED TO SAY BUILDING CODE AS WELL AS FIRE CODE COVER THAT.

WELL, FIRES DIRECTED TO GO DO THE INSPECTIONS. SO ANY MAINTENANCE OF BUILDINGS THE FIRE CODE IS IS DEALING WITH IT WHEN THEY BUILD A NEW BUILDING OR THEY GO TO. DO THE CHANGE OF USE, THAT'S WHEN THEY COME TO CODY AND. MAINTENANCE OFFICE. BUT SO I THINK JUST REFERRING TO THE FIRE CODE IS APPROPRIATE. IT HAS THE SAME SAME REQUIREMENTS RIGHT THERE. YEAH.

DO YOU WANT TO ASK THIS ONE? IT LOOKS LIKE. YEAH, I THINK WE I THINK WE DEALT WITH THE SERVER.

[02:25:07]

SO IT HAS A LIST OF THINGS THAT IT HAS TO INCLUDE TOPICS AS INCLUDE MONITORING OF PATRONS BEHAVIOR, RECOGNIZING THAT INTOXICATED PATRONS CHECKING PHOTO ID, RECOGNIZING FALSE IDS, PROVIDING ALTERNATIVES, ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES, PROBLEM SOLVING AND INTERACTING WITH INTOXICATED PATRONS, UNDERSTANDING AND APPLYING IDAHO LAWS AND RULES PERTAINING TO ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES. SO THOSE ARE THE CURRENT REQUIREMENTS. I THINK THERE'S OUR LIMIT ON THE PERSON. SO MY UNDERSTANDING IS ME OR ANY CHIEF WOULD LIKE SAY YOU HAVE TO. TRAIN ON THIS. SPECIFICALLY, CITY COUNCIL HAS DECIDED WHAT YOU HAVE TO TRAIN ON WHAT WHAT THE PD'S ROLE WOULD BE TO LOOK AT TRAINING PROGRAM AND SAY, YES, THIS COVERS THOSE SEVEN TRAINING REQUIREMENTS. OR NO, IT DOESN'T COVER THOSE SEVEN TRAINING REQUIREMENTS. BUT I ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT BECAUSE A LOT OF COMPANIES DO IN-HOUSE TRAINING, THEY TRAIN A LOT MORE THAN THOSE BASIC REQUIREMENTS, AND THAT IS JUST FINE. YOU CAN HAVE ADDITIONAL TRAINING, BUT YOU COULDN'T DO LESS THAN WHAT CITY COUNCIL SAID YOU HAVE TO DO. SO THAT WOULD BE OUR ROLE IN IT, NOT NECESSARILY TELLING THEM WHAT TO TRAIN ON, BUT ENSURING THAT A PARTICULAR TRAINING COURSE COVERS THE TOPICS THAT ARE REQUIRED. AND DO YOU FEEL LIKE IT'S OKAY THAT THERE'S A PROTECTION FOR THE BUSINESSES, THAT IF YOU JUST CHANGE YOUR MIND. IN SEPTEMBER, THAT EVERYONE DOESN'T HAVE TO GO BACK AND DO THIS AGAIN AND THERE'S THREE MORE YEARS IT'S WORTH IT'S THREE YEARS CERTIFIED. SO LIKE THAT WAS THE CONCERN THEY HAD WAS, HEY, YOU MAY CHANGE THE TRAINING NOW. THEIR CARDS ARE ALL INVALID. YOU KNOW, I'M NOT SURE I'M TRACKING WHAT THAT THERE'S NOTHING THAT INVALIDATED IT AT THE TIME THAT THEY TAKE THE ALCOHOL SERVER TRAINING IS AN APPROVED COURSE. THEN THEY HAVE A CERTIFICATE SAYING THEY HAVE IT APPROVED COURSE. AND IF CHIEF JOHNSON SAID, OH, ACTUALLY THAT PROGRAM DOESN'T WORK. ANYMORE. WELL, AT THE TIME THEY TOOK IT, IT'S AN APPROVED COURSE. SO THEY HAVE A CERTIFICATE THAT'S GOOD. THEIR CERTIFICATE IS GOOD REGARDLESS. YEAH, THERE'S NOTHING IN HERE THAT INVALIDATES IT IF IT'S CHANGED LATER. AND I WILL JUST SAY IN MY RESEARCH THAT WE ARE, WE WILL BE PROBABLY THE ONLY PLACE THAT HAS ONE PERSON APPROVING IT. LIKE THAT IS NOT THE ONE. IT'S USUALLY A COMMISSION. IF YOU WANT TO AMEND IT. YOU COULD PERHAPS, BUT I DON'T KNOW WHO TO. I MEAN, THE CHIEF OF POLICE IS BECAUSE OF WHERE THIS SITS, I THINK.

AND THAT'S AND I DON'T KNOW WHO ELSE IN OUR CITY, BECAUSE. USUALLY IT WOULD BE A STATE FUNCTION A, B, C, BUT WE DON'T. THE STATE OF IDAHO DOESN'T REQUIRE IT FOR CERTAIN TRAINING, AND THEY DON'T HAVE THE STAFF TO DO. ANY. SO I THINK BOISE HAS A SIMILAR REQUIREMENT. AND I THINK THAT'S CORRECT. THIS IS MODELS. YEAH. I THINK BOISE HAS A SIMILAR WAY OF DOING IT. YEAH.

SO YOU'RE CORRECT THAT OTHER STATES HAVE THIS AS A STATE. THAT WOULD BE GREAT IF THE STATE WANTED TO, BUT INDIVIDUAL CITIES IN IDAHO HAVE DONE THIS AND THAT'S HOW THEY'VE DONE IT.

YEAH, I IT IS THE EQUIVALENT OF A, B, C FOR THE STATE. IF WE DON'T HAVE A SEPARATE. OUR ALCOHOL ENFORCEMENT IS THROUGH SOMETHING. SO BOISE. BOISE ACTUALLY SAYS THAT THE ALCOHOL SERVER TRAINING PROGRAM IS APPROVED BY THE BOISE POLICE DEPARTMENT. IT DOESN'T SAY THE CHIEF. AND JUST A FULL DISCLOSURE, I'M NOT THE ONE THAT'S. IF I UNDERSTAND THE ATTORNEY CORRECT. WHEN IT SAYS THAT IT INTENDS ANYONE AT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT OR DOES IT I MEAN, I THINK IT SHOULD BE SOMEONE WHO UNDERSTANDS THIS. LIKE, YOU KNOW WHAT I'M SAYING? LIKE, THAT'S NOT. SO THE WAY THE WHOLE CITY CODE IS WRITTEN WHEN IT SAYS CHIEF, FIRE CHIEF,

[02:30:12]

WELL, THERE'S SOME NODS HERE. WAS THAT A NOD THERE? SO IT DOESN'T CHANGE MUCH. IT DOESN'T CHANGE ANYTHING. I DON'T THINK IT DOES OTHER THAN. YEAH. PERCEPTION. BUT CHIEF STILL RUNS THE POLICE DEPARTMENT. SO HE'S STILL GOING TO PICK THE PERSON JUST FOR CONSISTENCY IN THE SAME SECTION. NOT SPECIFICALLY WITH ALCOHOL SERVER, BUT IN OTHER PARTS OF THE ORDINANCE. IT TALKS ABOUT FIRE CHIEF BUILDING CHIEF. SO DO WE WANT TO JUST CHANGE THOSE TO DEPARTMENTS AS WELL, OR JUST I THINK SOME OF THOSE ACTUALLY DEPARTMENT TAKES THAT RESPONSIBILITY. AND BECAUSE WE DID HAVE DISCUSSIONS IN THAT SECTION, WHETHER TO ADD THE DESIGNEE AND DECIDED JUST TO LEAVE IT WITH THOSE TITLES, LIKE THE REVIEW OF THE PERMITS IS DONE BY THE DEPARTMENT CHIEF IS RESPONSIBLE. OKAY, I HAVE ONE MORE THING THAT I'M TRYING TO ADDRESS. WHAT COUNCIL RADFORD HAD RAISED A COUPLE OF TIMES AGO, AND I KNOW I DON'T HAVE A PERFECT PLAN. I MADE A SUGGESTION THAT WE TALK ABOUT AND MAYBE DO SOMETHING WE DESCRIBE AS AN OFFICE EVENT, WHERE THE PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT COULD HAVE UP TO A CERTAIN NUMBER OF PEOPLE, EMPLOYEES WOULD BE THE MOST LOGICAL. BUT THERE MIGHT BE, I WOULD. ROAD EMPLOYEES DOES NOT APPLY TO EMPLOYEE PARTY OF FEWER THAN 20 OR 25 PEOPLE. SO YOUR EXAMPLE OF SOMEBODY SAYING, I WANT TO HAVE IN MY OWN PRIVATE GOLF COURSE, MY EMPLOYEES ALL GET TOGETHER AND HAVE A CHRISTMAS. YEAH. OR A BUNCH OF BEERS OR WE JUST WANT TO, AFTER A PARTICULAR ROUGH TOURNAMENT DAY THAT WE TRIED TO RUN, WE'RE JUST GOING TO SIT DOWN AND HAVE A BEER THAT IS NOT ILLEGAL. IF WE PUT THAT IN THE CODE, I WOULDN'T THINK IT'S ACTUALLY ILLEGAL BECAUSE IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE IT'S A PROBLEM. BUT IF YOU PUT IT IN CODE, WE HAVE IT.

THAT'S MY ATTEMPT TO DEAL WITH SOME OF THAT. BUT WHEN IF YOU INVITE 100 PEOPLE, YOU GOT TO YOU GOT AN EVENT. YEAH, IT'S KIND OF INTERESTING. AS I RESEARCH THIS, ONE THING THAT IS OUT THERE IS LIKE A INSTANT PERMIT THAT SAYS, ARE YOU GOING TO SELL ALCOHOL? YES OR NO? IF YOU SAY YES, THEN IT SENDS YOU TO PERMIT. IF YOU SAY NO, THEN NO PERMIT REQUIRED. SO THIS IS WHAT OTHER CITIES ARE DOING. SO I MEAN GIVING IT AWAY. YEAH. YOU'RE GIVING IT AWAY IF YOU'RE.

AND SO I MEAN I STILL THE DILEMMA IS AT WHAT POINT YOU START COUNTING PEOPLE IF YOU'RE HAVING AN EVENT, YOU KNOW, SO I'LL BE HONEST WITH YOU ABOUT MY CHRISTMAS EVENT. WE, WE SERVED ALCOHOL FOR THE LAST 20 YEARS. AND I SIGNED AN INSURANCE AGREEMENT THAT SAYS THAT IF I SERVE ALCOHOL, THAT I'LL HAVE A CATERER DO IT AT OUR AT OUR PRIVATE BUSINESS CHRISTMAS PARTY. I WAS PAYING $250 MINIMUM IN THE LAST TWO YEARS. WE SPENT $89 FOR PEOPLE THAT SPENT $89 BECAUSE THEY HAD TO PAY AT THE CATERER. AND SO WE WERE MOVING TO ANOTHER VENUE AND THAT VENUE SAID, IF YOU HAVE MORE THAN 100 PEOPLE, YOU HAVE TO HAVE TWO SECURITY GUARDS. SO THAT WAS ANOTHER $70. AND SO I AND SO THEN WE SAID, WELL, MAYBE WE SHOULD JUST NOT HAVE A CATERER. AND THEN MY INSURER, I CALLED MY BROKER AND HE SAID, NOT WITH OUR INSURANCE BECAUSE WE WON'T LET YOU SERVE ALCOHOL AT A COMPANY PARTY. BECAUSE IF SOMEONE DRIVES HOME WITH A DUI, WE'RE NOT GOING TO INSURE YOU. AND SO FOR ME, PRACTICALLY, IT WAS I COULDN'T DO IT. SO WE DIDN'T ALLOW ANY ALCOHOL. BUT MY CONCERN IS WITH THE. THIS STILL IS. HAD I NOT

[02:35:02]

AND THAT'S WHY STATES DON'T DEAL WITH GIVING AWAY ALCOHOL. SO I THINK YOU'RE TAKING THAT RISK PUBLICLY. IF HALF THE PEOPLE HAVE THE SAME LAST NAME. YEAH, THAT'S NOT ALONE. I MEAN, IT'S JUST ODD. AND I THINK IT'S PURPOSELY VAGUE IN THE STATE FOR THAT REASON IS BECAUSE YOU'RE YOU'RE OVERREGULATING IT BECOMES A BIT LIKE THE BATHROOM BILL THAT THE STATE IS TRYING TO SAY. WHO'S GOING TO CHECK IF YOU'RE A LANDLORD? ARE YOU CHECKING FOR FLASKS? SO ARE YOU SAYING THIS PARTICULAR EDITION WOULD NOT BE HELPFUL TO YOU? I DON'T THINK IT SOLVES THE PROBLEM. I THINK WE JUST GOT TO GET TO THE COMMERCIALIZATION THING. IT'S THE ONE THING WHEN I THROW THIS THROUGH, THE ATTORNEYS THAT I TALK TO, THEY'RE LIKE, THAT'S ODD. THE RANDY'S THE PEOPLE THAT WE'VE LISTENED TO IN THE PAST. SO I JUST THINK WE HAVE TO I'M KIND OF IT'S UNFORTUNATE TO ME THAT THIS DIDN'T GO THROUGH THE COURTS RECENTLY WHEN THERE WAS A THIS CAME TO A HEAD BECAUSE THE COURTS COULD HAVE TOLD US IF WE WERE WRONG OR RIGHT ABOUT A PRIVATE BANKING. AND DISPENSING ALCOHOL. I WOULD JUST ADD TO, TO MAYBE GIVE SOME CLARITY IN THE BUILDING CODE, FIRE CODE. IT DOESN'T CARE THAT THERE'S A PERMIT. IT DOESN'T CARE THAT IT'S A PRIVATE PARTY. YOU SHOULDN'T. IF IT'S A COMMERCIAL BUILDING AND YOU'RE SERVING ALCOHOL. HERE'S THE PARAMETERS, WHICH IS TRUE OF MY INSURANCE PROGRAM AS WELL, RIGHT? LIKE IF YOU'RE RESPONSIBLE, WHAT I'M SAYING IS THERE'S A LOT OF GUYS WITH A CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, WITH A WAREHOUSE WORRY ABOUT THAT. ANYWAY, WE'VE TALKED ENOUGH ABOUT IT, BUT THAT'S MY CONCERN. BUT WE'RE TRYING TO FIND A WAY THAT I APPRECIATE THAT PEOPLE COULD HAVE COULD HAVE AN EVENT. IT'S OVER. PEOPLE WORKED REALLY HARD. THEY WANT A BREAK. THEY SIT DOWN WITH A BEER. THEY'RE NOT BREAKING THE LAW. THAT'S WHAT THIS IS. ATTEMPT TO DO LIKE A STAFF PARTY AT THE END OF A SPONTANEOUS STAFF PARTY IS NOT MEANT TO HAVE TO BE PERMITTED AND ALL THAT, BUT THERE HAS TO BE SOME WAY TO DIVIDE THAT FROM A FULL SCALE 100. SO ACADEMIC. LET'S PUT IT IN THERE AND PEOPLE CAN KNOCK IT OUT. OKAY. IS THAT BECAUSE I DON'T SEE ANOTHER WAY AROUND THAT PROBLEM WE HAVE? AND IT'S NOT ONLY CAME FROM YOU, BUT SOMEBODY ACTUALLY RUNNING THE BUSINESS. SO WHAT IF I HAVE A GATHERING OF MY STAFF AT THE END OF A BIG EVENT? LET ME GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE. JUST SIT DOWN AND HAVE A BEER. LET ME GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE. WE USED TO DO AT THE SANDPIPER ON SUNDAYS CLOSED AT SEVEN, LIKE THREE TIMES A YEAR. WE WOULD REQUIRE ALL THE EMPLOYEES TO COME IN AND DO A WINE TASTING, AND WE'D GO THROUGH THE WINE LIST AND TASTE WINE AND PEOPLE WOULD GET DRUNK. WINE TASTINGS. VERY DANGEROUS FOR THE, YOU KNOW, PARTICULARLY FOR THE. SO YOU DO. BUT THEY DID STAND BY FOR. YEAH, WE HAD, WE HAD PEOPLE WHO KNEW ABOUT WINE. RIGHT. BUT YEAH, IT WAS A THING WE DID. IT WAS AN OFFICIAL THING. I MEAN, WE DID REALLY THREE TIMES A YEAR, PROBABLY. I MEAN, DO YOU FEEL LIKE YOU HAVE THE DIRECTION YOU NEED TO MAKE MODIFICATIONS TO WHAT WE'RE. YES. AND IS IS THAT THE CONSENSUS COUNCIL. SO. 20 SO WE'LL MAKE AN EXEMPTION FOR THE COMMERCIAL ESTABLISHMENT RESTRICTION. MAKE AN EXEMPTION FOR. IF IT'S FOR YOUR FOR EMPLOYEES OF THE PREMISES BASICALLY UP TO 20. IS THAT WHAT THE NUMBER WAS. YOU MIGHT AS WELL DO IT. IS THAT THE CONSENSUS OF COUNCIL. WHY DON'T YOU DO IT TO THE STANDARD OF 49? BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THE BUILDING SAFETY. BUT THAT'S A PERMANENT EVENT. THIS IS NOT MEANT TO BE PERMANENT. THIS IS MEANT TO BE SPONTANEOUS. SEE WHAT HAPPENS. THIS IS GOING OKAY. I'VE GOT EVERYTHING I THINK I NEED. OKAY. SO THE LAST AGENDA ITEM IS ANNOUNCEMENTS, EVENTS, CALENDARING, ANYTHING

[Mayor ]

[02:40:05]